CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Moderates are no different from fundamentalists/extremists.
(This is not meant to inflame. I'm interested in refutations to this idea)
I posit that the only fundamental difference between moderates and fundamentalists and extremists is the specific ideas within their ideology that they accept or reject, which affect and condition their rationale, and, in turn, their actions.
By that same reasoning, a moderate is a potential extremist, if exposed long enough to a smart enough preacher, since the basic common premises are already accepted by the moderate.
The names merely specify the difference in their actions, as I mentioned. Moderates may not draw swords, but they still populate the same figurative ship of those who do, and are just as unwilling to betray it.
That doesn't sound like opposites, but as variations of the same thing, like points in the same scale.
The amount of discrepancy in that variation seems largely up to subjective interpretation, and depending on where in the scale you are, the change in perspective may be significant. Moderates don't all share the same point in that scale. They do not all agree on what is and isn't extreme.
Moderates merely are open to hearing all sides and then making a good decision. There are times as a moderate I agree with the tight budget controls of ultraconservatives and there are times I agree with the social program spending of the ultraliberals. Spending should vary from year to year, program to program, budget to budget, not simply be all in or all out. Furthermore moderates do not turn to any ideology in making their decision whereas on the far right and left there is practically a script for what they believe and why.
Moderates are absolutely different from fundamentalists/extremists.
Furthermore, I submit the observation that moderates are pretty much universally rejected by the extremists on either sides of the political spectrum, so if the extremists themselves don't want to claim us then that's very strong evidence moderates are quite different. It has long amazed me that they don't instead see us as an opportunity to boost their position by winning over the middle road public. But frankly the extremists could care less about persuading us or getting our support. We get ridiculed for being anything short of 100% on the extremists sides on all issues.
Yes moderate do tend to be more open minded, but not necessarily, and maybe not even that often. At least regarding topics for which they are ideologically or emotionally attached to, in which case they will often resort to their favored ideologies and/or emotions for decision making (I am referring to not only politics, but also every other type of ideologies).
However, you didn't give an unambiguous reason to accept that moderates and extremists are absolutely different. Simple disagreement and segregation doesn't make people different, just makes them potential opponents regarding a specific subject, and only for the time being.
More often than not, the more noticeable opponents are not fundamentally different (compare the far left and the far right, or any two opposing middle eastern extremist groups).
It still seems to me that moderates and extremists of a given ideology, are merely points in the same scale that do not seem to come close - but are not set in stone.
All of politics is a sliding scale from one extreme to the other extreme. Moderates fall somewhere in the middle of the scale depending on topic. Now it's true some are further to one side of the scale than the other. But that doesn't make them cease to be moderates. By your definition there literally could not be a moderate, it would be on a 100 point scale if you're 1-50 you have to be conservative and if you're 51-100 you have to be liberal. That's pretty bogus.
You are conflating distinct ideologies, though. I'm going under the premise that liberalism, conservatism, for example, are different scales altogether, as they are distinct ideologies, and I'm taking the moderates, fanatics, radicals, fundamentalists, extremists, all as different stages in the same scale.
It wouldn't be fair to conflate them since moderates on one scale are not likely to become anything else from another. A moderate liberal is not likely to become a radical conservative by virtue of liberal principles, nor is a moderate islamist likely to become a fundamentalist christian by virtue of islamist principles.
No, ideologies do not exist in a vacuum, and political science classrooms all the way up through college teach of these as opposite ends of the political spectrum. Nothing is conflated, it's just a question your interpretation can't answer other than what I already pointed out - that you define moderates out of existence basically saying everyone is conservative or liberal in their leanings.
Is it not a rare sight to see conservatives agreeing with liberals? Or teaming up?
Again, the road to fanaticism, fundamentalism, extremism, etc, is hardly one with T-junctions where conservatives might stop to decide they'd merge ideas from both parties. That's not to say it doesn't happen. That's one way we get new religious sects, for example. But usually the derivation includes a great majority of the original ideals, and not a heterogeneous mix.
I can accept those nuances, but they're not really relevant in this regard. Even if moderate conservatives were just as likely to become extreme liberals as they might be of becoming extremist conservatives, the question I'm asking is, essentially, how likely are they to become extremists at all, and what I contend is that it only depends on the type of propaganda they are exposed to, if any.
What's so sick about moderates is that they are not hot or cold. They have no strong moral foundation to shape their opinions and positions. They drift with the political correct wind.
A perfect example of their lack of moral convictions is the fact they still will vote for an extremist Democrat politician even when he supports allowing viable Babies born alive from botched late term abortions to die.
Moderates vote for people who force all Americans to pay for abortions!
Moderates are the ones who want to allow extremist Democrats to keep raising our debt limit!
They like to compromise on very important issues, that should not be compromised on, while our nation goes bankrupt.
They take few strong stands.
This luke warm, no right or wrong, grey area moderate mindset is what has allowed extremist's on the Left to ruin this nation. Our children are abandoned, our families broken,our welfare roles swollen and our courts forcing political correctness on all states.
Conservatives have done nothing to create all these problems. They are the only ones trying to fix our problems.
When our nation defaults on it's debt, and there are riots in the streets when the welfare checks stop, the moderates will be scratching their heads and wonder what happened?
Well, there are a few things we can take from there: Moderates are the majority, they have their petty conflicts, and, it seems to me, they keep their ideological grounds fertile for fanatics, radicals, fundamentalists and extremists to occasionally sprout.
That post, however, is one example of why I'm making this debate. It demonstrates the amount of emotion moderates deposit into their convictions, regardless of being right or wrong. Emotions and convictions are not really a great mix, as history shows us in spades.
What's so sick about moderates is that they are not hot or cold. They have no strong moral foundation to shape their opinions and positions.
A perfect example of their lack of moral convictions is the fact they still will vote for an extremist Democrat politician even when he supports allowing viable Babies born alive from botched late term abortions to die.
Moderates vote for people who force all Americans to pay for abortions!
Moderates are the ones who want to allow extremist Democrats to keep raising our debt limit!
They like to compromise on very important issues, that should not be compromised on, while our nation goes bankrupt.
They take few strong stands.
This luke warm, no right or wrong, grey area moderate mindset is what has allowed extremist's on the Left to ruin this nation. Our children are abandoned, our families broken,our welfare roles swollen and our courts forcing political correctness on all states.
Conservatives have done nothing to create all these problems. They are the only ones trying to fix our problems.
When our nation defaults on it's debt, and there are riots in the streets when the welfare checks stop, the moderates will be scratching their heads and wonder what happened?
Perhaps some moderates could in time be convinced of a certain political ideology, or maybe even change to one on their own. Like a guy who is not racist could begin as a tolerant moderate and then after some black criminal case his wife he would become a exremist rascist and even join the Aryan Brotherhood.
But this fact means almost nothing. All it says is that sometimes, SOME people might change their minds about some stuff. Big deal!
You are wrong in claiming that moderates always hold the same kernels of ideology as do extremists.
For example, here on CD, FromWithin is an Extremist Pro Lifer.
I am a moderate Independent.
I hold NONE of his pro life tenets. I am pro choice.
A moderate can usually see both sides of any given issue.
Whereas an Extremist is blind to the views and feelings of those who oppose him.
The very words, moderate.....extremist.....tell you they do not ascribe to the same philosophies. The moderate is closer to the center of the political spectrum. While the Extremist sitfs further out to the edge. Which of course can be either left or right.
Most moderates will never be swayed to Extremist views. Much less come to agree with them on their own.
Hope this helps. As your political science sounds a bit confused.
Your two first paragraphs agree with the important notion that I mentioned: anyone can become blinded and go to extremes. You successfully illustrated the alarmingly short distance one needs to travel to get there, given enough emotional incentive.
Your post does, however, neglect to keep that in mind henceforward. It is a big deal, in fact, that it can be that easy, and it can be disastrous even if extremist are a minority (they always are), given that most moderates have already accepted to climb the few first steps of the same ideological ladder.
The term "extremist" only denounces someone who took actions that we perceive as extreme. Maybe the day before they seemed rather reasonable, even if deeply emotional in their convictions. Many moderates are just as emotional in their convictions. Some are even fanatical.
LOL, do you see how blind you are to what you support? IT IS MIND BLOWING!
You just said.... "A moderate can usually see both sides of any given issue."
You are COMPLETELY BLIND to that viable baby's life even after being born alive and then allowed to die! You absolutely can not see the Baby's side of the issue!
You should change the name from moderate to INHUMAN!
You just said..... "Whereas an Extremist is blind to the views and feelings of those who oppose him"
We compassionate people(you call extremist) who possess humanity are NOT blind to the feelings of the viable baby that you spit on.
I am no way blind to the feelings of pro abortion people. Their feelings are SELF! SELF LOVE to such an extreme they sacrifice viable children! But you of course are just too moderate to even care. I hope and pray I never become as dead inside as what you call a moderate!
I can get you the many sites speaking to how 177 out of 182 Democrats support allowing viable late term Babies born alive from botched abortions to die.
To Conservatives and Christians, we seemingly are the only one's with the common sense humanity to understand how a viable late term Baby is as much a living growing human life before birth as he is after traveling down that birth canal.
Democrats support the no limit states that support all abortions at any stage right up to birth. If you vote for these people who will keep these no limt abortions legal, you are also supporting the inhumanity so therefore, this is why i call them extremists.
Do you understand how indoctrinated you have become to call pro life people radicals? We are the only ones who have any compassion for these innocent babies. I'm sick of listening to phoneys who say they are personally pro life but have no problem voting for these extreme pro abortion politicians.
This bill amends the federal criminal code to require any health care practitioner who is present when a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion to: (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure that such child is immediately admitted to a hospital. The term "born alive" means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut."
What kind of extremist Democrat politicians could not sign onto this bill?
If after your child was born, but had problems breathing, or any other problems, WOULD YOU ALLOW THE PERSON WHO DELIVERED THAT BABY TO NOT INSTANTLY GET IT THE CARE IT NEEDED TO SURVIVE? It would be no less than murder to do nothing and allow the Baby to die!
It's sickening we have people like you who try to deceive people and downplay what this bill is saying. Obviously there are abortionists such as in planned parenthood who refuse to get these Babies born alive to the hospital for care. If not, there would be no need for this bill to clearly spell out the obvious procedure to save the child's life!
The abortionists do not want to save the Baby's life so they simply wait and allow the child to die without getting it to the hospital!
These are the extremists in the Democrat party I speak of! 177 out of 182 Democrats would not support saving that Baby's life by demanding it get immedeate care to save his life!
For someone calling themselves moderate and still voting for these extremists, makes the so called moderate a supporter of infanticide.
What kind of extremist Democrat politicians could not sign onto this bill?
It has been signed into law for over a decade. They already signed into law.
If after your child was born, but had problems breathing, or any other problems, WOULD YOU ALLOW THE PERSON WHO DELIVERED THAT BABY TO NOT INSTANTLY GET IT THE CARE IT NEEDED TO SURVIVE? It would be no less than murder to do nothing and allow the Baby to die!
I wouldn't, and neither have Democrats for over a decade.
It's sickening we have people like you who try to deceive people
That's you. The Republicans are the only ones being deceptive here. The Republicans are lying about needing this bill. It is already law.
Obviously there are abortionists such as in planned parenthood who refuse to get these Babies born alive to the hospital for care.
More deception. These abortions are never done in a Planned Parenthood. These abortions are only done by shady doctors on their own.
The abortionists do not want to save the Baby's life so they simply wait and allow the child to die without getting it to the hospital!
They did years ago. It is already law.
These are the extremists in the Democrat party I speak of! 177 out of 182 Democrats would not support saving that Baby's life by demanding it get immedeate care to save his life!
How many times do they need to support the same law? It is already law.
For someone calling themselves moderate and still voting for these extremists, makes the so called moderate a supporter of infanticide.
Extremism is creating the same law over and over to make the other side look bad.
I don't find anything objective in your arguments, though. All I see there is "I'm right, they're wrong and I think they're horrible people. Period".
To someone like me who doesn't act or take conclusions based on emotions, but rather on objectivity, evidence and facts, I can't be persuaded of what you're saying.
What you're talking about involves not just opinions, but biological, medical and psychological studies and considerations. There are nuances in every aspect of life, and it's only through a open minded discussion that anyone can reach a middle ground, not through hostile and resented accusations.
Regardless, your posts are a fine example of how the term "extremist" is subject to interpretation: what one moderate finds acceptable, another moderate finds extreme. It's nothing new to me, but it's displayed. That has important implications on the main topic.
Here are some MORE facts that I'm sure you would like to ignore in all your moderation.....
Here are the actual words from the "Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act"
This bill amends the federal criminal code to require any health care practitioner who is present when a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion to: (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure that such child is immediately admitted to a hospital. The term "born alive" means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut."
What kind of extremist Democrat politicians could not sign onto this bill?
If after your child was born, but had problems breathing, or any other problems, WOULD YOU ALLOW THE PERSON WHO DELIVERED THAT BABY TO NOT INSTANTLY GET IT THE CARE IT NEEDED TO SURVIVE? It would be no less than murder to do nothing and allow the Baby to die!
It's sickening we have people who try and downplay the extremism of this bill. Obviously there are abortionists such as in planned parenthood who refuse to get these Babies born alive to the hospital for care. If not, there would be no need for this bill to clearly spell out the obvious procedure to save the child's life!
The abortionists do not want to save the Baby's life so they simply wait and allow the child to die without getting it to the hospital!
These are the extremists in the Democrat party I speak of! 177 out of 182 Democrats would not support saving that Baby's life by demanding it get immedeate care to save his life! For someone calling themselves moderate and still voting for these extremists, makes the moderate a supporter of infanticide.
You still have not presented anything that demonstrates that your opposition is indeed extremist (or wrong). You showed me something which you, yourself, don't think can denied, but you haven't showed anything that your opposition might have to say about it, which might be important to consider. I cannot take conclusions based on only your opinion.
I'm not a moderate. I'm not an ideologue at all. I'm simply a rational person who considers any substantiated arguments and ignores none, without committing the mistake of favoring emotions over coherent thought, evidence, facts, and objectivity. I might accept your reasoning if it had no significant ambiguity.
Still, I am not interested in that debate here (you could make one about that - might be interesting). It's going off topic and is jeopardizing this debate's scores.
