Moderation (fix)

[amazing at mail.utexas.edu]

Jules pontificates:

>Moderation in the defense of extremism is no virtue.

I'm sorry, old boy, but this aphorism seems a bit obtuse.  Possibly you
meant "censorship in the defense of extremism is no virtue," but even
there, you run afoul of some rhetorical obstacles.  As the aphorism stands,
it allows for a reading that begs the question:  So, what then? absolute,
balls-to-the-wall defense of extremism IS a virtue?

I think what really bothers me about this statement of yours is the term
"extremism."  My experience suggests "extremism" acts as a rather GOPac
sort of ethos-oriented rhetorical fallacy.  Most politically aware people
will defend their positions, and I've met damned few  who  believes
themselves to be extremists.  I know folks who consider distributing
condoms to be extremism and others who believe preventing the free
distribution of condoms is extreme.  From a pro-choice viewpoint, pro-life
attitudes are extremist, and vice versa.   I'm sure you could say the same
about capital punishment, gay marriages, affirmative action, tax cuts, and
a hundred other controversial issues.

That said, I would second what I thought was the primary intent of your
statement.  Even though I'm sick to puking over the ongoing
Jules/anti-Jules warfare, I would agree that list censorship would be a bad
idea.

dgg