Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

a million moderate march!

Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 9:38:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://www.courierpress.com...

who's side are you on? john stewarts march for taken it down a notch from extream and sometimes irrational views and fear mongering.

or stephen colberts keep fear alive march to freak out for freedom?

I was thinking I really like the idea of a rally were their are signs that say 'I am not afraid of muslims/tea partiers/socialist/gun owners/gays but and scared of spiders.' to send a message to 'the loud people' that who are not that far out their are hear but only until 6.
But then I got to thinking, that percent of America that is 'the loud people' are the same percent of the people who truly care. do we really want to march against the people who can 'keep fear alive' enough to get us worked up enough to care just enough to vote on the issue? to even devote thought to figuring out what we believe on it in the first place? cause when you dont care why do you need to waist time on having an opinion on the matter?
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 9:56:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lolwut?? You'd rather have people scare you into voting on an issue based on misinformation instead of reasoning out a position for yourself? Fear is in direct opposition to reason and logic and will almost always result in a step back as opposed to a step forward.

So to answer your question, John Stewart FTW!!!
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 10:48:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 9:56:25 AM, MikeLoviN wrote:
Lolwut?? You'd rather have people scare you into voting on an issue based on misinformation instead of reasoning out a position for yourself? Fear is in direct opposition to reason and logic and will almost always result in a step back as opposed to a step forward.

So to answer your question, John Stewart FTW!!!

I will always still reason it out for myself, just I need the motivation and passion speeches from the people that actually care to get me to bother too. I think the unreasonable loud people get us reasonable moderates to reasons with 'gusto' rather than reason with a 'eh' attitude.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 10:50:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 9:56:25 AM, MikeLoviN wrote:
Lolwut?? You'd rather have people scare you into voting on an issue based on misinformation instead of reasoning out a position for yourself? Fear is in direct opposition to reason and logic and will almost always result in a step back as opposed to a step forward.

So to answer your question, John Stewart FTW!!!

Seconded.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 11:04:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 10:48:57 AM, Marauder wrote:
I will always still reason it out for myself, just I need the motivation and passion speeches from the people that actually care to get me to bother too. I think the unreasonable loud people get us reasonable moderates to reasons with 'gusto' rather than reason with a 'eh' attitude.

That seems to be the problem with most of middle America. People just don't care until someone comes along to tug on their heartstrings. You can speak for yourself, but the fact is that a majority of common folk simply don't have the same capacity to reason as you might. These are the people who will jump on the first bandwagon that rolls by and then hold on for dear life. The Tea Party is only the most prominent example of this. The more educated people may see through the rhetoric but a lot of people out there actually believe things just because Glenn Beck or Keith Olberman said so. If you ask me, that's a pretty huge problem.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 11:50:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 10:50:06 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 9/18/2010 9:56:25 AM, MikeLoviN wrote:
Lolwut?? You'd rather have people scare you into voting on an issue based on misinformation instead of reasoning out a position for yourself? Fear is in direct opposition to reason and logic and will almost always result in a step back as opposed to a step forward.

So to answer your question, John Stewart FTW!!!

Seconded.

Must agree. Fear is not a good motivator and is not a good reason to do anything.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 11:51:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"I am a little afraid of some Muslims sorry, but I do like curry"

Is that moderate enough?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 11:55:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'll probably end up going, but I tend to really dislike most moderates. A common philosophy among moderates (from my experience) is that "the truth lies someone in the middle). This leads them to be wrong about almost everything, and usually without any justification for their beliefs.

That's not to say that there aren't some smart moderates.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 11:57:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 11:55:29 AM, Sam_Lowry wrote:
I'll probably end up going, but I tend to really dislike most moderates. A common philosophy among moderates (from my experience) is that "the truth lies someone in the middle). This leads them to be wrong about almost everything, and usually without any justification for their beliefs.

That's not to say that there aren't some smart moderates.

Actually I do find that the truth does often lay very much in the middle.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 11:59:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 11:57:17 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/18/2010 11:55:29 AM, Sam_Lowry wrote:
I'll probably end up going, but I tend to really dislike most moderates. A common philosophy among moderates (from my experience) is that "the truth lies someone in the middle). This leads them to be wrong about almost everything, and usually without any justification for their beliefs.

That's not to say that there aren't some smart moderates.

Actually I do find that the truth does often lay very much in the middle.

Centrist. :P
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 12:03:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 11:57:17 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/18/2010 11:55:29 AM, Sam_Lowry wrote:
I'll probably end up going, but I tend to really dislike most moderates. A common philosophy among moderates (from my experience) is that "the truth lies someone in the middle). This leads them to be wrong about almost everything, and usually without any justification for their beliefs.

That's not to say that there aren't some smart moderates.

Actually I do find that the truth does often lay very much in the middle.

Same. You can't just look at one side and deem that the truth. You must look at every side then draw what the truth is based on the rough sketch and what people agree on to be true. An example <sorry to bring up Hitler, maybe could have a better analogy, oh well>
Hitler was evil he killed millions of people and pread hatred and deception.
Hitler was a brilliant leader that helped Germany out of poverty and kept his promises to his people.
Conclusion:
Hitler helped his people out of poverty, but he also killed millions in the process. The end was a good cause, but not the means.

Its a basic excercise my pyschologist made me do. If I used examples fro mour meetings, I'd be scared they are too personal.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 12:25:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 12:03:22 PM, lovelife wrote:
Same. You can't just look at one side and deem that the truth. You must look at every side then draw what the truth is based on the rough sketch and what people agree on to be true. An example <sorry to bring up Hitler, maybe could have a better analogy, oh well>
Hitler was evil he killed millions of people and pread hatred and deception.
Hitler was a brilliant leader that helped Germany out of poverty and kept his promises to his people.
Conclusion:
Hitler helped his people out of poverty, but he also killed millions in the process. The end was a good cause, but not the means.

Its a basic excercise my pyschologist made me do. If I used examples fro mour meetings, I'd be scared they are too personal.

Just because you must look at both sides doesn't mean that one has any inherent truth value. For example, your Hitler analogy is bullsh*t. Hitler was an idiot who was pretty charismatic and got lucky. Virtually no one believes their own actions to be evil, so to simply say that since Hitler thought he was doing the right thing has no bearing on the consequences or morality of what he actually did. Contention one is not even contradicted by contention two, so the argument itself fails even if we are to assume contention two was true.

I beleive that no one should be killed because they are Jewish. Hitler beleives that all Jewish people should die. Clearly the truth does not lie in the middle.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 12:29:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 12:25:38 PM, Sam_Lowry wrote:
At 9/18/2010 12:03:22 PM, lovelife wrote:
Same. You can't just look at one side and deem that the truth. You must look at every side then draw what the truth is based on the rough sketch and what people agree on to be true. An example <sorry to bring up Hitler, maybe could have a better analogy, oh well>
Hitler was evil he killed millions of people and pread hatred and deception.
Hitler was a brilliant leader that helped Germany out of poverty and kept his promises to his people.
Conclusion:
Hitler helped his people out of poverty, but he also killed millions in the process. The end was a good cause, but not the means.

Its a basic excercise my pyschologist made me do. If I used examples fro mour meetings, I'd be scared they are too personal.

Just because you must look at both sides doesn't mean that one has any inherent truth value. For example, your Hitler analogy is bullsh*t. Hitler was an idiot who was pretty charismatic and got lucky. Virtually no one believes their own actions to be evil, so to simply say that since Hitler thought he was doing the right thing has no bearing on the consequences or morality of what he actually did. Contention one is not even contradicted by contention two, so the argument itself fails even if we are to assume contention two was true.


Hitler was pretty smart and knew how to decieve people. Thats true of most politians.

I beleive that no one should be killed because they are Jewish. Hitler beleives that all Jewish people should die. Clearly the truth does not lie in the middle.

Eh, some jewish people should die. Thats true of almost every group of people. Thats not to say they should die *just* because they are jewish.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 12:37:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
. : At 9/18/2010 12:29:11 PM, lovelife wrote:
Hitler was pretty smart and knew how to decieve people. Thats true of most politians.

It took no effort to deceive people as desperate as the Germans were post WWI. Anti-Semitism was not a radical new idea that Hitler spontaneously distributed to the masses.

I beleive that no one should be killed because they are Jewish. Hitler beleives that all Jewish people should die. Clearly the truth does not lie in the middle.

Eh, some jewish people should die. Thats true of almost every group of people. Thats not to say they should die *just* because they are jewish.

That was not the argument. The argument was whether anyone should die because they are Jewish. Either no one dies because they are Jewish, some people die because they are Jewish, or everyone dies because they are Jewish
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 1:05:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 12:37:09 PM, Sam_Lowry wrote:
. : At 9/18/2010 12:29:11 PM, lovelife wrote:
Hitler was pretty smart and knew how to decieve people. Thats true of most politians.

It took no effort to deceive people as desperate as the Germans were post WWI. Anti-Semitism was not a radical new idea that Hitler spontaneously distributed to the masses.


Eh, true enough. He was still able to keep his promises, and was clever enough about what he said and did to have people debate on his faith to this day.

I beleive that no one should be killed because they are Jewish. Hitler beleives that all Jewish people should die. Clearly the truth does not lie in the middle.

Eh, some jewish people should die. Thats true of almost every group of people. Thats not to say they should die *just* because they are jewish.

That was not the argument. The argument was whether anyone should die because they are Jewish. Either no one dies because they are Jewish, some people die because they are Jewish, or everyone dies because they are Jewish

If they are radical jews that stone gays to the death, burn children and animals as sacrifices to god, or any other radical jewish practice that harms others then sure they should be killed. I have no doubt that they exist, so yes, some jews should die because of their *jewish* actions.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 1:20:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 1:05:43 PM, lovelife wrote:

Eh, true enough. He was still able to keep his promises, and was clever enough about what he said and did to have people debate on his faith to this day.

If they are radical jews that stone gays to the death, burn children and animals as sacrifices to god, or any other radical jewish practice that harms others then sure they should be killed. I have no doubt that they exist, so yes, some jews should die because of their *jewish* actions.

Still does not follow. You are arguing that they should be killed because of their actions, not becaues they are Jewish. Clearly you are saying that people who stone people to death or kill children should be executed, not just the Jewish ones.

The fact that you are still trying to defend your logic astounds me. Let's assume that I made some kind of semantic mistake and your argument is valid. Instead I'll just say "I do not believe that anyone should be killed because of their Jewish beliefs" and Hitler says "I believe anyone with Jewish beliefs should die [because of their beliefs]".
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 2:42:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 11:59:49 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 9/18/2010 11:57:17 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/18/2010 11:55:29 AM, Sam_Lowry wrote:
I'll probably end up going, but I tend to really dislike most moderates. A common philosophy among moderates (from my experience) is that "the truth lies someone in the middle). This leads them to be wrong about almost everything, and usually without any justification for their beliefs.

That's not to say that there aren't some smart moderates.

Actually I do find that the truth does often lay very much in the middle.

Centrist. :P

Hey, hey. I'm a centrist too. :P http://www.debate.org...

Anyway, centrism seems like the most reasonable position to take. Extremism never solved anything.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 2:46:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 2:42:20 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/18/2010 11:59:49 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 9/18/2010 11:57:17 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/18/2010 11:55:29 AM, Sam_Lowry wrote:
I'll probably end up going, but I tend to really dislike most moderates. A common philosophy among moderates (from my experience) is that "the truth lies someone in the middle). This leads them to be wrong about almost everything, and usually without any justification for their beliefs.

That's not to say that there aren't some smart moderates.

Actually I do find that the truth does often lay very much in the middle.

Centrist. :P

Hey, hey. I'm a centrist too. :P http://www.debate.org...

Don't worry, it was only a joke! :D

Anyway, centrism seems like the most reasonable position to take. Extremism never solved anything.

I'm left-Libertarian... And I don't see that as an "extreme"... But I do support Jon Stewart's march. The way he announced it made it so much better...

My favorite part was this-

Jon Stewart: Now, you may be asking yourself if you're the right person to go to this march. And the very fact that you asked yourself this question, instead of grabbing the closest stack of burnable holy books, strapping on a diaper and pointing your car for D.C., probably means that you could go.

ROFLMAO
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Anarcho
Posts: 887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 2:46:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 2:42:20 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/18/2010 11:59:49 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 9/18/2010 11:57:17 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/18/2010 11:55:29 AM, Sam_Lowry wrote:
I'll probably end up going, but I tend to really dislike most moderates. A common philosophy among moderates (from my experience) is that "the truth lies someone in the middle). This leads them to be wrong about almost everything, and usually without any justification for their beliefs.

That's not to say that there aren't some smart moderates.

Actually I do find that the truth does often lay very much in the middle.

Centrist. :P

Hey, hey. I'm a centrist too. :P http://www.debate.org...

Anyway, centrism seems like the most reasonable position to take. Extremism never solved anything.

Said the Conservative. :P
InsertNameHere wrote: "If we evolved from apes then why are apes still around?

This is semi-serious btw. It's something that seems strange to me. You'd think that entire species would cease to exist if other ones evolved from them."

Anarcho wrote: *facepalm*
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 2:47:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 2:46:31 PM, annhasle wrote:

I'm left-Libertarian... And I don't see that as an "extreme"... But I do support Jon Stewart's march. The way he announced it made it so much better...

It depends how libertarian you are.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 2:48:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 2:47:44 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/18/2010 2:46:31 PM, annhasle wrote:

I'm left-Libertarian... And I don't see that as an "extreme"... But I do support Jon Stewart's march. The way he announced it made it so much better...

It depends how libertarian you are.

http://www.debate.org...
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Anarcho
Posts: 887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 2:49:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 2:48:27 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/18/2010 2:46:52 PM, Anarcho wrote:

Said the Conservative. :P

I'm actually more moderate than conservative. Lrn2politics.

Can you stay the same thing for a week?
InsertNameHere wrote: "If we evolved from apes then why are apes still around?

This is semi-serious btw. It's something that seems strange to me. You'd think that entire species would cease to exist if other ones evolved from them."

Anarcho wrote: *facepalm*
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 2:50:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 2:48:58 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 9/18/2010 2:47:44 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/18/2010 2:46:31 PM, annhasle wrote:

I'm left-Libertarian... And I don't see that as an "extreme"... But I do support Jon Stewart's march. The way he announced it made it so much better...

It depends how libertarian you are.

http://www.debate.org...

Hmm...you're not right at the bottom. Being right at the bottom would be extremism. :P
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 2:55:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 2:50:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/18/2010 2:48:58 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 9/18/2010 2:47:44 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/18/2010 2:46:31 PM, annhasle wrote:

I'm left-Libertarian... And I don't see that as an "extreme"... But I do support Jon Stewart's march. The way he announced it made it so much better...

It depends how libertarian you are.

http://www.debate.org...

Hmm...you're not right at the bottom. Being right at the bottom would be extremism. :P

<shrugs> Sure. But I think that any party (even Centrists) have the possibility of being "eccentric" or "extreme". It's what you compare it to. But when it comes to most Moderates... I haven't found their policies to be the strongest. I usually see them as Bi-Partisan compromises that end up costing money and solving 5% of the problem... I don't care what party initiates it, but could something get passed that actually helps the US? Do we really have to be in policy gridlock when we're in a war and have a sh!t economy? Come on....
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 2:58:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 2:55:57 PM, annhasle wrote:

<shrugs> Sure. But I think that any party (even Centrists) have the possibility of being "eccentric" or "extreme". It's what you compare it to. But when it comes to most Moderates... I haven't found their policies to be the strongest. I usually see them as Bi-Partisan compromises that end up costing money and solving 5% of the problem... I don't care what party initiates it, but could something get passed that actually helps the US? Do we really have to be in policy gridlock when we're in a war and have a sh!t economy? Come on....

Well I don't really fit into any party platform myself so I try to stay away from party politics anyway. My views are literally all over the place, especially on social issues. I'm quite liberal on some social issues while being conservative on others.