A liberal position?

Tav is soon to be on his way down under to frolic with all the poisonous beasties to be found there as well as people who aren't politicians.

It only took a few comments into all the well-wishing for back-biting to arise between commentators. Rather than indulge them there I'll address Jon D here who makes a note regarding the 'liberal evacuation' that

I wouldn't want to have been in the position of that one liberal, apparently known as a Ranter, that got left behind. He was so liberal he couldn't decide to get on or not as that would have been taking up a position, then again if he stayed that would have been taking up a position.

Amusing to me as I do hold some positions:

1. That just because someone says one stupid thing I shouldn't automatically disregard anything they say;
2. That just because someone says something I disagree with (or dislike or find abhorrent) doesn't mean they are wrong by default;
3. As far as possible positions should be held on the basis of rationale and evidence and actions taken accordingly.

I can understand why this may make me seem contradictory at times. For example I dislike knee-jerk reactions by politicians based on tabloid headlines, but have to consider that said tabloid may have things right for once and that an instant reaction may well be what is required.

In similar ways I may approve of a position held, but disapprove of the actions taken to implement it and vice versa.

Likewise I can see why during comment threads this might be considered as me not choosing sides. One side may say something I disagree with and provide no evidence to back up their statement; however at the same time the side I agree with may simply state that the other is wrong and likewise provide no evidence for their side.

When either side does provide evidence that either a) isn't, or b) is wrong I'll point that out regardless of whether or not I agree with their position. In the case of those I disagree with it's in the hopes that they'll realise they're wrong and switch sides. In the case of those I agree with it's to stop them relying on false information that could be discredited and may make them consider switching sides.

If either side cling to discredited evidence I'll hold those I agree with in more disdain than those I disagree with. Sure you're position is wrong and your evidence is wrong, but I understand why it's comforting to ignore everyone else. For those I agree with though, why hold onto 'bad' evidence to support your position when there's 'good' evidence available?

So it's not that I don't take a position on things; merely that those I have can make it appear that I don't.