I was recently told in conversation that I hold some “extreme views.” It was clear the person I was talking to prided themselves on being “moderate,” and therefore, by default, in their mind, correct. I think to them it made them sound more reasonable and virtuous than someone like me. Now, in that conversation they were unable to rebut the particular points I made so they resorted to the age-old lowbrow tactic of announcing something about my person that they thought somehow invalidated my argument. They didn’t, and clearly couldn’t, make an argument against what I was saying; at least not in that moment. While the ad hominem fallacy has long been used in arguments, in our social media age it has become so common that profitable debate is nearly impossible.

This is not the first time someone has levelled this type of criticism at me. I’m not really fazed by it. To a person none have taken the time to prove that my view(s) (many of which are written clearly on this blog) were somehow false, or wrong. Not liking what someone believes is not the same as proving that view to be false. I have been wrong many times, I can assure you. But in these particular exchanges they merely asserted their view was the correct one, and that they were more reasonable in their view than I was because they took a more moderate, common position.

The problem with those who view the world in terms like this:

extreme left <— moderate —> extreme right

…is that the scale is not only irrelevant, it is meant as a means to silence one’s opponents by painting them as “out of the mainstream” and not worthy to have their views or positions logically engaged with. The “righteous” gather in the middle and the “unrighteous” are found at the extremes, apparently. This is how people think: that if they share an opinion with the majority, or with the “scientists”, or with someone popular, they are automatically on the right side of the argument. This is not true, and never has been.

The only scale that has meaning in matters of debate or opposing views is whether what is being said is true or false. Now, that’s not to say there may not be some difficulty in determining what is true, but that is what we should always strive for. Whether it be a claim about climate change, or Covid, or politics, etc.; the only thing that should matter to both parties is whether or not what they are saying is true. Labelling someone an extremist in their views is usually done by someone unable, or unwilling, to engage in showing why something is true or false.

The label “extremist” is always levelled as a pejorative and is a lazy rhetorical device to denigrate your opponent. It is not an honest way of engaging with those with whom we disagree. Honest debate and seeking the truth in our discussions should be our lone motivator (and something I too have failed at in the past). Labels can be useful, and yet at other times harmful. We have to remember the nature of the world we live in; and in a dishonest world, the truth may always seem extreme.

For context, here are some of my “extremist” views:

1. I believe the Gospel.
2. I believe abortion is the murder of a human being, no exceptions.
3. I believe a virus with a 99.987% survival rate should not require lockdowns or govt tyranny.
4. I believe the Covid “vaccines” are not “safe and effective.” They reduce the symptoms of Covid, but do not stop its spread. It is now a pandemic of the vaccinated. The data is clear.
5. I believe climate change is not a threat to human existence in the slightest.
6. I believe govt tyranny will completely enslave mankind through technology.
7. I believe evil is at work in the world at a far greater rate than anyone imagines.