My point is only that being between two arbitrarily chosen extremes does not make a position any more or less likely to be correct. It's not a sound form of reasoning and not a good foundation from which to argue correctness.
To pick an extreme example: the morally correct position between "genocide" and "no genocide" is not "some genocide".
You implicitly assume that I chose some random midpoint based on mathematically dividing the two.
You are still guilty of assuming that it isn't possible to have some more nuanced position than "either for them or against them!" rooted in actually reading and thinking through things.
Implying I'm utterly crazy with your first example doesn't exactly help here.
> You implicitly assume that I chose some random midpoint based on mathematically dividing the two.
Please accept my apologies for being less than maximally clear.
I am not assuming your position is a randomly selected midpoint. I am not assuming your position is based on mathematically dividing between two extremes. I am asserting that you have a position between two extremes.
Which, assuming that I interpret what you have written correctly, is what you have claimed to be true.
> You are still guilty of assuming that it isn't possible to have some more nuanced position than "either for them or against them!" rooted in actually reading and thinking through things.
Again, please accept my deep and heartfelt apologies for being unclear. It's definitely, absolutely, completely possible to have a nuanced, thought-out, and supportable position between any two extremes. To draw on a previous example, not everyone agrees that broccoli is delicious, and this is both a reasonable and defensible position to hold.
It may be worth considering that the reasonableness of a position could be independent of its distance from extremes. Or even independent of who does or does not agree with you.
My point is merely this: being a moderate between any two extremes is not magical. It does not a position correct. It does not make a position incorrect. It is completely irrelevant to the question of correctness.
Again, please accept my apologies if I was in any way unclear. I intended no insult whatsoever, in any way, shape, form, or manner. I do hope I have helped clarify matters somewhat, but please let me know if I have not risen to the task I have set myself.
My point is merely this: being a moderate between any two extremes is not magical. It does not a position correct.
I never asserted that it did. Only that both camps are equally unwilling to consider the possibility that a reasonable position exists other than their own. Pro vaxxers and anti vaxxers are equally guilty of framing this as "you must be in one camp or the other, period." Such framing inevitably sucks the oxygen out of the discussion and makes it impossible to have civil intellectual discourse.
To extend, being attacked by multiple camps of people who all disagree with a moderated position is silent on the correctness - or sanity - of all involved.
No. The pattern of behavior in both this discussion and the world generally is not rational.
My original comment was simply about my opinion about where this movement began. You and other people have largely ignored that to engage in various forms of dismissiveness of me personally.
If pro vaxxers were as rational as they like to claim, commenting on the origin of the antivax movement shouldn't result in this kind of pattern of behavior.
To pick an extreme example: the morally correct position between "genocide" and "no genocide" is not "some genocide".