So I would like to ask a serious philosophical question if I may.  First, I'm going to take it as a given that everyone in this community is generally against dominionism, and that we are generally in a struggle or state of conflict to keep dominionists from curtailing our freedoms.  Obviously, as with any conflict, it can escalate or de-escalate depending on the actions of either side or both sides.  Speech is met with speech, campaigns with campaigns, ads with ads, petitions with petitions, etc.  Responses can vary, but my point mainly is that, for example, speech is not met with anything so escalated as violent revolt.

I would also posit that the optimal outcome is to make agreement, or alignment, so that all parties are happy, all parties' needs are met, and so on, rather than to "win" in a zero sum game where someone has to lose.  Obviously, that ideal is not always achievable, because sometimes two things can happen:  A) one side, for whatever reasons, be it needs they don't want to put on the table to have met, or needs they don't even know about or won't acknowledge, refuses to accept that such a win-win agreement can be reached, and so insists that the differences are irreducible, ultimate, and/or irreconcilable, or B) some needs really will just conflict, like a 7-10 split in bowling, and a hard choice has to be made.

I think an argument can be made that dominionists really are of the former stripe, but convince their rank-and-file components that they are of the latter.  As a result, I really do think that some traction can be gained trying to dislodge the rank and file from the "voices" of dominionism so that, at least with them, a win-win agreement can be reached.  However, I don't think the same is true of the voices (I hesitate to say "leaders," because it's not exactly that kind of dynamic).  Moreover, I think the voices can convince some or a lot of their rank and file not to give in to agreement, and to stick with the conflict.

Once all the negotiation, talk, and agreement has run its course and there is no one left but those with whom there is no agreement to be reached, the only thing to do is to treat it as a conflict and win it as swiftly, efficiently, decisively, and humanely as possible.  That prospect is no small one, because once you commit to that, you commit to actions that may do lasting harm.  At that point, you accept that "this town ain't big enough" for two conflicting sets of needs, and, as the Eagles put it, "Somebody's going to emergency, and somebody's going to jail." 

So my question is:  At what point do you feel that agreement has yielded all the fruit it ever will, and it is time to reach, draw, cut to kill, and move on?  What are the signs of that?  Who qualifies for that reaction and how?  What if we come to that point?  Why would you assess it has come to that point?  What lines would you cross or not cross?

As another matter, reasonable people would prefer not to force the above scenario, but there are clearly people who, for whatever reason, are unable to resolve conflict without it.  I would posit that, for example, there are dominionists who only pay lip service to the concept that their god wants a peaceful resolution, but believe in their heart that God's victory is not a victory without the grand conflict of armageddon, wherein a lot of people will suffer.

So how do you know when you're dealing with someone who can be reasoned with, vs. someone who needs the conflict?  What do you do about it?  how do you deal with them?  What if you can't?  Why would someone take that attitude? 

EDIT:  I didn't intend "violence" to be a major player in the discussion, though I do see how it can apply.  I think I made a mistake in using "violence" metaphors to illustrate my model of conflict resolution, but what I meant more than physical violence is "confrontation," a conflict that, while not necessarily violent, does involve victory at the expense of defeat.