Perfect example of why "regulatory" issues are much more complex than the public generally bothers to examine

[CarawayDJ]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Good post, DJ. I don't agree with any of the three scenarios you suggest. But it wasn't the point of the thread for me to propose any solution. The point was to demonstrate how complex issues usually are that lead to regulation. Easy to rant oversimplifications. Tough to actually use some brain cells.

That is exactly why I'm a moderate. The answer to most problems, the best way to stimulate an economy, create jobs, provide social welfare, and how all these things interact are freakishly complex. You can find an equally qualified expert on each side of just about every issue. It's incredibly naive for people to "know" that their position must be the one and only correct one.

[Tulemutt]

I agree that "how these things interact are freakishly complex". And I appreciate the "moderate" sentiment. Really. A politely noble position. Theoretically.
Yet it's very lack of passionate commitment makes it weak.
Strong threats and issues require powerful positions.

[CarawayDJ]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I agree that "how these things interact are freakishly complex". And I appreciate the "moderate" sentiment. Really. A politely noble position. Theoretically.
Yet it's very lack of passionate commitment makes it weak.
Strong threats and issues require powerful positions.

I think moderates are incorrectly labeled as being weak. Being moderate is not synonymous with being weak or even not being passionate about an issue. To me it's an awareness that almost never does one side of an issue have a monopoly on the truth. It's an awareness that there is almost always a bit of truth on both sides, even if you think one side has more of it. It's an awareness that complex issues rarely have one and only one correct solution, and often have nothing but a bunch of imperfect solutions. It's an awareness that no one culture or way of life (e.g. urban, cowboy, yuppie, etc.) is superior. It's an awareness that a progressive state is no more or less valid than a conservative state, it's just different.

That said, we need a good mix. Without liberals the world would never change. Without conservatives we'd make 180 degree turns every 5 years.

I'm not moderate on every issue though. I have some views that are very liberal and some that are very conservative.

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by CarawayDJ

I think moderates are incorrectly labeled as being weak.

Keep in mind that not everyone labels them as such.

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by CarawayDJ

I think moderates are incorrectly labeled as being weak. Being moderate is not synonymous with being weak or even not being passionate about an issue. To me it's an awareness that almost never does one side of an issue have a monopoly on the truth. It's an awareness that there is almost always a bit of truth on both sides, even if you think one side has more of it. It's an awareness that complex issues rarely have one and only one correct solution, and often have nothing but a bunch of imperfect solutions. It's an awareness that no one culture or way of life (e.g. urban, cowboy, yuppie, etc.) is superior. It's an awareness that a progressive state is no more or less valid than a conservative state, it's just different.

That said, we need a good mix. Without liberals the world would never change. Without conservatives we'd make 180 degree turns every 5 years.

I'm not moderate on every issue though. I have some views that are very liberal and some that are very conservative.

Such a lovely post

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CarawayDJ

I think moderates are incorrectly labeled as being weak. Being moderate is not synonymous with being weak or even not being passionate about an issue. To me it's an awareness that almost never does one side of an issue have a monopoly on the truth. It's an awareness that there is almost always a bit of truth on both sides, even if you think one side has more of it. It's an awareness that complex issues rarely have one and only one correct solution, and often have nothing but a bunch of imperfect solutions. It's an awareness that no one culture or way of life (e.g. urban, cowboy, yuppie, etc.) is superior. It's an awareness that a progressive state is no more or less valid than a conservative state, it's just different.

That said, we need a good mix. Without liberals the world would never change. Without conservatives we'd make 180 degree turns every 5 years.

I'm not moderate on every issue though. I have some views that are very liberal and some that are very conservative.

Didn't say moderates are weak. I said moderate positions are weak.
And truth is a singular reality. That opposing ideologies might only see parts of truths begs incomplete solutions. Cleaving to ideology, including moderate ideology, is not a path to any truth.
I don't agree what we need is a good mix of ideologies.
What we need is an unwavering commitment to truth, regardless of ideological blather.

Nice conversation

[CarawayDJ]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Didn't say moderates are weak. I said moderate positions are weak.
And truth is a singular reality. That opposing ideologies might only see parts of truths begs incomplete solutions. Cleaving to ideology, including moderate ideology, is not a path to any truth.
I don't agree what we need is a good mix of ideologies.
What we need is an unwavering commitment to truth, regardless of ideological blather.

Nice conversation

Just one point of contention. The "truth is a singular reality" isn't accurate outside of science (aka facts). What is the singular truth on the war on drugs or drug policy? What is the singular truth on the best way to educate children? What is the singular truth on when we should allow people to draw social security and how much they should earn? What is the singular truth on marriage, polygamy, etc.? What is the singular truth on the drinking age or speed limits? I get the gist of what you are saying, but there really isn't any singular truth outside of science.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CarawayDJ

Just one point of contention. The "truth is a singular reality" isn't accurate outside of science (aka facts). What is the singular truth on the war on drugs or drug policy? What is the singular truth on the best way to educate children? What is the singular truth on when we should allow people to draw social security and how much they should earn? What is the singular truth on marriage, polygamy, etc.? What is the singular truth on the drinking age or speed limits? I get the gist of what you are saying, but there really isn't any singular truth outside of science.

Excellent. But here's the thing about truth, science and facts. Your examples are all generalizations, short on facts. Science can determine truths about things only in levels. Take "life". There are truths applicable to all life. But there are truths about mammals that are not shared by, say, lizards and petunias. Yet they are all life forms.

To best answer the questions about social security, drugs, marriage, drinking, etc., you need to parse out the circumstances. Facts. For many people, drinking alcohol is not destructive. For many others, it is. One has to define the circumstances. Just as the OP linked article did with almonds, bees, water, China, CV pollution, and loss of production of other critical crops.

Back to "moderation" for a minute. "Moderation: the avoidance of excesses or extremes, especially in one's behavior or political opinions".

For many people, drinking in moderation is not only fine, it appears to have benefits. For many, it is completely destructive. Moderation as an "avoidance of extremes" may be typically polite. But it is not appropriate under many threats. In warfare, one does not generally return fire "moderately".

Again, the point of this thread is to challenge the readers' propensities to judge regulations superficially.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Again, the point of this thread is to challenge the readers' propensities to judge regulations superficially.

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Oh that's just the liberal, elitist commie propaganda telling us that issues are complex. Back on my daddies farm we used mercury and arsenic to kill critters, and we played in those fields and I turned out just fine!

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

Yeah, I smell the stink of some CA yahoo trying to take away my 2nd Amendment rights! Ain't gonna happen!

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

The board would be a beehive of cries against government interfering with free-enterprise, screwing California's future, abandoning the unemployed of the CV, yadda yadda, chatter chatter.

Judged.