Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Political Leanings QuizFollow

#152 May 05 2011 at 8:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
I think you're overlooking a key fact: that someone can not have a strong opinion on particular topics. It's entirely possible for the only positions that a person holds are liberal and libertarian ones. For example, I'm not really interested in the economy beyond "I'd like it to do well." I don't really have any other opinions on it.

Also, some convictions are held more strongly than others. I think that stronger held opinions should be weighted higher when consider what category a person falls into.


Sure. But that only changes the degree to which you'd presumably fall in one direction or another on some political axis, right? My point is that regardless of how strongly you feel about something, the correct way to measure someone's position on an axis called "social" in which "authoritarian" is at one end and "libertarian" is at the other is to measure the degree to which rules and regulations are in place to enforce specific social results. If you support *any* laws designed to affect social outcomes, you should fall more towards the "authoritarian" side, while opposition to said laws puts you towards the "libertarian" side.


Can anyone honestly argue that the Democratic party is *not* heavily about creating laws designed to impose specific social outcomes? Ignore the side issue about the degree to which economics plays a role and just ask "Do Democrats work hard to pass laws to change social outcomes"? I think the answer is a very clear and very strong: Yes!


I just don't see how anyone can disagree with this. Not unless you completely ignore what authoritarian and libertarian mean in this context. And if you are ignoring that, then what's the point of using those labels?


EDIT: Let me be clear about something btw. When I say laws designed to affect social outcomes, this does not include eliminating existing laws which impose actual social inequalities (or to amend them so they no longer contain them). So removing the restriction that only white males could vote is libertarian, not authoritarian. Similarly, removing the restriction that only males could vote is libertarian. Eliminating Jim Crow laws is libertarian. Ending segregation is libertarian. But creating affirmative action laws is authoritarian. Racial quotas are authoritarian.

You need to get past thinking in terms of "do I think this is good for <insert minority group>?" and think in terms of "am I creating a rule or law that imposes a social outcome rather than just allows people to deal with themselves on their own". That axis is not about right or wrong, good or evil. It's about the degree to which we're bound by laws with regard to our social interactions. That's it.

Edited, May 5th 2011 7:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#153 May 05 2011 at 8:37 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
50 posts
gbaji wrote:

I just don't see how anyone can disagree with this. Not unless you completely ignore what authoritarian and libertarian mean in this context. And if you are ignoring that, then what's the point of using those labels?


Yeah, if only everyone here used the words "authoritarian" and "libertarian" correctly, then there wouldn't even be an argument. . . . .
____________________________
"Cogito Ergo Sum" - Rene Descartes
#154 May 05 2011 at 8:43 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
Quote:
And he argued that we should eliminate the existing social systems and replace them with ones in which the current rich and powerful weren't in control of everything. He was effectively advocating for a new government which would, in modern terms, redistribute the wealth and power


1. He advocated for a system in which the rich would become the powerful. The richest men in France in Rousseau's time were largely Bourgeoisie. The most powerful were the nobles. The oldest nobles were also quite rich, and there were many, many weak and destitute noble families scattered throughout the kingdom who lacked power but still had some privileges (they were exempt from taxes, for instance).

Rousseau liked the idea of a system in which the merchants and craftsman didn't have to follow laws established by the nobility, but by all who had wealth. France, at his time, used a guild system in which crafters had to belong to a guild in order to peddle their wares. But they were too expensive for smaller crafters to join (like the housewives who wanted to make bonnets for additional income). As such, the guilds were heavily disliked by many in France. Only the richest crafters and the royals liked them. Rousseau felt like they should be done away with so as to give the bourgeoisie more freedom in the market.

2. Rousseau had a very different view of man than both Hobbes (who was cynical and believed man entered into society only for the protection of life) and Locke (who felt that man entered society only to gain more liberties than those he could guarantee for himself). He didn't believe man founded society for liberty at all--it was entirely becuase he wished to gain more of the goods he enjoyed--food, sleep and sex. The idea of rights and liberty only formed because he joined society--that is to say that society and social organization are required for rights to even exist. As such, the mere existence of a social organization (which by definition demands sacrifice from us) cannot possibly be held to suppress his rights. That's not to say that gov't couldn't be used to rule man--it certainly can, and that's what Rousseau takes issue with.

But he feels that a gov't formed around the basis of the general will maximizes the liberties of all men. And since liberties don't exist outside of society, the "sacrifice" of rights in order to gain more liberties isn't a controlling factor, it's part of the social construct by which you are gaining liberty from the lack of it. Only when social constructs don't lead to liberty is there a problem, for that gov't is one that is controlling people, rather than formulating itself around the will of the people.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#155 May 05 2011 at 8:50 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
Quote:
Except that social inequality is about classes that have different rights.


Social inequality is when a social group cannot function as equals in society. Since we are a communist nation, this is often due to the lack of equal economic opportunities. But it is not equal to that.

Your choice to limit inequality to whether or not the gov't actively restricts rights is ridiculous, and you continue to fail to properly define gov't. The gov't IS THE PEOPLE. It is not a ruling body, it is a entity that is part of the state that allows the state to orient itself.

If a society has no laws discriminating against any single group, but a black man can't get a job purely because he's a black man, you have social inequality. It doesn't matter that the gov't doesn't restrict his rights, the social sphere does. And the gov't and the social sphere aren't separate entities. If one fails to ensure the rights of a people, then it is the job of the other to fix that.

When the gov't fails, it is up to the people to change the gov't's orientation. When society fails, it is up to the gov't to help orient society. They are the same entity, but with a different view of the landscape. What is apparent to one isn't always apparent to the other. The gov't does not CONTROL society, it is society's control against those situations in which the social sphere neglects to uphold the rights of others.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#156 May 05 2011 at 8:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
gbaji wrote:

Can anyone honestly argue that the Democratic party is *not* heavily about creating laws designed to impose specific social outcomes? Ignore the side issue about the degree to which economics plays a role and just ask "Do Democrats work hard to pass laws to change social outcomes"? I think the answer is a very clear and very strong: Yes!


Just to check: are you saying the Republican party does not do this? You emphatically said yes to Democrats, so I expect either a yes or no answer to this.
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#157 May 05 2011 at 8:59 PM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
I expect either a yes or no answer to this.
Rhetorical statement, right? You know you're not getting anything resembling a yes or no.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#158 May 05 2011 at 9:05 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
Laws designed to enact social change and laws designed to allow for others to express their social rights are two fundamentally different things that possibly have similar outcomes.

The thing you keep missing is that no person has a right to prevent others from exercising theirs. Any law forbidding someone from doing so does not decrease anyone's liberty, as they had no right to restrict another person in the first place.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#159 May 05 2011 at 9:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Can anyone honestly argue that the Democratic party is *not* heavily about creating laws designed to impose specific social outcomes?

...Gbaji asked as Boehner prepares to spend millions of dollars on defending DOMA :D
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#160 May 05 2011 at 9:52 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
Quote:

...Gbaji asked as Boehner prepares to spend millions of dollars on defending DOMA :D


Shhhhh, Joph, we're not supposed to talk about that. Clearly, Boehner is spending all that money to keep society from changing. It's totally different!
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#161 May 05 2011 at 10:16 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But that only changes the degree to which you'd presumably fall in one direction or another on some political axis, right?


Exactly. So if my opinions on a subject are minimal, or nonexistent, then they won't pull me very far in one direction or the other. The opinions that will do more in defining me are the ones that are strongly held. They'll (if we're using the quiz's scale) skew me towards liberal or conservative, authoritarian or libertarian.

If I don't hold opinions on the subjects that you feel are the traditional indicators of liberal authoritarianism, then I will be defined by the ones that I feel strongly on. If those opinions are liberal and libertarian, then boom, there you go.

gbaji wrote:
Can anyone honestly argue that the Democratic party is *not* heavily about creating laws designed to impose specific social outcomes?


So is the Republican party. Just as much, in fact. Don't even try to argue that it isn't. They just like to pass laws about different social outcomes.

gbaji wrote:
I just don't see how anyone can disagree with this. Not unless you completely ignore what authoritarian and libertarian mean in this context. And if you are ignoring that, then what's the point of using those labels?

EDIT: Let me be clear about something btw. When I say laws designed to affect social outcomes, this does not include eliminating existing laws which impose actual social inequalities (or to amend them so they no longer contain them). So removing the restriction that only white males could vote is libertarian, not authoritarian. Similarly, removing the restriction that only males could vote is libertarian. Eliminating Jim Crow laws is libertarian. Ending segregation is libertarian. But creating affirmative action laws is authoritarian. Racial quotas are authoritarian.

You need to get past thinking in terms of "do I think this is good for <insert minority group>?" and think in terms of "am I creating a rule or law that imposes a social outcome rather than just allows people to deal with themselves on their own". That axis is not about right or wrong, good or evil. It's about the degree to which we're bound by laws with regard to our social interactions. That's it.


You're trying to push your own definition for liberal. Simply put, it's not correct, and that's the problem. There's nothing about the definition of "liberal" that in any way necessitates it being mutually exclusive of libertarianism.

You're also being myopic. There's plenty of room for liberal libertarianism within the many issues out there. Say I'm against affirmative action. I'm against the Patriot Act. I'm against racial quotas. I'm for decreased military spending. I don't believe that the government has a right to tell a woman whether or not she can get an abortion. I'm for the repeal of DADT. I'm against creating laws that say that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The opinions might pull and push in some different ways, but I'd say that's a liberal libertarian.

Edited, May 6th 2011 12:28am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#162 May 05 2011 at 10:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory wrote:
Clearly, Boehner is spending all that money to keep society from changing. It's totally different!

Artificially preventing society from changing via legislation is the very definition of imposing specific social outcomes.

I know you know this. I'm guessing Gbaji is trying hard to ignore it.

Edited, May 5th 2011 11:34pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#163 May 05 2011 at 11:08 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,529 posts
Solid Liberal
--
Economic Left/Right: -7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59
--


Only surprising thing is that I would have guessed that I'd be further left socially than economically. In that I see logic in some conservative fiscal policies, but not any in conservative social policies.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#164 May 05 2011 at 11:32 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
If you think economic assistance is the only way that liberals use to rectify the situation, you are either inattentive or dishonest.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#165 May 06 2011 at 12:47 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,063 posts
I feel like I was actually fairly well placed by the second quiz.

Economic Left/Right: 1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.08

A bit to the right and slightly Authoritarian but ultimately pretty centrist is where I guessed I would end up.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#166 May 06 2011 at 1:07 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
Keeping inflation low has a positive effect on keeping unemployment low. Smiley: tongue

Screenshot


____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#167 May 06 2011 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
I do find this quiz interesting purely because you can see that there's huge diversities in mindsets even among people who are "liberal" or "conservative." I mean, I'm very liberal and had a huge economic trend that way, with a pretty large social trend as well. There are others who are socially very liberal, but more conservative when it comes to economics.

Makes it easy to understand why politics will always be a bitch. :P Even if you were to have a state entirely populated by "liberal" peoples, there'd still be huge disagreement.

And that's why I'm not going to law school. :P
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#168 May 06 2011 at 4:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
Except that social inequality is about classes that have different rights.


Social inequality is when a social group cannot function as equals in society.


Yes. As "social" equals. Hence, the term. Surely you understand the need to distinguish between people who cannot function as equals because of some law saying "people with X gender, or Y skin color, or Z religion" are not allowed to do A, B, or C, and those who can't function as equals because they earn less money and thus can't afford to do A, B, or C as often as others?

Quote:
Since we are a communist nation, this is often due to the lack of equal economic opportunities. But it is not equal to that.


I'm assuming you meant to say "capitalist", but if that is the case, then why did the scale we're talking about make a specific distinction between "economic" factors and "social" ones?

The two azis are:

Economic Left/Right
Social Authoritarian/Libertarian

Think about it for a second and perhaps it'll occur to you what I'm talking about.

Quote:
Your choice to limit inequality to whether or not the gov't actively restricts rights is ridiculous, and you continue to fail to properly define gov't. The gov't IS THE PEOPLE. It is not a ruling body, it is a entity that is part of the state that allows the state to orient itself.


Lol. Regardless of whether it derives from a mandate from the masses, or a farcical aquatic ceremony involving moistened tarts lobbing scimitars, we're still talking about the same supreme executive power, right? And that power can be used to force people into various social conditions, or to allow them to enter into them on their own. We call the former "authoritarian", and the later "libertarian".

Quote:
If a society has no laws discriminating against any single group, but a black man can't get a job purely because he's a black man, you have social inequality.


If he can't get a job because he's a black man, sure. But unless that social inequality derives from the government forcing him to not get a job because he's black, then that inequality is not the result of an authoritarian social policy, is it? It can't be "authoritarian" unless someone with authority is making things happen.

Quote:
It doesn't matter that the gov't doesn't restrict his rights, the social sphere does. And the gov't and the social sphere aren't separate entities. If one fails to ensure the rights of a people, then it is the job of the other to fix that.


Sure. If there are actual rights being violated. The problem comes in when some people try to expand the meaning of rights to include "can afford to buy health insurance", and "can send my children to college". That's where we get ourselves in trouble.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#169 May 06 2011 at 4:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Can anyone honestly argue that the Democratic party is *not* heavily about creating laws designed to impose specific social outcomes? Ignore the side issue about the degree to which economics plays a role and just ask "Do Democrats work hard to pass laws to change social outcomes"? I think the answer is a very clear and very strong: Yes!


Just to check: are you saying the Republican party does not do this? You emphatically said yes to Democrats, so I expect either a yes or no answer to this.


By and large, no. While I'm sure there are occasional examples of this, mostly because it's become so common that it's hard to avoid, it's not a part of the GOP agenda to do this. I've given several examples of causes which Dems support which clearly follow this ideology. Can you find exampled of this coming from the GOP? And no; opposition to something the Dems are trying to do doesn't count. I mean, something the GOP is doing all on their own.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#170 May 06 2011 at 4:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Can anyone honestly argue that the Democratic party is *not* heavily about creating laws designed to impose specific social outcomes?

...Gbaji asked as Boehner prepares to spend millions of dollars on defending DOMA :D


Guess I should have read farther first. Um... That falls under the heading of opposing something the Dems are trying to do. Doesn't count. Find a social outcome the GOP wants to achieve for which they attempt to pass laws in order to create said outcome. Can you do that? It's trivially easy to find tons of examples coming from the left. Everything from gay marriage, to affirmative action, to sex education in schools, welfare funding, social security, medicare/medicaid, support for unions, etc, etc, etc... The list is nearly endless. It's what the left is about, and it's what the Dems do in order to gain favor with the left.

Most of what the GOP does is try to keep the government doing just what it should and fight against all the stuff the Dems are trying to do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#171 May 06 2011 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,625 posts
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Can anyone honestly argue that the Democratic party is *not* heavily about creating laws designed to impose specific social outcomes? Ignore the side issue about the degree to which economics plays a role and just ask "Do Democrats work hard to pass laws to change social outcomes"? I think the answer is a very clear and very strong: Yes!


Just to check: are you saying the Republican party does not do this? You emphatically said yes to Democrats, so I expect either a yes or no answer to this.


By and large, no. While I'm sure there are occasional examples of this, mostly because it's become so common that it's hard to avoid, it's not a part of the GOP agenda to do this. I've given several examples of causes which Dems support which clearly follow this ideology. Can you find exampled of this coming from the GOP? And no; opposition to something the Dems are trying to do doesn't count. I mean, something the GOP is doing all on their own.


Ah, ignorance is bliss.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#172 May 06 2011 at 5:09 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
So I'm guessing that was a no? Legislating to prevent change isn't controlling outcomes like legislating to cause it does?

Hahahahaha, bullsh*t. :P

Quote:
Most of what the GOP does is try to keep the government doing just what it should and fight against all the stuff the Dems are trying to do.


So they do everything they can to keep half the population from being represented in gov't, got it. Who cares if most of the country wants to change; clearly, things should stay exactly as they are!

And gbaji, this might be difficult for you:

Fascism- Forced rule by another party.
Liberalism- Self-government on the basis of consensus.

I don't really see why it's hard for you to grasp. A liberal gov't should = the people, a fascist gov't = a small group of them.

And just to be clear, I'm not talking about absolute democracy vs. dictatorship (though those are extreme poles that fit this situation). I think a Republic is as good as it's gonna get, considering the % of the population that has no clue what's going on. But a liberal republic is one in which those elected by the people work for the good of all people. A fascist republic is one in which the officials are elected by the people (and I'm assuming it was a fair election) but only serve the interests of a small group of people (of which they are probably included).

That DOES NOT mean that the fascist gov't is determined to make the little people suffer, it just probably does. Likewise, a Liberal gov't doesn't screw the fascists at every turn, it just doesn't favor anyone (and when you are used to having power, you perceive it as an attack).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#173 May 06 2011 at 5:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
...Gbaji asked as Boehner prepares to spend millions of dollars on defending DOMA :D
Guess I should have read farther first. Um... That falls under the heading of opposing something the Dems are trying to do. Doesn't count.

Of course it does. Somewhere between a plurality and a majority of the nation currently supports SSM. The GOP is spending millions and millions of taxpayer dollars to defend legislation designed explicitly to keep SSM from reaching a federal level.

If you need to tell yourself that "doesn't count" just so you can look at yourself in the mirror, go ahead, but everyone else will be laughing at your asinine attempts to say the GOP doesn't try to legislatively "impose specific social outcomes".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#174 May 06 2011 at 8:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,707 posts
Allegory wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
I'm pretty certain not all you democrats are completely against any form of a military for one.

I don't know how other Democrats feel, but I see military allocation as a question of sustainability and growth. The concept is demonstrated fairly well in most RTS games. Pumping too many resources early on into your military strength slows down your economy, which in turn reduces your future military might. Typically you want to have the minimum number of units required to defend yourself so that you can pump the rest of your resources into growth. I see the goal as to maintain a minimum level of defense while building up the most fundamental force responsible for your growth. Building fighters now make you stronger in the present, but it takes resources away from conducting fighter research, which will give you strong fighters later on. Pumping funds into fighter research gives you stronger fighters in a few years, but it takes away from pumping money into infrastructure to increase the strength of your economy and thus increase the amount of money you can pump into fighter research, which increase the strength of your fighters later on. However pumping money into purely infrastructure projects takes away from resources into education, which slows the growth of your economy, which slows the growth of your fighter research, which detracts from the quality and number of fighters you can field.

I wouldn't want the U.S. to be stronger now when it means that ultimately it will be weaker in the next decades.

The benefits of being aggressive and proactive with your military also decrease as the number of opponents increase. In Risk it's a bad idea to spend all of your armies taking out a rival while another one sits there building up troops waiting for you to weaken yourself. Soft power is real power, because you want other people to spend their resources fighting your enemies for you.

The current U.S. military strategy is awful. We make absolute gains, but suffer comparative losses. We weaken ourselves to weaken one enemy, while other enemies stay the same or grow stronger. Nation building makes us weaker. Having too large of an army makes us weaker.

Edited, May 5th 2011 3:14am by Allegory


I'd beg to differ on one point. You don't want the minimum effective number of military forces, you want a bit above that, otherwise it incentivizes competing forces to overproduce such that it is no longer the minimum effective number. What is preferable is having a strong striking force that exceeeds other nations reasonably obtainable forces, so you don't have to use those forces and have them become depleted.

For the record, except for a few cases, I think the US is well past this number by a pretty significant magnitude.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#175 May 06 2011 at 8:11 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
Quote:
For the record, except for a few cases, I think the US is well past this number by a pretty significant magnitude.


Understatement of the year. :P
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#176 May 06 2011 at 8:17 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,707 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
re: the second survey

Somehow being that close to Gandhi's spot on the graph makes me uncomfortable. I firmly believe in solutions that involve bullets and sandwiches.
lolgaxe, in my mind wrote:


Hey buddy, I heard you were on a hunger strike.

You can take a bite of this sandwich or eat lead, mother@#%^er!


Edited, May 6th 2011 10:18pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#177 May 06 2011 at 8:23 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,707 posts
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
For the record, except for a few cases, I think the US is well past this number by a pretty significant magnitude.


Understatement of the year. :P


Well, it is a different number than the amount we outspend other countries by, since we have an incredibly wasteful defense triad.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#178 May 06 2011 at 8:26 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Can anyone honestly argue that the Democratic party is *not* heavily about creating laws designed to impose specific social outcomes?

...Gbaji asked as Boehner prepares to spend millions of dollars on defending DOMA :D


Guess I should have read farther first. Um... That falls under the heading of opposing something the Dems are trying to do. Doesn't count. Find a social outcome the GOP wants to achieve for which they attempt to pass laws in order to create said outcome.
Abstinence only education

If you don't think that's trying to create a social outcome you are delusional

Edited, May 6th 2011 9:29pm by Sweetums
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#179 May 07 2011 at 2:21 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
You don't want the minimum effective number of military forces, you want a bit above that, otherwise it incentivizes competing forces to overproduce such that it is no longer the minimum effective number.

It's a semantic point here, but I think it's one worth making. That's still the minimum number. Whatever the minimum amount is required to achieve a reasonable level of safety--however you choose to define a "reasonable level"--is the minimum amount. Tautologically, the minimum amount required to defend ourselves must provide defense, and if it doesn't then it was never the minimum amount.

I'm disappointed I haven't received a response from from Kaolian or any of the conservative leaning posters. I think the tpyical conservative or perhaps even independent view on liberals is that that are soft when it comes to the military for moral or ethical reasons, when my argument is that completely from the perspective of maximizing military strength (in a "present value" sense).
#180 May 07 2011 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,707 posts
Allegory wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
You don't want the minimum effective number of military forces, you want a bit above that, otherwise it incentivizes competing forces to overproduce such that it is no longer the minimum effective number.

It's a semantic point here, but I think it's one worth making. That's still the minimum number. Whatever the minimum amount is required to achieve a reasonable level of safety--however you choose to define a "reasonable level"--is the minimum amount. Tautologically, the minimum amount required to defend ourselves must provide defense, and if it doesn't then it was never the minimum amount.

I'm disappointed I haven't received a response from from Kaolian or any of the conservative leaning posters. I think the tpyical conservative or perhaps even independent view on liberals is that that are soft when it comes to the military for moral or ethical reasons, when my argument is that completely from the perspective of maximizing military strength (in a "present value" sense).


Yep, but defense isn't necessarily a binary, you don't have to win for defense to have been sufficient, nor must you lose for it to have failed you.

Keep in mind also, that we are military liberals in the sense of general social outcomes, as if people like us ran the various countries militaries we'd end up with some of the most brutally effective response driven fighting forces, with much higher average nuclear response capabilities.

I'm sorry I'm ruining your plan. It was a good analogy.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#181 May 07 2011 at 2:07 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,149 posts
Quote:
Post-Moderns

13% of the public
What They Believe

* Generally supportive of government, though more conservative on race policies and the safety net
* Strongly supportive of regulation and environmental protection
* Most (56%) say Wall Street helps the economy more than it hurts
* Very liberal on social issues, including same-sex marriage
* One of the least religious groups: nearly a third are unaffiliated with any religious tradition
* Favor the use of diplomacy rather than force

Who They Are

* The youngest of the typology groups: 32% under age 30
* A majority are non-Hispanic white and have at least some college experience
* Half live in either the Northeast or the West
* A majority (58%) live in the suburbs
* 63% use social networking
* One-in-five regularly listen to NPR; 14% regularly watch The Daily Show


I actually favor force over diplomacy but other than that it's pretty much dead on.


Edit: Oooh, another.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67

My Political Compass


Edited, May 7th 2011 4:17pm by ShadorVIII
#182 May 07 2011 at 9:00 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Yep, but defense isn't necessarily a binary, you don't have to win for defense to have been sufficient, nor must you lose for it to have failed you.

It's binary in that you either meet the criteria you have established for a "reasonable defense" or you don't. You do have to win, with the word win being defined however you see fit.
#183 May 08 2011 at 12:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Revolving Door Inspector
Avatar
*****
12,696 posts
Sweetums wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Can anyone honestly argue that the Democratic party is *not* heavily about creating laws designed to impose specific social outcomes?

...Gbaji asked as Boehner prepares to spend millions of dollars on defending DOMA :D


Guess I should have read farther first. Um... That falls under the heading of opposing something the Dems are trying to do. Doesn't count. Find a social outcome the GOP wants to achieve for which they attempt to pass laws in order to create said outcome.
Abstinence only education

If you don't think that's trying to create a social outcome you are delusional

Edited, May 6th 2011 9:29pm by Sweetums


He's probably say that it's not "changing a social outcome, just maintaining social integrity."
____________________________
FFXI: Exodus @ San d'Oria since November 19, 2003, Siren Server
FFXIV: Turk Kalahai @ Gridania, Balmung Server
Rift: Kalahai @ Sanctum, Faeblight Server
Exo @ YouTube | Exo @ Tumblr | Exo @ Twitter | Cheese
#184 May 08 2011 at 11:50 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,908 posts
Allegory wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
I'm pretty certain not all you democrats are completely against any form of a military for one.

I don't know how other Democrats feel, but I see military allocation as a question of sustainability and growth. The concept is demonstrated fairly well in most RTS games. Pumping too many resources early on into your military strength slows down your economy, which in turn reduces your future military might. Typically you want to have the minimum number of units required to defend yourself so that you can pump the rest of your resources into growth. I see the goal as to maintain a minimum level of defense while building up the most fundamental force responsible for your growth. Building fighters now make you stronger in the present, but it takes resources away from conducting fighter research, which will give you strong fighters later on. Pumping funds into fighter research gives you stronger fighters in a few years, but it takes away from pumping money into infrastructure to increase the strength of your economy and thus increase the amount of money you can pump into fighter research, which increase the strength of your fighters later on. However pumping money into purely infrastructure projects takes away from resources into education, which slows the growth of your economy, which slows the growth of your fighter research, which detracts from the quality and number of fighters you can field.

I wouldn't want the U.S. to be stronger now when it means that ultimately it will be weaker in the next decades.

The benefits of being aggressive and proactive with your military also decrease as the number of opponents increase. In Risk it's a bad idea to spend all of your armies taking out a rival while another one sits there building up troops waiting for you to weaken yourself. Soft power is real power, because you want other people to spend their resources fighting your enemies for you.

The current U.S. military strategy is awful. We make absolute gains, but suffer comparative losses. We weaken ourselves to weaken one enemy, while other enemies stay the same or grow stronger. Nation building makes us weaker. Having too large of an army makes us weaker.


An obvious problem with the analogy is that, in most RTS games, military research and capability is divorced from actual combat (in that it does not improve either).

Of course, no analogy bears close analysis.

Edited, May 8th 2011 5:52pm by Kavekk
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#185 May 09 2011 at 6:00 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I started it with an open mind realizing that it isn't "perfect", but I had to stop at question 3 or 4. That is indeed a horrible written quiz. At least have a neutral answer available.
The point isn't to ask perfect questions though, the point is to analyse people. Do the quiz and see if it succeeds in doing that. Remember this aren't the same kind of questions you'd ask someone to personally figure them out. I'd be curious to see your result.

Oh and I'm post modern.

Edited, May 5th 2011 10:11am by Xsarus


Even so, that is a poor way to analyze people. This goes back to the argument I was having with Bsphil about bad stats. You can't corner someone into answering a way they normally wouldn't and then claim that it is representative. The questions don't have to specific to an exact belief/solution, but at least generic enough to where your answer might fit under a certain selection.. I think the second quiz does a much better job.

Anyways, I'll do both quizzes just for you...

Quiz 1:

New Coalition Democrats

10% of the public
What They Believe

Strongly pro-government
Upbeat about the country's ability to solve problems and an individual's ability to get ahead through hard work
Approve of regulation and environmental protection
More positive about business than other Democratic-oriented groups
Generally liberal on racial issues
Hospitable to immigrants: 78% believe they strengthen society
Very religious and socially conservative

Who They Are

56% are Democrats
Majority-minority group: 34% white, 30% black and 26% Latino
About three-in-ten are first or second generation Americans
55% have only a high school education or less
23% are not registered to vote
Only 34% read a daily newspaper
Half are regular volunteers for charity or non-profit groups

Quiz 2
Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.64


That's a pretty level-headed score in my opinion..

Edited, May 9th 2011 2:06pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#186 May 09 2011 at 6:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.64


That's a pretty level-headed score in my opinion.
So you think this is an accurate portrayal of your views? Take everyone's money through taxation then tell them how to live what's left of their lives? At least you're not Shador, you'll always have the going for you.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#187 May 09 2011 at 6:55 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.64


That's a pretty level-headed score in my opinion.
So you think this is an accurate portrayal of your views? Take everyone's money through taxation then tell them how to live what's left of their lives? At least you're not Shador, you'll always have the going for you.


Sure why not, what's the problem?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#188 May 09 2011 at 7:02 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Sure why not, what's the problem?
If you're happy with it, fine. I'm just anti-authoritarian. I think we need little to stop complete chaos, but that's very limited. Left or right on the taxation scale isn't an issue for me, its the dictatorships that bother me, not that your score puts you near that, but...
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#189 May 09 2011 at 7:03 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,252 posts
Quote:
Sure why not, what's the problem?


The telling people how to live their lives part. Also, whether the tax part is a problem or not really depends on how much you think taxes should be raised, are we talking small single digit percentages here, or are we talking extravagant unnecessary tax hikes?
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#190 May 09 2011 at 7:13 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
Sure why not, what's the problem?


The telling people how to live their lives part. Also, whether the tax part is a problem or not really depends on how much you think taxes should be raised, are we talking small single digit percentages here, or are we talking extravagant unnecessary tax hikes?
He wasn't even middle left, so I'm guessing small tax hikes, when adequately justified.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#191 May 09 2011 at 7:21 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
Sure why not, what's the problem?


The telling people how to live their lives part. Also, whether the tax part is a problem or not really depends on how much you think taxes should be raised, are we talking small single digit percentages here, or are we talking extravagant unnecessary tax hikes?
He wasn't even middle left, so I'm guessing small tax hikes, when adequately justified.


This...

I don't believe the government should have TOTAL control, hence why my score was 1.64, but I think there should be more than minimal government interaction, but I'm not 100% sure on how much. I just know if certain things weren't mandated, people would or wouldn't do certain things that we take for granted,i.e. minimum wage.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#192 May 09 2011 at 7:21 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,252 posts
Quote:
He wasn't even middle left, so I'm guessing small tax hikes, when adequately justified.


Eh, fair enough.

My results.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#193 May 09 2011 at 7:24 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,252 posts
Quote:
I don't believe the government should have TOTAL control, hence why my score was 1.64, but I think there should be more than minimal government interaction, but I'm not 100% sure on how much. I just know if certain things weren't mandated, people would or wouldn't do certain things that we take for granted,i.e. minimum wage.


Hmm, I can sort of see your point there, though you could be a little more clear about the last sentence.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#194 May 09 2011 at 7:34 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
I don't believe the government should have TOTAL control, hence why my score was 1.64, but I think there should be more than minimal government interaction, but I'm not 100% sure on how much. I just know if certain things weren't mandated, people would or wouldn't do certain things that we take for granted,i.e. minimum wage.


Hmm, I can sort of see your point there, though you could be a little more clear about the last sentence.


Meaning, if the government didn't mandate a certain pay wage, you can rest assured that people would be paid way below the minimum wage. Just look at the illegal immigration work force problem. That doesn't just happen in the U.S., that's everywhere. If you allow businesses to only pay people nickles and dimes off of what they make, they'll do it and they'll be successful because there will always be people unfortunate enough to need that money.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#195 May 09 2011 at 7:39 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,252 posts
Quote:
Meaning, if the government didn't mandate a certain pay wage, you can rest assured that people would be paid way below the minimum wage. Just look at the illegal immigration work force problem. That doesn't just happen in the U.S., that's everywhere. If you allow businesses to only pay people nickles and dimes off of what they make, they'll do it and they'll be successful because there will always be people unfortunate enough to need that money.


Assuming that you're saying that that's why we need the minimum wage laws, then I agree completely. The big question is, what constitutes a fair minimum wage? Personally, I think that it should rise with inflation, and the prices of the basic necessities and cost of utilities.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#196 May 09 2011 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Assuming that you're saying that that's why we need the minimum wage laws, then I agree completely. The big question is, what constitutes a fair minimum wage? Personally, I think that it should rise with inflation, and the prices of the basic necessities and cost of utilities.
Its a good thing government moves slower than that though, because if it did move with inflation you'd see inflation jump far quicker.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#197 May 09 2011 at 7:50 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,252 posts
Quote:
Its a good thing government moves slower than that though, because if it did move with inflation you'd see inflation jump far quicker.


True enough, the problem is that it tends to move slower than it needs to. I'll point out British Columbia and Alberta as examples of this. Things cost more there, but they pay the smallest minimum wage at $8.75 and $8.80 respectively. For comparison, here in Ontario, the minimum wage is $10.25.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#198 May 09 2011 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
Its a good thing government moves slower than that though, because if it did move with inflation you'd see inflation jump far quicker.


True enough, the problem is that it tends to move slower than it needs to. I'll point out British Columbia and Alberta as examples of this. Things cost more there, but they pay the smallest minimum wage at $8.75 and $8.80 respectively. For comparison, here in Ontario, the minimum wage is $10.25.
It's hard to tie in wage with inflation.

Inflation is calculated differently by different entities but is usually based on the price trends of only certain goods. It's a moving target. It can also be artificially manipulated.

I think you'd be better off tying it in to the cost of living.

____________________________
LOOK here.
#199 May 09 2011 at 8:13 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
Its a good thing government moves slower than that though, because if it did move with inflation you'd see inflation jump far quicker.


True enough, the problem is that it tends to move slower than it needs to. I'll point out British Columbia and Alberta as examples of this. Things cost more there, but they pay the smallest minimum wage at $8.75 and $8.80 respectively. For comparison, here in Ontario, the minimum wage is $10.25.
Alberta's minimum wage is probably fine. In cities like Edmonton and Calgary where costs of living are higher, places that otherwise pay minimum wage pay more simply because they have to, or else they get no staff. Smaller towns where living costs are lower, the minimum wage is probably fine. This is based off my time in Calgary, which was pre-2008/09, so things could have changed.

Edited, May 9th 2011 11:14am by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#200 May 09 2011 at 8:45 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
Definitely not the case in the US, but our minimum wages are a state issue with an absolute minimum set by the federal gov't.

The irony? The minumum wage of NJ, which has one of the highest costs of living in the US, is technically below federal. They still have to pay the federal wage (which surpassed theirs a year or two ago), but it's still on the books at $7.10/hour.

/sigh
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#201 May 09 2011 at 11:30 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
***
1,149 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
At least you're not Shador, you'll always have the going for you.


WTF? My score was middle left and only very mildly authoritarian. Isn't that about normal around here?

Edit: In fact, glancing at their page again, the closest historical figure to me is Ghandi. I'm a slightly more authoritarin Ghandi.

Edited, May 9th 2011 1:35pm by ShadorVIII
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 34 All times are in CDT
BonYogi, Debalic, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (31)