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: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

You gave 2 examples, while ignoring countless others. A good example is just about anything Jordan Peterson says....almost all of it worthy of discourse, almost all of it shouted down by a left hell bent on controlling said discourse.

Of all the debates we have in the US...which ones derive from anywhere other than the far left or far right? In fact, lately...which ones derive from anything but the far left? Anyone not of that mindset can either ignore them entirely, or spend their entire time defending against various/sundry personal attacks.

If a moderate has a choice, please identify the last moderate POTUS candidate. Please identify which party represents moderate viewpoints. Perhaps I am missing something entirely here.




posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: narrator




What? This doesn't make any sense. Radical and extreme views of today in America: Antifa on the left, Neo-Nazis on the right. Since, in your estimation, one of those is definitely correct and history will show that it is, I feel the need to ask the question: Which one of those belief structures do you think is the correct way to think?

Shouldn't we strive to be somewhere between those two lines of thought? You know, a more...moderate...viewpoint?


I never said "one of those is definitely correct". I said "in times when the radical and extreme views are the only correct ones".


Like Hitler, Stalin, Mao? Want me to continue?


All of whom the moderates facilitated into power. There were radicals and extremists opposing them as well. The moderates, on the other hand, did nothing. Silence too is a choice.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: Boadicea




If??? No if about. That's exactly what our left/right paradigm is all about!!! And that's exactly why freedom demands eternal vigilance. Because there's always someone trying to force their will on the rest of us.


Yes, and in the cases I outlined, it was the moderates who sought to stifle the debate, trying to force their will on the rest of us.


Like you're doing now? You can't even keep up with your own points, what makes you think you're going to convince anyone of them if you can't keep it linear?

If anything you're making people not want to associate with whatever you represent.

Notice no one is coming to back you up, because who would?


Why would I seek backup? My arguments still stand whether you dismiss them or not.


your arguments stand when there isn't a logical challenge to dispute them.

In this case, your argument has failed.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: Boadicea




If??? No if about. That's exactly what our left/right paradigm is all about!!! And that's exactly why freedom demands eternal vigilance. Because there's always someone trying to force their will on the rest of us.


Yes, and in the cases I outlined, it was the moderates who sought to stifle the debate, trying to force their will on the rest of us.


Like you're doing now? You can't even keep up with your own points, what makes you think you're going to convince anyone of them if you can't keep it linear?

If anything you're making people not want to associate with whatever you represent.

Notice no one is coming to back you up, because who would?


Why would I seek backup? My arguments still stand whether you dismiss them or not.


Your arguments are held up by the fallacies you put in place to justify your ideology.

You keep bouncing around, saying moderates are silent and abstinent... Then you say they shouldn't be listened to and they stifle debate.

Which is it? You're running in circles.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

You gave 2 examples, while ignoring countless others. A good example is just about anything Jordan Peterson says....almost all of it worthy of discourse, almost all of it shouted down by a left hell bent on controlling said discourse.

Of all the debates we have in the US...which ones derive from anywhere other than the far left or far right? In fact, lately...which ones derive from anything but the far left? Anyone not of that mindset can either ignore them entirely, or spend their entire time defending against various/sundry personal attacks.

If a moderate has a choice, please identify the last moderate POTUS candidate. Please identify which party represents moderate viewpoints. Perhaps I am missing something entirely here.



Politicians, parties, the rhetoric, all of that would be more moderate remained in politics instead of running away from it.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker




Your arguments are held up by the fallacies you put in place to justify your ideology.

You keep bouncing around, saying moderates are silent and abstinent... Then you say they shouldn't be listened to and they stifle debate.

Which is it? You're running in circles.


I'll wait until you can formulate some sort of argument. I'm not going to correct your misrepresentation of what I said.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
As history shows, in times when the radical and extreme views are the only correct ones, moderation is intellectual cowardice disguised as the voice of reason. We should not take hem seriously.


Seems like you're completely supportive of revolution and tribalism/party croneyism here.

Who determines which extreme view is correct?



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




your arguments stand when there isn't a logical challenge to dispute them.

In this case, your argument has failed.


No offence, but this isn't an argument. My arguments stand because no one has even begun to refute them. Give it a shot.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek




Seems like you're completely supportive of revolution and tribalism/party croneyism here.

Who determines which extreme view is correct?


No I'm in support of the civic duty to engage in politics instead of running from it and trying to stifle those who do care about politics.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: kelbtalfenek




Seems like you're completely supportive of revolution and tribalism/party croneyism here.

Who determines which extreme view is correct?


No I'm in support of the civic duty to engage in politics instead of running from it and trying to stifle those who do care about politics.


Again, you're conflating non participants and moderates.

Moderates are close to center and decide issue by issue without subscribing to a party, or staying close to center if they do.

Non participants don't vote, they don't follow current events.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: narrator
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Are we in one of those times now?


I wouldn't say so, no. The extremists are, as you mentioned, not the most palatable positions.


So, if the extremist positions aren't palatable right now, isn't it better to be somewhere between their ideas? More moderate?

My point is, being moderate isn't a bad thing, and what you just said proves that point. If you aren't Antifa, and you aren't a Neo-Nazi, then you are taking a moderate stance between the two. "Moderate" in politics operates on a sliding scale. Someone who falls into the moderate category is actively choosing to not blindly follow Republican doctrine, or Democratic doctrine, or Antifa, Neo-Nazis, what have you. They are actively choosing to not be represented by any one political party. That in no way, shape, or form means that they are going to stand off to the side and let unpalatable positions rule. They just don't agree enough with either side to feel completely represented by them, and so choose to inhabit a place between all views. I fail to see how that is a bad thing.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker




Again, you're conflating non participants and moderates.

Moderates are close to center and decide issue by issue without subscribing to a party, or staying close to center if they do.

Non participants don't vote, they don't follow current events.


That's fair, even though I was strictly speaking of those abandoning politics, not those who never participate in it.

There are many right and left close to center too.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

With the utmost respect for Reverend King, and not to play semantics, but I would suggest that the Reverend was only an "extremist" to the extent that he was put into an extreme position by extremists and decided to act on his principles with the strength and courage of his convictions where others took the path of least resistance. In other words, they took the easy route and the Reverend took a stand.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

There's no use. We've been down this road with ninja before.

Funny we're being preached to about conviction and consistency by someone who can't even keep their points in line through a thread.

But they used quotes from an activist and a political commentator, so clearly the premise is bullet proof.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator




So, if the extremist positions aren't palatable right now, isn't it better to be somewhere between their ideas? More moderate?

My point is, being moderate isn't a bad thing, and what you just said proves that point. If you aren't Antifa, and you aren't a Neo-Nazi, then you are taking a moderate stance between the two. "Moderate" in politics operates on a sliding scale. Someone who falls into the moderate category is actively choosing to not blindly follow Republican doctrine, or Democratic doctrine, or Antifa, Neo-Nazis, what have you. They are actively choosing to not be represented by any one political party. That in no way, shape, or form means that they are going to stand off to the side and let unpalatable positions rule. They just don't agree enough with either side to feel completely represented by them, and so choose to inhabit a place between all views. I fail to see how that is a bad thing.


Do you oppose fascism? Or do you refuse to oppose fascism because Antifa does?

To me there is no compromise between Nazism and Antifa.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker




There's no use. We've been down this road with ninja before.

Funny we're being preached to about conviction and consistency by someone who can't even keep their points in line through a thread.

But they used quotes from an activist and a political commentator, so clearly the premise is bullet proof.


That didn't take you long. Can't tackle the ball, tackle the player.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: CriticalStinker




Again, you're conflating non participants and moderates.

Moderates are close to center and decide issue by issue without subscribing to a party, or staying close to center if they do.

Non participants don't vote, they don't follow current events.


That's fair, even though I was strictly speaking of those abandoning politics, not those who never participate in it.

There are many right and left close to center too.


Than run with that.

No one is going to argue that people who don't participate inherently set the stage for a democracy to be run by those with the loudest voice/most influence/most money.

We can say that's a problem, but even I'm not going to knock them. In today's climate, how is a couple with jobs, kids and everything else that comes with life supposed to be encouraged to participate when extremists say they shouldn't have a voice?



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




With the utmost respect for Reverend King, and not to play semantics, but I would suggest that the Reverend was only an "extremist" to the extent that he was put into an extreme position by extremists and decided to act on his principles with the strength and courage of his convictions where others took the path of least resistance. In other words, they took the easy route and the Reverend took a stand.


Yes and the moderates didn't stand by him. Rather, they preferred "negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice". They only stifled the debate and abandoned their principles when it got a little risky to hold them.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker




Than run with that.

No one is going to argue that people who don't participate inherently set the stage for a democracy to be run by those with the loudest voice/most influence/most money.

We can say that's a problem, but even I'm not going to knock them. In today's climate, how is a couple with jobs, kids and everything else that comes with life supposed to be encouraged to participate when extremists say they shouldn't have a voice?


I have nothing against those who refuse to engage in politics. My issue is those concern troll those still taking part in political process and the political system.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Two people talking.

"So uh, if moderates should not be taken seriously. What extremist view do you represent, and which radical and extreme view do you think is the only correct one?"

"Whoa whoa whoa, who ever said I held any extremist views. I didn't. Hey what is that over there behind you"

One man points behind the other. Obfuscation ensues.
edit on 11-10-2018 by karmicecstasy because: Who should not be taken seriously?




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join