Is the moderate position always the best position?

Is the moderate position always the best position?

Other urls found in this thread:

sys.Sup
youtube.com/watch?v=JB_omHQwYh8
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Why would it be?

Moderation is just how dumb people hedge their bets

Not always.

this

not under extreme circumstances, thats just asking for people to completely undermine you
it is the safest tho

No.
Political moderates are the absolute worst.

Sometimes but not always. Saying it is always wouldn't be moderate.

Usually

I dunno man. Throwing out "always" is pretty extreme

No

If you have no convictions I imagine it would be.

report non-literature threads
sys.Sup Forums.org/lit/imgboard.php?mode=report&no=10547494

No. If you're not sure whether to get chemo therapy the answer is not to get a little. A lot of problems require full commitment once you acknowledge them.

It's like these cunts who pay lip service to climate change and green politics but think getting a Prius and separating their plastic garbage is enough of a contribution to fixing the problem and scoff at the deniers but also scoff at people actually committed to solving the problem.

Moderate is generally just a euphemism for lacking conviction and being a passive cunt. Moderates should be lined up and shot desu.

>Drinking bleach is beneficial

>Drinking bleach is not beneficial

>Drinking bleach is a little bit beneficial

Depends on what is considered moderate in your country.

Yes

I clicked this thread because I knew some faggot would be in here misunderstanding Aristotle.

kek

No. This statement itself for example is not moderate at all.
However I do consider myself a moderate, and I identify nicely in the "In medio stat virtus" principle.

Cherrypicking and strawmen arguments are really the corruption of modern debates.
This is not how an actual "centrist" thinks.

a centrist isnt a moderate

That approach wouldn't work for a variety of situations. One side could always move more and more extreme to make their goals seem like the center. Example:
Person one: all abortion is bad. No one should be aborted.
Person two: all abortion is good. Everyone should be aborted.
Centrist: both sides make good points. All women should be aborted. Yay, I resolved conflict.

That's a dumb example, but if someone decides to be in the middle, them the debaters just need to change the goal posts of the argument. Taking the "center" is only slightly better than being uninformed, because the center is completely subject to change

true, there are also Radical Centrists

Why does everyone seem to confuse "moderatism" with centrism, and using the middle ground fallacy to state their arguments? That's just superficial.

Being moderate doesn't mean to always marry the opinion in the exact middle. For example, I can value the importance of free market in a healthy economic system, without dismissing the role of a good welfare and its social institutions. That's a moderate position.

Can I get one good welfare please

Such an embarrassing post, and you sound so sure of yourself too

No

a moderate wouldn't be able to answer this question

what you just described is economic centrism

If you can't see the pros and cons of both sides of a debate you are a retard.
If after weighing the pros and cons you can't choose a side, you are weak.

If you are dumb and weak you stay out of the argument.
If you are dumb and strong you become an extremist.
If you are smart and weak you are a moderate/centrist.
If you are smart and strong you can wisely defend your side of the argument without being an extremist and can teleologically suspend the arguments for the other side (against your side) in order to reach your desired goal.

or for people that understand that things have nuance

No. The best range of positions is a binary range of positions including extreme conservativism and extreme liberalism, played in a tight aggressive style in accordance with game theory optimal strategy. It should be highly dependent on position, and betting should consist of pot sized bets which force the opposing player to play against your entire range for that street instead of being able to narrow it down.

it's the easiest, not the best

no, it's usually the worst.

Communist is always the best position.

youtube.com/watch?v=JB_omHQwYh8

Oh shit I thought this was Sup Forums nevermind.

Yes.
/lit/ is a /Macron/ board.

"Moderation is for cowards. Any thing worth doing is worth overdoing."

...

Wouldn’t the correct response be

>I’m not sure whether bleach is good or bad, so I won’t drink any until I am sure

Wrong, it is always the worst.

The secret is to moderately be a moderate.

extremism is how dumb people exuberant confidence and understanding when faced with the endless uncertainties of life

This

Maybe, but the best one there is actually being knowledgeable to both positions (or all 4 if you post Political Compass).
>Not shitposting on both Tumblr and Sup Forums for shits, giggles and (you)s

Why did you skip past making a true statement, and settle for an only moderately true statement?

Could it be.. because of..
moderation?

notice I didn't say the negatives of extremism outway the positives. A smart capable man would use extremism to further his goal because of his knowledge of history and observations of his surroundings. A smart man truly believing his extremist views are always the best course or action are rare and always destructive. For the 99% of any extremists, I stand by my statement