Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Political Moderation
 Posts: 21,642
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/4/2011 4:49:14 PM Posted: 6 years ago Here's something that hasn't been given much attention on these forums. There's always threads about the extremes. Now, I'm no moderate by a long shot but I think discussion about the idea is important. Particularly, I'd like to like ask moderates why moderation is preferable to any pure-principled ideology that follows certain ideas to they're farthest conclusion. Why do conservatives sometimes approve of welfare? Why are progressives not Socialists?
|
 Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/4/2011 4:54:13 PM Posted: 6 years ago One generation's radical is another generation's moderate.
Open borders debate: http://www.debate.org... |
|
Posts: 21,642
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/4/2011 4:58:09 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 9/4/2011 4:54:13 PM, darkkermit wrote: Not necessary truly, if you're implying we are getting gradually more radical. There was considerably more radicalism in the 30s. |
 Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/4/2011 5:03:29 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 9/4/2011 4:49:14 PM, FREEDO wrote: Everything in moderation. If there was an ideology of perfection I would abandon my centrist position and join it, but that does not exist. There are flaws in the principles of Liberalism/conservatism and to adopt one ideology assumes that the ideology is truth or mostly true,.....then what is to be said of its critics and opponents? Of course Liberals hence believe conservatives are utter morons or are just confused and vice-versa. Political moderation allows for receptiveness and also quells the usually irrational bias. "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 |
 Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/4/2011 5:09:39 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 9/4/2011 5:03:29 PM, 000ike wrote: That is pretty much true. I also consider myself a moderate, but that's mainly because there's ideas I like from both side of the spectrum and as history as shown us extremes just don't work. |
|
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/4/2011 5:10:19 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 9/4/2011 4:58:09 PM, FREEDO wrote:At 9/4/2011 4:54:13 PM, darkkermit wrote: No I'm implying that ideas that were scene as radical become less radical, and thinking ideas in the past were good would be radical today. Radical ideas are just ideas that are far from mainstream. Open borders debate: http://www.debate.org... |
 Posts: 11,682
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/4/2011 5:18:53 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 9/4/2011 5:03:29 PM, 000ike wrote:At 9/4/2011 4:49:14 PM, FREEDO wrote: There are more positions then the simple left/ right spectrum. Syndicalism, left libertarianism, market libertarianism, polycentric order, exc. |
 Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/4/2011 5:29:06 PM Posted: 6 years ago Actually, the idea of poll moderation is flawed in and of itself. Most moderates I know are so wishy washy on the issues that to have an easily swayed moderate in power is not a desirable thing.
It's not about reciprocation, it's just all about me, a sycophantic, prophetic, Socratic junkie wannabe. - The 1975, "The Sound" |
|
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/4/2011 5:39:29 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 9/4/2011 5:29:06 PM, DetectableNinja wrote: How does that speak against the position of moderation? You have made the assumption or assertion that moderation equates to indecision. Moderation means that you may pick and choose which principles and which stances you agree with from multiple ideologies. Where is this indecision you're imagining? To follow 1 ideology makes way for bias and tenacity and receptiveness in ignorance, a very frustrating vice to productive political discourse. "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 |
|
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/4/2011 5:40:58 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 9/4/2011 5:39:29 PM, 000ike wrote:At 9/4/2011 5:29:06 PM, DetectableNinja wrote: fixed. "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 |
 Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/4/2011 5:55:32 PM Posted: 6 years ago Guiding principles are rationalism, pragmatism, and a general skepticism. I've been on both ends of the politician spectrum, and eventually settled in the middle after acknowledging that there is likely no one "golden path." For atheistic libertarians capitalism replaces God, and while I personally generally support capitalistic measures granted its success in modern democracies I'm well-aware of the potential abuses of power, environmental externalities, and that human beings are not perfectly rational beings.
Socially, I take a little bit from each side. I believe in gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research while also supporting less gun control, death penalty, and several other issues. Most of all, I reject this dichotomy of "left or right" frequently put forth in American politics and the fervent ideological divide of this nation that refuses to accept the opposing viewpoint as even remotely rational. |
 Posts: 19,305
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/4/2011 6:49:30 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 9/4/2011 4:49:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:There is no idea. Moderation isn't an ideology, it's a PC way of saying that your political views contradict each other. Guiding principles are rationalism, pragmatism, and a general skepticism.Rationalism and pragmatism are very different epistemologies. Generalized skepticism is self-refuting. For atheistic libertarians capitalism replaces GodThat doesn't even remotely make sense, capitalism isn't an entity, it's a state of affairs. It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man. |
|
Posts: 19,305
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/4/2011 6:50:44 PM Posted: 6 years ago Or depending how it's used can also be a political code of conduct. But it definitely can't be an entity.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man. |
|
Posts: 19,305
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/4/2011 6:51:18 PM Posted: 6 years ago With communists, for example, communism doesn't replace god-- the proletariat does.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man. |
|
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/4/2011 6:56:13 PM Posted: 6 years ago Rationalism and pragmatism are very different epistemologies. Generalized skepticism is self-refuting. Only I'm not really using rationalism in the traditional philoophical 17th-18th century meaning of the word. That doesn't even remotely make sense, capitalism isn't an entity, it's a state of affairs. You can have faith in both systems. |
 Posts: 710
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/4/2011 7:05:14 PM Posted: 6 years ago Moderate just means indecisive.
OK I don't believe that entirely but I don't think compromise is as great as people think. Compromise means everyone loses. However, if done properly compromise can achieve the best good. Take our current debt crisis. The compromises they have been coming up with really don't work. My compromise, Republicans cut war spending democrats cut social programs. I know I drifted off the original topic but it is somewhat related. Oh also, the Founding Fathers were radicals. You didn't build that-Obama It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike |
|
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/4/2011 7:22:52 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 9/4/2011 7:05:14 PM, BennyW wrote: Being a moderate does not equate to wanting compromise. Being moderate means that you accept certain stances from both sides and recognize the flaws in both ideologies, whereas the people who follow an ideology gung-ho ignore or know not its inaccuracies. Following an ideology assumes that it is mostly correct, and transitively assumes that its critics and opposition are mostly wrong. Yet, that is hardly ever the case. An ideology of perfection or near perfection does not exist. "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 |
 Posts: 388
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/4/2011 9:51:43 PM Posted: 6 years ago I sometimes think of myself as a moderate...I'm leaning towards Libertarian ideology, but that shall perhaps be discussed later.
On the issue of reiligion, I notice a lot of conservatives are Christians, and you simply can't be an athiest conservative anymore. I don't understand that. I'm a hardcore athiest and believe that religion in all of its forms has been keeping back mankind for hundreds of years. |
|
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
9/4/2011 9:56:12 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 9/4/2011 9:51:43 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote: I suppose that make sense despite being religiousy myself. I would expect somebody like you to be a social darwinist. |