Sometimes extreme becomes radical, even heretical. Recall the Donatist movement..early Christians who refused the sacrament from any priest or bishop who had recanted under Roman persecution? They had the strength of their convictions. Neither Constantine nor St. Augustine could budge them. (they, along with Augustine's orthodox, disappeared in the Islamic flood) ..or the Cathars, that peaceful group termed heretical. They stood by their convictions as up to a million were slaughtered, the Pope's representative urging 'kill them all, God knows his own'. History is laden with groups considered 'extreme' and more often than not they paid a heavy price. Perhaps moderates prefer safety in numbers..Sgt Schultz, 'I know nothing!' sort of thing. Consider the rise of the Nazis..they were extreme, their only opponents a few socialists and professors (at the opposite extreme). The moderates stood by and became engulfed by the extreme. Tis an excellent question, one I suspect lies in the area of mixed opinion and one issue politics. Take the 2nd Amendment folks..their major concern is gun regulation, many have no interest in fiscal policy, foreign relations, abortion..other legitimate issues. And the answer may be that moderates possess no powerful convictions..they just get up, go to work, read the paper, go to PTA and get along without ulcers or high blood pressure-as immune to extremes as the Pillsbury do-boy was to getting finger-poked? Dunno, gotta think about it some...like why do we prefer moderate Muslims?
Z-man, I like the comment you left at my blog regarding the word "radical" -- seems it would fit in here:
Even the word radical doesn't always have a negative meaning, after all Martin Luther King was radical in his own day. A radical change could be a change for the better, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was radical too. Throwing words around, it's really about closing off debate is all.
The first saying comes from Rush but what I'm getting at here is what are you passionate about? what won't you yield on? and that's why moderates don't appeal to me as a rule.
Why thank you Beth or to put it another way I don't think it was the moderates who gave us civil rights. In my gut I just don't like moderates, they're just like a big bland middle if I could put my finger on it and the mods think of their big bland middle as being overly important and we should just all move there, to the big bland middle, the neighborhood without convictions, the town without too-hard principles but I guess what I'm getting at is why is it assumed exactly that moderation is so important to begin with? Frankly this is a topic that gets under my skin a little.
It is interesting that Soap references the book 'What it Means to be A Libertarian' by Charles Murray. Murray also wrote 'The Bell Curve-Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life'. The bell curve (or normal statistical distribution as the stat guys term it) applies in all sorts of data groupings in science, nature..and even politics. It is known that about 10-11% people are very conservative and 10-11% are very liberal..they are on each edge of the bell curve. In varying degrees, those we term moderate make up the greater central portion of the curve. We know those on each edge have powerful convictions and believe they are correct; we know they both detest the moderate/centrist majority. What we do not know and what we are trying to assess here is the motivation, or lack thereof, of this population. So, we can posit 1. lack of interest, 2. not wanting to commit for fear of being wrong, 3. feeling that both extremes go to far, 4. tepid agreement with some issues from each side, 5. a desire to remain uncontroversial..etc. I am sure there are more and my suggestions may or may not be apropos, but they exist..and they exist and great number. Back to you Z..:)
"We know those on each edge have powerful convictions and believe they are correct..."
Nothing against you personally BB, but I always love it when people try to put forth the notion that everyone's beliefs are their own and that no one of these beliefs is really true or correct. This mamby pamby idea that "Well you may think that's correct or that you are always right but I believe something different. It's not to say that what I think isn't right or correct."
This a fluke. There exists a true and correct belief. It is the one predicated on facts, reason, logic, etc.
The individual who holds that belief is the one having the correct belief or conviction. All others are in fact false. If no truly correct belief or conviction actually exists, then how would we ever come to acquire knowledge?
"If no truly correct belief or conviction actually exists, then how would we ever come to acquire knowledge?" ..er. by sticking to objective fact rather than subjective 'belief or conviction'?
And another thing, if 10 - 11% are very liberal, then how did they all wind up in public office at the federal level at the same time? And they also are all in the MSM and most of Hollywood, too???
I wrote extensively about this on an earlier Post, "A Question for Soapie", and do not really want to repeat it all here. It's just a little frustrating that no one is bothering to listen to me.
To give a really short answer, though, to the Question asked in this Post, every Moderate is going to have slightly different Convictions. Since Moderates have more of a tendency to Evaluate Each Issue Separately, whether that applying "All Inclusive" Ideas to everything, they have a Separate Conviction relating to each Separate Issue, so Yes, Moderates do have Convictions besides just the Conviction of Moderation.
By "All Inclusive" Ideas, I mean "Total Control" or "No Control at all" or "Excessive Regulation" or "No Regulation at all". These are the Extremes and if you think I have ever meant anything less than this when I talk about Extremes, than you have misunderstood me.
The unfortunate problem is that the word "Extreme", and apparently the Words "Compromise" and "Moderation" as well, have become "Emotionally Charged Words". That is words that stimulate a lot of Emotion and Defensiveness when ever they are used. Unfortunately, many people tend to tune out the Speaker or Writer when ever such words are spoken and it is really too bad that this occurs.
I don't know what to do about it because I feel as if I have been "Preaching to the Chior". Now Beth has this horrible habit of thinking that when I make the decision to take off and not say any more that what she has been saying has in some way been getting to me and she has won, yet it is quite frustrating to realize that I'm not being listened to and there has to be a point at which I do decide to quit talking.
BB & Beth, When I use the word "Extreme", I don't mean Radical. Radical is sometimes good and even Revolutionary. The confusion between these two words is at least part of the reason why I have been so misunderstood.
BB, The Position of Moderation isn't at all Safe. Just as Beth said, "Don't you have a saying about those in the middle of the road getting hit from both sides?"
Your point about "Moderate Muslims", though, shows exactly why being a Moderate is more positive than Negative. Extremists, for the most part, just stir up Conflict and Without the Moderates, our country would probably be currently engaging in another Civil War.Z-Man, On a Personal Level, there is a lot that I wouldn't yield on. I yield more Politically, because these issues involve more people than just me. I feel pretty strongly about the Abortion Issue as well because this has to do with the Innocent Life of someone who doesn't have a voice to defend oneself.
Z-Man, I just can't stop feeling amazed by what extent Moderates are Misunderstood. The very Question posed in this Post is an illustration of the most obvious Misconception. Moderates are not people without Convictions. Maybe I better repeat that. Moderates are not people without Convictions, and again, MODERATES ARE NOT PEOPLE WITHOUT CONVICTIONS. Why do you continue to think that?
And anyway, why would something so "Bland" "Get Under your Skin". Usually, that which is "Bland" is simply Boring, not Aggravating. If it "Gets Under your Skin", Z, than there must be some substance to it.
BB, Again, where do you get the idea that Moderates have a "Lack of Interest" or do "Not Want to Commit for Fear of being Wrong" or that they "Desire to Remain Uncontroversial"? If I desired to "Remain Uncontroversial", I certainly wouldn’t Comment on a page like this one in which the main opinions expressed are quite unfriendly to Moderates. I prefer the 3rd and 4th Motivations that you Listed; "3. feeling that both extremes go too far" and "4. tepid agreement with some issues from each side", though I prefer #3 to #4.
Soap, Actually, I agree that there is such a thing as Absolute Truth and not just Relative Truth, yet I base my Truth on what it written in the Bible, for a lot of people who are very good in relation to "Facts, Reason and Logic" disagree because there is so very little that can actually in reality be Absolutely Proved.
BB, It looks like you believe in Truth as well, for you have called it Objective Fact, yet once again, there is so very little that can really an actuality be Proved.
Beth has this horrible habit of thinking that when I make the decision to take off and not say any more that what she has been saying has in some way been getting to me and she has won, yet it is quite frustrating to realize that I'm not being listened to and there has to be a point at which I do decide to quit talking.Now you are just making things up, Lista.
Oh yeh!? I got this from a Conversation on another of Z-man's Posts, "Moral Instruction". On 2/17/2009, at 3:11 PM, you left the following Comment below this Linked Post...
"Hippy blog is on page 2, who is going to see anything I might add? We scared off Just Me guy and Lista along the way, maybe we got to them though, huh?"
While I'm here, I might as well repeat something that I just said on another earlier Post "A Question for Soapie".
"If this is a matter of Definition, than the Definition of Moderate is 'Restrained, Temperate, Keeping within REASONABLE Limits and one who avoids EXTREME Opinions and Actions.' I fail to see how this Definition Negates the presence of Convictions.
"Just because a person avoids Convictions that are EXTREME, does not mean that he/she Avoids ALL Convictions. Also, just because someone Keeps within 'Reasonable Limits' does not mean that He/she has NO Limits.
"This is Black and White/'All or Nothing' thinking, which I'm finding is the basic thinking pattern of most people who have Extreme Opinions."
Also,
"If Compromise is not a Virtue, than why is it necessary in order to Restore Broken Friendships and Marriages? Without Compromise, all that can result is more and more Conflict."
And
"Beth, One of the Definitions of Compromise, as listed in the Dictionary is 'a Settlement in which each side Makes Concessions' or 'an Adjustment of Opposing Principles or Systems', however, another Definition that is listed is 'a Settlement in which each side Gives up some Demands', so both of our definitions are listed there."
When we Push Our Ideas on Others, this is a "Demand" and Giving up this Demand is a Compromise. This fits with one of the Definitions of the word Compromise and it has nothing to do with Giving up one's Convictions.
PS - If I don't have any Convictions, than why do I have such a large amount to say in support of my Position? Also, if I don't have any Passion, than why do I bother to take the time to write the long Comments that I do?
OK List here's another main reason I have no use for moderates, the herd mentality. When everyone starts agreeing with the herd and BB just said way above here that the vast majority of us fall into this moderate category then to me that doesn't show real thinking just agreeing with each other because of social correctness. Latest poll on drinking, about 26% of us drink once a week and 6% say they down a couple every night. Well hardeeharhar, what a bunch of crap!! Heh, I'd bet most of us are alcoholics. I'm among that tiny fringe group that has at least a mixed drink or two most every night but I'm honest and would tell a pollster that. Gosh I HATE polls!
The other thing that bothers me about moderates, in fact it's a bug up my ass is their own sense of self-importance like if the party doesn't move in THEIR direction they'll lose election after election. Also how come you never really hear about the need for the Democratic Party to move in a more moderate direction? that lib pro-choicers should at least make some concessions to the pro-lifers and so at least move to the center? Here's the key and I want you to write this on the blackboard 10 times because class is now in session:
MODERATION IS MOST OFTEN CODE FOR BEING LIBERALit's used to make liberals not sound as scary.
Z-man, I must be a real odd ball as a Moderate, because if I had the "Herd Mentality", I don't think that I would bother talking so long with those who are not part of my "Herd". I talk to both Liberals and Conservatives and Debate quite often with those who disagree with me. Those with the "Herd Mentality" have more of a tendency to avoid such discussions. They just follow the crowd and don't say a whole lot that might cause conflict. I don't fit that profile at all.
The fact that the Republicans tend to Compromise more than the Democrats is indeed a problem and it is a valid reason for feeling a little resentment. In fact, I'm sure that this is exactly why the words Extreme, Moderate and Compromise have become "Emotionally Charged Words".
Where did Soapbox go? I don't agree with his thinking, but at least he gives well thought out arguments that make me think. Being asked to write something 10 times just makes me feel preached to.
Hmmm. Perhaps Z and I are in a little bit of a cat fight as well. I thought it was just Beth and I, but right now I'm not so sure. I wonder if I should go away awhile and let things cool down.
"if 10 - 11% are very liberal, then how did they all wind up in public office at the federal level at the same time?" Precisely the same way Ronald Reagan and Co. did. The huge center swings to and fro. (don't gnash your teeth, but the very liberal portion has doubled to 19% over the last dozen years)
Maybe an example would be the best way to explain my dislike for moderation in politics.
Let's take the issue of the bailouts. There are those of us who look at the Constitution and say, "where in this document do the bailouts fall under?" because you know the answer is NOWHERE and the bailouts disgust you because of that and because you know they won't work anyway.
So then the opposite opinion is that the bailouts are necessary and that it is the government's duty to do them to save us (even though there is no legal basis for them to say this and even though these sort of measures have never historically worked).
So then the moderate may come along and say that SOME bailouts are necessary (the crowd that cry that this business or that business is "too big to fail"), well then who decides which businesses should be helped and then you realize once you give to one, then a whole bunch of others will want the same (sound familiar??) But why even give the bailout side ANY bit of credibility by compromising on the issue and giving SOME bailouts?
Now Lista, I am not saying you specifically are in the middle on bailouts, its just a prime example of what happens when you don't stay true to a principle, you give the other side a foot in the door so to speak.
To be honest with you, Beth, I'm a little confused about the Bailout Issue, but one thing I definitely do know is that when they contain Pork, this is a horrible Evil.
I hope that a few Capital letters are Ok. Bailout Issue, Pork, Evil. Those are the Key words.
What's to be confused about? Ought we throw good money after bad? Should the Federal Government raise taxes, print money and thus raise inflation rates exponentially, borrow thus putting future taxpayers on the hook, all for the purposes of propping up a company or companies of their own choosing for little more than their own political gain?
In Capitalism, when companies make poor business decisions, they suffer the economic impact of those decisions and sometimes to such an extent that they end up going bankrupt.
In a mixed economy of which we have, when companies make poor business decisions, the Federal Government deems them "too big to fail" and props up this status quo with taxpayer dollars.
You are missing the point on both accounts Lista, one I do not care what you think about the bailouts, I only used it as an example of why moderation is stupid; and secondly I know a key word from the context without you having to capitalize them.
don't gnash your teeth, but the very liberal portion has doubled to 19% over the last dozen yearsThese people have been bought with tax breaks and bailouts, of course they turn liberal!
I just gotta get back to that poll about drinking again. Now common sense and life experience would kinda say most of us drink to some extent, could be a slight majority or solid majority but crap like only 26% of us drink at least once a week and only 6& drink every night, well that's still only 32% total of the population, the rest are Quakers I guess. Just putting into perspective modern statistics and polling and bell curves too but Beth should like the latest Gallup, 51% of us are finally pro-life,
I've always had this gut feeling that most of us drink. I just think that when everyone says they don't touch the stuff significant portions of the population are being downright dishonest.
If a few Bail Outs slow down the movement towards Depression, than it might be worth it. Just because you are convinced that it's not worth it, doesn't make it so.
I don't always assume that everything that is done is necessarily done for "their own political gain".
Whether or not these Companies go Bankrupt and get what they deserve, is not the issue. The well being of the Economy is the issue.
The confusion is whether or not it works and I'm sorry to say, but just because Soap said so is not enough for me.
Beth, I wonder if you realize how abrasive your comments are. It's almost as if you have a chip on your shoulder, especially in relation to me, but than again, I've often spoken of the need for tough skin when on the Blog-a-sphere. You are giving me lots of practice.
Just so that you know, though, I receive more from people who are less abrasive and those who are more gentle and respectful are much more likely to persuade me.
Z-man, I don't drink at all. In fact, I never have, with the exception of once or twice a year at most. The fact that I never have may make me an odd ball, but the fact that I do not drink currently is not odd at all. The churches are full of non-drinkers.
"If a few Bail Outs slow down the movement towards Depression, than it might be worth it. Just because you are convinced that it's not worth it, doesn't make it so."If one's premise is to stifle the government's ability to intervene into the private economy and to put a stop to government's exclusive monopoly of levying taxes to fill their coffers then by all means it very much is worth it.
As to your argument of forestalling a Depression, you are well aware are you not about the historical facts surrounding The New Deal are you not? The New Deal measures were aimed to do precisely what you've suggested. And, in fact they prolonged the Great Depression.
"Whether or not these Companies go Bankrupt and get what they deserve, is not the issue. The well being of the Economy is the issue."Allowing companies that are run in a piss poor fashion to go bankrupt is going to be much better for the economy than would be giving them billions of dollars only to then have the same damn idiots squander it away.
Can you say auto bailiouts which subsequently led to bankruptcy anyway?
Bankruptcy restructures the company to make it economically viable. Bailouts do nothing of the sort.
Like I said, Soap, I do not know enough about this issue to make an Informed Decision. I'm not really a threat to you, though, because if such an issue was on the ballet, I would either study it further or not vote.
Z, You know, you can't really judge how you feel about a Statistic on what occurs within your own circle of friends. People tend to hang around others who are like themselves, so it would make sense that most of the people that you know are drinkers.
Well I just think there's a social pressure to say the right thing to pollsters. You could do a poll on porn right now and probably most would say they don't watch it but that would contradict the multimillion or multibillion dollar profits of the industry. I do think a majority of us drink though. It's like with abortion, it's very fashionable of late to say the decision is the Woman's but that you're personally against it but if that were really the case our abortion rate wouldn't be through the roof. In my views most polls are perfectly useless.
The irony Lista is that I toned down what I really wanted to say to you for fear of coming on too strong...
As for polls, yeah, I can see what you mean, although some "analyst" thought Obama's poll numbers in the election were only because people wanted to sound like they aren't racists and that is only why his numbers were high, well guess what, those polls actually predicted the outcome of the election, it wasn't just people trying to sound hip to pollsters for a black man.
I have no idea how many people lie when they participate in polls and there is no way really to research it either, unless you were to actually spy on people in order to find out.
All I was saying is that you're surrounded by people who drink and I'm surrounded by those who don't, so in my world, it appears that the majority of us don't drink and in your world, it appears to be just the opposite. Who's right? Who knows? I guess this is just going to have to remain a mystery.
I'd hedge a bet that there are more people who drink than do not drink. Consider as well that even amongst those that "don't drink" they may very well receive communion during mass and thus have a sip of wine.
What's more, considering the propensity of our legislators to tax the hell out of alcohol, it figures there's got to be a sizeable percentage of the population boozing it up.
If I was an Extremist in relation to the subject of Alcohol, I would judge you guys for your drinking and have a Superior, "Holier than Thou" Attitude towards you. You know, like a "Goodie, Two Shoes". It just so happens that I believe in Moderation, so I guess my non-judgmental attitude is a negative. Whatever.
There are people who Drink in order to "Fit in with the Crowd". This is "Herd Mentality". The fact that I never did Drink or Smoke for the sake of fitting in was not "Herd Mentality".
I don't judge. Therefore, I'm not an Extremist. I don't fit into the Crowd, I mean "Herd". Does that mean that I'm also not a Moderate? Gee! I must be a hard one to categorize.
That's just the problem when we start to Categorize and Stereo Type groups. As soon as we do, we find all sorts of Odd Balls that don't fit any of the Stereo Types.
As to that study, though, if 26% drink once a week and 6% "down a couple every night", than the research does not include "casual drinkers" who only drink on special occasions, or in some cases, as little as once or twice a year, or less. If a person has had a total of 20 or 30 drinks throughout their entire life time, does that make the person a Drinker? How many drinks does it take in order to earn that title?
To respond to Soap, though. It is mainly the Catholics and I think the Episcopalians who use Wine for Communion. Most denominations use Grape Juice. The fact that I don't oppose Moderate Drinking makes me the Odd Ball in some circles.
These Extremist, that you guys seem to so admire, are quite judgmental towards people like you, because you do this "Horrible Thing" known as drinking.
Usually when I speak of Extremism, I'm not just thinking about people who have Strong Convictions, but people who are also Rudely Pushy and Judgmental because of their Convictions. You wouldn't want to meet some of these Extremists. You wouldn't like them. Trust me.
We need to be careful, because Extremism can lead to Judgmental Attitudes.
BTW I've no desire to join in the catfight, that's between the two of you. I've no beef with you Lista just talking in general and as for your use of the Caps this is blogging where you can pretty much do what you want and hone your own style.
For one thing, Z, there is no cat fight, that was a term Lista used, and I don't think that everytime two women disagree with each other, that it is a cat fight.
As for Capitalizing, of course its Lista's prerogative to use it excessively if she choses, as is it my prerogative to ignore her comments from here on out, because I find the overuse of Capitals (and italics) very distracting and a little self-indulgent (yes, got that from Simon).
Actually Beth, Z-man introduced the idea of a Cat Fight by submitting a comment once that said simply "Meow". Otherwise, I may not have noticed right away that our conversation had brief moments of, I don't know, perhaps less than fully polite dialogue. Or perhaps I should say dialogue that is a little knit picky.
I've been putting quotes in italics. I'm sorry that you don't like it, Beth. Blogging can at times be a lot of effort and trying to walk on egg shells in order to follow someone else's rules as to exactly how it should be done and what punctuation should be used makes it even harder. I'm beginning to think that you are being a little Judgmental towards me.
You are free to decide not to read my comments if that is your choice, but it seems a little childish, if you ask me.
Thanks Z-man, For sort of sticking up for me. Beth may or may not care about my reasons for using Capitals and various forms of punctuation so much, but I think that it is at least in part because there is absolutely no non-verbal language in written dialogue, not even the fluctuations of the voice and because of this, it is quite easy to be misunderstood. What Beth is trying to do is take away the only form of Non-Verbal language that is left.
I participate at times in the little "Cat Fight", perhaps more than I should. For example, maybe I shouldn't have said that her refusal to read my comments if I don't stop doing what she's decided she doesn't like is childish. I even paused and tried really hard to not say that, yet unfortunately, just like Beth, I have a tendency to speak my mind and I think that she does need to realize how she is coming across.
Perhaps we are too much alike and that's why we offend each other in the way that we do. I'm Ok, though. I don't have to ignore her and stop reading her comments. I've got tougher skin than that. I just have to remember to not take anything she says too personal.
Don't you have a saying about those in the middle of the road getting hit from both sides?
ReplyDeleteSometimes extreme becomes radical, even heretical. Recall the Donatist movement..early Christians who refused the sacrament from any priest or bishop
ReplyDeletewho had recanted under Roman persecution? They had the strength of their convictions. Neither Constantine nor St. Augustine could budge them. (they, along with Augustine's orthodox, disappeared in the Islamic flood)
..or the Cathars, that peaceful
group termed heretical. They stood by their convictions as up to a million were slaughtered, the Pope's representative urging 'kill them all, God knows his own'.
History is laden with groups considered 'extreme' and more often than not they paid a heavy price. Perhaps moderates prefer safety in numbers..Sgt Schultz,
'I know nothing!' sort of thing.
Consider the rise of the Nazis..they were extreme, their only opponents a few socialists and professors (at the opposite extreme). The moderates stood by and became engulfed by the extreme. Tis an excellent question, one I suspect lies in the area of mixed opinion and one issue politics. Take the 2nd Amendment folks..their major concern is gun regulation, many have no interest in fiscal policy, foreign relations, abortion..other legitimate issues. And the answer may be that moderates possess no
powerful convictions..they just get up, go to work, read the paper,
go to PTA and get along without ulcers or high blood pressure-as immune to extremes as the Pillsbury do-boy was to getting finger-poked? Dunno, gotta think about it some...like why do we prefer moderate Muslims?
Sometimes extreme becomes radicalWould you consider our Founding Fathers "radical" BB?
ReplyDeleteThose of us who just want our country to get back to the basics as intended by our Founding Fathers are no more radical than there were.
Z-man, I like the comment you left at my blog regarding the word "radical" -- seems it would fit in here:
ReplyDeleteEven the word radical doesn't always have a negative meaning, after all Martin Luther King was radical in his own day. A radical change could be a change for the better, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was radical too. Throwing words around, it's really about closing off debate is all.
-Z-man quote
The first saying comes from Rush but what I'm getting at here is what are you passionate about? what won't you yield on? and that's why moderates don't appeal to me as a rule.
ReplyDeleteWhy thank you Beth or to put it another way I don't think it was the moderates who gave us civil rights. In my gut I just don't like moderates, they're just like a big bland middle if I could put my finger on it and the mods think of their big bland middle as being overly important and we should just all move there, to the big bland middle, the neighborhood without convictions, the town without too-hard principles but I guess what I'm getting at is why is it assumed exactly that moderation is so important to begin with? Frankly this is a topic that gets under my skin a little.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that Soap references the book 'What it Means to be A Libertarian' by Charles Murray. Murray also wrote 'The Bell Curve-Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life'. The bell curve (or normal statistical
ReplyDeletedistribution as the stat guys term it) applies in all sorts of data
groupings in science, nature..and even politics. It is known that
about 10-11% people are very conservative and 10-11% are very liberal..they are on each edge of the bell curve. In varying degrees, those we term moderate
make up the greater central portion of the curve. We know those on each edge have powerful convictions and believe they are correct; we know they both detest the moderate/centrist majority.
What we do not know and what we are trying to assess here is the motivation, or lack thereof, of this population. So, we can posit
1. lack of interest, 2. not wanting to commit for fear of being wrong, 3. feeling that both extremes go to far, 4. tepid agreement with some issues from each side, 5. a desire to remain uncontroversial..etc. I am sure there are more and my suggestions
may or may not be apropos, but they exist..and they exist and great number. Back to you Z..:)
"We know those on each edge have powerful convictions and believe they are correct..."
ReplyDeleteNothing against you personally BB, but I always love it when people try to put forth the notion that everyone's beliefs are their own and that no one of these beliefs is really true or correct. This mamby pamby idea that "Well you may think that's correct or that you are always right but I believe something different. It's not to say that what I think isn't right or correct."
This a fluke. There exists a true and correct belief. It is the one predicated on facts, reason, logic, etc.
The individual who holds that belief is the one having the correct belief or conviction. All others are in fact false. If no truly correct belief or conviction actually exists, then how would we ever come to acquire knowledge?
"If no truly correct belief or conviction actually exists, then how would we ever come to acquire knowledge?" ..er. by sticking to
ReplyDeleteobjective fact rather than subjective 'belief or conviction'?
Hey, 'I Ain't Got No Blog'.
ReplyDelete..get a blog. :)
Hey BB getting back to your Bell Curve maybe those 10-11% are correct,
ReplyDeletethe conservatives of course.
Z, I was thinking the same thing, just because there is a majority doesn't mean they are correct.
ReplyDeleteAnd another thing, if 10 - 11% are very liberal, then how did they all wind up in public office at the federal level at the same time? And they also are all in the MSM and most of Hollywood, too???
ReplyDeleteI wrote extensively about this on an earlier Post, "A Question for Soapie", and do not really want to repeat it all here. It's just a little frustrating that no one is bothering to listen to me.
ReplyDeleteTo give a really short answer, though, to the Question asked in this Post, every Moderate is going to have slightly different Convictions. Since Moderates have more of a tendency to Evaluate Each Issue Separately, whether that applying "All Inclusive" Ideas to everything, they have a Separate Conviction relating to each Separate Issue, so Yes, Moderates do have Convictions besides just the Conviction of Moderation.
By "All Inclusive" Ideas, I mean "Total Control" or "No Control at all" or "Excessive Regulation" or "No Regulation at all". These are the Extremes and if you think I have ever meant anything less than this when I talk about Extremes, than you have misunderstood me.
The unfortunate problem is that the word "Extreme", and apparently the Words "Compromise" and "Moderation" as well, have become "Emotionally Charged Words". That is words that stimulate a lot of Emotion and Defensiveness when ever they are used. Unfortunately, many people tend to tune out the Speaker or Writer when ever such words are spoken and it is really too bad that this occurs.
I don't know what to do about it because I feel as if I have been "Preaching to the Chior". Now Beth has this horrible habit of thinking that when I make the decision to take off and not say any more that what she has been saying has in some way been getting to me and she has won, yet it is quite frustrating to realize that I'm not being listened to and there has to be a point at which I do decide to quit talking.
Now for the Comments...
ReplyDeleteBB & Beth,
When I use the word "Extreme", I don't mean Radical. Radical is sometimes good and even Revolutionary. The confusion between these two words is at least part of the reason why I have been so misunderstood.
BB,
The Position of Moderation isn't at all Safe. Just as Beth said, "Don't you have a saying about those in the middle of the road getting hit from both sides?"
Your point about "Moderate Muslims", though, shows exactly why being a Moderate is more positive than Negative. Extremists, for the most part, just stir up Conflict and Without the Moderates, our country would probably be currently engaging in another Civil War.Z-Man,
On a Personal Level, there is a lot that I wouldn't yield on. I yield more Politically, because these issues involve more people than just me. I feel pretty strongly about the Abortion Issue as well because this has to do with the Innocent Life of someone who doesn't have a voice to defend oneself.
Z-Man,
ReplyDeleteI just can't stop feeling amazed by what extent Moderates are Misunderstood. The very Question posed in this Post is an illustration of the most obvious Misconception. Moderates are not people without Convictions. Maybe I better repeat that. Moderates are not people without Convictions, and again, MODERATES ARE NOT PEOPLE WITHOUT CONVICTIONS. Why do you continue to think that?
And anyway, why would something so "Bland" "Get Under your Skin". Usually, that which is "Bland" is simply Boring, not Aggravating. If it "Gets Under your Skin", Z, than there must be some substance to it.
BB,
Again, where do you get the idea that Moderates have a "Lack of Interest" or do "Not Want to Commit for Fear of being Wrong" or that they "Desire to Remain Uncontroversial"? If I desired to "Remain Uncontroversial", I certainly wouldn’t Comment on a page like this one in which the main opinions expressed are quite unfriendly to Moderates. I prefer the 3rd and 4th Motivations that you Listed; "3. feeling that both extremes go too far" and "4. tepid agreement with some issues from each side", though I prefer #3 to #4.
Soap,
Actually, I agree that there is such a thing as Absolute Truth and not just Relative Truth, yet I base my Truth on what it written in the Bible, for a lot of people who are very good in relation to "Facts, Reason and Logic" disagree because there is so very little that can actually in reality be Absolutely Proved.
BB,
It looks like you believe in Truth as well, for you have called it Objective Fact, yet once again, there is so very little that can really an actuality be Proved.
Beth has this horrible habit of thinking that when I make the decision to take off and not say any more that what she has been saying has in some way been getting to me and she has won, yet it is quite frustrating to realize that I'm not being listened to and there has to be a point at which I do decide to quit talking.Now you are just making things up, Lista.
ReplyDeleteOh yeh!? I got this from a Conversation on another of Z-man's Posts, "Moral Instruction". On 2/17/2009, at 3:11 PM, you left the following Comment below this Linked Post...
ReplyDelete"Hippy blog is on page 2, who is going to see anything I might add? We scared off Just Me guy and Lista along the way, maybe we got to them though, huh?"
While I'm here, I might as well repeat something that I just said on another earlier Post "A Question for Soapie".
ReplyDelete"If this is a matter of Definition, than the Definition of Moderate is 'Restrained, Temperate, Keeping within REASONABLE Limits and one who avoids EXTREME Opinions and Actions.' I fail to see how this Definition Negates the presence of Convictions.
"Just because a person avoids Convictions that are EXTREME, does not mean that he/she Avoids ALL Convictions. Also, just because someone Keeps within 'Reasonable Limits' does not mean that He/she has NO Limits.
"This is Black and White/'All or Nothing' thinking, which I'm finding is the basic thinking pattern of most people who have Extreme Opinions."
Also,
"If Compromise is not a Virtue, than why is it necessary in order to Restore Broken Friendships and Marriages? Without Compromise, all that can result is more and more Conflict."
And
"Beth,
One of the Definitions of Compromise, as listed in the Dictionary is 'a Settlement in which each side Makes Concessions' or 'an Adjustment of Opposing Principles or Systems', however, another Definition that is listed is 'a Settlement in which each side Gives up some Demands', so both of our definitions are listed there."
When we Push Our Ideas on Others, this is a "Demand" and Giving up this Demand is a Compromise. This fits with one of the Definitions of the word Compromise and it has nothing to do with Giving up one's Convictions.
PS - If I don't have any Convictions, than why do I have such a large amount to say in support of my Position? Also, if I don't have any Passion, than why do I bother to take the time to write the long Comments that I do?
ReplyDeleteQuantity does not equal quality.
ReplyDeleteOK List here's another main reason I have no use for moderates, the herd mentality. When everyone starts agreeing with the herd and BB just said way above here that the vast majority of us fall into this moderate category then to me that doesn't show real thinking just agreeing with each other because of social correctness. Latest poll on drinking, about 26% of us drink once a week and 6% say they down a couple every night. Well hardeeharhar, what a bunch of crap!! Heh, I'd bet most of us are alcoholics. I'm among that tiny fringe group that has at least a mixed drink or two most every night but I'm honest and would tell a pollster that. Gosh I HATE polls!
ReplyDeleteThe other thing that bothers me about moderates, in fact it's a bug up my ass is their own sense of self-importance like if the party doesn't move in THEIR direction they'll lose election after election. Also how come you never really hear about the need for the Democratic Party to move in a more moderate direction? that lib pro-choicers should at least make some concessions to the pro-lifers and so at least move to the center? Here's the key and I want you to write this on the blackboard 10 times because class is now in session:
ReplyDeleteMODERATION IS MOST OFTEN CODE FOR BEING LIBERALit's used to make liberals not sound as scary.
Z-man,
ReplyDeleteI must be a real odd ball as a Moderate, because if I had the "Herd Mentality", I don't think that I would bother talking so long with those who are not part of my "Herd". I talk to both Liberals and Conservatives and Debate quite often with those who disagree with me. Those with the "Herd Mentality" have more of a tendency to avoid such discussions. They just follow the crowd and don't say a whole lot that might cause conflict. I don't fit that profile at all.
The fact that the Republicans tend to Compromise more than the Democrats is indeed a problem and it is a valid reason for feeling a little resentment. In fact, I'm sure that this is exactly why the words Extreme, Moderate and Compromise have become "Emotionally Charged Words".
Where did Soapbox go? I don't agree with his thinking, but at least he gives well thought out arguments that make me think. Being asked to write something 10 times just makes me feel preached to.
Hmmm. Perhaps Z and I are in a little bit of a cat fight as well. I thought it was just Beth and I, but right now I'm not so sure. I wonder if I should go away awhile and let things cool down.
"if 10 - 11% are very liberal, then how did they all wind up in public office at the federal level at the same time?" Precisely the same way Ronald Reagan and Co. did. The huge center swings to and fro. (don't gnash your teeth, but the very liberal portion has doubled to 19% over the last dozen years)
ReplyDeleteMaybe an example would be the best way to explain my dislike for moderation in politics.
ReplyDeleteLet's take the issue of the bailouts. There are those of us who look at the Constitution and say, "where in this document do the bailouts fall under?" because you know the answer is NOWHERE and the bailouts disgust you because of that and because you know they won't work anyway.
So then the opposite opinion is that the bailouts are necessary and that it is the government's duty to do them to save us (even though there is no legal basis for them to say this and even though these sort of measures have never historically worked).
So then the moderate may come along and say that SOME bailouts are necessary (the crowd that cry that this business or that business is "too big to fail"), well then who decides which businesses should be helped and then you realize once you give to one, then a whole bunch of others will want the same (sound familiar??) But why even give the bailout side ANY bit of credibility by compromising on the issue and giving SOME bailouts?
Now Lista, I am not saying you specifically are in the middle on bailouts, its just a prime example of what happens when you don't stay true to a principle, you give the other side a foot in the door so to speak.
To be honest with you, Beth, I'm a little confused about the Bailout Issue, but one thing I definitely do know is that when they contain Pork, this is a horrible Evil.
ReplyDeleteI hope that a few Capital letters are Ok. Bailout Issue, Pork, Evil. Those are the Key words.
What's to be confused about? Ought we throw good money after bad? Should the Federal Government raise taxes, print money and thus raise inflation rates exponentially, borrow thus putting future taxpayers on the hook, all for the purposes of propping up a company or companies of their own choosing for little more than their own political gain?
ReplyDeleteIn Capitalism, when companies make poor business decisions, they suffer the economic impact of those decisions and sometimes to such an extent that they end up going bankrupt.
In a mixed economy of which we have, when companies make poor business decisions, the Federal Government deems them "too big to fail" and props up this status quo with taxpayer dollars.
You are missing the point on both accounts Lista, one I do not care what you think about the bailouts, I only used it as an example of why moderation is stupid; and secondly I know a key word from the context without you having to capitalize them.
ReplyDeleteAnd as to BB's comment
ReplyDeletedon't gnash your teeth, but the very liberal portion has doubled to 19% over the last dozen yearsThese people have been bought with tax breaks and bailouts, of course they turn liberal!
I just gotta get back to that poll about drinking again. Now common sense and life experience would kinda say most of us drink to some extent, could be a slight majority or solid majority but crap like only 26% of us drink at least once a week and only 6& drink every night, well that's still only 32% total of the population, the rest are Quakers I guess. Just putting into perspective modern statistics and polling and bell curves too but Beth should like the latest Gallup, 51% of us are finally pro-life,
ReplyDeletewhoo-hoo!
I dunno, I don't drink every week, so I could buy that stat.
ReplyDeleteAlthough tonight I think I need one!
ReplyDeleteI've always had this gut feeling that most of us drink. I just think that when everyone says they don't touch the stuff significant portions of the population are being downright dishonest.
ReplyDeleteIf a few Bail Outs slow down the movement towards Depression, than it might be worth it. Just because you are convinced that it's not worth it, doesn't make it so.
ReplyDeleteI don't always assume that everything that is done is necessarily done for "their own political gain".
Whether or not these Companies go Bankrupt and get what they deserve, is not the issue. The well being of the Economy is the issue.
The confusion is whether or not it works and I'm sorry to say, but just because Soap said so is not enough for me.
Beth,
I wonder if you realize how abrasive your comments are. It's almost as if you have a chip on your shoulder, especially in relation to me, but than again, I've often spoken of the need for tough skin when on the Blog-a-sphere. You are giving me lots of practice.
Just so that you know, though, I receive more from people who are less abrasive and those who are more gentle and respectful are much more likely to persuade me.
Z-man,
I don't drink at all. In fact, I never have, with the exception of once or twice a year at most. The fact that I never have may make me an odd ball, but the fact that I do not drink currently is not odd at all. The churches are full of non-drinkers.
"If a few Bail Outs slow down the movement towards Depression, than it might be worth it. Just because you are convinced that it's not worth it, doesn't make it so."If one's premise is to stifle the government's ability to intervene into the private economy and to put a stop to government's exclusive monopoly of levying taxes to fill their coffers then by all means it very much is worth it.
ReplyDeleteAs to your argument of forestalling a Depression, you are well aware are you not about the historical facts surrounding The New Deal are you not? The New Deal measures were aimed to do precisely what you've suggested. And, in fact they prolonged the Great Depression.
"Whether or not these Companies go Bankrupt and get what they deserve, is not the issue. The well being of the Economy is the issue."Allowing companies that are run in a piss poor fashion to go bankrupt is going to be much better for the economy than would be giving them billions of dollars only to then have the same damn idiots squander it away.
ReplyDeleteCan you say auto bailiouts which subsequently led to bankruptcy anyway?
Bankruptcy restructures the company to make it economically viable. Bailouts do nothing of the sort.
Like I said, Soap, I do not know enough about this issue to make an Informed Decision. I'm not really a threat to you, though, because if such an issue was on the ballet, I would either study it further or not vote.
ReplyDeleteZ,
ReplyDeleteYou know, you can't really judge how you feel about a Statistic on what occurs within your own circle of friends. People tend to hang around others who are like themselves, so it would make sense that most of the people that you know are drinkers.
Well I just think there's a social pressure to say the right thing to pollsters. You could do a poll on porn right now and probably most would say they don't watch it but that would contradict the multimillion or multibillion dollar profits of the industry. I do think a majority of us drink though. It's like with abortion, it's very fashionable of late to say the decision is the Woman's but that you're personally against it but if that were really the case our abortion rate wouldn't be through the roof. In my views most polls are perfectly useless.
ReplyDeleteI drink and I've not compunction with admitting it. And in fact if others don't drink the joke's on them because that just leaves more for us lushes.
ReplyDeleteThe irony Lista is that I toned down what I really wanted to say to you for fear of coming on too strong...
ReplyDeleteAs for polls, yeah, I can see what you mean, although some "analyst" thought Obama's poll numbers in the election were only because people wanted to sound like they aren't racists and that is only why his numbers were high, well guess what, those polls actually predicted the outcome of the election, it wasn't just people trying to sound hip to pollsters for a black man.
I have no idea how many people lie when they participate in polls and there is no way really to research it either, unless you were to actually spy on people in order to find out.
ReplyDeleteAll I was saying is that you're surrounded by people who drink and I'm surrounded by those who don't, so in my world, it appears that the majority of us don't drink and in your world, it appears to be just the opposite. Who's right? Who knows? I guess this is just going to have to remain a mystery.
I'd hedge a bet that there are more people who drink than do not drink. Consider as well that even amongst those that "don't drink" they may very well receive communion during mass and thus have a sip of wine.
ReplyDeleteWhat's more, considering the propensity of our legislators to tax the hell out of alcohol, it figures there's got to be a sizeable percentage of the population boozing it up.
If I was an Extremist in relation to the subject of Alcohol, I would judge you guys for your drinking and have a Superior, "Holier than Thou" Attitude towards you. You know, like a "Goodie, Two Shoes". It just so happens that I believe in Moderation, so I guess my non-judgmental attitude is a negative. Whatever.
ReplyDeleteThere are people who Drink in order to "Fit in with the Crowd". This is "Herd Mentality". The fact that I never did Drink or Smoke for the sake of fitting in was not "Herd Mentality".
I don't judge. Therefore, I'm not an Extremist. I don't fit into the Crowd, I mean "Herd". Does that mean that I'm also not a Moderate? Gee! I must be a hard one to categorize.
That's just the problem when we start to Categorize and Stereo Type groups. As soon as we do, we find all sorts of Odd Balls that don't fit any of the Stereo Types.
As to that study, though, if 26% drink once a week and 6% "down a couple every night", than the research does not include "casual drinkers" who only drink on special occasions, or in some cases, as little as once or twice a year, or less. If a person has had a total of 20 or 30 drinks throughout their entire life time, does that make the person a Drinker? How many drinks does it take in order to earn that title?
To respond to Soap, though. It is mainly the Catholics and I think the Episcopalians who use Wine for Communion. Most denominations use Grape Juice. The fact that I don't oppose Moderate Drinking makes me the Odd Ball in some circles.
These Extremist, that you guys seem to so admire, are quite judgmental towards people like you, because you do this "Horrible Thing" known as drinking.
Usually when I speak of Extremism, I'm not just thinking about people who have Strong Convictions, but people who are also Rudely Pushy and Judgmental because of their Convictions. You wouldn't want to meet some of these Extremists. You wouldn't like them. Trust me.
We need to be careful, because Extremism can lead to Judgmental Attitudes.
BTW I've no desire to join in the catfight, that's between the two of you. I've no beef with you Lista just talking in general and as for your use of the Caps this is blogging where you can pretty much do what you want and hone your own style.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, Z, there is no cat fight, that was a term Lista used, and I don't think that everytime two women disagree with each other, that it is a cat fight.
ReplyDeleteAs for Capitalizing, of course its Lista's prerogative to use it excessively if she choses, as is it my prerogative to ignore her comments from here on out, because I find the overuse of Capitals (and italics) very distracting and a little self-indulgent (yes, got that from Simon).
I look at it this way. Blogging is a freestyle artistic form, God knows I've been Experimental in the Past, it's not always
ReplyDeletea bad thing
and you're Free of the Confines of grammar. It's what distinguishes her.
Actually Beth,
ReplyDeleteZ-man introduced the idea of a Cat Fight by submitting a comment once that said simply "Meow". Otherwise, I may not have noticed right away that our conversation had brief moments of, I don't know, perhaps less than fully polite dialogue. Or perhaps I should say dialogue that is a little knit picky.
I've been putting quotes in italics. I'm sorry that you don't like it, Beth. Blogging can at times be a lot of effort and trying to walk on egg shells in order to follow someone else's rules as to exactly how it should be done and what punctuation should be used makes it even harder. I'm beginning to think that you are being a little Judgmental towards me.
You are free to decide not to read my comments if that is your choice, but it seems a little childish, if you ask me.
Thanks Z-man,
For sort of sticking up for me. Beth may or may not care about my reasons for using Capitals and various forms of punctuation so much, but I think that it is at least in part because there is absolutely no non-verbal language in written dialogue, not even the fluctuations of the voice and because of this, it is quite easy to be misunderstood. What Beth is trying to do is take away the only form of Non-Verbal language that is left.
I participate at times in the little "Cat Fight", perhaps more than I should. For example, maybe I shouldn't have said that her refusal to read my comments if I don't stop doing what she's decided she doesn't like is childish. I even paused and tried really hard to not say that, yet unfortunately, just like Beth, I have a tendency to speak my mind and I think that she does need to realize how she is coming across.
Perhaps we are too much alike and that's why we offend each other in the way that we do. I'm Ok, though. I don't have to ignore her and stop reading her comments. I've got tougher skin than that. I just have to remember to not take anything she says too personal.