Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do "extremist" views ever work?

themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 7:14:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
By "extremist" I don't necessarily mean terrorist sects of religion. What I mean by "extremist" is not taking any middle ground or compromising.

-For example, the first part of my sig, which states that morals (now specifically, I mean morals with no objective basis, but for arguments sake, let's just say any and all morals) inhibit man's full potential. Literally taken, that means that <b><u>all</u></b> morals are bad to human development. Not a majority, or minority, but all.

-For example, pure Libertarianism (or on the opposite end, you could say Communism). <b><u>Full</u></b> social liberties with Lassie-fare economics (that is to say <b><u>no</u></b> government oversight).

Does this idea of no middle ground/compromise in ideas ever work in reality?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 7:16:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, I guess HTML tags don't work anymore?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 7:31:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The ugliest of all logical fallacies is the appeal to moderation - such a thoughtless fallacy it is - substituting critical thought and contestation for the crude arithmetic of adding ideas together, then purporting some absurd superiority by averting argumentation.

Compromise has its place - that is with regard to issues that elicit no deep conviction from either party - but it is not in anyway inherently better than what you've dubbed "extremism."
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 7:51:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 7:31:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
The ugliest of all logical fallacies is the appeal to moderation - such a thoughtless fallacy it is - substituting critical thought and contestation for the crude arithmetic of adding ideas together, then purporting some absurd superiority by averting argumentation.

Compromise has its place - that is with regard to issues that elicit no deep conviction from either party - but it is not in anyway inherently better than what you've dubbed "extremism."

I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with one of your posts.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 8:01:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 7:31:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
The ugliest of all logical fallacies is the appeal to moderation - such a thoughtless fallacy it is - substituting critical thought and contestation for the crude arithmetic of adding ideas together, then purporting some absurd superiority by averting argumentation.

Compromise has its place - that is with regard to issues that elicit no deep conviction from either party - but it is not in anyway inherently better than what you've dubbed "extremism."

To be clear, you are only asserting that compromising is bad if it is done for the sole purpose of stopping the argument to decide who is better, because "arguing is bad", even though one of the sides is actually logically more sound than the other?

In other cases, whereby compromise fixes the logical issues with each side, you feel that it is good?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 10:38:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 7:31:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
The ugliest of all logical fallacies is the appeal to moderation - such a thoughtless fallacy it is - substituting critical thought and contestation for the crude arithmetic of adding ideas together, then purporting some absurd superiority by averting argumentation.

Compromise has its place - that is with regard to issues that elicit no deep conviction from either party - but it is not in anyway inherently better than what you've dubbed "extremism."

Well said.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 2:41:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 7:14:01 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
By "extremist" I don't necessarily mean terrorist sects of religion. What I mean by "extremist" is not taking any middle ground or compromising.

Does this idea of no middle ground/compromise in ideas ever work in reality?

Only extremist views work provided the two points between which you are drawing your scale are contradictory. Obviously you can draw a scale between two false or irrational positions and compromise may or may not do much harm or good.

In the case of politics, liberty does contradict guaranteed privileges (you can identify them when people say they have a right to have something that is not just a subtype of non-interference), i.e. "I have a right to healthcare", well not if a doctor has a right to not treat you, or even if a human has a right to not become a doctor.

Same deal with collectivism, can't have a right to do what you want if the collective somebody tries to lob you in with has a right to utilize you.

Unfortunately falsehood is the more potent component of any mix between truth and falsehood. Trying to mix any two contradictory courses of action because you it's too hard to find out what the real truth is will almost certainly lead to an outcome more similar to the wrong side than the right.

Your classic example is a fork in the road, you can go right or you can go left, but if you go down the middle you die.

You can set your course for Hawaii or Tokyo but if you pick a course in between you're just going to die in the arctic.

You can turn on the air brakes and try to land, or you can go full thrust for another pass but if you go 50% you will certainly fall off the carrier.

So you got to ask yourself in any situation, are the two options contradictory? Is there any reason to believe that the ideal lies between the extremes or is that just something your saying because there is no way to get the opposing side to concede completely?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 8:13:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 2:41:51 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

Your classic example is a fork in the road, you can go right or you can go left, but if you go down the middle you die.

You can set your course for Hawaii or Tokyo but if you pick a course in between you're just going to die in the arctic.

You can turn on the air brakes and try to land, or you can go full thrust for another pass but if you go 50% you will certainly fall off the carrier.

Wow. I made the thread on the basis of political ideologies and life philosophies. I never thought of looking at it from the perspective of an actual situation. Your examples were actually kind of humorous, since you really showed how taking the middle ground (literally taking the middle ground in that Hawaii/Tokyo example) can lead to horrible outcomes.


So you got to ask yourself in any situation, are the two options contradictory? Is there any reason to believe that the ideal lies between the extremes or is that just something your saying because there is no way to get the opposing side to concede completely?

The instant I read that, the reason behind the government shutdown came to mind.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 8:48:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 8:13:00 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 2:41:51 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

Your classic example is a fork in the road, you can go right or you can go left, but if you go down the middle you die.

You can set your course for Hawaii or Tokyo but if you pick a course in between you're just going to die in the arctic.

You can turn on the air brakes and try to land, or you can go full thrust for another pass but if you go 50% you will certainly fall off the carrier.

Wow. I made the thread on the basis of political ideologies and life philosophies. I never thought of looking at it from the perspective of an actual situation. Your examples were actually kind of humorous, since you really showed how taking the middle ground (literally taking the middle ground in that Hawaii/Tokyo example) can lead to horrible outcomes.

It's hard to see it, but political ideologies and life philosophies are actual situations. They affect some of the most important personal and public decisions we make.

I want to point out that I choose those examples to show how the middle way can be even worse than extremes, but far more common is the case that one extreme is good while the other is bad and as you go from the right side to the wrong side things just get worse.

Sometimes people try to dichotomize things that aren't truly contradictory as well and you need to be on the watch for that. My favorite example of that in the realm of politics is size of government vs personal freedom. They aren't contradictory and you don't need to be an anarchist to want the extreme personal freedom.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 8:52:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 8:48:54 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
My favorite example of that in the realm of politics is size of government vs personal freedom. They aren't contradictory and you don't need to be an anarchist to want the extreme personal freedom.

Welcome to my political ideology: Socialist economics, with libertarian freedoms.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 4:04:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The point is this, and only this: an appeal to compromise, or an argument toward the mean for the sake of its intermediacy, is fallacious.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 6:52:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 7:14:01 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
By "extremist" I don't necessarily mean terrorist sects of religion. What I mean by "extremist" is not taking any middle ground or compromising.

-For example, the first part of my sig, which states that morals (now specifically, I mean morals with no objective basis, but for arguments sake, let's just say any and all morals) inhibit man's full potential. Literally taken, that means that <b><u>all</u></b> morals are bad to human development. Not a majority, or minority, but all.

-For example, pure Libertarianism (or on the opposite end, you could say Communism). <b><u>Full</u></b> social liberties with Lassie-fare economics (that is to say <b><u>no</u></b> government oversight).

Does this idea of no middle ground/compromise in ideas ever work in reality?

Are you arguing that the complexities of the world call for reasoning from many paradigms, and that consistency within one label e.g., libertarianism, is needlessly constricting and cannot possibly hold in all situations, or are you simply smearing extremist ideas for being fringe?
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 8:14:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 6:52:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/28/2013 7:14:01 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
By "extremist" I don't necessarily mean terrorist sects of religion. What I mean by "extremist" is not taking any middle ground or compromising.

-For example, the first part of my sig, which states that morals (now specifically, I mean morals with no objective basis, but for arguments sake, let's just say any and all morals) inhibit man's full potential. Literally taken, that means that <b><u>all</u></b> morals are bad to human development. Not a majority, or minority, but all.

-For example, pure Libertarianism (or on the opposite end, you could say Communism). <b><u>Full</u></b> social liberties with Lassie-fare economics (that is to say <b><u>no</u></b> government oversight).

Does this idea of no middle ground/compromise in ideas ever work in reality?

Are you arguing that the complexities of the world call for reasoning from many paradigms, and that consistency within one label e.g., libertarianism, is needlessly constricting and cannot possibly hold in all situations, or are you simply smearing extremist ideas for being fringe?

I'm not asserting that overly restricting, or overly permissive ideas don't work, I'm merely asking if they ever have worked in the real world?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 8:28:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 8:14:07 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/29/2013 6:52:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/28/2013 7:14:01 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
By "extremist" I don't necessarily mean terrorist sects of religion. What I mean by "extremist" is not taking any middle ground or compromising.

-For example, the first part of my sig, which states that morals (now specifically, I mean morals with no objective basis, but for arguments sake, let's just say any and all morals) inhibit man's full potential. Literally taken, that means that <b><u>all</u></b> morals are bad to human development. Not a majority, or minority, but all.

-For example, pure Libertarianism (or on the opposite end, you could say Communism). <b><u>Full</u></b> social liberties with Lassie-fare economics (that is to say <b><u>no</u></b> government oversight).

Does this idea of no middle ground/compromise in ideas ever work in reality?

Are you arguing that the complexities of the world call for reasoning from many paradigms, and that consistency within one label e.g., libertarianism, is needlessly constricting and cannot possibly hold in all situations, or are you simply smearing extremist ideas for being fringe?

I'm not asserting that overly restricting, or overly permissive ideas don't work, I'm merely asking if they ever have worked in the real world?

Well, by definition "overly restrictive/permissive ideas" don't work, or at least don't work very well. Do you mean that you aren't asserting that ideologies are overly restrictive/permissive?
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 9:13:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 8:14:07 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
I'm not asserting that overly restricting, or overly permissive ideas don't work, I'm merely asking if they ever have worked in the real world?

And you have been answered: favoring a "middle ground" simply because of its "middle-ness", or rejecting an "extreme" simply because of its "extremity" is a fallacy. Compromise does not approximate correctness any more than does setting myself on fire at the North Pole approximate a tropical paradise! This line of inquiry should be satisfied by that observation.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 9:38:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 9:13:00 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 10/29/2013 8:14:07 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
I'm not asserting that overly restricting, or overly permissive ideas don't work, I'm merely asking if they ever have worked in the real world?

And you have been answered: favoring a "middle ground" simply because of its "middle-ness", or rejecting an "extreme" simply because of its "extremity" is a fallacy. Compromise does not approximate correctness any more than does setting myself on fire at the North Pole approximate a tropical paradise! This line of inquiry should be satisfied by that observation.

I understand that, as I have found the logical fallacy that is associated with it. I was just clarifying what my original post was about to him.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 9:57:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Although, now that I think about it.

Two of the people that have posted asserted two similar points, neither of which really answered the question.

One showed that a middle approach can have major consequences, and the other showing that compromise is a logical fallacy.

My original question was not whether or not it is logical, but if there are any examples in history of when "extremist" views have worked?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 9:58:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 9:38:28 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
I understand that, as I have found the logical fallacy that is associated with it. I was just clarifying what my original post was about to him.

Well, to be pedantic, the middle-ground fallacy isn't strictly a logical fallacy; it is instead an informal fallacy, because its error is not one of formal deduction, but of discursive irrelevance.

But this aside, do you see how the closing question of your OP* would lead the reader to believe that its author isn't really appreciating the fallacy of middle-ground arguments? The question seems to be associating the moderateness of a position with its correctness or stability and the extremeness of a position with less probable correctness or stability, and if one sees the fallacy in that association, this removes the motivation to ask such a question.

*"Does this idea of no middle ground/compromise in ideas ever work in reality?"
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 10:02:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 9:57:56 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
My original question was not whether or not it is logical, but if there are any examples in history of when "extremist" views have worked?

The point is that whether they have worked or not is a matter separate from their extremeness. It's comparable to asking, "Have boot-wearing men ever won a military battle in the course of history?"

There is no pertinent relation between the two emphasized parts of the question.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 10:02:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 9:58:38 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 10/29/2013 9:38:28 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
I understand that, as I have found the logical fallacy that is associated with it. I was just clarifying what my original post was about to him.

Well, to be pedantic, the middle-ground fallacy isn't strictly a logical fallacy; it is instead an informal fallacy, because its error is not one of formal deduction, but of discursive irrelevance.

But this aside, do you see how the closing question of your OP* would lead the reader to believe that its author isn't really appreciating the fallacy of middle-ground arguments? The question seems to be associating the moderateness of a position with its correctness or stability and the extremeness of a position with less probable correctness or stability, and if one sees the fallacy in that association, this removes the motivation to ask such a question.

*"Does this idea of no middle ground/compromise in ideas ever work in reality?"

Yeah, true. The more I think about it, the more I tend to agree that if there is a fundamental logical flaw on paper, than it can't work in the real world.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 10:17:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 10:02:39 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
Yeah, true. The more I think about it, the more I tend to agree that if there is a fundamental logical flaw on paper, than it can't work in the real world.

Who is it that you're tending to agree with, here? What I said doesn't really amount to that statement. It's fine if the remark is just an aside.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 10:20:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 10:17:20 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 10/29/2013 10:02:39 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
Yeah, true. The more I think about it, the more I tend to agree that if there is a fundamental logical flaw on paper, than it can't work in the real world.

Who is it that you're tending to agree with, here? What I said doesn't really amount to that statement. It's fine if the remark is just an aside.

I'm agreeing with you. I mis-read "do you see how the closing question of your OP* would lead the reader to believe that its author isn't really appreciating the fallacy of middle-ground arguments? " as just: " the closing question of your OP* would lead the reader to believe that its author isn't really appreciating the fallacy of middle-ground arguments."

I read it as a statement instead of a question, so I was agreeing with the statement more or less.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 4:54:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 9:57:56 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
Although, now that I think about it.

Two of the people that have posted asserted two similar points, neither of which really answered the question.

One showed that a middle approach can have major consequences, and the other showing that compromise is a logical fallacy.

My original question was not whether or not it is logical, but if there are any examples in history of when "extremist" views have worked?

I answered, I said only extremist views have worked. Every idea is the extreme opposite of anything mutually exclusive to it.

This idea of extremity vs moderation only has meaning in the context of human belief conflict. If I had a conflict with someone who said the best way to make tea is freezing the tea leaves in water and I said the best way is to boil them in water we are both extremist and my idea works and his doesn't.

Obviously boiling water and freezing it are contradictory operations, they cannot both be performed so indeed my idea is incompatible with his and his with mine and any compromise would be quite silly and not work.

But the key question is: is the idea of boiling tea leaves extreme unless someone thinks it is?

In the context of history whenever two sides of an issue have been at each others throats about which way works, and one does in fact work the other is forgotten about quickly. The impression pervades then that it was always so obvious, and there is nothing extreme at all about using a fire, carrying things in carts, building a boat, using currency, or having law protect rights.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 5:44:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 7:14:01 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
By "extremist" I don't necessarily mean terrorist sects of religion. What I mean by "extremist" is not taking any middle ground or compromising.

-For example, the first part of my sig, which states that morals (now specifically, I mean morals with no objective basis, but for arguments sake, let's just say any and all morals) inhibit man's full potential. Literally taken, that means that <b><u>all</u></b> morals are bad to human development. Not a majority, or minority, but all.

-For example, pure Libertarianism (or on the opposite end, you could say Communism). <b><u>Full</u></b> social liberties with Lassie-fare economics (that is to say <b><u>no</u></b> government oversight).

Does this idea of no middle ground/compromise in ideas ever work in reality?

Yes. Nazi Germany is my evidence for this.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 6:04:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 4:54:48 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

But the key question is: is the idea of boiling tea leaves extreme unless someone thinks it is?

By my definition, no, as 100 C isn't at either end of the universally possible temperatures. In the case of temperature, "extreme" would be more like the lowest possible temperature, or the highest.

That being said, at what point do you have 100% government oversight is a hard question to ask (unless I am missing something obvious).
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 8:58:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 6:04:50 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/30/2013 4:54:48 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

But the key question is: is the idea of boiling tea leaves extreme unless someone thinks it is?

By my definition, no, as 100 C isn't at either end of the universally possible temperatures. In the case of temperature, "extreme" would be more like the lowest possible temperature, or the highest.

That being said, at what point do you have 100% government oversight is a hard question to ask (unless I am missing something obvious).

The example was between two options, heating and cooling the water. Moderation would have been to do neither, or only slightly heat or only slightly cool. Neither of which would have achieved the state of boiling or the state of freezing.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 1:13:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Absolutely positively no, extremist views never ever work, they never have and the never will, they fundamentally cannot work. Anyone who disagrees with this obvious truth is a radical extremist and will burn in hell. :P
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 1:53:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"The word 'extremism' is meaningless. People don't devote themselves to being extreme. Extremism has no content. The extreme of what?"
-- Charles Krauthammer
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 1:58:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 7:14:01 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
pure Libertarianism (or on the opposite end, you could say Communism). <b><u>Full</u></b> social liberties with Lassie-fare economics (that is to say <b><u>no</u></b> government oversight).

Does this idea of no middle ground/compromise in ideas ever work in reality?

If Ron Paul was President with a red Congress like Obama had in '09/'10 you would find the United States on the quickest road to prosperity, liberty, and peace that we've ever seen and the size of the Federal government would be the size it was in the 1780s.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 3:24:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 7:14:01 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
By "extremist" I don't necessarily mean terrorist sects of religion. What I mean by "extremist" is not taking any middle ground or compromising.

-For example, the first part of my sig, which states that morals (now specifically, I mean morals with no objective basis, but for arguments sake, let's just say any and all morals) inhibit man's full potential. Literally taken, that means that <b><u>all</u></b> morals are bad to human development. Not a majority, or minority, but all.

-For example, pure Libertarianism (or on the opposite end, you could say Communism). <b><u>Full</u></b> social liberties with Lassie-fare economics (that is to say <b><u>no</u></b> government oversight).

Does this idea of no middle ground/compromise in ideas ever work in reality?

The Christian and Islam conquered the world through radicalization of people spiritual belief. shape many gods in to one and use it to project state authority (through a sense of morality). You can see people use less reasoning with religion overtime. In Roman time gods are worshiped because they granted wishes in return of scarifies, in Christian time god is worshiped because he is virtuous which isn't offer any reason yet it is more convincing and powerful. It became an important instrument of the state to project its power over people, a role fulfilled today by political ideologies i.e. democracy, communism, socialism, liberalism etc.

The name tag may be changed but their nature remain the same, an extreme idea for the leaders to manipulate their people.