Extremes vs. Balance

So i see around here a lot of rightis and some few lefties, and from both sides only the extremes. Is anyone here who believes in a balance?
One extreme being bad doesnt mean the other extreme is right.
For example i believe the west should take every refugee possible since their governments are the one who fucked over theirs for decades or even centuries and created that all. On the other hand dont let everyone in without basic background checks.
I dont believe all races equal, nor do i believe that other races are worthless. They are just different, of which some might can live together and some not.
A controlled market is good to avoid people getting screwed over (i know thats not the kind of controll thats established, and its controlled to the direction to screw us over, but im speaking theory here),but will slow down progress. a free market is good for innovation but makes it easier to screw people over.
Or even the election right now. People apparently only are pro trump, or pro hillary, noone seeing(or at least mentioning) that both are shit, even though there is a chance of trump bei g th smaller pile of shit since he isnt found to have connections woth rothschild and bohemian grove yet and thus might not be on the same side.

What im trying to say is, try to stop thinking in extremes, the world is all about balance


Or what is your opinion

>stop thinking in extremes
>world is all about balance

....

>For example i believe the west should take every refugee possible since their governments are the one who fucked over theirs for decades or even centuries and created that all

the response of any citizen must be to force our politicians to change their foreign policy, deny any friendship to the imperialistic bastards of the US, make rationality the center of our economic system, not profit and then to help rebuild the countries that were destroyed by the "West".
We are not only wasting money by bringing all these "refugees" to very expensive countries instead of helping the refugees there, where we could help all of them with the same money instead of these select few - which is quite unfair, because the weakest will never make it Europe.
Plus we are killing our people and phenotype and exporting the retarded and backwards way of seeing the world that the people have in the Arabic world.

*importing
of course

>for example i believe the west should take every refugee possible since their governments are the one who fucked over theirs for decades or even centuries and created that all.
Dude, in this current political climate and current society, it's very possible, but it's not going to happen. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A FUNCTIONAL FUCKING GOVERNMENT LMFAO
There's no balance anymore. The problem we have is that we need a government that will act and we have one that acts in it's self-interest only.
I would love to accept all migrants, but right now, we can't.
That's not even the fact we would need to teach them and basically re-indoctrinate them to our "side" (see the light of logic), which would also be very hard to do, require a huge amount of resources, and also would not actually solve the problem of extremism.

What should've happened years ago is isolationist laws should've taken place. Military spending should've been brought to a defensive level, and our nation should've been focused on, but goodluck with the chosen people.

Ya know...Keynes read and spoke highly of the road to serfdom...yeah...really makes them gears start turning

>I dont believe all races equal, nor do i believe that other races are worthless. They are just different, of which some might can live together and some not.

You are now a right-wing nazi according to many western european governments.
That's exactly why the political system is out of balances.

I agree, its better to solve the problem at the root. But solving it there can take some time, and people there have every right to look for a better place to live. The best solution would be the west overthrwoing there own corrupt government (which should jave been happened before the stuff in the middle east started escalating) and then work towards real improvements. But i dont really see that happening

Good think i dont care about the mainstream media. I always thought of myself as a (people will hate me here for that) left liberal, still do, but dont throw me together with those braindeads not thinking a vit for themselves

>since their governments are the one who fucked over theirs for decades or even centuries and created that all.

but not in Syria.
The civil war there is a result of the the arab Spring.

>liberal
>I think for myself

Pick one.

You're not alone user, balance is generally the best way to go.

Keep in mind that this board is half posting taboo opinions for keks and half people who have been here so long that they come to believe the nonsense that the echo chamber has been spouting.

It's a necessary reaction to the insane leftist bullshit MSM puts out every day, but I wouldn't say I agree with it.

>I'm a centrist because even though I wabt to literally destroy my country I want to make sure none of the people destroying it are criminals

Fucking retard. The elites put themselves in the "centrist" position no matter how radical or insane it actually is. The "far left" and the "far right" are no more extremist than proponents of TPP and mass immigration.

Why do you think i cant think formyself just because im liberal? Because i blindly adopt an idea of which i think is good? Could say as well that you rightis are just picking that idea from others and dont think. Some people can have the same intelligence, same informations and still get different solutions. What i meant with bein liberal was that i believe everyone should be able to do whatever he wants, unless it harms someone else. Whats wrong with that?

>thinks I'm a righty just because I pointed out a logical fallacy
>somehow not a sheep person

So you're a gobbunist?

How many years of school do you have left, lefty?

to do what we want?? without knowing where those ideals end up is irresponsible and anti freedom and creates imbalance id est current global situation.

I believe in balance but not for the reasons you espouse. Balance comes down to the fact that the universe is in conflict, the entire social system is predicated on conflict between classes, societies then conflict with the outsiders. Some situations can be solved with a leftist solution (Kibutz's are examples of strong communal economies), some situations can only be solved through private enterprise, others can be solved with a cohesive private-public relationship to help keep capital flowing (pre-1975 US). It just depends on the situation.

One must realize that even if they obtain a Nazi paradise or Communist paradise, conflict and human nature will still exist, thus the underlying problems: our egos, will never vanish.

Stupid fucking shill thread again, guys.
Remember to sage and hide.

Where as the logical fallacy between being able to think for myself and being a liberal. Yes i have no idea in which area you belong, i just assumed because of the negativity of your answer to mine that xou would be the opposite. Still i can be liberal AND think. Saying im liberal doesnt mean i agree with liberal politics that are made. Most of them suck. Im not even saying the rightwing is wrong, some stuff is i see as absolutely right and support, you on the other hand seem to discredit everything i say simply because i see myself as i libtard Instead of going against my arguments and statements. I wonder who isnt thinking

>Thinks ego is the underlying problem
You are close user, but keep going.

All of the worlds evils and sicknesses rushed out of Pandora's box, but hope stayed in the jar for a reason, because it is immutable.

If you *wanted* to think for yourself, you wouldn't be a liberal.

Tell me user, what was the last original idea you had?

Kek, not a shill, i hate hillary as much as everyone else and hope she wont become president. After the bohemian grove connection noone should consider her a president. But as further above stated trump is shit as well, even though there is a possibillity of hin being less shitty
Im just a newfag trying to find out the heart of this community

Hope of a death greater then we all deserve, so we can finally ascend and the suffering and ego of all can end. And we can finally be one.

you might as well not even post if you dont have any opinions

This entire post is literally just opinnion, even multiple at once, i fear xou have to learn to look better
I know, but in every discussion lately i feel like everyone thinks only there extreme point of view is the right one, and thats comming from hoth sides of the discussion. I know most is just fun, but still i miss the golden middle lately. And not only here on Sup Forums, in reallife as well and even more and the pseudopolitical discussion

Here is something for you to research, since you have no idea what the fuck I am talking about and spewing off about how we deserve better.

Myth of Pandoras Box
Dark Night of the Soul
Select all images with a storefront.

even nazis can be seen to be balanced, there is still very much more to the right of them. what you seem to mean by balance is just a continuation of the status quo

No i want stuff to change, for the better of course. But what is better for me doesnt mean its better for you. For example i dont mind being around foreigners from other countries as long as they decent people. Some people cant stand being around them because of their behaviour or whatever even if its in no way damaging for others (i know that often not the case, but again hypothetically) so for me a better world would be people from everywhere being able to travel everywhere they want and stay there (not this forced immigration shit they try right now though) while for orhers a better world would be to close boarders and just be among the own kinds. I see both versions as not bad, i just like to be around the world at some point and see stuff people and cultures.

For how to change stuff? I wish it could be done with just a wellplaced vote but that wont do anything i believe. More and more i believe the only way to stop things going downhill would be a civil uprising but alone that wont accomplish anything as well

How high are you right now? Pass me that shit.

>Be OP
>Believe in balance, facts, and objective reality

Must be a Shill. We don't take kindly to these things here.

Go back to 2016. It's 1955 up in this bitch

>current year meme

Yeah because OP definitely "believes in balance"

Can you even fucking read leaf? Maybe it's the comprehension part that is tough for you?

>"The world is ALL about balance"

>implying that there are only two points
>not realizing that human behavior, humans thoughts used to divert into 100 different ways
>some of them, like the species died in evolution
>some of them still linger in the minds of the humans
>new ones may also arise in the minds of the humans
>also a third party, outside of the minds of the humans (AI) may arise

There is literally no reason why you cannot simply kill all the jews and leftists.

Those are nice conventional terms but what do you mean is extreme?

If falling back on rather innate conservative views of human nature and basic society is extreme they you are speaking out of your ass.

Extreme opposition, is equally proportional in the modern world of the extreme actions of governments.

When the government says "let's take all refugees in and spend our money on them" opposition is not extreme, it is rational.

Ideological Balance, like peace, is an illusion. As noble as the intentions are, in reality, they are unattainable benchmarks of an impossible utopian society.

The problem is that extremists are often stupid while people who always compromise in the middle ground (which is considered a fallacy) just do it because they don't really care about the topic in question or know little about it.

So what's worse; the guy who vehemently argues that vaccines cause autism, the one that vehemently argues that they don't or the guy that says that vaccines cause SOME autism without having the slightest idea what he's talking about and feeling super smart about it at the same time?

And of course, OP had to be the latter. What a faggot you are, OP.

i believe we should take in refugees.

then put them in camp and don't let them out. give them water and food. bomb the shit out of IS and send every single refugee back when the war is over.

>t. Someone who has no idea what the Overton window is

Who are you to decide what is the true centrist position when a centrist position today would be the same as an extreme left wing position 50 years ago?

A centrist is just another name for someone who doesn't think a lot about politics and just prefers the status quo.

Pic related

Bad idea. You are just creating an IS cell within your own cuntry. The refugees were fucked from the beginning, that isn't your fault.

I'm with you in a certain way OP; the answer is not in one corner but in the perfect balance between all those different perspectives, but I'm not quite sure what are you referring to as extremes nor I think I'd agree with you on that. Earthly and spiritual matters (human behaviour) don't reflect themselves on right&left, it's way more complicated.

You shouldn't fear extremists either, as sometimes they are a necessary evil to change momentum... the real challenge of a good leader is to know where they should start loosening up and where to get grip again... perfect balance is a naive dream but lengthen transitory phases isn't.

The refugees (the actual ones) should have stayed in the camps they were in in the neighboring countries to Syria. Bringing them and accommodating them here is several times more expensive than if they had stayed there in the camps and were fed with rations.

The mere idea of taking them to Europe has caused thousands of refugees to suffer. And has wasted resources that could have been used to help these legitimate victims in the most ludicrous manner.

>immigrants can be seen as 100% evil "lol lets kill all mudslimes" as the most right wing way possible
>immigrants can be seen as 0% evil "all of them are equal, le leftist"
>immigrants can also be subdivided by religion "christian syrians who share our values"
>immigrants can be subdivided by DNA "this % of immigrants has a high IQ and we should only import them"
>immigrants can further be subdivided by DNA scientific lore "regression to the mean means that its pointless to import them as their children will most likely be not like them"

>all these different groups of people have different means of handling these things.

Some of them would import them, others would not, others still would import only the brightest ones, others still would import none still. Others still would castrate them so that the genetic pool would not be polluted. Some still would put them into an army and make them earn citizenship.

And the list goes on and on and on.

Imperialists, monarchists, capitalists, leftists, liberitarians etc. all have different ways of seeing the world and dealing with it.

There are no two solutions. The world is far more complicated than that.

The most complicated area is in science itself actually. The results that scientific research gives, goes far beyond human imagination. Between two scientists the most fiercest of wars could even break out, even fiercer than that of a communist and a natsoc guy.

>For example i believe the west should take every refugee possible since their governments are the one who fucked over theirs for decades or even centuries and created that all.


So basically you're retarded and you want you child to suffer because of some misplaced sense of guilt you have. If you even have children that is.

Why would anyone of us have to suffer for the deeds of political class? Wont even read after this cause I am sure it's shit

Ment to link to

Officially deeming this thread a cringe thread. All of you are cucks. Nothing you have said or will say is correct.

Firstly this is considered to be a logical fallacy. Let us consider the following case:

Group X proposes to kill all the people on earth, group Y proposes we shouldn't do that. The "balanced" solution would then be to kill half the people on earth. But we can easily consider some less pathological situations.

Consider the multi regional tribunals proposed by the TTIP, TTP and CETA. One side wants them as it blocks government interference in corporations and increases profits, the other side does not as it is considered to be a direct attack on the notions of democracy when explicitly multinational corporations have the right to take a state to an external court, a right not held by either individuals or non mulitnational corporations.

The solution here is not half of either side, it has to be precisely one way or the other.

Next we can consider your exact arguments:
>For example i believe the west should take every refugee possible since their governments are the one who fucked over theirs for decades or even centuries and created that all. On the other hand don't let everyone in without basic background checks.
Should not the people of the nations get a say? Or are you simply advocating for another kind of totalitarianism where people are punished for the perceived sins of their ancestors, or their governments, the actions of which they themselves may have protested or simply not had a say in?

> People apparently only are pro trump, or pro hillary
Blatantly false, both are idiots.

>For example i believe the west should take every refugee possible since their governments are the one who fuc

Aaaaand, stopped reading right there.

>For example i believe the west should take every refugee possible since their governments are the one who fucked over theirs for decades or even centuries and created that all.

Why? Who forces you do to do this? There is no karmic force in the universe.

How is it morally right to let fighting age males come to your country, rape girls, committ crimes against innocent people, and live on the workers taxes? The people responsible (politicians and elites) for fucking them over won't see any karmic justice, innocent, underage girls, average citizens who simply work and live a normal life are going to get fucked over by these refugees. How is that justice? The actions of a government does not justify harm against civillians. That is considered a war crime.

Also not suprised a german is shilling for refugees. You are a seriosuly fucking disgusting people. Should have eradicated your culture after ww2.

I absolutely believe in balance, but more in my personal interactions. In politics I believe and support what is best for the greatest number of people even if I'm not part of that group.

So gay marriage? I think gay people are disgusting attention whores. But if they get married it hurts me in no way, nor anyone else. It benefits them or at least they feel it does. So I support it.

Refugees? There is a net negative when the people from shit holes want to come here but beg us to fight their battles for them. I'm fine bringing in a controlled and monitored group of invalids, children, the sick. But grown men need to fight.

Clinton and Trump are both terrible choices and I'm probably not going to vote at all.

I believe we are guilty because we didnt stop our governments when we could prevent it, and still wont do anything. So yes i believe most of us are guilty in that. However i dont want our children to suffer because of this, i would prefer taking them in, solving the issue as quick as possible and then sent them back when stuff is fixed. I know thats idiology and wont work like that, i even agree some stuff needs more extreme actions to solve, but the absolute extreme is barely ever the way to go, wether it "bring every refugee via 1st class ticket here so none of those poor people have to suffer" which will get a lot of assholes and terrorists here, nor is it "close the boarders, let noone in and bomb the fucking desert" which will only give rise to more terroristsand extremists breeded from hate and terror.

Disclaimer: with balance i dont mean the exact middle, but something inbetween the extremes.
Like one user said
Party a: kill everyone
Party b: kill noone
Balance in my sence wouldnt be kill 50% but kill everyone that has to be killed because they are a thread to other innocents and have no way to become better themselves
As for the refugees i would say take them all in but contain them somewhereThen do background checks on them. If One proofs to be innocent decent human beings let him roam the country, if not one doesnt let him contained or if he want let him go somewhere else where they allow him to be, or go back to where he come from

To the guy talking about vaccines
Which one is better, the one who claims to have knowledge and tells others what to do, or the one who admits to insufficiant knowledge and let people decide himself.
I know i cant tell 100% for sure as research in both directions could be completely faked, the ones saying vaccines cause autism and those that say they dont. I didnt do research my self and thus it comes down which sources i trust more. If you trust the government and the pharmacompanies why should i be able to decide to not get one? If you dont trust them why should i be able to tell you to get one.
Thats what liberalism is for me, you decide yourself what to do, as long as you dont harm others. Any law contradicting that should be obselete.
Ps. Sorry when i didnt link posts properly, but its a pain im the ass with the phone