Moderates
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2013, 11:23 AM
Moderates
Sometimes when I get into a political debate with someone, the other person proposes the canard that the best solution is to be found through compromise.

Simple logic shows this isn't always the case. For example, if someone proposed a certain genocidal plan, it wouldn't be reasonable to say that 100,000 individuals should be killed rather than 200,000.

Still, people make a living out of being a bliss ninny in the political media. They pretend like there aren't intractable issues that need to be addressed in a way that leaves a significant portion of politicians out in the cold.

(Note that I'm not specifying my own political beliefs in the OP, lest I alienate a thoughtful reader.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 12:46 PM
RE: Moderates
Fair statements. Hard to disagree.

Did you have a debate point?

Huh

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 01:19 PM
RE: Moderates
(14-08-2013 12:46 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Fair statements. Hard to disagree.

Did you have a debate point?

Huh

My debate point could be that political moderates are often sanctimonious and smug.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 01:49 PM
RE: Moderates
(14-08-2013 01:19 PM)mylittlepretender Wrote:  
(14-08-2013 12:46 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Fair statements. Hard to disagree.

Did you have a debate point?

Huh

My debate point could be that political moderates are often sanctimonious and smug.

Chas? You there? This one is for you, I think.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 01:59 PM
RE: Moderates
(14-08-2013 01:19 PM)mylittlepretender Wrote:  
(14-08-2013 12:46 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Fair statements. Hard to disagree.

Did you have a debate point?

Huh

My debate point could be that political moderates are often sanctimonious and smug.

Do you have examples? And are you conflating the ideas of moderate and compromise?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
14-08-2013, 02:00 PM
RE: Moderates
(14-08-2013 01:49 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(14-08-2013 01:19 PM)mylittlepretender Wrote:  My debate point could be that political moderates are often sanctimonious and smug.

Chas? You there? This one is for you, I think.

Big Grin

But I'm not a moderate. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
14-08-2013, 02:29 PM
RE: Moderates
(14-08-2013 01:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-08-2013 01:19 PM)mylittlepretender Wrote:  My debate point could be that political moderates are often sanctimonious and smug.

Do you have examples? And are you conflating the ideas of moderate and compromise?

Providing examples would probably reveal my political leanings, but what the hay?

Is there anything that the US Congress can agree on? A few years ago, the Republicans pitched a huge tantrum about the dept ceiling, even though legislation that raised the debt ceiling passed literally dozens of times in the years past without issue. It's like they don't realize that they're the ones who are in control of taxing and spending. It also seems they don't know what default is.

Any piece of journalism on that issue should have mentioned those details, and any reasonable reader would have realized that the R's were being totally fucking insane. That's what I mean by political moderates being sanctimonious and smug. They're too focused on being balanced rather than objective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 05:28 PM
RE: Moderates
I've always disliked moral moderates. Such as those who are against abortion and yet don't want to force themselves onto others. I dislike them more then most pro choice advocates. They see an injustice and yet feel no need to do anything.
As Jesus said be either hot or cold if you are lukewarm I will spit you from my mouth.

However, not all compromise is moderate. Compromise, especially financial compromise can be very effective to break deadlocks so that both sides get something. An example of this was William Lyon Mackenzie King, the prime minister of canada, who resided to deal with the conscription crises by making a conscription for home defense, were the troops would not go over seas. This freed up soldiers to go overseas and pleased the anti conscription group who did not want to fight a foreign war. He was known as a prime minister famous for straddling the fence and pleasing both sides. This shows the advantage of compromise as he was Canada's prime minster for 22 years, the longest of any prime minister.

Although having said all that, I would like to quote my friend Chris Roderick (one of those people who are always right and basically impossible to argue with) who said, "one day your going to have to get of the fence 'cause your ass is going to hurt".

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 06:30 PM
RE: Moderates
I agree making a King Solomon judgement (cutting down the middle) in EVERY case is ignorant and dangerous. But on trivial matters, when a (current or future) persons health, or safety, or dignity isn't on the line, the most expedient and generally the most likely fair approach is justifiable (the Solomon judgement).

Quote:Still, people make a living out of being a bliss ninny in the political media. They pretend like there aren't intractable issues that need to be addressed in a way that leaves a significant portion of politicians out in the cold.

If I understand this as a claim of immoral or ignorant people doing some harm to a wide group of people for money... yeah, people like that exist. And should always be kept in mind, and be on guard for (whether to counter or to simply not be a victim of).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 11:35 PM
RE: Moderates
(14-08-2013 11:23 AM)mylittlepretender Wrote:  Sometimes when I get into a political debate with someone, the other person proposes the canard that the best solution is to be found through compromise.

Simple logic shows this isn't always the case. For example, if someone proposed a certain genocidal plan, it wouldn't be reasonable to say that 100,000 individuals should be killed rather than 200,000.

Still, people make a living out of being a bliss ninny in the political media. They pretend like there aren't intractable issues that need to be addressed in a way that leaves a significant portion of politicians out in the cold.

(Note that I'm not specifying my own political beliefs in the OP, lest I alienate a thoughtful reader.)

Why would killing 100,000 necessarily be an unreasonable compromise?

When Democrats argue for increased spending on direct aid to the poor, they argue that any cuts or failures to increase direct aid results in starvation, sickness, and death. When Republicans argue for pro growth policies, they argue that any tax increases or regulatory burdens on business results in destruction of wealth and increase of poverty which in turn leads to starvation, sickness, and death.

The problem with partisan politics is that both sides believe they are on the right side of the 200,000 deaths versus none argument. On economic policy questions like the comparison of positions I make above, the right policy probably is a balance somewhere between the two policy preferences. Sometimes, one side might actually be more right than the other. But if you cannot convince the other party you are right, you may achieve no better outcome then to meet up part way between the positions.

Decisions of war often mean deciding which of your options is the least bad one. Truman had to decide whether to kill a couple hundred thousand by dropping nukes on Japan versus a less certain, but potentially more devastating, casualty count from an invasion. To this day, respectable opinions on both sides of the question debate whether dropping nukes was the right call.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: