You state the obvious as if it somehow supports you. All observations are relative. Period. Surely you understand the principle of relavitism, which is a mantra to moderates. You quarrell with yourself, because moderates embrace what you are arguing. :lol: relativism noun The philosophical doctrine that all criteria of judgment are relative to the individuals and situations involved :dis: You would be the expert on sucking ass, child. However rational individuals understand that there is never a preposterous situation where half of the country is fascist and half is nazi. It's your black and white mentality at work. Nazi's are, in fact, fascists and both represent the extreme viewpoint of the right wing and are small minorities as are the extreme elements of the left wing. The broad middle of the spectrum is where various shades of moderates exist. Obviously. So what? Is there a point here somewhere? Another absurd metaphor to illustrate the obvious. So what if a moderate position is relative, doofus? The key is finding the right balance point and that point changes. Relativism is the key to discerning equilibrium in a world that is not black and white. Pure argumentative jibberish and your 5th restatement of the same ridiculous logic. See the refutations above. You don't even understand what a principle is. Nor do you understand the difference between an moderate and a centrist. Fuggin' amazing! It has been explained to you before by myself and others that a moderate is free to take positions on either side of an issue as seems most prudent. There is no predefined moderate position. It is the extemists that are wed to a single philosophy and must walk in lock-step with it, in lemming-like fashion. In your case it would be walking in goose-step right over the cliff.
You guys crack me up. Nothing wrong with a moderate viewpoint. For instance, in the thread Rex started about the NSA tracking phone calls. Red jumped in with both feet and voiced his concern about Karl Rove spying on democrats to help further the republican cause. This was just what Rex was looking for, because he still can't admit Bush won the election, so he piggy-backed onto Red's opinion. As soon as Rex piled on to his argument, Red, being the crafty veteran debater he is, wanted nothing to do with the opinion of our resident liberal loon, and immediately abandoned his previous discussion of political hijinks and adapted a more moderate stance. :yelwink2: Don't get pissed Red, just joking around.:grin:
a real principle is not relative. freedom for instance. freedom from interference except for as much as needed to prevent widespread chaos and crime. yes, by that definition every person in the universe is moderate, and when a definition is that broad, it becomes meaningless. of course not, because it isnt based on any principle and is a meaningless and vague description. which current extreme am i walking in lockstep with? the pro small government religious hating party pro-war party? where are they? they dont exist. my views are based on actual principles rather than parties or BS avoidance of "extremes" for the sake of appearing prudent. there are plenty of black and white sitiuations and they expose the flaws in your philosphy. abortion for instance. you either oppose murder or you dont. black or white. but you sidestep the question and expose your refusal to accept the realiy of the situationf ro fear of appearing extreme.
I agree, to a point. Elected office was never meant to be a lifelong career, but at the same time, it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing for the conuntry to have constant turnover every 4-6 years, especially when dealing with foreign policy. There must be some constancy in the policies of the country. I meant that too many voters cast uninformed votes. Who looks good on TV, who had a nice sound byte, who says they agree with me on my one issue, etc. See above. This is more a reflection on our society as a whole than it is our political system. I can't argue with you on this. Unfortunately, the nature of the system is such that you would have to "go along" with some things that might compromise your ideals in order to be an effective legislator. This really isn't anything new, but it seems to be getting worse.
More nonsense. There is not only gray area but multivariant issues involved. The definition of murder for instance. Or of life itself. Or freedom of choice. How about governmental or religious interference in a personal matter (issues that you are usually on the other side of). Are you showing some moderation in your usually strident atheism and anarchy? You keep imagining that you know what I think or accept. :lol: Worse you keep suggesting that I must "fear" the appearence of extremeness. You confuse fear with the recognition and avoidence of untenable fringe positions, something I call "prudence". I have sidestepped no questions, merely shot down shoddy analysis.
again, i think these are all questions with relatively easy answers for honest people. the answers sound mean though, and most people are unwilling to be honest if they have to take the side that being honest about can get them portrayed as a jerk pretty quickly. there are lots of issues like this, where honesty only gets you trouble. by telling the truth about some things you open yourself up for cheap shots from *******s. (i am not saying you do this, thankfully you are far better than the scoundrels who do that). i explained this already multiple times. i am pro-baby killing, but it doesnt matter to me one bit, and i have more respect for the pro-lifers because i respect their honesty. if they won and got their way it would be fine with me. honestly man, to me it just seems like the appearance of prudence is all that people care about sometimes. the way i see it, being realistic sometimes means taking positions that are considered extreme by today's standards. and to me those standards seem very arbitrary.
