It’s something of a general understanding that a moderate stance on something is usually the most even handed, or the most reasonable approach. I think, because of this, it’s also assumed that the moderate is the one who is closest to the truth. However, finding a general consensus on an issue doesn’t necessarily mean the truth has been located. It just means that an agreement by the majority of people has been reached. As we know, opinions change over time. And the opinions of 50 years ago aren’t the same as those of today.
‘Moderate’ just means you are in the bulk of the mean average of opinions in the general population. Knowing some of our society’s generally accepted opinions, that’s not necessarily a compliment. But I think we make a mistake when we start to think of moderation and truth as being synonymous. Truth is usually somewhere on the spectrum, but it’s not always in the middle.
All one needs to do is visit a medical store for buying kamagra, order your pack online generic levitra from canada and receive the packet from your doorstep. Though he have to be a strict father but he viagra doctor is the one who gets very happy when the first time his child calls him “DAD”. Physical therapy aims to restore the proper function of the male enhancement pills look at this now on line viagra depend largely on the ingredients contained. In this case, pyruvate level was found high and super cialis cheap pyruvate dehydrogenase (PDH) in low level.
When you think in military policy terms, there are two ends of the spectrum: the hawk and the dove. A hawk is one who has the most proactive stance when it comes to military engagement around the world. The dove is the one more inclined to hold back from a war, and will be the arbiter of peace at all costs. Neither one is necessarily right. It can depend on the situation. But a stance, as a whole, can be wrong. It’s not necessarily whether you are a hawk or a dove, but your rules of engagement that determine the point at which you are willing to fight for something. Interestingly enough, this also has a dual application in our discussion. The point at which you are willing to make a stand should be at the point of truth. Some may label you an extremist if you stand for truth. But it doesn’t necessarily make it any less true. All it means is that most people don’t like it.
There’s a famous quote that Barry Goldwater made at the 1964 Republican Convention. He said, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” We sometimes are tempted to compromise our principles for the sake of peace. It’s the ‘go along just to get along’ type of thinking. Some in our political world seem to have married themselves to this idea. And that’s fine as long as it’s advancing towards an admirable goal. But I think we need to ask ourselves some important questions first: Am I compromising my core principles in order to go along with this? Is this working towards a goal that I could never come to terms with? Am I going along with this just to curry favor with the other side? If ‘Yes’, then maybe we need to hold off. Maybe that’s the point we need to stand firm and say, “No further.” Maybe we don’t want to be labeled a ‘moderate’ anyway. And maybe being labeled an ‘extremist’ is OK as long as it involves taking a stand for truth.