I'm not even sure it's demonstrable that all things are good in moderation. There is a very large class of things that simply aren't good in moderation.

This leaves it generously a thought teminating cliche devoid of meaning, certainly nothing you should be making decisions off.

▲

operatingthetan 3 days ago | parent [-]

All generalizations are fragile at the edge cases, that doesn't make them pointless, especially if you know they are generalizations.

▲

marginalia_nu 3 days ago | parent [-]

This just isn't a good generalization though. It would be easier to enumerate the few things it does apply to than the manifold that it doesn't.

It fails in every direction, not just stepping on legos and murder. It's in no way better to be moderately happy or healthy than extremely happy or healthy.

▲

operatingthetan 3 days ago | parent [-]

Explain what a "good generalization" would be to you?

▲

FloorEgg 3 days ago | parent [-]

I'm not who you asked, but here are what good generalizations are to me:

1) days contain more photons than nights

2) water boils at 100 degrees Celsius

3) eating excessive sugar will lead to obesity

They seem like good generalizations because they are true most of the time from the perspective of the speaker and listener, even thought there may be some exceptions, they are materially more rare:

1) except in multi-solar systems, where this can get complicated

2) except when under pressures different than approximately sea level atmosphere

3) except when ___ I'm not sure but I bet there is some medical exception, maybe excessive exercise?

Bad generalizations will have many many exceptions such that the generalizations is materially lossy and even dangerous (e.g. "everything in moderation" -> murder in moderation, meth in moderation, punching grandmas in the face in moderation, etc.)

▲

operatingthetan 3 days ago | parent [-]

> murder in moderation, meth in moderation, punching grandmas in the face in moderation

I know these are your extreme examples but this is literally how society functions in each one.

Meth in moderation = prescription stimulants for ADHD or narcolepsy.

Murder in moderation = war, capital punishment.

Punching grandmas in the face in moderation = arrests of shoplifters or intoxicated grandmas apparently require physical restraint, lots of possible examples of violence for purported good on youtube.

Each of your hard lines are things that literally happen daily around the world, in moderation.

	▲	FloorEgg 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Okay, I'm coming around to your point that "everything in moderation" is a reasonable generalization. My gut still says it's easily misinterpreted and can be used as justification to do something that shouldn't be. It has something to do with scope of applicability, but to be fair that's true of my other "good" examples as well (e.g. water boiling at different temperatures / pressures). My instinctive "hold on a minute" was the assumption "everything in moderation" was not a good generalization when applied to everyone as individuals rather than more broadly/universally. I suspect others that took issue had a similar misalignment in scope. (Fentanyl in moderation for a drug addict is not sustainable, fentanyl in moderation for a non-addict recovering from surgery, probably good) I feel like I've stumbled into some philosophy tar pit - questioning the meaning of generalization, moderation, scope, good judgement and "everything"... so I'll just concede for now, despite feeling uneasy about it.