web analytics
The Standard

Taking a hard line on moderation fallacies

Written By: - Date published: 10:56 am, August 15th, 2012 - 10 comments
Categories: Politics - Tags:

I’ve got a new rule. If I’m reading any political ‘analysis’ and the author commits argument to moderation fallacy, I stop reading right there. So I don’t know what John Armstrong wrote after his third sentence yesterday: “The competing choruses of those who say it has not gone far enough and those who say it has gone too far would suggest it has things just about right.” The logic of my new rule is that I can’t be missing anything.

10 comments on “Taking a hard line on moderation fallacies”

  1. Tom Gould 1

    Armstrong lost all credibility some time back, with me, around the time he fell hopelessly in love with John Key.

  2. Colonial Viper 2

    Check out Sorkin’s new series, The Newsroom

    • tc 2.1

      Excellent show, also ‘House of Lies’ it’s funny and it takes a swipe at some obvious targets.

      John, fran and the rest are just shills for their masters…..Stratos was the last hope for some serious political journalism albeit a little OTT with bomber but Beatson tore them a new one with ease.

  3. Bored 3

    Over the years in campaigns to save parts of the environment I have noticed a trend that this parallels…you fight tooth and nails to get (for example) a Conservation Order on a river flow…100 cumecs (which is the absolute minimum you bargained for)…a few years go by and a vested interest challenges the Order, and behold get granted 10 more cumecs…because they were economically in dire straits without it etc…next thing a few more years go by and there is an agricultural boom that is based on excessive use of water (perhaps dairying), same process and another 15 cumecs go west.

    The absolute minimum acceptable was at the start of the process 100 cumecs. We are down to 75 cumecs, so the next challenge says, well we might as well take the rest because the values you were protecting could not survive at less than 100 cumecs…you lose the lot.

    Lesson, no half cats..absolutley no compromise has to be your stance.

  4. JonL 4

    “Lesson, no half cats..absolutley no compromise has to be your stance.”

    Over the years….regrettably, I’ve come to the same conclusion……..compromise and moderation are taken as a weakness, and ultimately levered to get exactly what the other side wants.

    If you refuse to compromise, however, the other side portrays you as a howling radical who won’t compromise (true), thinks only of themselves and is only intent on “inconveniencing” everyone else……you’ll get arseholed anyway, so you may as well stand firm!

    • Murray Olsen 4.1

      Couldn’t agree more. Compromise usually means you just get screwed even more at a later date, as the reactionaries drive everything further to the right.

  5. vto 5

    I agree that often moderation is a crap copout for people with no real brains and even less balls.

    The more appropriate moderation rule runs…

    “Everything in moderation, including moderation” (which of course should not even ned stating if people think about the first half…).

  6. vto 6

    And here is another indication, Zet, that a person pontificating should immediately be ignored…

    when they call for “balance”, especially in any environment vs business discussion. Take for example the Rakaia Water Conservation Order. When first implemented it was all blance balance balance to ensure that business had their share. Now, some years later, the business sector cries out for more balance!. Ffs, how on earth can you keep adjusting balance in something so long term, stable and certain as the environment?

    When someone says something is about balance either shout them down or walk out and call their bullshit. Especially when it is a Nat politician or a business person. Balance is the last thing on their mind (see other post re liars in this government).

    • Bored 6.1

      As above, yes I was referring to the Rakaia. I find that one very depressing, we worked so hard.

  7. Compromise is a valid strategy- when employed by both sides. We need to be willing to compromise, but to not actually do it unless the favour is returned. From time to time, politics will force right-wingers to actually negotiate.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Public service advertisements by The Standard

Current CO2 level in the atmosphere