Why "Moderates" can kiss my ass

[Ringel05]

I have a very hard time wearing them. I have flat feet and they hurt li... oh, wait, you were talking about my wife and daughter... hmmm, no, too far for them to go.

Immie

Have thumb, will travel?

Definitely not for my daughter. She's a petite little thing and I would be worried to death about her. I kind of don't think my wife would be too thrilled about it either.

Immie

Immie, it's a joke. You're supposed to run with it.

 

[Immanuel]

Have thumb, will travel?

Definitely not for my daughter. She's a petite little thing and I would be worried to death about her. I kind of don't think my wife would be too thrilled about it either.

Immie

Immie, it's a joke. You're supposed to run with it.

I tried!

I was also thinking that maybe I could hook her up with one of the young gentlemen... oh, wait! WTF was I thinking.

Never mind, maybe I should go back to bed.

Immie

 

[Patrick2]

Except "moderate" is not the "midpoint".

"Moderate" is simply not letting the extremes decide issues for you.

I used to be very much Pro-life. To the point that I used to think no one was "pro-choice" anyone that said they were "pro-choice" was in fact a baby killer as surely as if they had performed the abortions themselves and I would get in your face and tell you that you were a murderer if you were Pro-choice. I've moderated tremendously. I've come to realize that the extreme right is as bad, if not worse, than the extreme left. You don't win someone over my calling them a baby killer.

I don't let the extreme right make my decisions on Welfare. I think Welfare should be a hand up not a hand out, but I don't agree with the so called conservative point of view to end all Welfare and let all those welfare mothers go to work or starve.

I have tended away from the extremes not because I don't have core values. I have tended away from the extremes because I don't believe that holding fast and being unwilling to compromise solves the issue. I may not like having to compromise, but if I want fewer abortions, I am not going to win by demanding that we send the mother who has an abortion to prison for 20 years and her doctor with her.

Being moderate is not by any means being a middle-of-the-roader and not standing on ones principles. It is standing on ones principles and defending one's beliefs against those of either side who work against your own beliefs. It is defending one's beliefs on abortion against both those on the right and on the left.

My position does not change because the extremes change. My position only changes because I change. I went from being a Pro-life zealot to someone that realized that I was wrong in my position. I adapted because I was wrong and for no other reason. I don't waiver on the abortion issue. I stand firm in my beliefs, but I also realize that my beliefs do not coincide with people that have no compassion for women in crisis pregnancies nor do they coincide with anyone that would call a human fetus a "clump of cells".

Immie

Of course, my simple metaphor was not intended to suggest that "moderates" are in the arithmetic center. But you basically confirmed what I said, yet again. You say you want to "stay away from the extremes" - that necessarily means that the "extremes" are used to define your position. The "extremes" change with time - therefore you must change your position depending on the position of the "extremes". Your position is thus always dependent on the "extremes". If an "extreme" position happened to be the correct position at a given time. say with the american revolutionaries, you wouldn't go with it merely because it was "extreme".

No, my position generally stays the same. I don't move away from the right wing extremist simply because they change their position. Take the abortion issue for instance, if the right wing extremist move closer to me, I am not going to move farther left just to avoid them. I'll hold my ground. If they join with me, that is superb. Hell, if the left wing extremist move right and join with me that is equally superb.

I generally waver very little in my beliefs. What I don't do is let either wing tell me what I have to or cannot believe.

Immie

Ahhhhh - so you admit you could become an "extremist"! If the "extremes" move such that one end coincides with you, then why aren't you an "extremist"? This is SO CRYSTAL CLEAR - what will it take for you to grasp that the relative position of a political belief system, or how different it is from most people's beliefs, has NOTHING NECESSARILY TO DO WITH IT'S CORRECTNESS, REASONABLENESS, MORALITY, CONSISTENCEY, VIRTUE OR ANYTHING ELSE???

 

[Immanuel]

Of course, my simple metaphor was not intended to suggest that "moderates" are in the arithmetic center. But you basically confirmed what I said, yet again. You say you want to "stay away from the extremes" - that necessarily means that the "extremes" are used to define your position. The "extremes" change with time - therefore you must change your position depending on the position of the "extremes". Your position is thus always dependent on the "extremes". If an "extreme" position happened to be the correct position at a given time. say with the american revolutionaries, you wouldn't go with it merely because it was "extreme".

No, my position generally stays the same. I don't move away from the right wing extremist simply because they change their position. Take the abortion issue for instance, if the right wing extremist move closer to me, I am not going to move farther left just to avoid them. I'll hold my ground. If they join with me, that is superb. Hell, if the left wing extremist move right and join with me that is equally superb.

I generally waver very little in my beliefs. What I don't do is let either wing tell me what I have to or cannot believe.

Immie

Ahhhhh - so you admit you could become an "extremist"! If the "extremes" move such that one end coincides with you, then why aren't you an "extremist"? This is SO CRYSTAL CLEAR - what will it take for you to grasp that the relative position of a political belief system, or how different it is from most people's beliefs, has NOTHING NECESSARILY TO DO WITH IT'S CORRECTNESS, REASONABLENESS, MORALITY, CONSISTENCEY, VIRTUE OR ANYTHING ELSE???

Of course I could. I'm not moving much in my beliefs. But, it is not likely since extremists are like magnets with opposite poles and when one moves the other reacts.

It seems to me that it was you and the people you were siding with that claimed that moderates had no morals or consistency etc. etc. etc. I'm simply arguing you are wrong in that regard. I have my morals. I am relatively consistent. I'm not always correct but hold a decent average. I'm rarely unreasonable and quite virtuous to boot.

Immie

 

[Patrick2]

Pure Capitalism would be a disaster as would pure socialism. Our economy has always been somewhere along the continuum between the two and prayerfully always will.

Agreed. Capitalism helped build this nation into one of the richest, most powerful in the world. As our history shows, if taken to excess, capitalism can be bad too.

Robber Barons.

The Yankee Trader maxim of caveat emptor.

Child labor

Company towns

Debtors Prisons


Unrestrained capitalism becomes just another form of dictatorship the same as unrestrained government.

Nonsense. Debtors prisons have nothing necessarily to do with capitalism, they are an artifact of the legal, not economic system. Child labor is an old historical distortion by the leftwing. Some are made to believe that innocent thriving well-fed children were marched at gunpoint to the factories. In fact, them working or not working in circa the nineteenth and early 20th century were the difference between them and their families starving or not. Do you think their parents said "Hey, Billy has really been misbehaving lately, let's make him take a factory job." Nearly all have to work in the early stages of an industrial economy, but as capital is gradually acquired from profits, money is invested in plant and equipment leveraging the productivity of workers, who then become more valuable and can demand higher wages. At some point, child labor is no longer needed, and families can afford the "luxury" of children going to school and staying home. If say in 1880, everyone said "hey - let's be socialist" it wouldn't have made any difference.

 

[Patrick2]

No, my position generally stays the same. I don't move away from the right wing extremist simply because they change their position. Take the abortion issue for instance, if the right wing extremist move closer to me, I am not going to move farther left just to avoid them. I'll hold my ground. If they join with me, that is superb. Hell, if the left wing extremist move right and join with me that is equally superb.

I generally waver very little in my beliefs. What I don't do is let either wing tell me what I have to or cannot believe.

Immie

Ahhhhh - so you admit you could become an "extremist"! If the "extremes" move such that one end coincides with you, then why aren't you an "extremist"? This is SO CRYSTAL CLEAR - what will it take for you to grasp that the relative position of a political belief system, or how different it is from most people's beliefs, has NOTHING NECESSARILY TO DO WITH IT'S CORRECTNESS, REASONABLENESS, MORALITY, CONSISTENCEY, VIRTUE OR ANYTHING ELSE???

Of course I could. I'm not moving much in my beliefs. But, it is not likely since extremists are like magnets with opposite poles and when one moves the other reacts.

It seems to me that it was you and the people you were siding with that claimed that moderates had no morals or consistency etc. etc. etc. I'm simply arguing you are wrong in that regard. I have my morals. I am relatively consistent. I'm not always correct but hold a decent average. I'm rarely unreasonable and quite virtuous to boot.

Immie

Sorry, and I don't want to be confrontational since we are having a good discussion, but you still don't get it. What's the point of you saying either "I'm a moderate" or "I don't like 'extremists'", if your position is determined by your morality, reasonableness, and virtue? All you have to say is "my politics are determined by my morality, reasonableness, and virtue" - then STOP. Why drag into it saying you are a "moderate", when all a "moderate" is is someone between the two "extremes", and even you concede that your position might coincide with the "extermist" position, therefore to all intents and purpose be "extremist"?

Further, if you are consistent as you claim, then you must have principles, because consistency doesn't happen accidentally, but by adherence to principles. But if THAT'S true, then those principles determine your position - not locating some position somewhere between the "extremes".

 

[Divine Wind]

De Niel is not just a river in Egypt.


Debtors' prison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is there any doubt that without our government, businesses would prefer to lock up people who don't pay their debts?

Child labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Child labour played an important role in the Industrial Revolution from its outset, often brought about by economic hardship, Charles Dickens for example worked at the age of 12 in a blacking factory, with his family in debtor's prison. The children of the poor were expected to help towards the family budget, often working long hours in dangerous jobs for low pay....Child labour accounts for 22% of the workforce in Asia, 32% in Africa, 17% in Latin America, 1% in US, Canada, Europe and other wealthy nations.

http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/237384/toolkitfr/pdf/facts.pdf

 

[Immanuel]

Ahhhhh - so you admit you could become an "extremist"! If the "extremes" move such that one end coincides with you, then why aren't you an "extremist"? This is SO CRYSTAL CLEAR - what will it take for you to grasp that the relative position of a political belief system, or how different it is from most people's beliefs, has NOTHING NECESSARILY TO DO WITH IT'S CORRECTNESS, REASONABLENESS, MORALITY, CONSISTENCEY, VIRTUE OR ANYTHING ELSE???

Of course I could. I'm not moving much in my beliefs. But, it is not likely since extremists are like magnets with opposite poles and when one moves the other reacts.

It seems to me that it was you and the people you were siding with that claimed that moderates had no morals or consistency etc. etc. etc. I'm simply arguing you are wrong in that regard. I have my morals. I am relatively consistent. I'm not always correct but hold a decent average. I'm rarely unreasonable and quite virtuous to boot.

Immie

Sorry, and I don't want to be confrontational since we are having a good discussion, but you still don't get it. What's the point of you saying either "I'm a moderate" or "I don't like 'extremists'", if your position is determined by your morality, reasonableness, and virtue? All you have to say is "my politics are determined by my morality, reasonableness, and virtue" - then STOP. Why drag into it saying you are a "moderate", when all a "moderate" is is someone between the two "extremes", and even you concede that your position might coincide with the "extermist" position, therefore to all intents and purpose be "extremist"?

Further, if you are consistent as you claim, then you must have principles, because consistency doesn't happen accidentally, but by adherence to principles. But if THAT'S true, then those principles determine your position - not locating some position somewhere between the "extremes".

Thanks for the apology and the good discussion.

Actually, where I think you misunderstand is that what I was saying was that I once thought that I was what I would consider to be an extremist. Then I started examining what the extremists on my side of the issue said and I realized that what they said/did was not me. If berating your opponent for no other reason than the fact that he/she is a liberal = right wing extremism then I'm not that. It simply is not me. I respect most of the people on the "other side" too much to dislike them just because they have a liberal point of view.

The issue that I had with your point of view was that I believe you stated that moderates have no conviction and someone else said that we only want to be friends with both sides. Well, speaking just for me, I much prefer having friendly discussions with people with whom I disagree than to sink into some damned name calling fiasco.

I am what I would consider moderate because I have beliefs that do cross that center line. My stance on abortion is right wing. My stance on Welfare is left wing. My stance on Affirmative Action is definitely right wing. My stance on gay marriage is left wing to some extent because I believe in civil unions for all. Those stances don't change. I'm not pro-life today and pro-choice tomorrow. I'm pro-life today and pro-life tomorrow, but I do understand and except the point of view of the pro-choice movement. If I can save lives of human beings by being willing to sit down with people that are pro-choice then damn it I am going to sit.

I hope that makes more sense.

Immie

 

[Ringel05]

Ahhhhh - so you admit you could become an "extremist"! If the "extremes" move such that one end coincides with you, then why aren't you an "extremist"? This is SO CRYSTAL CLEAR - what will it take for you to grasp that the relative position of a political belief system, or how different it is from most people's beliefs, has NOTHING NECESSARILY TO DO WITH IT'S CORRECTNESS, REASONABLENESS, MORALITY, CONSISTENCEY, VIRTUE OR ANYTHING ELSE???

Of course I could. I'm not moving much in my beliefs. But, it is not likely since extremists are like magnets with opposite poles and when one moves the other reacts.

It seems to me that it was you and the people you were siding with that claimed that moderates had no morals or consistency etc. etc. etc. I'm simply arguing you are wrong in that regard. I have my morals. I am relatively consistent. I'm not always correct but hold a decent average. I'm rarely unreasonable and quite virtuous to boot.

Immie

Sorry, and I don't want to be confrontational since we are having a good discussion, but you still don't get it. What's the point of you saying either "I'm a moderate" or "I don't like 'extremists'", if your position is determined by your morality, reasonableness, and virtue? All you have to say is "my politics are determined by my morality, reasonableness, and virtue" - then STOP. Why drag into it saying you are a "moderate", when all a "moderate" is is someone between the two "extremes", and even you concede that your position might coincide with the "extermist" position, therefore to all intents and purpose be "extremist"?

Further, if you are consistent as you claim, then you must have principles, because consistency doesn't happen accidentally, but by adherence to principles. But if THAT'S true, then those principles determine your position - not locating some position somewhere between the "extremes".

Circulus in probando........

 

[JimH52]

Frank, you are just an angry little man, aren't you? If you are married, your wife should be given some kind of endurance award.

 

[Patrick2]

Of course I could. I'm not moving much in my beliefs. But, it is not likely since extremists are like magnets with opposite poles and when one moves the other reacts.

It seems to me that it was you and the people you were siding with that claimed that moderates had no morals or consistency etc. etc. etc. I'm simply arguing you are wrong in that regard. I have my morals. I am relatively consistent. I'm not always correct but hold a decent average. I'm rarely unreasonable and quite virtuous to boot.

Immie

Sorry, and I don't want to be confrontational since we are having a good discussion, but you still don't get it. What's the point of you saying either "I'm a moderate" or "I don't like 'extremists'", if your position is determined by your morality, reasonableness, and virtue? All you have to say is "my politics are determined by my morality, reasonableness, and virtue" - then STOP. Why drag into it saying you are a "moderate", when all a "moderate" is is someone between the two "extremes", and even you concede that your position might coincide with the "extermist" position, therefore to all intents and purpose be "extremist"?

Further, if you are consistent as you claim, then you must have principles, because consistency doesn't happen accidentally, but by adherence to principles. But if THAT'S true, then those principles determine your position - not locating some position somewhere between the "extremes".

Thanks for the apology and the good discussion.

Actually, where I think you misunderstand is that what I was saying was that I once thought that I was what I would consider to be an extremist. Then I started examining what the extremists on my side of the issue said and I realized that what they said/did was not me.

If you disagree with "extremists" because of what they say on an issue, then your disagreement is founded on the substance of their positions, not ipso facto because they are "extreme".

The issue that I had with your point of view was that I believe you stated that moderates have no conviction

We will apparently have to just agree to disagree on this: your positions can be based on principled, consistent beliefs, OR because they are "moderate", but not both.

 

[Immanuel]

Sorry, and I don't want to be confrontational since we are having a good discussion, but you still don't get it. What's the point of you saying either "I'm a moderate" or "I don't like 'extremists'", if your position is determined by your morality, reasonableness, and virtue? All you have to say is "my politics are determined by my morality, reasonableness, and virtue" - then STOP. Why drag into it saying you are a "moderate", when all a "moderate" is is someone between the two "extremes", and even you concede that your position might coincide with the "extermist" position, therefore to all intents and purpose be "extremist"?

Further, if you are consistent as you claim, then you must have principles, because consistency doesn't happen accidentally, but by adherence to principles. But if THAT'S true, then those principles determine your position - not locating some position somewhere between the "extremes".

Thanks for the apology and the good discussion.

Actually, where I think you misunderstand is that what I was saying was that I once thought that I was what I would consider to be an extremist. Then I started examining what the extremists on my side of the issue said and I realized that what they said/did was not me.

If you disagree with "extremists" because of what they say on an issue, then your disagreement is founded on the substance of their positions, not ipso facto because they are "extreme".

The issue that I had with your point of view was that I believe you stated that moderates have no conviction

We will apparently have to just agree to disagree on this: your positions can be based on principled, consistent beliefs, OR because they are "moderate", but not both.

I guess we just have to accept your point of view (incorrect as it is) that moderates cannot be consistent or principled without any proof, just your own ascertains.

Is that really your stance?

Immie

 

[kaz]

The issue that I had with your point of view was that I believe you stated that moderates have no conviction

We will apparently have to just agree to disagree on this: your positions can be based on principled, consistent beliefs, OR because they are "moderate", but not both.

I agree with you that moderates do have conviction in this country. Our country has going steadily for the last 100 years towards left wing totalitarianism, clearly the "moderate" is left. They want the same things the left want, they just want to slow it down. Even right of center Republicans support preserving and expanding welfare programs like Social Security. The moderates just say slow down a bit to the left and then think to themselves how they're "reasonable." But when you're on a railroad track only changing your speed, you will at some point arrive in the same station.

 

[Patrick2]

Of course I could. I'm not moving much in my beliefs. But, it is not likely since extremists are like magnets with opposite poles and when one moves the other reacts.

It seems to me that it was you and the people you were siding with that claimed that moderates had no morals or consistency etc. etc. etc. I'm simply arguing you are wrong in that regard. I have my morals. I am relatively consistent. I'm not always correct but hold a decent average. I'm rarely unreasonable and quite virtuous to boot.

Immie

Sorry, and I don't want to be confrontational since we are having a good discussion, but you still don't get it. What's the point of you saying either "I'm a moderate" or "I don't like 'extremists'", if your position is determined by your morality, reasonableness, and virtue? All you have to say is "my politics are determined by my morality, reasonableness, and virtue" - then STOP. Why drag into it saying you are a "moderate", when all a "moderate" is is someone between the two "extremes", and even you concede that your position might coincide with the "extermist" position, therefore to all intents and purpose be "extremist"?

Further, if you are consistent as you claim, then you must have principles, because consistency doesn't happen accidentally, but by adherence to principles. But if THAT'S true, then those principles determine your position - not locating some position somewhere between the "extremes".

Circulus in probando........

Circularity?? How?

1. You have principles.
2. The principles determine your political positions.
3. Being principled, your positions are self-consistent.

 

[Montrovant]

Ahhhhh - so you admit you could become an "extremist"! If the "extremes" move such that one end coincides with you, then why aren't you an "extremist"? This is SO CRYSTAL CLEAR - what will it take for you to grasp that the relative position of a political belief system, or how different it is from most people's beliefs, has NOTHING NECESSARILY TO DO WITH IT'S CORRECTNESS, REASONABLENESS, MORALITY, CONSISTENCEY, VIRTUE OR ANYTHING ELSE???

Of course I could. I'm not moving much in my beliefs. But, it is not likely since extremists are like magnets with opposite poles and when one moves the other reacts.

It seems to me that it was you and the people you were siding with that claimed that moderates had no morals or consistency etc. etc. etc. I'm simply arguing you are wrong in that regard. I have my morals. I am relatively consistent. I'm not always correct but hold a decent average. I'm rarely unreasonable and quite virtuous to boot.

Immie

Sorry, and I don't want to be confrontational since we are having a good discussion, but you still don't get it. What's the point of you saying either "I'm a moderate" or "I don't like 'extremists'", if your position is determined by your morality, reasonableness, and virtue? All you have to say is "my politics are determined by my morality, reasonableness, and virtue" - then STOP. Why drag into it saying you are a "moderate", when all a "moderate" is is someone between the two "extremes", and even you concede that your position might coincide with the "extermist" position, therefore to all intents and purpose be "extremist"?

Further, if you are consistent as you claim, then you must have principles, because consistency doesn't happen accidentally, but by adherence to principles. But if THAT'S true, then those principles determine your position - not locating some position somewhere between the "extremes".

In general, I think people would consider a moderate someone who's politics fall somewhere between the far right and far left, not that they choose their beliefs based on what the major political persuasions are saying. I'm not sure why you consider a moderate to be someone who bases their political views on what's closest to the 'center'.

I think that's where the majority of the argument in this thread comes from, at least directed at you. Just because someone isn't extremely conservative or liberal doesn't mean they don't have strongly held views, but that's the impression you give when you talk about moderates. I think most people would equate moderate to independent; they don't follow either prevailing political ideology, they have views that fall into either camp (or neither).

 

[Ringel05]

Sorry, and I don't want to be confrontational since we are having a good discussion, but you still don't get it. What's the point of you saying either "I'm a moderate" or "I don't like 'extremists'", if your position is determined by your morality, reasonableness, and virtue? All you have to say is "my politics are determined by my morality, reasonableness, and virtue" - then STOP. Why drag into it saying you are a "moderate", when all a "moderate" is is someone between the two "extremes", and even you concede that your position might coincide with the "extermist" position, therefore to all intents and purpose be "extremist"?

Further, if you are consistent as you claim, then you must have principles, because consistency doesn't happen accidentally, but by adherence to principles. But if THAT'S true, then those principles determine your position - not locating some position somewhere between the "extremes".

Circulus in probando........

Circularity?? How?

1. You have principles.
2. The principles determine your political positions.
3. Being principled, your positions are self-consistent.

Oops. Wrong one, sorry.

 

[Immanuel]

Of course I could. I'm not moving much in my beliefs. But, it is not likely since extremists are like magnets with opposite poles and when one moves the other reacts.

It seems to me that it was you and the people you were siding with that claimed that moderates had no morals or consistency etc. etc. etc. I'm simply arguing you are wrong in that regard. I have my morals. I am relatively consistent. I'm not always correct but hold a decent average. I'm rarely unreasonable and quite virtuous to boot.

Immie

Sorry, and I don't want to be confrontational since we are having a good discussion, but you still don't get it. What's the point of you saying either "I'm a moderate" or "I don't like 'extremists'", if your position is determined by your morality, reasonableness, and virtue? All you have to say is "my politics are determined by my morality, reasonableness, and virtue" - then STOP. Why drag into it saying you are a "moderate", when all a "moderate" is is someone between the two "extremes", and even you concede that your position might coincide with the "extermist" position, therefore to all intents and purpose be "extremist"?

Further, if you are consistent as you claim, then you must have principles, because consistency doesn't happen accidentally, but by adherence to principles. But if THAT'S true, then those principles determine your position - not locating some position somewhere between the "extremes".

In general, I think people would consider a moderate someone who's politics fall somewhere between the far right and far left, not that they choose their beliefs based on what the major political persuasions are saying. I'm not sure why you consider a moderate to be someone who bases their political views on what's closest to the 'center'.

I think that's where the majority of the argument in this thread comes from, at least directed at you. Just because someone isn't extremely conservative or liberal doesn't mean they don't have strongly held views, but that's the impression you give when you talk about moderates. I think most people would equate moderate to independent; they don't follow either prevailing political ideology, they have views that fall into either camp (or neither).

Exactly, that is the impression he is giving me, but it appears that kaz is taking what he is saying in a different light. So maybe I am just misunderstanding what Patrick2 is attempting to say.

Immie

 

[kaz]

The true moderates are libertarians.

Left: Let's confiscate more money and redistribute it and increase government control over our lives...

Libertarians: No, let's not, let's back off and leave people alone

Right: Let's crack down on making people's choices for them over their bodies and increase the War on Drugs, violation of privacy, preventing abortions...

Libertarians: No, let's not, let's back off and leave people alone

Anyone who is going along with the left or right and just slowing them down isn't "moderate." Challenging government to back down when they already far exceed the Constitution is moderate.

 

[BoycottTheday]

Debtors' prison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is there any doubt that without our government, businesses would prefer to lock up people who don't pay their debts?

Child labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plenty of doubt and why would anyone use a source that allows someone like me to edit the material, are you now sure it still says what it did say?

 

[Full-Auto]

Debtors' prison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is there any doubt that without our government, businesses would prefer to lock up people who don't pay their debts?

Child labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plenty of doubt and why would anyone use a source that allows someone like me to edit the material, are you now sure it still says what it did say?

Excellent point. I did some research a while back. I went to wiki to confirm some data. It stated the opposite. I then went to the source they allegedly used to find they said no such thing.