Your political views!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kudistos Megistos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
About as exciting as it gets
pcgraphpng.php
 
No shock for me... Well, I actually thought I might be even more left, and a little less libertarian. Edit: Me and the Dalai Lama - I'm okay with that!

pcgraphpngphpec575soc4.png
 
Last edited:
you're right, come to think of it, i probably won't read anyones response to me either =P. i came back to the topic to change my post cause i'm too lazy to get into a debate.
 
No shock for me... Well, I actually thought I might be even more left, and a little less libertarian. Edit: Me and the Dalai Lama - I'm okay with that!
Click to expand...
Well, at least you're another liberal here. :) Pity about the left-wing economic stuff :(

lots of stuff
Click to expand...
Here's the thing. Nearly everyone agrees that some kind of government intervention is necessary and most people agree that the government shouldn't regulate everything. The questions are "to what extent?" should the government interfere and "why?". That is where we differ. Since you're not going to read a thorough rebuttal, I shan't write one, but I do think that you should bare in mind that democratisation has generally lead to advancement and authoritarian governments thinking that they know what's best have generally done the opposite. It's true that bubbles won't burst as often if there is greater government regulation, but economies won't advance as quickly either, so there won't be any bubbles to burst; if you never climb any ladders then you can't fall off. I'll also remind you that free market economies tend to recover very quickly after crashes. Not long after the great depression, the US was stronger than ever. After the second world war, West Germany recovered far more quickly than the East; ditto for South and North Korea. Of course, there are other variables here, but I think that, after taking a look at how capitalist countries have generally performed and grown over the past 100 years and comparing them to countries with a great deal of government control over the economy, you'll see that the benefits of a free market tend outweigh the costs when the systems are put into practice.
 
I'm the closest! I'm horrible and stupid?
Click to expand...
As the only person to be further to that side, yes, of course! Or at least to the best of my judgment you're of a demonstrably horrible and stupid opinion on one matter.
And we all know a persons worth can be estimated from a single event!

I could probably find something to argue with what Kudistos is saying that I would actually be interested in, like, going into in depth, or possibly I think he's brilliant, right now I'm too tired to even read his small wall of text and am going to bed.

I will say to OutFoxxed, who I admittedly only read one sentence of one post from, that I can criticize the ideal behind communism very reasonably and very concisely: I hate slavery, and I especially hate it when every single citizen is a slave to a small number of people, something that is absolutely necessary for communism. If human nature were such that it weren't necessary, communism would be redundant anyway because people would already be behaving the way communism hopes to get them to behave in an anarchistic society.
 
I ended up in about the same place as The Seer of Shadows. I was bothered by the ambiguity of some of the questions though. A number of them were worded such that it was difficult to tell if the word "only" was implied, which would completely change my answer.

One that particularly caught my attention was: "A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption."

I chose strongly disagree, but not out of anything against homosexual couples, rather, mostly because I feel children should have a mother AND a father, role models of both genders, something which is entirely lacking if both genders are the same sex. The thing is, I don't think that my reason is what the maker of this quiz had in mind behind this question, so my answer may not accurately affect my overall score.
 
No you're obviously a blatant homophobe and just don't know it sorry.
 
I chose strongly disagree, but not out of anything against homosexual couples, rather, mostly because I feel children should have a mother AND a father, role models of both genders, something which is entirely lacking if both genders are the same sex. The thing is, I don't think that my reason is what the maker of this quiz had in mind behind this question, so my answer may not accurately affect my overall score.
Click to expand...
That is an understandable opinion. I don't have a turnaround for it but I do have a reason I believe they should be adopted. Does anyone know how much an orphanage gets from govy funds. I would guess $25 per child per week for food. Enough for wear and tear on clothes and building. Medical. Basically bottom of the bucket in pocket money. If they had anything more it's due to our donations. So which would you rather have. A child stay in an orphanage, where they are poor and most likely out on the streets if never adopted. Or raised by two loving guys or gals with more money then what the orphanage spends on the child.
 
pcgraphpng.php

Every answer causing my red dot to not be having glorious freedom sex with the bottom line were ones that really had nothing to do with my feelings on policy and more on my suspicions about how the behavior of certain groups will trend, IE the one about first generation immigrants. Which I think I just hit disagree to instead of strongly disagree. Same for a lot of those types. Still, whatever.
AND NOW TO ACTUALLY SLEEP OR AT LEAST ATTEMPT V2.
 
Last edited:
One that particularly caught my attention was: "A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption."

I chose strongly disagree, but not out of anything against homosexual couples, rather, mostly because I feel children should have a mother AND a father, role models of both genders, something which is entirely lacking if both genders are the same sex. The thing is, I don't think that my reason is what the maker of this quiz had in mind behind this question, so my answer may not accurately affect my overall score.
Click to expand...
I think that might be one of the things the author had in mind, but the main idea was probably to gauge one's homophobia level. Thing is, a lot of people say they aren't homophobic but reveal their homophobia when they find themselves uneasy with the idea of gay people being around children, in much the same way that many people claim not to be racist but won't allow their daughter to marry outside of their race.

And I think the response to your specific criticism of gay adoption is that it implies the alternative will always be the child going to a straight couple in a loving stable relationship. That isn't the case, and the alternative to a child getting adopted by a gay couple may be the child spending the rest of its life in care and suffering from far more problems than just not having parent figures from both sexes. Also, whilst this may be a generalisation, a lot of gay couples have a lot of money; a higher proportion than straight couples. I'm sure that I'll get shouted at for this, but I'm almost certain that its true. Financial stability can be very important, and is especially important to a child's education.
 
pcgraphpng.php


Heh. I'm pretty close to furzball's, but a little more authoritarian.

Yep. I'm more socialist than capitalist, but I wasn't aware that I was so politically neutral.
 
One that particularly caught my attention was: "A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption."

I chose strongly disagree, but not out of anything against homosexual couples, rather, mostly because I feel children should have a mother AND a father, role models of both genders, something which is entirely lacking if both genders are the same sex. The thing is, I don't think that my reason is what the maker of this quiz had in mind behind this question, so my answer may not accurately affect my overall score.
Click to expand...
I think that might be one of the things the author had in mind, but the main idea was probably to gauge one's homophobia level. Thing is, a lot of people say they aren't homophobic but reveal their homophobia when they find themselves uneasy with the idea of gay people being around children, in much the same way that many people claim not to be racist but won't allow their daughter to marry outside of their race.

And I think the response to your specific criticism of gay adoption is that it implies the alternative will always be the child going to a straight couple in a loving stable relationship. That isn't the case, and the alternative to a child getting adopted by a gay couple may be the child spending the rest of its life in care and suffering from far more problems than just not having parent figures from both sexes. Also, whilst this may be a generalisation, a lot of gay couples have a lot of money; a higher proportion than straight couples. I'm sure that I'll get shouted at for this, but I'm almost certain that its true. Financial stability can be very important, and is especially important to a child's education.
Click to expand...
Just sharing.
 
As you might be able to infer from the OP, we differ greatly on the respective merits of Marxism and the current "hegemony".
Click to expand...
The rub is the difference between 'Marxism' and 'marxism'. I don't really think the ideology he offers as replacement is either well fleshed out, or likely to avoid the same difficulties as any other. In that sense, I am a 'marxist' as opposed to a 'Marxist' - mine belongs to the same family of theoretical thought, but I don't have any affinity to the Manifesto.

In fact, I would even go as far as to say that all ages of (Western, at least) culture have been marked by the same problems as those (I) identify in the earlier post. Medieval typology? Look at the Catholics and proto-Protestant Lollards hijacking typology for completely different purposes. Renaissance obsessions with the body? Where do you think all those worries about self-contradictory bodily 'signs' and 'marks' come from?

I suppose the gist is that:

* every age has its own particular ideology - a system of categorizing, labelling and thinking about humans in a social context
* these Ideologies inevitably have some dissonance with practical reality, or can be re-read in two or more radically different ways
* therefore, most of that culture's 'political clashes' - not only in the formal sense, but the points of tension that precipitate works of culture - are just the zeitgeist's self-division made manifest.

Of course, coming from 'cultural studies' (English), I would think that - naturally, I view every element of a particular culture through the lens of its literature.

At the moment, I'm going through a phase in my philosophical thought where I am obsessed with practicality and things actually working in practice, so my defences of our current system, a certain level of liberal democracy mixed with a certain level of economic freedom, is that it has generally been far more successful than anything else, and certainly more successful than any of the attempts at Marxism that have been made.
Click to expand...
The matter is one of 'pragmatism' vs 'Ethics' in the broadest sense (Ethics as branch of philosophy dealing with prescriptive descriptions of social life). In terms of practicality, free market economics offers great efficiency and vigor, because it makes the grassroots of a society its engine. This gives it a natural ability to coordinate a massive amount of labour without centralization, which is possibly the reason it has spread so effectively.

As for the other part of the Tripos question - the Romans - that's far easier. Those guys were just drunk.
 
Last edited:
Maybe Im so evil because Im scientific.

I answered strongly agree to being able to abort. Why?
Lets see. If your a 16 y/o slut that sleeps with everyone and gets preggo, thats your fault, you shouldnt be able to abort.
If your a Well to do lady that has not been into a seedy or wrong situation in her life, and then are raped by someone and get pregnant. You should be able to abort.Or are you saying you shouldnt and have to stare at a product of your torture and rape everyday?

Also I STRONGLY, STRONGLY,STRONGLY believe that anyone with a high chance of passing off genetic abnormalities or diseases SHOULD NOT! be able to mate(without scientific repair of the broken genes)
I feel bad that my child will get bad eyesight and acne, no way would I have a child that may be likely to have down syndrome, or be a dwarf, etc.
To me thats being humanist, I want the entire race to one day become what it can be...and with all the people breeding genetic abnormalities it seems like in 200 years it will be rare to see a healthy person with no major genetic problems.

I mean suppose polio was passed on by birth instead of being a disease. If they didnt get rid of it, wed all have it now. they would have HAD to stop the populace from contiuing to breed that into our species.
 
that's interesting jeff. makes me wonder, especially since science has evolved to the point where natural selection hardly does anything.
 
I know, don't get me wrong, I may make some people hate me with my views, but you put it way better than I did. Natural selection is there so only the healthy and able survive. I mean no one wants to hurt anyone unhealthy and unable though. It makes you want to protect them more.Its sort of a catch 22. I just really think that the emergence of some of these horribly crazy mutations in people is a disturbing trend.

Have you ever seen those medical documentaries on the medical channel, I remember one where a boys teeth turned into tumors the size of watermelons. They had to carve him a new face out of tumors....

Just look for wierd but CREDIBLE(I.E. a published documentary) mutation videos. The things you see are forever disturbing....I just dont see a reason to chance passing something that horrible on to someone....
 
Ok jeff, consider this. Suppose I am the most rabidly opposed person to absolutely any drug use (I'm not), and that I had no principle problem with restrictions of freedom whatsoever (I do). But, even though this would make me an unlikely candidate, let's assume rabid drug hater me understands prohibition economics as well as real life me does. In this case, as far as my thoughts on what policy can exist would go, I would still have to be in favour of the legalization of everything sans cocaine, meth, and heroin, because this would bring us to a policy that would severely reduce the use of hard drugs (likely without increasing total drug use either, based on historical figures), and would be the single change in policy we could make that would most greatly reduce violent crime rates (based on historical statistical analysis this should theoretically reduce murder rates to less than half what they are now).
I'm not trying to straw man your viewpoints into a prohibitionists argument (though if you aren't in favour of drug policy reform, ah, as I believe the children say, pwned), that was just the way I found it easiest to essentially say that behavior doesn't always reflect policy, even in theory, and that any government action is bound to have consequences outside of what the action directly applies to.

PS: I was about legalization of all drugs for a long time, then noticed that countries following the model hypothetical rabid drug hater me proposed really did have next to no illegal drug use, and more importantly too little to sustain significant organized crime, and would now personally go in favour of that model. So ok, 99% social freedom, gEEZE.

PPS: I have a very strong desire to do DMT.
 
I did this before and ended up dead centre of Authoritarian Left.

I am mostly to the far right of politics :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top