I'm fairly willing to be convinced that, on some point or another, the best course of action lies close to what I held to be true, but differs by a few degrees. I also try and think about the holes in my argument and to consider the fact that I am not actually omniscient, and may very well be wrong about things (it is rare, but does happen:-).
I was thinking about this, and part of the problem is that these threads often feel like someone selling me something, rather than trying to figure out how things really work. They'd be much more interesting if people "let down their guard" a bit, upped the reasoning, and lowered the propagandizing. I guess it may not feel like propaganda to those involved, but I really like reading comments like mechanical_fish's, which cast a wide eye on things, considering all points of view, rather than people pulling out all the stops to fit the facts to their point of view.
"moderate" is a cop-out. If you're a moderate now you would presumably have been a moderate 50 years ago. And the moderate of 50 years ago would be fringe today. The moderate of 100 years ago would be a radical today.
Don't surrender your reason to social contructivism.
That's not a bad point, especially where it comes to how we treat other people. Indeed, I am not a moderate in everything, clinging to the center. However, in terms of government intervention in the economy, I am, and I also think it's far too large and interesting, and nuanced of a subject to adequately cover it in these sorts of forum. It's best left to be talked about over a bottle of good wine.
Of course you are. If you thought they were wrong, you wouldn't hold them as your views, would you?