In itself, there is nothing wrong with being extreme

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

So basically, if you're convinced that you're right, it doesn't really matter what others think.

That's no great revelation, at least to me.

Irony Alert! whoop whoop!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

So basically, if you're convinced that you're right, it doesn't really matter what others think.

That's no great revelation, at least to me.

Bahahahahaha coming from P&N's most Extremist :laugh:

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Pedro69

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Pedro69
I mean even considering creationism over evolution makes me feel like going back to the Dark ages.

That is a commonly held view, but unfortunately many of the people who hold this view are relying on second-hand knowledge without analyzing both sides for themselves.

Where do you get the idea of many people having second hand knowledge? I grew up with both knowledges at hand, and I not only decided to choose evolution over creationism I became an atheist. I don't judge people for what they believe or not, but I will judge them when they try to influence my child in school on religous beliefs.

Most people don't study the fossil record. Most people don't even study evolution or creationism outside of a few Biology classes. Most people accept what the experts say. We do this all the time in life.

The problem isn't science. The problem is the merging of philosophy and religion with science, and that is what is going on that Christians object to.

Atheism makes a bold, religious claim. Atheism is not morally neutral, nor is it scientific. There are many Athiests who say they became Atheistic after reading about evolution... why do you think that is? There is a correlation that is difficult to deny.

Like yourself, I don't want my future children influenced religiously in a public school.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Pedro69

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Pedro69
I mean even considering creationism over evolution makes me feel like going back to the Dark ages.

That is a commonly held view, but unfortunately many of the people who hold this view are relying on second-hand knowledge without analyzing both sides for themselves.

Where do you get the idea of many people having second hand knowledge? I grew up with both knowledges at hand, and I not only decided to choose evolution over creationism I became an atheist. I don't judge people for what they believe or not, but I will judge them when they try to influence my child in school on religous beliefs.

Most people don't study the fossil record. Most people don't even study evolution or creationism outside of a few Biology classes. Most people accept what the experts say. We do this all the time in life.

The problem isn't science. The problem is the merging of philosophy and religion with science, and that is what is going on that Christians object to.

Atheism makes a bold, religious claim. Atheism is not morally neutral, nor is it scientific. There are many Athiests who say they became Atheistic after reading about evolution... why do you think that is? There is a correlation that is difficult to deny.

Like yourself, I don't want my future children influenced religiously in a public school.

To accept Evolution is not the same as accepting Atheism. Atheist are not forcing anything on you, you are simply rejecting the best Science on a subject that doesn't mesh with your pre-conceived motions that you have erroneously tied to the existance of God. Flat Earthers made the same mistake.

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I see people on both sides of the aisle say that extremists are bad. Well, being an extremist in itself is not bad. To suggest it is is to appeal to popularity by suggesting that people with more common beliefs are right.

That really depends on your definition of extremist doesn't it ?

While I suppose there is nothing wrong with your suggested definition that an extremist is just someone with a very minority opinion, I think common usage these days is more someone who is willing to go to extreme methods to push their opinion.

For example, someone who considered that cockroaches were the greatest and most noble form of life on the planet would be of an exceptionally minority opinion that is a long way out of the mainstream, but I'm not sure that the title 'extremist' would fit very well. If, however, this person were willing to kill people to protect the rights of cockroaches, I think you would be hard pressed not to label them as an extremist.

 

[ExpertNovice]

One of the many problems today is the changing of definitions to suit our on purposes. Especially when we change the definition based on the individual or group it is being applied. (Democrat is GREAT for doing x because x means this but Republican is BAD for doing x because NOW x means that). A perfect example is with Fascism. It is often portrayed as a a right wing ideology even though it is has the same ideals as Commumism but allows big businesses controlled by elites to have some power.

Ok, now the rambling is done.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=extremist
2 : advocacy of extreme political measures : RADICALISM

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=extreme
1b : going to great or exaggerated lengths : RADICAL <went on an extreme diet>
3 : situated at the farthest possible point from a center
synonym see EXCESSIVE


http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=radicalism
1 : the quality or state of being radical

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=radical
3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : EXTREME b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs



Thus, extremists will go to extremes to effect change. Examples are.

• People who will kill doctors because the doctors perform abortions

• Millon Mom March advocating that no guns be allowed to defend someones life in their own home (or anywhere) while defending their spokeswoman who shoots a teenager and paralyzes him for life because he LOOKS like someone.

• killing people because they differ from your viewpoint (Communists, Fascists, and many Muslim groups)

• Disallowing Christians in a Christian nation from discussing their viewpoints or celebrating their holidays while promoting others.... for the sake of tolerance. (Extremeist enforce tolerance by being intolerant... get it?) Trying being a Christian in a Communist nation or in Iraq, post liberation, or.... However, in the United States of America all religions, including Aetheism are accepted and tolerated.

Extremists are dangerous. Only if you change the definition are they not. Your example of freeing slaves is not a good example.

The ONLY reason (read the Federalist Papers sometime) slavery was not abolished at the time the Constitution was drafted was:
Most states had abolished slavery.
Most of the remaining states were in the process of abolishing slavery.
The thought that if it were added to the Constitution DIRECTLY was that the Constitution would not have been ratified.
It took a shamefully long time to abolish it.

I would suggest that welfare and sharecropping are both forms of slavery. As such, welfare for those who simply want to be on welfare is an extremist position. You can see how well those who opted to go on welfare have done over the past 60+ years.

Got it?

Extremism = Bad

Originally posted by: VelkFor example, someone who considered that cockroaches were the greatest and most noble form of life on the planet would be of an exceptionally minority opinion that is a long way out of the mainstream, but I'm not sure that the title 'extremist' would fit very well. If, however, this person were willing to kill people to protect the rights of cockroaches, I think you would be hard pressed not to label them as an extremist.

Their viewpoint would be extreme but they would not be an extremist. To be an extremist they would have to use any methods to prevent anyone from harming a cockroach.

It could get more extreme you may not build your home if we can find evidence that cockroachs exist on that property.... Oh, sorry, we are going to still tax you for the land which now may not be used thus, no one will buy it. Of course, we will set the value of the land...

 

[sandorski]

No. The definition of Fascism changed(attempted) in the 80's to being a Left wing ideology from Right Wing. It was not the other way around as you want us to believe and fortunetly the switch hasn't caught on. Fascism is a Right Wing philosophy, deal with it, learn from it, and move on.

 

[Infohawk]

I'm going to bump this because people seem to still be having this issue... You can replace partisanship with extremism if you want if your meaning of the word partisan is belonging to a cause or party.

 

[RabidMongoose]

How so? Do you think that your thread is the end all in regards to this topic? There really wasn't much of a reason to bump up a thread that is weeks old.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
How so? Do you think that your thread is the end all in regards to this topic?

It sounds like there are people that wouldn't grasp my first post. If that is true, I want them to post in this thread. If you have a disagreement with my post, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Stunt]

I'm the reason...he thinks that being partisan is not a bad thing.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I'm the reason...he thinks that being partisan is not a bad thing.

It's not bad in itself, depending on what definition of partisan you are using.

Stunt, please respond to my first post if you disagree with it.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
How so? Do you think that your thread is the end all in regards to this topic?

It sounds like there are people that wouldn't grasp my first post. If that is true, I want them to post in this thread. If you have a disagreement with my post, I'd love to hear it.

I already posted in this thread. However, when most people use extremism they mean it in a negative context, not that someone is some sort of abolitionist (that would require a huge ego), but a far more dangeorus extremist in terms of context.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I'm the reason...he thinks that being partisan is not a bad thing.

lol, I'm the reason he first started this thread, too! :laugh:

We are very important to Infohawk!

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I see people on both sides of the aisle say that extremists are bad. Well, being an extremist in itself is not bad. To suggest it is is to appeal to popularity by suggesting that people with more common beliefs are right.

There is no doubt that many extremists, like religious ones, are horrible. But they are not bad because they are extremists, but because of their beliefs, values, and actions.

There have been many "extremists" throughout history who have been right. American abolitionists were extremists in a time when many northerners were simply happy to let slavery be limited to the South. I'm sure we could find rhetoric describing Martin Luther King as an extremist. Jesus was an extremist. Let's face it, many societal shifts are commenced by extremists who become the status quo.

Extremists can be wrong or right.

Edit: the flip side of this is people who take pride in being moderate. It is simply pride in having a common position, which history shows can be quite silly.

Being an extremist is not bad, this has been proven many times in history, as you mention. Being partisan is bad, as you are narrowing your views without listening to suggestions.

I bet there are many members who are partisan against you (i am not one) as your views tend to be far different from theirs. Now do you support them not reading you views and pushing you aside, because they are partisan? I bet not, without being open to others first, nothing will get accomplished.

You say that religious extremists are horrible, I pretty much agree, but their views and concerns must be understood and considered because of today's political atmosphere.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
However, when most people use extremism they mean it in a negative context

That is the value judgment I'm questioning here. If you have a problem with an extremist, it's probably because of their views. If it is because their view is unusual, that is an appeal to popularity.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Stunt
I'm the reason...he thinks that being partisan is not a bad thing.

lol, I'm the reason he first started this thread, too! :laugh:

We are very important to Infohawk!

Haha, and to think we used to argue all the time, watch Infohawk bring people together by repelling everyone away from him

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Being partisan is bad, as you are narrowing your views without listening to suggestions.

What is your definition of partisan? I don't see any part that says being a partisan means you don't listen to suggestions. That is your spin on it.

partisan
adj 1: devoted to a cause or party [syn: partizan] [ant: nonpartisan] 2: adhering or confined to a particular sect or denomination or party; "denominational prejudice" [syn: denominational] n 1: a fervent and even militant proponent of something [syn: zealot, drumbeater] 2: an ardent and enthusiastic supporter of some person or activity [syn: enthusiast, partizan] 3: a pike with a long tapering double-edged blade with lateral projections; 16th and 17th centuries [syn: partizan]

By this definition, many abolitionists were partisans. There was nothing bad about it in itself.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Partisan: adhering or confined to a particular sect or denomination or party

Confined.
Meaning if you are partisan, you have to tout the party line before you consider or can even accept another view on the matter.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Partisan: adhering or confined to a particular sect or denomination or party

Confined.
Meaning if you are partisan, you have to tout the party line before you consider or can even accept another view on the matter.

Did you miss the "OR" part? You have a very loaded view of what it means to be partisan. I also see no part in that definition about "you have to tout the party line before you consider or can even accept another view on the matter." Again, that's your spin on it. In itself, there is nothing wrong with being confined to a certain party.

 

[Stunt]

You have a very naive view of partisan. I'm spining the definition? the thing says if you are partisan, you are confined to a particular sect or party. It's basically your own little religion, can you not see this?

Being confined to a party is wrong as you will not consider other party suggestions. Maybe if you were exposed to a political system without one big party you hate in it, you'd understand. To say that every press release or idea the Dems come out with, you agree with is nutty, same with the other side of the equation. All partisans are bad.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
You have a very naive view of partisan.

I'm using the dictionary definition AND NOTHING MORE. You on the other hand, add your own prejudices to it.

you are confined to a particular sect or party. It's basically your own little religion, can you not see this?

Ummm... no. Being confined to a party is not a religion.

Being confined to a party is wrong as you will not consider other party suggestions.

Again, this is a logical jump you are making. Just because you are confined to a party does not mean you will not consider other parties suggestions.

Maybe if you were exposed to a political system without one big party you hate in it, you'd understand.

Stop making arrogant assumptions about me. I'm familiar with multiparty systems. it doesn't really impact this argument. You aslo assume I hate Republicans, that is not true. Stop assuming.

To say that every press release or idea the Dems come out with, you agree with is nutty, same with the other side of the equation.

What if you are part of a group, a small group, and you happen to agree with every single press release they come out with. Does this make you nutty? Of course it doesn't. It's whether the press release is wrong or right that counts.

All partisans are bad.

Why? And don't tell me it's because they reject other people's arguments, because that is not what it means to be partisan. Maybe you should start saying that people who reject other people's arguments off hand are bad. I would agree with that. I guess you think many abolitionists were bad too.


Are you familiar with logical fallacy? I suggest you visit this site: Link

 

[Stunt]

So you are partisan, good for you, you can wear that label with pride :roll:

I think being partisan is bad, i've told you why...i don't care to discuss it further.
My opinion, you have no control over that, too bad eh??

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
So you are partisan, good for you, you can wear that label with pride :roll:

I think being partisan is bad, i've told you why...i don't care to discuss it further.
My opinion, you have no control over that, too bad eh??

Talk about being close-minded, you won't even answer my points. :roll:

I don't consider myself a partisan by most standards, but there's nothing wrong people who are partisans. There is something wrong with people that won't listen to opposing arguments, which something you are doing in this thread.

 

[Stunt]

I could answer your points, but we have a distinct difference of opinion. I don't feel like defining partisan for 4 pages like we did with your "I'd like Christians to stop posting" ideas.

I'll tell you right now...if you think being partisan isn't bad, you are most likely partisan and trying to defend it.

"There is something wrong with people that won't listen to opposing arguments"
I did listen, i disagree with you. Why is that so hard for you to accept.