So imagine yourself on a mostly-deserted island, and once upon a time, you were given responsibility over 100 other people. Sometime in the past, some other group of people came, kidnapped, and murdered 50 of those people; you tried to fight them, but they were just too strong. In the process of the fight, that other group makes it abundantly clear that they want to kill all of you, and only did not do so because they were driven away.
Over time, however, you have developed better tools, and more equipped to combat that other group, who, through infighting, has diminished in numbers as well.
One day, a member of the other group shows up at your camp. This groveling, sniveling, spineless excuse of a human obsequiously explains that the other group still wants to kill all of you, but they would “settle” for simply killing 25 of you. That, in their opinion, is the “reasonable, common sense” solution to the stand-off, since it is halfway between what you want and what they want. This pathetic, unctuous toady throws around words like “cooperation” and “promises” and “we’re right” and “you’re wrong” and “everybody wins”, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the little creep is only interested in achieving his murderous groups’ goals of eventually killing you all, even if they have to accomplish it piecemeal.
So what do you do? Do you give the scumbag 25 of your people, content in the knowledge that their deaths will guarantee the other group will leave you alone… until they want another half, and another half, and… Or do you tell the disgusting rat to take a hike, with a firm foot on his ass if he does not get the message?
Now, why should we treat the rights of human beings any differently than we treat their lives? After all, it is through those rights that we protect our freedoms, our liberties, and our lives, and it is through the surrender of those rights that all of those can – and will – be lost.
How is it wrong to not “meet in the middle” when it comes to freedom and slavery? How is it wrong to not “meet in the middle” between liberty and totalitarianism? How is it wrong to not “meet in the middle” between dead and alive?
It is not, it never was, and it never will be.
Anyone who would try to shame you for not being willing to give up even a fraction of your rights is just as contemptibly despicable as that hypothetical murderer – the only difference between them is the latter has a stronger stomach.