Some guy's PM

[11mc22]

EDIT: I think I understand his position better because I really no idea what he meant. I didn't realize that his arguments were attempts to morally justify centrism rather than saying "I'm right and you are wrong because extremes are bad". Forget the Fallacy of Middle ground and I'll respond to him as soon as I can. Sorry, I'm not that great at comprehension plus I couldn't make out his argument through all the "I hate ultra-conservatives" rants.
But of course, I still disagree with him.

Green = Tom
Red = me
Blue = google search



"Just pointing out you just committed a fallacy of Appeal to Middle Ground."

Oh is that really a fallacy or something cooked up by Ultra-Conservatives to get Moderates from siding with liberals on everything? Let me go Google that up, since you had the audacity to bring up and then delete your own message like the cowardly asshole that you are.

I can only find stuff about McCain, Clinton, and something from emeraldinsight.com.

'Usually the appeal to middle ground meets with the approval of most team members who are given adequate time for group discussion and for individual'

Doesn't make this "fallacy" of yours sound bad.

However if I google "appeal middle ground" without the quotations, I get argument of moderation.

"a logical fallacy which asserts that a compromise between two positions is correct. The middle ground is often invoked when there are sharply contrasting views that are deeply entrenched. While an outcome that accommodates both parties to some extent is more desirable than an outcome that pleases nobody, it is not necessarily correct."

Now this doesn't sound like what I was talking about, now before you perform some sort of intellectual fallacy off misrepresenting what I have said, let me show you why what I have said is not a logical fallacy.

This argument is based on the premise of treating any two positions as extremes and anything in the middle as the correct choice.

What I have said is that you pick positions that are actually from the extremes, not making up extremes and choosing that position. For instance, America is a country devoted towards competition. You have two major opposive views completely opposite of one another in regard to healthcare, one says pure government oversight, one payer system, right? The other complete privacy of healthcare. These are opposite views and are supported by the extremes on the spectrum of left-right policy positions. I am not making the two be extremes, they already are. Ultra-Conservatives, which are people who despise any government involvement are against Ultra-Liberals, which are people who support any or all government involvement. Does this make any sense to you?

I make a clear observation. There are obvious extremes when it comes to politics. We call people who support terror to be extremists. Being an extremely simply means you take a notion or idea completely and may even use force or political discurse to insure your objectives. This isn't far from the definition of an extremist and many people who supported the loud ranting of people in public hall meetings are clearly extremists or extremist supporters. Now since we have to be fair to the right, by saying the left also does the same thing, which actually is an intellectual fallacy, but of course being libertarian you are just going to ignore that part, since you believe it is true even if it is an intellectual fallacy.

Now the extreme right want absolute no government involvement. The extreme left wants absolute government involvement. These are facts and clear observations, once you know what an extremist is and how to differentiate the left form the right. What lies in the middle, is moderate or centrist ideas. America is a Centrist country and from being Centrist it has done quite well. This does not support any bit in following centrist ideas just because the country is centrist. But clearly, the appropriate laws to make have to support or be supported by the majority of people in the country. The majority of people in the country are centrist, meaning they would support a moderate or centrist law. Or at least they should by practicality. Doesn't mean they always will, because there are influences such propaganda and Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh and Libertarians who are extremists, but try to present themselves off as a third-way appeal to people between Republicans and Democrats.

Obviously people are not really that smart and they can be easily fooled into following the wrong ideas. They can accidentally give up their liberties for no reason at all.


"Its like saying believing in evolution without a supernatural entity is an extreme position, and therefore it must be false."

Uhh... that is obviously an intellectual fallacy. You should correlate law making with science. First of all, there is hardly anything scientific or scientifically proven through most of the garbage made up in politics. Second, I am atheist if you haven't noticed. I don't believe in a god and even though I find some religions like Wicca to be less stupid than others (namely Islam and Christianity), I still reject following any religion, because I don't need religion nor do I want religion in my life. Third, no act with science is extreme unless it involves extreme notions or practices such as testing on live human beings in a way that is inhuman or some psuedo-scientific view like was utilized quite largely throughout the early twentieth century. But the theories are not extreme, however since they come from inductive research they are clearly subjective to change or even disproval. Uhh... if the intelligent design people or creationists want to present their views into science books, they need find a way to present at least a very intelligent hypothesis that at least can be mentioned briefly in a paragraph in a textbook. Since I doubt they can do that, I sincerely don't think anything of such could inteligently be included into a textbook.

"There are cases where "extreme" positions are true."

Name me one.

I left out one sentence he made responding to my comment but that was because it was my fault and I said something I didn't mean to say.

This was a response to my comment which was a response to this comment made by the same person:

Any extreme is a bad idea. ANY EXTREME! Libertarianism is an extreme. Between the spectrum of Autocracy to Anarchy, Libertarianism stands a smidget more Autocratic than pure Anarchy.

What is good is balance. Balance government. Checks and Balances. Elections. Federalism (rather than Confederalism or Unitarianism). With these there is no need for guns to make a coup.

In fact if you used your gun to take out what you deem to be an oppressive government, you would break the law.

I won't respond to him only because I'm seriously not looking for a debate especially in a PM.
To tell you the truth I kinda like the 500 character system because it makes them get to the point rather than go off on a bunch of insults and pointless rants. Plus I really don't have any motivation to read anything beyond 500 characters.
by the time I read the first sentence I just skim to the last sentence.

[Travis Retriever]

It's also called the "Golden Mean Fallacy".
Also, please identify which color refers to you and which color refers to him.
Thanks.

[11mc22]

EDIT: I think I understand his position better because I really no idea what he meant. I didn't realize that his arguments were attempts to morally justify centrism rather than saying "I'm right and you are wrong because extremes are bad". Forget the Fallacy of Middle ground and I'll respond to him as soon as I can. Sorry, I'm not that great at comprehension plus I couldn't make out his argument through all the "I hate ultra-conservatives" rants.
But of course, I still disagree with him.

Ok well the first few sentences are useless ad homs
and then this

What I have said is that you pick positions that are actually from the extremes, not making up extremes and choosing that position. For instance, America is a country devoted towards competition. You have two major opposive views completely opposite of one another in regard to healthcare, one says pure government oversight, one payer system, right? The other complete privacy of healthcare. These are opposite views and are supported by the extremes on the spectrum of left-right policy positions. I am not making the two be extremes, they already are. Ultra-Conservatives, which are people who despise any government involvement are against Ultra-Liberals, which are people who support any or all government involvement. Does this make any sense to you?

I'm not sure if I'm the one who is misrepresenting the fallacy of Middle Ground. I'm pretty sure that the fallacy of the Middle Ground doesn't require the person making up the extremes like Tom says. From my google search it says:

"This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because it does not follow that a position is correct just because it lies in the middle of two extremes. This is shown by the following example. Suppose that a person is selling his computer. He wants to sell it for the current market value, which is $800 and someone offers him $1 for it. It would hardly follow that $400.50 is the proper price. "

So whether or not the extremes are actually extremes or made up is irrelevant
Am I right?

Anyways, I got to go I'll finish this when I get back.

[11mc22]

Being an extremely simply means you take a notion or idea completely and may even use force or political discurse to insure your objectives.

Ok he defines "extreme" as something you accept completely, but that doesn't make the idea or notion incorrect. Libertarians don't believe in force unless its justified such as self-defense.
NOTE THIS DEFINITION BECAUSE HE WILL TWIST THE MEANING LATER.

This isn't far from the definition of an extremist and many people who supported the loud ranting of people in public hall meetings are clearly extremists or extremist supporters. Now since we have to be fair to the right, by saying the left also does the same thing, which actually is an intellectual fallacy, but of course being libertarian you are just going to ignore that part, since you believe it is true even if it is an intellectual fallacy.

....??
Ok I'm not really sure what he is trying to say. So when the right-wingers protests, they're extremists. However, when left does it, its not, and saying the left are extremists too is a fallacy???!!!??......?? What "intellectual" fallacy? I don't even get his argument.

Now the extreme right want absolute no government involvement. The extreme left wants absolute government involvement. These are facts and clear observations, once you know what an extremist is and how to differentiate the left form the right.

Back to what Fallacy of Middle Ground is. He obviously thinks that for an argument to be a fallacy of middle ground you have to come up with or make up two extremes. From my search there is no such requirement and the sites I've visited just says it needs 2 extremes. He committed it whether he likes it or not.

What lies in the middle, is moderate or centrist ideas. America is a Centrist country and from being Centrist it has done quite well.

Ok he states no evidence for this but I'm not going to ask him because I seriously don't want a PM battle. But I'm more than sure that the Founding Fathers were very right leaning although they weren't "extremists" in the context that Tom was using.

This does not support any bit in following centrist ideas just because the country is centrist. But clearly, the appropriate laws to make have to support or be supported by the majority of people in the country. The majority of people in the country are centrist, meaning they would support a moderate or centrist law. Or at least they should by practicality. Doesn't mean they always will, because there are influences such propaganda and Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh and Libertarians who are extremists, but try to present themselves off as a third-way appeal to people between Republicans and Democrats.

Ok more rants and ad hom

[11mc22]

Third, no act with science is extreme unless it involves extreme notions or practices such as testing on live human beings in a way that is inhuman or some psuedo-scientific view like was utilized quite largely throughout the early twentieth century.

Ok now this is the paragraph where the definition of "extreme" goes from "accepting completely and idea or notion" to "Testing humans in a pseudo-scientific and inhumane way"

But wait!!!!! it doesn't stop there.

But the theories are not extreme, however since they come from inductive research they are clearly subjective to change or even disproval.

WELL NO SHIT
A Libertarian like myself is just waiting to be disproved and Libertarianism isn't immune to criticism. In fact most libertarians I've seen on youtube have become what they are because they've been convinced with sound arguments. "evolution does not need a central planner" and "economies do not need a central planner" is not much different. If you could put science and religion on a spectrum, both on the opposite sides from each other. There is complete trust in science which is "extreme" but does not make it false, and fundamentalists will have complete faith in their religion. There is also that middle ground like Donexodus2 and Kenneth Miller. Tom is very selective and calls anything extreme on positions he does not agree with.

Name me one.

Evolution. BTW Calling a position "extreme" is subjective and it is based on one's opinion about a position.
Fundamentalist Muslims does not view their religion as extreme.
Centrism is not considered extreme simply because it is accepted by so many people.
Like the label "radical"
You are only a "radical" because others don't agree with you.

ADDEDUM: An example of this is Tom's view of the political spectrum which a 1 dimensional line where there are only 2 extremes on either end. Nolan demonstrated that this is subjective and changeable with his 2 dimensional square (diamond) illustration of the political spectrum where there are 4 extremes... no wait... 5

1. The extreme left where they value personal anarchy but total state control of economic matters
2. The extreme right where they value economic anarchy but state has total controls over personal matters
3. The top where you are an Anarchist and the state is non-existent (in some versions).
4. The bottom where you support a total state, totalitarian.
5. Even centrism can be considered an extreme because it requires that you have a perfect balance of freedom and restriction between personal and economic matters.

[11mc22]

EDIT: I think I understand his position better because I really no idea what he meant. I didn't realize that his arguments were attempts to morally justify centrism rather than saying "I'm right and you are wrong because extremes are bad". Forget the Fallacy of Middle ground and I'll respond to him as soon as I can. Sorry, I'm not that great at comprehension plus I couldn't make out his argument through all the "I hate ultra-conservatives" rants.
But of course, I still disagree with him.

I guess Tom is replying to this post.
Probably searched my user name on Google and found this site.

Now he just sent me another PM that I won't bother reading

SO LISTEN UP TOM I dont' want a debate
You can say you won the battle if that makes you happy and euphoric inside, because I won't reply to your PMs.

[11mc22]

Ok this is his reply. Yes....... I DID READ IT
I'm not going to critique so much although I already have in my head. Judge this for yourself and consider my arguments about why it is that some "extreme" positions is a figment of one's imagination. Plus if you read his post then you might notice his arguments just borders Panarchy, but that's just an assumption.

By the way when it comes to religion or science in whatever the government does when it comes to extremism. It is quite simple, maybe this is something you should had focused on rather than using a red-herring of Appeal to Middle Grounds.

Left side on religion to the extreme: RELIGION IS FORBIDDEN
Right side on religion to the extreme: Theocracy!

Down the middle: Secular institution that allows religion but separates it from the institution of the government.

It is in the middle simply because it allows religion to exist, but it doesn't allow religion to run the government.

As for science.

Left side on Science to the extreme: "Do what is necessary to accomplish a goal."
Right side on Science to the extreme: "Don't approach anything on the subject should it involve that which might even slightly appear to be immoral."

Each side an easy to understand problem. And down the middle is able to resolve such to insure the overall goal, which is peaceful, un-oppressive progress.

Debate on morals, exam the issues in how the relate to the subject in question and how they could reflect a moral question and how that moral question even holds water. Address the moral need to accomplish the goal. Then work around rather than through moral subjects that hinder progress to accomplish the goal, like uhh finding a cure for genetic disorders.

A good example of such a debate is stem-cell research and a good compromise is using a debate to reason the between both groups using questions and inquiry on where they stand, how they stand on those issues, why they stand on those issues, and then pressure them intensively to hold logic onto their issues so they can stand. Eventually one will have to accept the reality the other one will present and the end result establish a compromise that insures a path of success for what the group is trying to accomplish.

Now using statism, you could effectively perform either goal without any compromise. However, the people generally in a democratic society like America would not like having such laws forced onto them that fit only the definite sides of a political argument and not a middle route that could address the complaints from both sides and gain the overall support of the majority from such a centrist country.

I think his examples are very selective because he gives examples of moral dilemmas which is different than economics where there are in fact right and wrong/black and white issues. Morality can be based on beliefs, values, culture, tradition, etc etc. In many cases no set of morals is wrong or right. In terms of economics, there are objective reasons why I and others are libertarian.

EDIT: I think I understand his position better because I really no idea what he meant. I didn't realize that his arguments were attempts to morally justify centrism rather than saying "I'm right and you are wrong because extremes are bad". Forget the Fallacy of Middle ground and I'll respond to him as soon as I can. Sorry, I'm not that great at comprehension plus I couldn't make out his argument through all the "I hate ultra-conservatives" rants.
But of course, I still disagree with him.