Only in theory. In practice, the extremes are usually defined quite well. But, you're a theoretical kind of feller. I'm a practical one.
when a candidate takes a position because he knows it makes him more electable, i think that is dishonest. i would prefer he tells me what he actually believes. it is just an example, i do not know it to be true that barack obama is a closet atheist. i suspect he is lying about being christian, which he must do if he has any hope to be elected. i think it sets up an interesting question about what a person should do in a situation like that. this is like saying that chocolate/vanilla swirl is more likely to taste better than chocolate or vanilla. it is just as likely that triple chocolate is best. if i offered you a red or white car, would you ask if pink was available? with the middle of the curve defined by what? you? red, you are agnostic, is your position any less valid because in the american south you are a rarity, a bit of an extremist? should you consider going to mass once a month just to hedge your bets?
It depends on the candidate, but I'd say that it's almost always about getting votes. Without the power, he can't make much of a difference. If he cares about making a difference from the president's office, he has to pretend to be a Christian. I wish it wasn't that way, but it is. Well, this is a democracy. We elect people to do what we want them to do, which isn't necessarily what they want. :lol: I wouldn't say that is an extreme viewpoint. No, there are positives & negatives to every situation. Some people put more importance on certain things than other people do. Liberals believe that we need high taxes to help poor people because we as a society owe it to them. There are negatives associated with this, which is why we are against it, but they prefer to put more weight on the positives. It is not clearly right or wrong either way - just opinions. Compromise isn't as bad as the other side winning.
heh exactly. i can say all day that it is, and you can say that it isnt, and we have gotten nowhere. actual reason would do us alot more good if we discussed why we both thought we were right. it is clearly right or wrong, and there are reasons why.
You are assuming he does this. Which candidate tells you what he doesn't believe? Give us an example. You imagine that Obama is an atheist, you have no evidence. So . . . You made it up and can't back it up? What is the basis for your suspicion? It is defined by the numbers! The bell curve is a natural phenomenon. It occurs repeatedly in natural systems. Read the link! A moderate position is not about hedging bets. In my view, being an agnostic is a moderate position. I neither deny the existence of God, nor do I proclaim his existence. I simply think that it is impossible for us to know if God exists or what he expects from us, if so. My position has nothing to do with living in the south, or rotely trying to be a centrist. Understand that the bulge of moderate positions on the bell curve are not all at the centroid. I can have a position along the thick side of the curve and still be a moderate. It is the thin extemes that I avoid. Your argument that the middle is defined by the extremes is badly flawed. It is defined by the bulk of opinion. It allows for much variation within a broad band of thought.
I agree, so what's your point? I notice that you conveniently ignored the more important part of the post which gives an example of why you are wrong.
yes, i specifically said lets just assume it as an example. the numbers of what, how many people think a particular idea? correctness is defined by numbers? was the world flat at one time? was thor really a god? well, you should check out the bell curve, because the vast majority of people think that is nuts. ok, the bulk of opinion then, still no correlation to correctness.
that "moderate" in and of itself is not a virtue, but a arbitrary value judgement based on perspective. you say your position is moderate, i say it is extreme. i dunno which part that is, i will assume you meant this: this is wrong because the government helping people doesnt actually help them. it hurts them. it isnt a matter of the liberal caring about poor people and having different priorities. we both have the same priorities, to help people. and the right way to do that is through capitalism and freedom, not a nanny state. taxing the rich and giving to the poor doesnt help the poor, it does the opposite.
Moderation is defined by the extremes. There are much further extremes from my viewpoint, thus I view it as moderate. But it doesn't really matter whether it is or isn't, the idea itself is what is important. I would say, however, that moderation is a virture. Didn't some philosopher define it as one? In the long run, it does make people dependent on the government. But they still eat & have a place to live, which satisfies the immediate needs that Liberals put more importance on. This is difficult for me to argue with you on, because I agree with your position on the matter, but none the less they are opinions & everyone assigns differing levels of importance to different aspects. Thus, there is no right or wrong.
