It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dont Take the Moderates Seriously

page: 12
4
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

When you compare different shades of brown on a turd, you may find variances....but they are all turds at the end of the day.




posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

You posted this in the Mud Pit and you seem to be saying that moderates are responsible for the Nazi's and radical Islam. How is that any different than the Dem's calling all conservatives Nazi's and racists or the Republicans implying all progressives are communists or socialists. It strikes me as the same tactic. Divisive language is well, divisive and part of the problem.

It might help if you were to define for us what you think a moderate in the US is, instead of linking to things to try and convince us we are responsible for the worlds woes? Why is it important we instead pick a side and defend all of it, even if we only agree with part of it from each side.

I'm thinking you are confusing a fence sitter with a moderate. We vote, fence sitters do not. We vote on issues and what we believe, rather than letting others think for us; fence sitters don't bother to think, just as partisans simply follow the flock even when faced with a cliff.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

I believe in personal rights and personal wrongs...not universals.

Jews dont eat pork because it's "wrong".
I eat the bleep out of some pork because I think it's right...


A2D


I can't agree with that at all. Slavery, for instance, is a universal wrong, even if a few believe it is a personal right.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555




Divisive language is well, divisive and part of the problem.


Finally, we get to the crux of it. Like Stewart said of Begala and Carlson, I'm "hurting America" with divisive rhetoric. Maybe I should just "stop it"?

I disagree. Conflict and debate are built into the foundations of democratic societies. Running from the debate and mocking those taking part in it is thought and speech policing.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

That's fair. Like I said in my first post where I intentionally added the clause

not entirely
i dont think ALL rights and wrongs are subjective, just a very vast majority that people always seem to stumble upon.


Both right and left generally agree murder is wrong...but they don't agree about what the "right" punishment is.


A2D
edit on 11-10-2018 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




When you compare different shades of brown on a turd, you may find variances....but they are all turds at the end of the day.


To each their own, I suppose.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

That's fair. Like I said in my first post where I intentionally added the clause

not entirely
i dont think ALL rights and wrongs are subjective, just a very vast majority that people always seem to stumble upon.




A2D


I think it is possible that we can agree to a few of those rights and wrongs, and in the end, stand up for the rights, stand against the wrongs, even if it means we have to stand with others we don't always agree with.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Oh we do for sure.

The right and left agree murder is wrong. Theft is wrong. Tax evasion is wrong. There are literally thousands of things they agree upon.

What they dont agree upon is the "right" solution or punishment to a lot of these things.

A2D



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Oh we do for sure.

The right and left agree murder is wrong. Theft is wrong. Tax evasion is wrong. There are literally thousands of things they agree upon.

What they dont agree upon is the "right" solution or punishment to a lot of these things.

A2D


That's very true, and so much the better. Mass consensus would be dreadful.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: Blaine91555




Divisive language is well, divisive and part of the problem.


Finally, we get to the crux of it. Like Stewart said of Begala and Carlson, I'm "hurting America" with divisive rhetoric. Maybe I should just "stop it"?

I disagree. Conflict and debate are built into the foundations of democratic societies. Running from the debate and mocking those taking part in it is thought and speech policing.


Funny your point is you're butt hurt moderates saying to stop extremist rhetoric that gets no where.

So you say moderates shouldn't be listened to. We aren't extreme enough, and God forbid we will find middle ground.

Glad we made it here


Only took you running in circles using fallacies and moving goalposts.

good job



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Actually, my point is that moderates want to police the debate and try to make those engaged in it look silly (or at least try to). It's not me that's butthurt. It's you guys. This thread is an example.

I don't think any censors, speech and thought police should be listened to. Rather I think they should be stood up to.

It's a shame I had to hold your hand the entire way, but I'm glad you made it nonetheless.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 06:30 PM
link   
In all fairness and gratitude to the moderates here, if I were to allay the grandstanding of the extremists rather than moderates, they'd probably come for my head. To that end I can appreciate your moderation.
edit on 11-10-2018 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Yeah, no. Voting based on issues is not running from the debate. Voting based on party is running from the debate. What's called debate when both sides are inflexible is just people yelling at each other and practicing obstruction. Trying to force views on everyone is not debate. Only with compromise do problems get solved. Sticking with a single all encompassing ideology is what both sides are doing now, with only we moderates and independents casting the deciding votes.

Perhaps we have a differing opinion on the meaning of being moderate. In my world it simply means open to all idea's and not in the pocket of a party and their platform.

Lord help us all if either party actually gets complete control.




posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Yeah, no. Voting based on issues is not running from the debate. Voting based on party is running from the debate. What's called debate when both sides are inflexible is just people yelling at each other and practicing obstruction. Trying to force views on everyone is not debate. Only with compromise do problems get solved. Sticking with a single all encompassing ideology is what both sides are doing now, with only we moderates and independents casting the deciding votes.

Perhaps we have a differing opinion on the meaning of being moderate. In my world it simply means open to all idea's and not in the pocket of a party and their platform.

Lord help us all if either party actually gets complete control.



Party allegiance—any group allegiance— is horrific. We can see where that eventually leads. I understand that concern.

But the parties will be defined by those who participate in them, not by those who refuse to. It's sort of self-defeating in my eyes.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip


Actually, my point is that moderates want to police the debate and try to make those engaged in it look silly (or at least try to). It's not me that's butthurt. It's you guys. This thread is an example.


Dude, I said on the first page I don't care if you give moderates hell, both sides do it regularly.

We were calling you out for changing the argument, redefining words, and moving goalposts.

If anything, you left a bad taste in people's mouth for partisan politics. You'd gladly take an extreme side and keep the status quo, because you think people who make up their minds for themselves rather than have their leaders do it for them is annoying.

Eta: you did moderates a favor, so thank you sir.
edit on 11-10-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip



But the parties will be defined by those who participate in them, not by those who refuse to. It's sort of self-defeating in my eyes.


Tell that to Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
But the parties will be defined by those who participate in them, not by those who refuse to. It's sort of self-defeating in my eyes.


Now that's a point I can agree with in part. The problem being that constituents have no real control anymore, hence the need for Independents willing to cross party lines based on issues. Change is no longer possible from within, you have to be outside of a party to force them to change to get your vote.

I've watched the parties flip flop over the years, but not because it's the right thing, it's because of vote pandering.

Partisan votes are meaningless since they are predictable and reliable. They want my vote they need to prove to me they are capable of leading and part of that is the ability to work towards compromise for the greater good. Something entirely lacking in the last election.

Look at which Presidents made change for the good. JFK, Reagan and Bill Clinton to a lesser degree. They did it by compromising and remaining moderate.


(post by diggindirt removed for a manners violation)

posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: NiNjABackflip


Actually, my point is that moderates want to police the debate and try to make those engaged in it look silly (or at least try to). It's not me that's butthurt. It's you guys. This thread is an example.


Dude, I said on the first page I don't care if you give moderates hell, both sides do it regularly.

We were calling you out for changing the argument, redefining words, and moving goalposts.

If anything, you left a bad taste in people's mouth for partisan politics. You'd gladly take an extreme side and keep the status quo, because you think people who make up their minds for themselves rather than have their leaders do it for them is annoying.

Eta: you did moderates a favor, so thank you sir.


I never changed the argument. In fact almost quoted it verbatim in the post you replied to.

Of course, as I anticipated, you called out my rhetoric, which is exactly what Stewart did. It’s exactly what the moderates did to MLK.

People also make up their minds for themselves when they choose to vote, when they choose a party, and besides I never said nor implied “people who make up their minds for themselves” is annoying.

If you think criticism is a favor you might be a glutton for punishment.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 07:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




top topics



 
4
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join