That's rather misleading, given that the whole point of the Articles of the Remonstrance was to voice disagreements with orthodox Reformed positions. The Synod's subsequent defense of its own position against the errant views of the Remonstrants and the refutation of the Articles is hardly a "we're against whatever their for" attitude. If anything it would be the other way around.
If you read what the Remonstrants actually spelled out rather that the Calvinist stereotypes of it, you'd find it to be quite Biblical. The biggest contention of Calvinists is that the Remonstrants rejected eternal security, when it is obvious the majority position amongst the Remonstrants clearly supported eternal security.
If you read what the Remonstrants actually spelled out you'd realize that what you claim here is just as false an assertion in this thread as it was in the last thread you brought it up. The majority position stated by the Remonstrants was that the issue required further investigation. This is clearly evident from even a superficial reading of the articles.
Why you continue to put words in their mouths is beyond me.
That should be "we're against whatever they're for"
Maybe you should try to do more than a 'superficial reading'. The sentence to which you are referring is nothing than a throw-away insertion to appease a minority of the Remonstrants for the sake of some harmony. That this statement came at the end of that paragraph is significant. if what you claim to be the majority position, the earlier statements in that section would have simply not been included.