Good Grief, Aren't there any Moderates here?

FreeDuck wrote:

Did you think I was offended?

Yes, based on a comment to the effect of : I realize that Finn will consider this uninteresting...If I was wrong, I am pleased.

Except, and I don't want to flog the dead horse here, that uninteresting is not the same as less interesting.

While I only occassionaly seek to offend, I realize that there are times when I do; without intent. I apologize for neither , although I regret the latter. I'm not really sure how one can be offended on A2K.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Did you think I was offended?

Yes, based on a comment to the effect of : I realize that Finn will consider this uninteresting...If I was wrong, I am pleased.

Nope, just a casual reference to your earlier comment, not meant to show offense.

Then I am pleased.

Quote:

Except, and I don't want to flog the dead horse here, that uninteresting is not the same as less interesting.

Ok, it's just that that didn't seem to be a very imporant point to me. I was more interested in flushing out your definition of moderate. If my words were inexact its because it isn't something I gave a lot of thought to.

Quote:

While I only occassionaly seek to offend, I realize that there are times when I do; without intent. I apologize for neither , although I regret the latter. I'm not really sure how one can be offended on A2K.

Apparently I'm not being very successful with tone in my posts. But as to the point about your definition of moderate, was my example the sort of thing you had in mind, or am I way off?

I'm afraid I need you to repeat your example.

Ok, here goes, and I'll try to be more lucid.

I understand Lash's definition of moderate to be someone who holds views from each side. What I think I hear you saying is that a moderate is one whose views themselves are in the middle. My example was someone who believes the government should do something to help the poorest among us but who believes that the current way we do that fails miserably and actually contributes to their hardship. So it's sort of agreeing with the ideals but disagreeing with the implementation. Maybe that's not quite what you had in mind.

No it's not. A moderate is someone who can grasp the thrust of either's side of the argument and find common ground. By definition, the moderate doesn't favor one side of the argument or the other. Whether we are talking about ideology or implementation is immaterial. Moderates seek compromise... whether the compromise takes place on the ideological or practical levels.

I can also see your point about being right getting you something in some cases, and I'm trying to think of an example. But in general it does seem as if the act of watering something down in order to make it more palatable could actually render it completely useless. I apologize for this being muddled -- it's the cold medicine.

This is precisely my point. Watering down something in order to make it palatable can render it completely useless.

Compromise is not the perfect state of being.

Compromise is often the tie-breaker we need to get by, but compromise is an eunnuch without radical thought.

When you were a kid and you joined a friend on a see-saw, you may have (on occassion) sought for the equilbrium that left you balanced at the same point, but would you have ever got on the ride if that was all that might happen? The see-saw has no fun unless it can be pushed one way or the other.

FreeDuck wrote:

Ok, here goes, and I'll try to be more lucid.

I understand Lash's definition of moderate to be someone who holds views from each side. What I think I hear you saying is that a moderate is one whose views themselves are in the middle. My example was someone who believes the government should do something to help the poorest among us but who believes that the current way we do that fails miserably and actually contributes to their hardship. So it's sort of agreeing with the ideals but disagreeing with the implementation. Maybe that's not quite what you had in mind.

No it's not. A moderate is someone who can grasp the thrust of either's side of the argument and find common ground. By definition, the moderate doesn't favor one side of the argument or the other. Whether we are talking about ideology or implementation is immaterial. Moderates seek compromise... whether the compromise takes place on the ideological or practical levels.

I can also see your point about being right getting you something in some cases, and I'm trying to think of an example. But in general it does seem as if the act of watering something down in order to make it more palatable could actually render it completely useless. I apologize for this being muddled -- it's the cold medicine.

This is precisely my point. Watering down something in order to make it palatable can render it completely useless.

Compromise is not the perfect state of being.

Compromise is often the tie-breaker we need to get by, but compromise is an eunnuch without radical thought.

When you were a kid and you joined a friend on a see-saw, you may have (on occassion) sought for the equilbrium that left you balanced at the same point, but would you have ever got on the ride if that was all that might happen? The see-saw has no fun unless it can be pushed one way or the other.

When you were a kid and you joined a friend on a see-saw, you may have (on occassion) sought for the equilbrium that left you balanced at the same point, but would you have ever got on the ride if that was all that might happen? The see-saw has no fun unless it can be pushed one way or the other.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Ok, here goes, and I'll try to be more lucid.

I understand Lash's definition of moderate to be someone who holds views from each side. What I think I hear you saying is that a moderate is one whose views themselves are in the middle. My example was someone who believes the government should do something to help the poorest among us but who believes that the current way we do that fails miserably and actually contributes to their hardship. So it's sort of agreeing with the ideals but disagreeing with the implementation. Maybe that's not quite what you had in mind.

No it's not. A moderate is someone who can grasp the thrust of either's side of the argument and find common ground. By definition, the moderate doesn't favor one side of the argument or the other. Whether we are talking about ideology or implementation is immaterial. Moderates seek compromise... whether the compromise takes place on the ideological or practical levels.

I can also see your point about being right getting you something in some cases, and I'm trying to think of an example. But in general it does seem as if the act of watering something down in order to make it more palatable could actually render it completely useless. I apologize for this being muddled -- it's the cold medicine.

This is precisely my point. Watering down something in order to make it palatable can render it completely useless.

Compromise is not the perfect state of being.

Compromise is often the tie-breaker we need to get by, but compromise is an eunnuch without radical thought.

When you were a kid and you joined a friend on a see-saw, you may have (on occassion) sought for the equilbrium that left you balanced at the same point, but would you have ever got on the ride if that was all that might happen? The see-saw has no fun unless it can be pushed one way or the other.

Ah yes, compromise is a tragedy. It's hard to imagine that two or more thoughtful groups could actually synthesize a superior idea or policy from their divergent experiences or beliefs. It's likely that most agreements between such people (agreements brokered by nasty moderates) are merely watered down cat urine instead of the result of constructive debate and learning. Of course, that's why democracy is so disfavored among civilized people -- we are all better off without all the talking, compromise, political debate and all that other crap . It's best that extremists from divergent poles remain like oil and water, never attempting to learn from one another, and forcing their ideas upon each other unilaterally.
:wink:

Steppenwolf wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Ok, here goes, and I'll try to be more lucid.

I understand Lash's definition of moderate to be someone who holds views from each side. What I think I hear you saying is that a moderate is one whose views themselves are in the middle. My example was someone who believes the government should do something to help the poorest among us but who believes that the current way we do that fails miserably and actually contributes to their hardship. So it's sort of agreeing with the ideals but disagreeing with the implementation. Maybe that's not quite what you had in mind.

No it's not. A moderate is someone who can grasp the thrust of either's side of the argument and find common ground. By definition, the moderate doesn't favor one side of the argument or the other. Whether we are talking about ideology or implementation is immaterial. Moderates seek compromise... whether the compromise takes place on the ideological or practical levels.

I can also see your point about being right getting you something in some cases, and I'm trying to think of an example. But in general it does seem as if the act of watering something down in order to make it more palatable could actually render it completely useless. I apologize for this being muddled -- it's the cold medicine.

This is precisely my point. Watering down something in order to make it palatable can render it completely useless.

Compromise is not the perfect state of being.

Compromise is often the tie-breaker we need to get by, but compromise is an eunnuch without radical thought.

When you were a kid and you joined a friend on a see-saw, you may have (on occassion) sought for the equilbrium that left you balanced at the same point, but would you have ever got on the ride if that was all that might happen? The see-saw has no fun unless it can be pushed one way or the other.

Ah yes, compromise is a tragedy. It's hard to imagine that two or more thoughtful groups could actually synthesize a superior idea or policy from their divergent experiences or beliefs. It's likely that most agreements between such people (agreements brokered by nasty moderates) are merely watered down cat urine instead of the result of constructive debate and learning. Of course, that's why democracy is so disfavored among civilized people -- we are all better off without all the talking, compromise, political debate and all that other crap . It's best that extremists from divergent poles remain like oil and water, never attempting to learn from one another, and forcing their ideas upon each other unilaterally.
:wink:

Ah yes, an ironic pseudo-intellectual, albeit self gratifying, response.

Try and read what is being written rather than simply looking to your stock Liberal responses of row A; column B.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah Steppenwolf. (Can there be a more pseudo-intellectual moniker than that hijacked from Hermann Hesse?)

Of course no one on A2K is capable of the subtlly of thought of a Steppenwolf who treads upon the battlefield with sweeping mace.

Ad hominem.

Steppenwolf wrote:

Ad hominem.

Thus sprach Steppenwolf. Of course an allegation of ad hominem can be, of itself, an ad hominem attack.

The problem with ad hominem attacks is that they focus on the speaker rather than what has been spoken. Of course this implies that what has been spoken has a sliver of substance. Without substance of comment, one is left to comment on the person bellowing hot air. (Smarmy comment and all).

Present, Steppenwolf, an argument that addresses the points made, rather than a smart-ass pointless riff and I might be able to confront your arguments rather than your person. Until then you attract only the ad hominem...or dismissal.

I suspect you prefer the former [ad hominem] to the latter [dismissal].

The cities have turned into jungles
And corruption is stranglin' the land
The police force is watching the people
And the people just can't understand
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole world's got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner we can't pay the cost