Motto of the moment pretty much breaks this forum

I generally agree with this premise outside of any logical fact or physical law (water is "wet", sun is "hot", 2+2="4", "gravity", etc.)

I'm sure most could agree with me in thinking it's pretty insane how much arguing goes on in here and how little is actually accomplished, no matter which side of the coin we're on. The motto really holds up pretty well here.

Nope. In fact, that?s a logical fallacy.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/59/Argument-to-Moderation

I mean really, this was a punchline in the Simpsons. "Abortions for some. Miniature American flags for others."

It kinda gets difficult to search for the middle ground when one side argument is to completely remove whole groups from the country based on race/nationality/gender, and they already are starting doing it without the other side agreeing on it. What's the middle ground there?

CaitSeith:
It kinda gets difficult to search for the middle ground when one side argument is to completely remove whole groups from the country based on race/nationality/gender, and they already are starting doing it without the other side agreeing on it. What's the middle ground there?

Pretend to care, but "respect people's rights" to do things to remove groups you aren't in? Call for civility when that group gets unhappy?

The truth™ is the Reasonable Centrist™ position between democratic socialism and anarcho-communism.

Thaluikhain:

CaitSeith:
It kinda gets difficult to search for the middle ground when one side argument is to completely remove whole groups from the country based on race/nationality/gender, and they already are starting doing it without the other side agreeing on it. What's the middle ground there?

Pretend to care, but "respect people's rights" to do things to remove groups you aren't in? Call for civility when that group gets unhappy?

Done that; didn't work.

erttheking:
I mean really, this was a punchline in the Simpsons. ?Abortions for some. Miniature American flags for others.?

And thats why I voted for Kodos

hanselthecaretaker:

I generally agree with this premise outside of any logical fact or physical law (water is ?wet?, sun is ?hot?, 2+2=?4?, ?gravity?, etc.)

I?m sure most could agree with me in thinking it?s pretty insane how much arguing goes on in here and how little is actually accomplished, no matter which side of the coin we?re on. The motto really holds up pretty well here.

Pretty much

hanselthecaretaker:
I generally agree with this premise outside of any logical fact or physical law (water is ?wet?, sun is ?hot?, 2+2=?4?, ?gravity?, etc.)

I?m sure most could agree with me in thinking it?s pretty insane how much arguing goes on in here and how little is actually accomplished, no matter which side of the coin we?re on. The motto really holds up pretty well here.

It's already been pointed out, but the statement is literally a logical fallacy, and you can demonstrate this with very basic and obvious examples. For example, let's say someone thinks that murder is morally acceptable. Someone else thinks that that's a terrible position and that murder is a bad thing. The fallacy forces us to treat these two statements as having equal validity, and therefore, the solution must be to allow murder in some form, but maybe restrict certain types of really bad murder as a concession to those extremists who think that murder is bad.

Often, the truth does lie between two extreme positions, but we should never cross the line into assuming that it always does.

evilthecat:

hanselthecaretaker:
I generally agree with this premise outside of any logical fact or physical law (water is ?wet?, sun is ?hot?, 2+2=?4?, ?gravity?, etc.)

I?m sure most could agree with me in thinking it?s pretty insane how much arguing goes on in here and how little is actually accomplished, no matter which side of the coin we?re on. The motto really holds up pretty well here.

It's already been pointed out, but the statement is literally a logical fallacy, and you can demonstrate this with very basic and obvious examples. For example, let's say someone thinks that murder is morally acceptable. Someone else thinks that that's a terrible position and that murder is a bad thing. The fallacy forces us to treat these two statements as having equal validity, and therefore, the solution must be to allow murder in some form, but maybe restrict certain types of really bad murder as a concession to those extremists who think that murder is bad.

Often, the truth does lie between two extreme positions, but we should never cross the line into assuming that it always does.

True there are also exceptions beyond what I originally mentioned, but even with murder there is always the issue of practicing self defense, or acting in the defense of loved ones. For example a home invasion/mugging, or if a convicted pedophile or rapist manages to serve their latest sentence after repeated offenses and goes after someone's son or daughter next, most would consider neutralizing that threat as doing the world a favor.

Having said that, whoever said that tolerance and apathy are the last great virtues of a dying society probably didn't have a checklist of exceptions handy.

If there's anything that unites the fringes of the political compass, it's our disdain for centrists. That's about the only thing we can agree on.

evilthecat:

hanselthecaretaker:
I generally agree with this premise outside of any logical fact or physical law (water is ?wet?, sun is ?hot?, 2+2=?4?, ?gravity?, etc.)

I?m sure most could agree with me in thinking it?s pretty insane how much arguing goes on in here and how little is actually accomplished, no matter which side of the coin we?re on. The motto really holds up pretty well here.

It's already been pointed out, but the statement is literally a logical fallacy, and you can demonstrate this with very basic and obvious examples. For example, let's say someone thinks that murder is morally acceptable. Someone else thinks that that's a terrible position and that murder is a bad thing. The fallacy forces us to treat these two statements as having equal validity, and therefore, the solution must be to allow murder in some form, but maybe restrict certain types of really bad murder as a concession to those extremists who think that murder is bad.

Often, the truth does lie between two extreme positions, but we should never cross the line into assuming that it always does.

Or that the truth is in the center distance between two extremes. Just because it's in between doesn't mean it's an equal distance from each.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here