The Logic Of Moderation

What if I contradict myself during one of my arguments? What if my syllogisms are not valid? What if there are logical contradictions so embedded in my lines of reasoning that they cannot be eradicated without tossing out the entire train of thought?

The logic of moderation, as applied under Mavellonialist thinking arrangements, would suggest that one should be consistent more than inconsistent, logical more than illogical, meaningful more than absurd, reasonable more than sentimental in making decisions, argue validly where one may, and blend the two sides impurely more often than not.

With these presuppositions in play, I can now answer the three questions argued above. Where contradictions can be smoothed out, avoided or corrected, that is desirable. Where paradoxes are irrefragable, a moderate, thoughtful both/and response is in order.

Where my syllogisms break down, we clean them up as best as possible, and throw in a little hunch-making and intuiting to bridge the gaps to keep the train of thought running across the canyon of defeat.