May I be moderate?

[LibraryLady]

Okay, maybe I’m just weird. Well, yes, I’m definitely weird, but here’s one example of my weirdness.

When presented with an issue of a political, religious, or other controversial nature, I make a habit of attempting to see the other person’s point of view. Sometimes the other point of view is, well, pointless. Sometimes they are actually right and I am wrong. (Rare of course ;) ) Sometimes I agree with some of both sides.

Let’s take the mildly divisive topic of abortion. The one thing I have wanted above all else in the world was to be a mother and I never really got the chance. (I’ve been a surrogate mother to my nephew and niece since they were 14 and 9) I cannot imagine that I would ever have had an abortion. The thought fills me with sorrow. However, I haven’t been in that position and I know people who have been. My mother has often reflected out loud that if abortion had been legal in 1953, I wouldn’t have been born. I know others who have had abortions. It was the right decision for them. I cannot think but that if my mother had aborted me, it would have been the right thing for her as well. (Before you jump on my mom, we are very close and have a loving relationship.) I am against abortion for myself as far as I know, but I believe it is an individual decision.

Let’s take Penn Jillette’s (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=17040) comments about religion. I find it difficult to characterize all religious people as “retarded.” I know others who are deeply religious, Christian, Jewish, Moslem, and Buddhist, who are highly principled, kind, and thoughtful people. Kitty springs to mind of course. I was in love with George Harrison from the time I was nine years old, and his religiosity is well-known. I don’t think many would think he was an idiot. On the other hand, the way some people practice their religion kills. Osama slithers to mind of course.

Terence says “All things in moderation.” It seems to me that most of the ills in today’s world can be traced to the violation of that precept. Republicans think Democrats are uniformly evil and Democrats think Republicans are. Thus the country is ill served in that no one thinks about what is right, but only about who is “evil.”

Martin Luther King, Jr., cheated on his wife and plagiarized. Does that negate his accomplishments? I think not. Very few are purely evil or purely good. Do the misdeeds of great people cancel out their goodness? If so, there are no good people, because all have flaws.

Is it possible for us to take a look at others with this in mind and think about moderation in our statements? It might make for a more boring forum, but it also might make for a better world.

[Mycroft]

Bravo! Well said.

[Piscivore]

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Mojo]

When presented with an issue of a political, religious, or other controversial nature, I make a habit of attempting to see the other person’s point of view. Sometimes the other point of view is, well, pointless. Sometimes they are actually right and I am wrong. (Rare of course ;) ) Sometimes I agree with some of both sides. As Mycroft said, bravo! But this does give one a problem in a face-to-face argument: I find that by the time I've thought about their point of view the other person has often declared victory by default and moved on.

[Ohmer]

I think you're F**king retarded. :p

[Ohmer]

Seriously, that was well said. At least understanding the other side of an argument is critical to a meaningful discussion.

[a_unique_person]

I have said before, it is extremism that is our problem, no matter where it comes from. A corollary would be that most people are naturally moderate.

[CapelDodger]

Martin Luther King, Jr., cheated on his wife ...More information than I need, Lady. That's downright disheartening. If you've got dirt on Gandhi, please to keep it to yourself, memsahib.

[aerosolben]

I find it difficult to characterize all religious people as “retarded.” Kitty springs to mind of course, but I know others who are deeply religious, Christian, Jewish, Moslem, and Buddhist, who are highly principled, kind, and thoughtful people.
I don't not think this reads how you want it to read. :)

As Mycroft said, bravo! But this does give one a problem in a face-to-face argument: I find that by the time I've thought about their point of view the other person has often declared victory by default and moved on.
I think this is the problem with many people's approach to arguments (esp. wrt religion and politics). They go in trying to "win". Personally, I approach such things attempting to figure out what the truth of the matter is, whether it's my position or the other guy's.

[LibraryLady]

I don't not think this reads how you want it to read. :)




Kitty! I didn't mean it. I meant that you are kind, etc. I'm editing now.

[Snide]

I don't not think this reads how you want it to read. :)


I think this is the problem with many people's approach to arguments (esp. wrt religion and politics). They go in trying to "win". Personally, I approach such things attempting to figure out what the truth of the matter is, whether it's my position or the other guy's.Precisely. I have no interest in debating with people who are trying to "win." Even though I may debate in a way that seems "competitive," it's more because I'm serious about making my point understood, whether it's my direct point or a point to counter the other's point(s).

[peptoabysmal]

I am more moderate in real life than I pretend to be on this board. I enjoy argument from a perspective. I find I get more information out of the person(s) arguing the opposite perspective. In the end, the quest is more for knowledge than getting along.

But I will give you a few smileys now and then.

:D :D :D

[Piscivore]

More information than I need, Lady. That's downright disheartening. If you've got dirt on Gandhi, please to keep it to yourself, memsahib.

Then don't read this (http://ngodse.tripod.com/defense.htm).

[Major Billy]

My mother has often reflected out loud that if abortion had been legal in 1953, I wouldn’t have been born.If abstinance had been legal in 1952, would you not have been born in 1952?

[LibraryLady]

If abstinance had been legal in 1952, would you not have been born in 1952?

Huh? I was born in 1954, my parents were married and didn't have to be abstinent, and I really don't understand your point.

[Mycroft]

Huh? I was born in 1954, my parents were married and didn't have to be abstinent, and I really don't understand your point.

He's making a dig at abstinance-only sex education. Your folks may have been married, but if they didn't want a child they could still have abstained.

[Tricky]

I am more moderate in real life than I pretend to be on this board.
You'd have to be.
;)

[LibraryLady]

He's making a dig at abstinance-only sex education. Your folks may have been married, but if they didn't want a child they could still have abstained.

Oh. He needs to be funnier about it. :p

[Luke T.]

Let’s take the mildly divisive topic of abortion.

Mildly divisive? :D


I know others who have had abortions. It was the right decision for them.

Seeing as how almost half of all abortions are the result of using NO birth control method at all, I think the right decision needs to occur prior to the sex act, not after.

I am against abortion for myself as far as I know, but I believe it is an individual decision.

That is moderate-left. Moderate-right, which I invented here on this forum (:D), is that repealing Roe V. Wade will have no effect on the number of abortions performed and no effect on women dying in back alleys. The pragmatic moderate-right position is that half of all abortions would be eliminated if birth control education was made a priority, and that's a bigger piece than repealing Roe V. Wade would accomplish. So my conscience, which is violently against abortion, feels the right thing to do is to promote birth control.

Let’s take Penn Jillette’s (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=17040) comments about religion. I find it difficult to characterize all religious people as “retarded.” I know others who are deeply religious, Christian, Jewish, Moslem, and Buddhist, who are highly principled, kind, and thoughtful people.

Amen. And I have a personal rule to avoid the Religion and Philosophy section of this forum.

Martin Luther King, Jr., cheated on his wife and plagiarized. Does that negate his accomplishments?

To a degree, it does. He was a spiritual leader as much as a civil rights activist.



There are two areas in which I have done a 180 since joining this forum.

The first was the legalization of marijuana. I used to be opposed. But then as I was researching nicotine addiction in my never-ending unsuccessful quest to quit smoking, I saw research which showed marijuana was less addictive than alcohol. And I don't think it impairs anyone more than alcohol does. And then I learned that people who are authorized to use marijuana for medical purposes have to grow their own medicine. And that really pisses me off.

The second was the issue of gay marriage. Because of the overwhelming support of gay marriage on this forum, I kept my opposition to myself, but read most of the topics on it with interest. But again, it was a science topic that made me turn the corner. Is there a gay gene? I think that was the topic.

Before I explain further, I have to explain how my brain works. You know that kids' game where you have a plank of wood with a bunch of pegs on it, and you drop a marble in the top and the marble bounces all over the place and finally lands in a slot at the bottom? The center slot is the highest score and the scores decrease as you move out from the center. The goal is to get the marble to hit the center slot for maximum score.

That's my brain. That pegged board. Ideas are the marbles. People drop an idea in my head, it hits the pegs, and most of the time, falls somewhere away from the center. But then someone else comes along, drops the exact same idea in my head, and so forth, and sooner or later, that idea hits the center slot. Ding ding ding!

So the idea that a gay person has about as much choice in being gay as a heterosexual person has about being heterosexual is dropped in my head for the umpteenth time in the gay gene topic.

I still don't know if there is a gay gene. I don't remember how that question resolved. But the question of "choice" ricocheted in my head like a mofo for a long time afterward. Knocked all kinds of crap loose. Things you wouldn't even think were connected.

Then one day I get a ballot to vote on gay marriage. I voted "No". And from that day forward, that ricocheting bullet picked up speed. It was hot burning lead doing major damage to my conscience.

Hope I get a chance to vote again.

No angry person ever convinced me to change my mind. Ever.

[epepke]

You'll be (and have been) applauded for this stance when it is presented by itself.

However, when you actually do this in the context of a political dicussion, you'll be reviled. You might not get approached directly, because dealing with someone who thinks is rather hard for an ideologue, but you'll find that people who thought you were an ally in discussions will abandon you.

As Frank Zappa said, everybody, deep down, knows that they're right.

[epepke]

Seeing as how almost half of all abortions are the result of using NO birth control method at all, I think the right decision needs to occur prior to the sex act, not after.

The trouble I have with the abortion issue is that the vast majority of people who are vocal against it (including the RCC and the Jerry Falwell style of fundamentalism) are also opposed to birth control.

So the issue has been politicized to the extent that it's really impossible to talk about the ding an sich.

[mumblethrax]

It seems like the qualities you're describing are humility and tolerance, rather than moderation.

I'm not going to jump on the moderation bandwagon, but we should certainly try to listen to one another.