I read this paragraph three times and I have no idea what you mean. It's just impossible to respond to. Perhaps you engineered that, come to think about it.
if i tell you my car is white, then when you see it is black, you are confused. i tell you i happen to personally define that color as white. you say fine. then we see a grey car, which i also describe as white. you make a note that when i use the word "white", it has no meaning, a random correlation with reality. you say that the moderate stance is defined by whatever. then it isnt. you claim a position held by the middle of the bell curve is moderate. then agnosticism is moderate, which is clearly on the long narrow part of the bell curve. i can make any claim i want and call it moderate. see what i mean? at a certain point words have to mean something. this is why the claim of moderate is meaningless. this is why i say actual principles are infinitely more valuable and descriptive than "moderation".
I think you still confuse moderate with centrist. Moderates can be anywhere on the bell curve except at the extremes. It is a broad position, not a narrow one.
ok, i think i understand. a moderate is defined in terms of extremes, which they avoid. the extremes are determined by either: the moderate himself, in which case anyone has equal claim to the term, rendering it meaningless or; the whims of the public, which change according to time or place, meaning the extremes are arbitrarily based on factors other than reason, which of course is a constant. how sensible, to be either arbitrary or meaningless.
Extremes of any viewpoint can be loosely approximated & agreed on by most. It isn't defined by whether or not people actually have those viewpoints.
