The Fallacy of Centrism

[Sultanate of Turkey]

So, leave it with the parents to handle the issues that you can’t figure out? Wonderful. We have a whole generation already dependent on their parents, do we need to add more of a burden?

Parents are usually the first people to notice that their children need some sort of psychiatric help. This isn't a new burden for them, this is just part of the job of being a parent.

Fair point. To be honest, we should have an amendment detailing the responsibilities of parents.

[Sultanate of Turkey]

Limit the amount of sexuality to at least 3. Only 1 percent of the world labels themselves. ((It’s funny, you folks hate labels, but need to make 14 percent of your life about labeling yourself)) identify as anything outside of the major 2, which is Straight and Homosexual. 0.73 percent of that 1 percent identify as queer.

I’m not strongly against somehow banning the concept of pansexuality until someone makes the flag colors look less ugly, but asexuality is still a thing that is meaningfully different from the other ones. Why crack down on it? It would just make language for describing sexuality less useful.

According to the survey/study/whatever we label them today, asexual was labeled under queer. However you do raise a good point that I will consider if I do debate this further.

[Necroghastia]

Did I ask if they had a right to do so? No? Then how about you respond to what I actually asked, which was if it was reasonable.

Again, not a response. They should not be doctors if that's all it takes for them to whine.

Only the things that are dumb. The sort of stuff that takes two seconds to realize sucks shit if you actually take time (again, even so much as two seconds) to think about it.

Damn, going into insults now?
Yes, it is reasonable. They are expressing their viewpoints.

Let me get this straight. You think literal Nazism is reasonable?

[Port Caverton]

Limit the amount of sexuality to at least 3. Only 1 percent of the world labels themselves. ((It’s funny, you folks hate labels, but need to make 14 percent of your life about labeling yourself)) identify as anything outside of the major 2, which is Straight and Homosexual. 0.73 percent of that 1 percent identify as queer.

I’m not strongly against somehow banning the concept of pansexuality until someone makes the flag colors look less ugly, but asexuality is still a thing that is meaningfully different from the other ones. Why crack down on it? It would just make language for describing sexuality less useful.

Pansexuality is just spicy bisexuality

[Sultanate of Turkey]

Damn, going into insults now?
Yes, it is reasonable. They are expressing their viewpoints.

Let me get this straight. You think literal Nazism is reasonable?

If Communism is reasonable, why not the other end of the spectrum. It is reasonable to hold rallies, create parties, host ideological events, etc. It is not reasonable to go burn a building down and commit acts of violence and depravity.

[Ors Might]

Let me get this straight. You think literal Nazism is reasonable?

If Communism is reasonable, why not the other end of the spectrum. It is reasonable to hold rallies, create parties, host ideological events, etc. It is not reasonable to go burn a building down and commit acts of violence and depravity.

But are the viewpoints within Nazism reasonable? And is it reasonable to use Nazism as a basis for law?

[Sultanate of Turkey]

I’m not strongly against somehow banning the concept of pansexuality until someone makes the flag colors look less ugly, but asexuality is still a thing that is meaningfully different from the other ones. Why crack down on it? It would just make language for describing sexuality less useful.

Pansexuality is just spicy bisexuality

I wonder if someone could create grasssexuality. It could explain why most of these people can’t go outside. They get too turned on.

[El Lazaro]

Let me get this straight. You think literal Nazism is reasonable?

If Communism is reasonable, why not the other end of the spectrum. It is reasonable to hold rallies, create parties, host ideological events, etc. It is not reasonable to go burn a building down and commit acts of violence and depravity.

Communism isn’t reasonable either, so nothing you said past that point holds any water

[Sultanate of Turkey]

If Communism is reasonable, why not the other end of the spectrum. It is reasonable to hold rallies, create parties, host ideological events, etc. It is not reasonable to go burn a building down and commit acts of violence and depravity.

But are the viewpoints within Nazism reasonable? And is it reasonable to use Nazism as a basis for law?

No. But her question was asking if having rallies and such was reasonable. I answered yes, and she took it to the next level of you must think Nazism is reasonable. In practice, all governments and ideologies are unreasonable. But, you still have a right to join those parties expressing such views.

And no, in law it is unreasonable. Maybe good economically, if you don’t notice the sudden lack of human rights.

[Sultanate of Turkey]

If Communism is reasonable, why not the other end of the spectrum. It is reasonable to hold rallies, create parties, host ideological events, etc. It is not reasonable to go burn a building down and commit acts of violence and depravity.

Communism isn’t reasonable either, so nothing you said past that point holds any water

Communism as an ideology is plenty reasonable. It just isn’t in practice. Every ideology holds reasonable truths, or a goal which can be achieved.

[Necroghastia]

Let me get this straight. You think literal Nazism is reasonable?

If Communism is reasonable, why not the other end of the spectrum.

"If this thing, which does not advocate the senseless slaughter of people simply for the color of their skin or other immutable qualities, is reasonable, then it is also reasonable to advocate for said senseless slaughter!"

It is reasonable to hold rallies, create parties, host ideological events, etc. It is not reasonable to go burn a building down and commit acts of violence and depravity.

Do you think Nazis all want to do one and not the other lol

[El Lazaro]

Communism isn’t reasonable either, so nothing you said past that point holds any water

Communism as an ideology is plenty reasonable. It just isn’t in practice. Every ideology holds reasonable truths, or a goal which can be achieved.

This concedes too much ground to Marxists

[Vivida Vis Animi]

In practice, all governments and ideologies are unreasonable. But, you still have a right to join those parties expressing such views.

I am hesitant to ask for an elaboration. Whatever this ideology you believe in ironically also deems itself unreasonable by its own definition. Not that I object to that point specifically; just an interesting point to make.

[Sultanate of Turkey]

If Communism is reasonable, why not the other end of the spectrum.

"If this thing, which does not advocate the senseless slaughter of people simply for the color of their skin or other immutable qualities, is reasonable, then it is also reasonable to advocate for said senseless slaughter!"

It is reasonable to hold rallies, create parties, host ideological events, etc. It is not reasonable to go burn a building down and commit acts of violence and depravity.

Do you think Nazis all want to do one and not the other lol

Did I state that I thought such?
I stated it was not reasonable to commit acts of violence. You can preach it all of you want, a holy crusade against Muslims, Jews, and everything else you mildly disagree with, but it is not sensible nor reasonable to act on such beliefs. People have a right to life.

[Sultanate of Turkey]

In practice, all governments and ideologies are unreasonable. But, you still have a right to join those parties expressing such views.

I am hesitant to ask for an elaboration. Whatever this ideology you believe in ironically also deems itself unreasonable by its own definition. Not that I object to that point specifically; just an interesting point to make.

Yes, the Republican ideology isn’t. That’s how government works. Constant checks and balances and discovering what is and isn’t reasonable.

[Necroghastia]

"If this thing, which does not advocate the senseless slaughter of people simply for the color of their skin or other immutable qualities, is reasonable, then it is also reasonable to advocate for said senseless slaughter!"

Do you think Nazis all want to do one and not the other lol

Did I state that I thought such?
I stated it was not reasonable to commit acts of violence. You can preach it all of you want, a holy crusade against Muslims, Jews, and everything else you mildly disagree with, but it is not sensible nor reasonable to act on such beliefs. People have a right to life.

Do you somehow think a belief, in and of itself, cannot be unreasonable?

[Sultanate of Turkey]

Communism as an ideology is plenty reasonable. It just isn’t in practice. Every ideology holds reasonable truths, or a goal which can be achieved.

This concedes too much ground to Marxists

Every ideology is both unreasonable and reasonable. There’s an older saying that I think also fits here, ‘Every government policy is so horrible yet so flawlessly executed.’

[Sultanate of Turkey]

Did I state that I thought such?
I stated it was not reasonable to commit acts of violence. You can preach it all of you want, a holy crusade against Muslims, Jews, and everything else you mildly disagree with, but it is not sensible nor reasonable to act on such beliefs. People have a right to life.

Do you somehow think a belief, in and of itself, cannot be unreasonable?

No. All beliefs are unreasonable. There is no evidence providing proof otherwise.

[Vivida Vis Animi]

I am hesitant to ask for an elaboration. Whatever this ideology you believe in ironically also deems itself unreasonable by its own definition. Not that I object to that point specifically; just an interesting point to make.

Yes, the Republican ideology isn’t. That’s how government works. Constant checks and balances and discovering what is and isn’t reasonable.

But the concept of government is unreasonable to you? Checks and balances are just as unreasonable as fascism?

[Sultanate of Turkey]

Yes, the Republican ideology isn’t. That’s how government works. Constant checks and balances and discovering what is and isn’t reasonable.

But the concept of government is unreasonable to you? Checks and balances are just as unreasonable as fascism?

I don’t think you are reading into the lines.
Everything has certain levels of unreasonablity to everyone. Everyone shares different beliefs that other may share or find unreasonable. Today, we find fascists unreasonable, but in the German Depression, many people shared the same hatred for Jews and same story as Hitler. It appeared reasonable to them.
((I misspoke, yes the Republican ideology *is* unreasonable. I said isn’t))

[Forsher]

I mean, centrism is by definition support for upholding the status quo, but that would put them as more reactionary than conservatives, who want slow change to the status quo. This is obviously stupid,

I hate this thread and regret posting in it, but I just want to say that this is the same error as in the OP.

Centrism is not "by definition" support for the status quo. If it was, centrism would be conservative. Additionally, anyone who wants to change the status quo isn't conservative. Republicans aren't conservative but they could be Conservative, depending how you define capital C Conservatism, for example. Reactionary is an extremely dumb term and people should stop using it because it implies that people don't realise their views/thoughts in response (reaction) stimuli.

Centrism is... I think I'm more on the "Centrism is where the left and right hate you" than "Centrism is where you hate extremism" train. You may, in this sense, be right that centrists are reactionary because there's no commitment to intellectual consistency in the way that you might expect a Marxist or a racist to apply Marxism or racism to develop an opinion on all stimuli. I suspect a centrist generates their politics from their ethics, not their ethics from their politics.

[Sultanate of Turkey]

I mean, centrism is by definition support for upholding the status quo, but that would put them as more reactionary than conservatives, who want slow change to the status quo. This is obviously stupid,

I hate this thread and regret posting in it, but I just want to say that this is the same error as in the OP.

Centrism is not "by definition" support for the status quo. If it was, centrism would be conservative. Additionally, anyone who wants to change the status quo isn't conservative. Republicans aren't conservative but they could be Conservative, depending how you define capital C Conservatism, for example. Reactionary is an extremely dumb term and people should stop using it because it implies that people don't realise their views/thoughts in response (reaction) stimuli.

Centrism is... I think I'm more on the "Centrism is where the left and right hate you" than "Centrism is where you hate extremism" train. You may, in this sense, be right that centrists are reactionary because there's no commitment to intellectual consistency in the way that you might expect a Marxist or a racist to apply Marxism or racism to develop an opinion on all stimuli. I suspect a centrist generates their politics from their ethics, not their ethics from their politics.

In my opinion, centrism seems to me the best policy to use for modern politics. Combine the best from several viewpoints into one fundamental ideology.

[Cannot think of a name]

Please justify the limitations you wish to impose upon me and others.

Limit the amount of sexuality to at least 3. Only 1 percent of the world labels themselves. ((It’s funny, you folks hate labels, but need to make 14 percent of your life about labeling yourself)) identify as anything outside of the major 2, which is Straight and Homosexual. 0.73 percent of that 1 percent identify as queer.

You think only this 1% care about labels? You’ve apparently never seen a straight dude react to being called “gay.”

[Sultanate of Turkey]

Limit the amount of sexuality to at least 3. Only 1 percent of the world labels themselves. ((It’s funny, you folks hate labels, but need to make 14 percent of your life about labeling yourself)) identify as anything outside of the major 2, which is Straight and Homosexual. 0.73 percent of that 1 percent identify as queer.

You think only this 1% care about labels? You’ve apparently never seen a straight dude react to being called “gay.”

I meant to state that 1 percent label themselves as things other than straight or homosexual. Not labels in general.

[Cannot think of a name]

You think only this 1% care about labels? You’ve apparently never seen a straight dude react to being called “gay.”

I meant to state that 1 percent label themselves as things other than straight or homosexual. Not labels in general.

As long as that makes sense to you…