Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Dare To Speak The Dirtiest Word

page: 2
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


Not to side track the topic, but in regards to passion. I could argue that it has it's downfalls as well....but it depends on the kind of passion......obsessive passion? Passion as an emotion? Those types require moderation IMO.

I guess, like you said it kinda comes down to how we understand the definition of words like "passion" and "moderation".

But yes, there are those times when extremes might be neccessary.....although due to personal issues, I try to avoid extremes as much as possible....but that's just me..... i am a recovering extremist, you could say




posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
reply to post by Hefficide
 


The trap is this; if the "rule book" states that pedophilia is acceptable, then anyone who preaches against it is a hater, a bigot and intolerant. Therefore, based on your arguments, I'm left with no other conclusion than you would deem pedophilia as neither good nor evil.


Pedophilia? Really?
Your rule book is pretty extreme.
Seems like you need to be on another website if that's the parallel you draw in a call for moderation.

Sounds like a perfect argument in support of moderation.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I think it's BS that we have been trained not to discuss these things out in public. I spend hours and hours as an outsider and witness to 1000's of conversations, and all of them are for the most part, meaningless. JUST ONCE I'd love to walk up and hear people discussing anything remotely important!!




posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightSunshine
 


We have been indoctrinated and trained not to discuss many topics. They have become taboo, for a variety of reasons. Race relations are an issue that should have been put to rest sixty years ago... and yet we still have problems in this area. Why? And why is it that we are almost all petrified to discuss them in mixed company?

Divide and conquer is the only real answer I can come up with. We're taught that it's extremely impolite - so we avoid engaging in it. I live in a very racially diverse town (Atlanta) and have friends from all walks of life. And I have noticed that many of my friends are, at first, shocked, if I engage them in conversation about their culture, race, or religion. The shock shows in their eyes instantly and it takes a bit of disarming and charming to get them to open up. The conditioning is very evident - even when the conversation is valid and polite.

If you have a friend of a different ethnicity, nationality, or religion, test it. One day just ask them something like "I know how TV and movies portray it, but what's it really like to...." and see. If you can get past the shock it can be a very positive thing.

Eddie Murphy did a very interesting SNL "mini movie" back in the eighties where he was made up to look like a white businessman and then they made fun of the stereotypes that some people have about upper middle class white guys - and to this day I think it might well be the most genius thing he ever came up with. It used humor to show how ridiculous most stereotypes are.

IMO - we need to get these kinds of things out in the open so that we can all see the truth... that we aren't different in any damning ways. Sure we've got different skin tones, accents, beliefs, cultures, shapes, etc. But, if we put all that aside we're mostly the same. We love our families, we like to have fun, we worry about the same things ( bills, putting food on the table, our kids futures ).

Those who don't like moderation of thought want us to have extreme prejudices. This enables them to keep up from comparing notes and realizing that we often hate ( or dislike or distrust ) others based upon nothing but smoke and lies.

~Heff



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
There is an enormous difference between "having a nuanced position" and being "wishy-washy middle of the road," and a lot of the hatred towards the moderate is because people unjustly confuse the two in their minds and associate both with the term "moderate."

Having a nuanced position means seeking a fine-grained, complex view of reality. It requires effort and determination, and an ability to rise above the mundane and the emotional. True nuance demands a passionate commitment to the truth, wherever one may find it, rather than the "safe" strategy of sticking with your team's ideological playbook and outsourcing the heavy-lifting of thinking for yourself to a party line. People confuse passionate howling at the ideological extremes with "strength," but it is a false strength. True strength is a patient seeking after the truth and a dogged pursuit of details, which leads to nuance.

"Middle-of-the-road" on the other hand truly is weak, because it involves abdicating the entire process of thinking and taking refuge in a fuzzy-headed cloud. This is the sheeplike behavior that people object to when they object to "moderate" positions. But this is not the same thing as nuance at all, despite some superficial similarities.

It is vital to realize the difference between "safe," fuzzy middle-of-the-road thinking and having a sharp, complex, and nuanced position that goes beyond ideology. Unfortunately most people can't tell the difference and lump both together under the idea of "being moderate." Nothing could be further from the truth.



edit on 9/28/2012 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Might I offer another word?

Principles

To stand by ones principles is paramount when determining character.
edit on 28-9-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Principles are vital to life. But choosing ones principles is a very important part of that. History has shown that poor choice of principles is one of the key ingredients to travesty.

I can assure you that no mod ever felt unprincipled - even as the bodies of innocents burned or hung from trees. These people all felt very principles. It was that they chose their principles poorly and then participated in exercising those principles without moderation of thought.

We all have principles. Strong beliefs and personal preferences. But many of us become so slavishly and blindly devoted to those principles that we find ourselves so lost in translation, we lose track of them entirely. As an example I point to an earlier poster to professed to be Christian, and then soundly judged me and damned me to Hell. A case of blind principles causing a person to literally behave in the exact opposite of their stated principles.

~Heff



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Aren't we all hypocrites, though, to a degree?

Principles,, as I see them, are meant as obtainable goals.

Waaaay back in salute school (OCS to the rest) I was taught that you have to be right. Even if you are wrong, you have to be right.

Indecisiveness, "moderation", can be seen as a weakness.

You, me, everyone here is in the business of getting our point across, selling our point, selling our opinion. Influencing, asserting our beliefs.

"Moderation"?

Moderation cedes so darn much!



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


We may be showing differing approaches to and understandings of the very word "moderation" here. I'll give a perfect ATS based example:

Any of us posts something to a thread... just a typical "My source shows blah and I think meh about it".

Later we check our replies and see that some trollish person has come along and ripped us a new one, for no good reason... one of those ad-hom, baseless, full on personal attack posts."... Well I think every single one of us, myself included, has an initial urge to push that "reply" button so that we can intellectually beat the offending poster to a bloody pulp.

But we can't. The rules say so. We know if we let ourselves get dragged in we'll be punished.

So we step back and weigh our options....

We could just ignore it.
We could alert the post.
We could reply without visible anger, politely and on topic - effectively making the troll look like an idiot, but without breaking any rules.


So we seek a moderate answer... the most effective reaction for ourselves and for the community itself.

But let's step it up. We're out having a beer with friends and some drunken dolt cold cocks us for no good reason. Just blindsides us with a punch.

Most men here will react to that the same way... shake off the punch and go in swinging. Kick that butt.

But some folks don't do this. They pull out guns or knives, or they bust a bottle open and then attack.

So moderation does not mean weakness, or surrender. It simply means appropriate reaction. At least that's my definition. The application of reason to behavior - especially in extreme situations.

~Heff



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


A recent example.

During a tabletop a question was posed.

We're ordered to secure a grocery store.
What do you do?

My answer, and the best compromise I could come up with is this.

My soldiers are locked and cocked.

But we bag the groceries.

We are there, we are involved, we are interacting, but NOT ONE PERSON gets hurt.

Now.

Did I compromise the order to instill peace?

Or did I act on "my own judgement" in interpreting the order?



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


In your example it appears, to me, as if you've found the method of approach that shows one moderate answer to the problem. There are others.

The extremes would be to close the store - or to do nothing at all. Anything in between those two extremes represents a moderated approach. A person ( or group ) sat down and sought the answer that best addressed all concerned interests.

~Heff



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Don't you dare skip out on me!!! I remember our battles when you were justs a renegade!

Moderation only works when both parties are satisfied. You can't moderate a battle. You can't moderate a fight. There has to be a winner and a loser.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Originally posted by beezzer

Don't you dare skip out on me!!! I remember our battles when you were justs a renegade!




I'm still a renegade Beez... and still a believer. I've just seen the sin in myself and moderated it.


Truthfully, it was political WARS with you and neo96 that caused me to do so. It became apparent to me that I was viciously defending paradigms and that I had lost my own personal identity in a way. That I'd just become another parrot in the groupspeak camp - blindly towing the party line. What struck me most deeply is that I had become so entrenched in it all - I no longer even recognized when the party line violated my own feelings. I had let propaganda supersede my own views.

This is why I respect both you and neo96 very much. I still disagree with much of what I used to disagree with, such as our differing views on social programs, etc. But thanks to the tenacity and intelligence both of you showed in our arguments, I was forced to see my own paradigm addiction.


Originally posted by beezzer

Moderation only works when both parties are satisfied. You can't moderate a battle. You can't moderate a fight. There has to be a winner and a loser.


This is absolutist thinking. Yes, if we were to meet and decide to knuckle up and just brawl it out. Most likely one of us would "win" and one of us would "lose". Meaning one would likely end up standing over the other. But this relies upon the notion that victory and domination are synonyms. They can be, but they don't have to be.

If we meet and knuckle up, and one of us says "Screw this, wanna get a beer instead of busting each others heads?" Then we've totally negated the need for absolutism. We've negotiated what is, theoretically, a mutually beneficial peace.

Simply thinking in "win or lose" terms is a form of indoctrinated thinking. It implies that conflict not only needs to exist, but that it has to. It also implies that the only form of conflict resolution is to engage in dominant/submissive thinking.

A moderate approach would be to dissect it all and say "Why does anyone need to win or lose here? Is it necessary to take it to that extreme?" Sadly there are occasions when one must do so. An intruder in my home, at night, for example? I will not be moderate. I will empty all five slugs and then call 911. There are extreme situations where moderated thought cannot be relied upon.

My point is that we've been taught to think in these absolutist terms too often. We go from zero to kill too quick. We've become paradigm addicts ( if you haven't figured it out yet, I've coined and latched onto that phrase in this reply and am likely to create a thread called "paradigm addiction" soon.


~Heff



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I'm a Cold Warioir. At an FOB I actually had the pleasure and opporurtunity to sit and finish off a serious supply of vodka to my counetrparts.

Principals were always understood.
There were always caveats though.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Geez Heff such a looooooooooooooooooooooooong post couldn't it have been more "moderate" ?

Good thread tho.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join