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: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator




Nowhere in that quotation does it say that they don't take action or try to take away from politics.


That's because nowhere in that quotation do they describe the effects of moderates on the political process.




posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker




An analogy would be trying to ask someone who is agnostic what their religious stance would be. How could you place someone on a spectrum they don't ideolically take part of.


Yes, political agnosticism is the exact phrase I used in the OP.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: CriticalStinker




An analogy would be trying to ask someone who is agnostic what their religious stance would be. How could you place someone on a spectrum they don't ideolically take part of.


Yes, political agnosticism is the exact phrase I used in the OP.


That's not moderates.

That's non participants.

Moderates are those who are political but are close to center. Many of whom have no party affiliation, but that is not a requirement.


Here's your statement for context.


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.



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



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

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.


You're confusing moderates with the un-engaged. There's a HUGE difference.


I'm not. Moderates are very much engaged, it's just that they eschew parties, partisan politics, which are essential to politics. They make the noise, but cannot promote any platform, alternative party, or really anything to get behind. The position is vacuous.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

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.


You're confusing moderates with the un-engaged. There's a HUGE difference.


I'm not. Moderates are very much engaged, it's just that they eschew parties, partisan politics, which are essential to politics. They make the noise, but cannot promote any platform, alternative party, or really anything to get behind. The position is vacuous.


It's your opinion that they're essential. My opinion is they are essential in keeping a very similar agenda, but the antithesis to what I want for the country.

I don't agree with much of both sides, so why should I pick one?



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: narrator




Nowhere in that quotation does it say that they don't take action or try to take away from politics.


That's because nowhere in that quotation do they describe the effects of moderates on the political process.


Moderates have a huge impact on the political process. If they didn't, Democrats and Republicans wouldn't try so hard to persuade them to come to their side. The effect they have is not due to a lack of doing nothing, but due to the fact that they can take a stand on either side of the aisle, depending on the issue being discussed.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker




Why yes of course, I'm anti extremism.


Just to press you on this further, would you have been anti-abolition when abolitionism was considered extremism? Would you have been a moderate when National Socialism was the centrist position?



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker




It's your opinion that they're essential. My opinion is they are essential in keeping a very similar agenda, but the antithesis to what I want for the country.

I don't agree with much of both sides, so why should I pick one?


Yes, parties and partisan politics weren't essential when only noblemen could vote, or in theocratic countries.

You should pick one because without you and other moderates their only recourse is to become more radical. If you want a party to represent your views, you can only make that happen with party participation.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: MotherMayEye




Only an idiot would entrust our corrupt government with an extreme agenda.

Good god.


No one said that.


But if you had taken your position to its 'conclusion,' you would have.



I don't think logical thinking is a strong point in this middle-school attempt at argument. Apparently all is black or white in this person's mind. There are only two sides to any issue in this small world and those who see anything other than major party points are deluded. Sad what our federal system has produced when indoctrination took the place of education.



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

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: MotherMayEye




Only an idiot would entrust our corrupt government with an extreme agenda.

Good god.


No one said that.


But if you had taken your position to its 'conclusion,' you would have.



I don't think logical thinking is a strong point in this middle-school attempt at argument. Apparently all is black or white in this person's mind. There are only two sides to any issue in this small world and those who see anything other than major party points are deluded. Sad what our federal system has produced when indoctrination took the place of education.


"Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam)—also known as false equivalence, false compromise, [argument from] middle ground, equidistance fallacy, and the golden mean fallacy[1]—is an informal fallacy which asserts that the truth must be found as a compromise between two opposite positions.[2][3] An example of a fallacious use of the argument to moderation would be to regard two opposed arguments—one person saying that slavery is always wrong, while another believes it to be legitimate—and conclude that the truth must therefore lie somewhere in between.[4] One could imagine a society that accepts a midway position between slavery and non-slavery as truth using the argument to moderation, and it's only the cultural values of freedom and decency and the like, that would object. If these values did not exist then the culture might find the middle ground true."

Argument to Moderation

I learned that in middle-school.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Just to reiterate, here's my question:



let's just say that liberalism, libertarianism and the like get tossed so far down the political spectrum, that they are considered extremist by the current standards. Would you remain a moderate?


Your response:


Why yes of course, I'm anti extremism.


So just a quick followup. Would you opposed to MLK's plight back when it was considered a form of extremism?



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

What's your end game in this discussion? That everyone should have one of two opinions and that any opinion not in lockstep with the Right or Left entirely holds no weight?

Partisans vote one way and only one way. Many if not most don't even take the time to think about it, they simply vote D or R mindlessly, relying on party leaders to tell them what to think and how to vote. Moderates / Independents decide elections and are generally more well informed, harder to control and harder to fool.

We have the true power and we now outnumber both parties in voting power. Is that making you nervous perhaps? Nervous enough to try and tell us we are not relevant? Does it bother you because we can't be controlled as easily as partisans are?



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip


So just a quick followup. Would you opposed to MLK's plight back when it was considered a form of extremism?


I wouldn't call his platform extreme. Equal human rights is moderate in mine, and today's opinion.

If it was someone who just had an extreme right/left platform, probably not.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

Someone give this man an applause. If you can give yourself one in my name, by all means, please do!



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

What's your end game in this discussion? That everyone should have one of two opinions and that any opinion not in lockstep with the Right or Left entirely holds no weight?

Partisans vote one way and only one way. Many if not most don't even take the time to think about it, they simply vote D or R mindlessly, relying on party leaders to tell them what to think and how to vote. Moderates / Independents decide elections and are generally more well informed, harder to control and harder to fool.

We have the true power and we now outnumber both parties in voting power. Is that making you nervous perhaps? Nervous enough to try and tell us we are not relevant? Does it bother you because we can't be controlled as easily as partisans are?


Testify.

2nd.
edit on 11-10-2018 by narrator because: 2nd line



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555




Does it bother you because we can't be controlled as easily as partisans are?


As well it should.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

What's your end game in this discussion? That everyone should have one of two opinions and that any opinion not in lockstep with the Right or Left entirely holds no weight?

Partisans vote one way and only one way. Many if not most don't even take the time to think about it, they simply vote D or R mindlessly, relying on party leaders to tell them what to think and how to vote. Moderates / Independents decide elections and are generally more well informed, harder to control and harder to fool.

We have the true power and we now outnumber both parties in voting power. Is that making you nervous perhaps? Nervous enough to try and tell us we are not relevant? Does it bother you because we can't be controlled as easily as partisans are?


My “end game” is to make a case that moderates stifle the debate and premise their whole position, if you can call it a position, on fallacious thinking. It bothers me for the reasons I stated in the OP.
edit on 11-10-2018 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Blaine91555




Does it bother you because we can't be controlled as easily as partisans are?


As well it should.



For people who oppose ideologies, you all seem mighty content patting each other on the back whenever you have similar views.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: NiNjABackflip Does it bother you because we can't be controlled as easily as partisans are?


Exactly. As a moderate I'd rather think for myself than be riled up by some worthless politican who thinks she or he knows better than me what's best for me. I am not falling into the politics trap.




I agree with this video. It's childish and silly.


edit on 11-10-2018 by TheBandit795 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

My “end game” is to make a case that moderates stifle the debate and premise their whole position, if you can call it a position, on fallacious thinking. It bothers me for the reasons I stated in the OP.


There's nothing fallacious about not adopting either of two ideologies that have maybe a 20% difference.

I still disagree with much of what remains on either side.




top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join