Quote:
Somehow being that close to Gandhi's spot on the graph makes me uncomfortable. I firmly believe in solutions that involve bullets and sandwiches.
Keep telling yourself that.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Political Leanings Quiz
Political Leanings QuizFollow
Keep telling yourself that.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
lolgaxe wrote:
I firmly believe in solutions that involve bullets and sandwiches.
Bullets for Sandwiches?
Bam, we just solved both small arms proliferation and hunger at the same time. Go team!
idiggory wrote:
And I would have said I'm around a 5 or a 6 on the libertarian scale.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
I don't get what you mean? Right now it had me at a -7 towards libertarianism. I don't think a true democracy or anarchy would work, and am all for Republics. But I'm heavily against military solutions to problems wherever diplomacy is a possibility.
A -5 on that scale feels better suited to how I actually feel. Maybe not, but it's what I would have given myself without the quiz.
[EDIT]
Were you just referring to my lack of a negative sign? If so, then you are right--I shouldn't have omitted it.
Edited, May 5th 2011 4:48pm by idiggory
A -5 on that scale feels better suited to how I actually feel. Maybe not, but it's what I would have given myself without the quiz.
[EDIT]
Were you just referring to my lack of a negative sign? If so, then you are right--I shouldn't have omitted it.
Edited, May 5th 2011 4:48pm by idiggory
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
bsphil wrote:
For everyone with their panties in a bunch over the quiz being too short with too few options, try this one instead:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
I have the same problems with that quiz (which I think I stated the last couple times someone linked it). It makes assumptions which I simply disagree with. For example, the very first question:
"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."
I don't agree that the interests of trans-national corporations and the goal of "serving humanity" are exclusive. In fact, I happen to believe that they are in alignment. So what do I say? I strongly disagree with the question, so do I put that?
Here's another one:
"Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."
I'm inclined to strongly disagree because I don't think that either is more important than the other. They are both important in different ways. But I'm betting that the question is really asking which I think is more important, with the disagree side meaning unemployment is more important, and the agree side meaning inflation is more important. They can't get anything useful out of me on this question, because I'll strongly disagree regardless of which direction you ordered the two elements. I'm certain, their quiz doesn't consider that though.
And another:
"It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society."
I disagree with the assumption that simply manipulating money doesn't contribute to society. So do I disagree since the question is BS? Are they measuring the degree to which I'm in favor of the free market? Or the degree to which I don't like things that don't contribute to society? Hmmmm...
And another:
"Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care ."
I don't agree that there's a right involved there at all. So do I agree because I think that being able to pay for more of something should allow you to buy more of that something? Or should I disagree because having more money doesn't give you more rights than anyone else? It's a quandary! I know what the question is actually trying to ask, but it doesn't ask that question. What to do? What to do? I'll be ornery and strongly disagree just to ***** with the test I guess.
It's just as full of bad assumptions as the other. Just longer, so the bad ones potentially can get weeded out in the result I suppose. And as expected the results aren't surprising:
Economic Left/Right: 4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
"Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."
-Snip- But I'm betting that the question is really asking which I think is more important,
-Snip- But I'm betting that the question is really asking which I think is more important,
No... really?
gbaji wrote:
Economic Left/Right: 4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46
They must have asked a lot of questions about drug legalization because that's the only view I can really think of gbaji espousing that would be socially libertarian.
Okay. Maybe seat belt laws.
Edited, May 5th 2011 4:10pm by Sweetums
gbaji wrote:
For example, the very first question:
"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."
"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."
I agree with you to an extent. If we're to understand that each question is between the poles of "liberal" and "conservative", then there's a bit of a suggestion of conservatives as being sinister and evil. I doubt that many conservatives would say that their policies run counter to "humanity."
Though I don't see why that insinuation would prevent you from answering the question. Even if you think that the interests of humanity and corporations are aligned, I think even you would say that the interests of humanity are more important. Just because that'd be the end game to you; serving the interests of corporations is the means to that end.
gbaji wrote:
It's just as full of bad assumptions as the other. Just longer, so the bad ones potentially can get weeded out in the result I suppose. And as expected the results aren't surprising
So that's two quizzes now that were absolutely horribly written and complete garbage. And, according to you, accurate in their results.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's just as full of bad assumptions as the other. Just longer, so the bad ones potentially can get weeded out in the result I suppose. And as expected the results aren't surprising
So that's two quizzes now that were absolutely horribly written and complete garbage. And, according to you, accurate in their results.
He's clearly rubbed the wrong way a little by the phrasing in 'em. As I mentioned, I'll acknowledge that some of the questions sound a bit partial.
Quote:
Based on your responses, YOU are a… New Coalition Democrat
Along with 10% of the public
Along with 10% of the public
Quote:
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.92
Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.92
Edited, May 5th 2011 5:41pm by Lubriderm
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
For example, the very first question:
"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."
"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."
I agree with you to an extent. If we're to understand that each question is between the poles of "liberal" and "conservative", then there's a bit of a suggestion of conservatives as being sinister and evil.
Ya think?
Quote:
I doubt that many conservatives would say that their policies run counter to "humanity."
There are other issues with that particular quiz as well, specifically with their labeling of the poles they're using. It just seems designed from start to finish to make liberals look good and conservative look bad. The idea that any liberal can score negatively on the "authoritarian/libertarian" scale should be the first hint that something is horribly wrong. They're not really measuring the degree to which society/government forces social outcomes (social authoritarianism). They're measuring the degree to which you agree or disagree with a specific set of social agenda issues and labeling the ones the left are most connected with (anti-religion, pro-minority, etc) as "libertarian". Which frankly just completely misuses the terms. The reason my score on that pole is very close to Joph's is because I probably answered the religious questions more "correctly" (for a liberal) than he did.
Quote:
Though I don't see why that insinuation would prevent you from answering the question. Even if you think that the interests of humanity and corporations are aligned, I think even you would say that the interests of humanity are more important. Just because that'd be the end game to you; serving the interests of corporations is the means to that end.
Not at all. Because I believe that the interests of humanity are best served by large corporations doing their thing with a minimum of government interference. The second we decide that the interests of humanity are "more important" than those of large corporations, we open the door to what the question is really asking: Should we restrict the actions (or tax the hell out of) of big business in order to incorporate government run social programs to benefit humanity.
We all know that's what they're really asking. And the quiz places people on the left/right axis based on the answer you give. Disagree points you to the right, agree points you to the left. It's not like this sort of quiz is rocket science here. The left/right is measuring free versus controlled markets.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."
I don't agree that the interests of trans-national corporations and the goal of "serving humanity" are exclusive. In fact, I happen to believe that they are in alignment. So what do I say? I strongly disagree with the question, so do I put that?
I don't agree that the interests of trans-national corporations and the goal of "serving humanity" are exclusive. In fact, I happen to believe that they are in alignment. So what do I say? I strongly disagree with the question, so do I put that?
Well sh*t if you can't figure out that you should check "strongly disagree" with the statements you strongly disagree with, I'm not sure how you manage to dress yourself in the morning.
Edited, May 5th 2011 4:37pm by bsphil
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's just as full of bad assumptions as the other. Just longer, so the bad ones potentially can get weeded out in the result I suppose. And as expected the results aren't surprising
So that's two quizzes now that were absolutely horribly written and complete garbage. And, according to you, accurate in their results.
I don't agree with their accuracy. To be fair, the first puts people in such broad categories that it's hard not to be relatively accurate. I don't associate myself as a libertarian though. But then I don't associate myself too much with any of the categories they listed either.
The second one is just... wrong.
All liberals should end out toward the authoritarian side of the social scale, if it was actually measuring the degree to which society is free/controlled. But that's not what they're measuring at all.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
All liberals should end out toward the authoritarian side of the social scale, if it was actually measuring the degree to which society is free/controlled. But that's not what they're measuring at all.
But yeah, probably just every quiz, not you. lol
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
gbaji wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
For example, the very first question:
"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."
"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."
I agree with you to an extent. If we're to understand that each question is between the poles of "liberal" and "conservative", then there's a bit of a suggestion of conservatives as being sinister and evil.
Ya think?
Quote:
I doubt that many conservatives would say that their policies run counter to "humanity."
There are other issues with that particular quiz as well, specifically with their labeling of the poles they're using. It just seems designed from start to finish to make liberals look good and conservative look bad. The idea that any liberal can score negatively on the "authoritarian/libertarian" scale should be the first hint that something is horribly wrong. They're not really measuring the degree to which society/government forces social outcomes (social authoritarianism). They're measuring the degree to which you agree or disagree with a specific set of social agenda issues and labeling the ones the left are most connected with (anti-religion, pro-minority, etc) as "libertarian". Which frankly just completely misuses the terms. The reason my score on that pole is very close to Joph's is because I probably answered the religious questions more "correctly" (for a liberal) than he did.
Quote:
Though I don't see why that insinuation would prevent you from answering the question. Even if you think that the interests of humanity and corporations are aligned, I think even you would say that the interests of humanity are more important. Just because that'd be the end game to you; serving the interests of corporations is the means to that end.
Not at all. Because I believe that the interests of humanity are best served by large corporations doing their thing with a minimum of government interference. The second we decide that the interests of humanity are "more important" than those of large corporations, we open the door to what the question is really asking: Should we restrict the actions (or tax the hell out of) of big business in order to incorporate government run social programs to benefit humanity.
We all know that's what they're really asking. And the quiz places people on the left/right axis based on the answer you give. Disagree points you to the right, agree points you to the left. It's not like this sort of quiz is rocket science here. The left/right is measuring free versus controlled markets.
Aye, fair enough. What I meant was answering the question as it was literally asked, dismissing the machinations. Though I suppose if you already can tell how they'll skew your results to be less accurate, then there's not much point in doing so.
I don't see why you'd say that liberals can't be libertarian, though*. I think you're dismissing some of the nuance. Most of my "liberal" tendencies come from my civil rights stances. Aren't those some of the core tenets of libertarians?
Like: I don't think that the government should be allowed to indiscriminately wire tap. Isn't that value typically shared between liberals (who tend lately to shy away from terror-related govt. expansion of powers) and libertarians?
*I mean ****, they share their first five letters!
Edited, May 5th 2011 5:50pm by Eske
Quote:
All liberals should end out toward the authoritarian side of the social scale, if it was actually measuring the degree to which society is free/controlled.
I lol'd.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Quote:
I don't see why you'd say that liberals can't be libertarian, though
Lubriderm the Braindead wrote:
Quote:
I don't see why you'd say that liberals can't be libertarian, though
Lubriderm the Braindead wrote:
Quote:
I don't see why you'd say that liberals can't be libertarian, though
Right, right.
But I just mean in the context of the quiz.
gbaji wrote:
All liberals should end out toward the authoritarian side of the social scale, if it was actually measuring the degree to which society is free/controlled. But that's not what they're measuring at all.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Quote:
That's incorrect. My social liberal tendencies are based on the fact that I beleive we should let people do as they want. Its not my responsibility to decide for them what they can or can't do. Social conservatives do want to dictate how others should live their lives.
Pretty much this. I think organized religion is a vile thing, but I would never support a bill that wished to destroy it.
I would support a bill that wanted to up environmental controls, because ensuring the earth doesn't die is a justified reason for control, imo. It's sure going to be great if the earth is inhospitable in 500 years, but everyone was free to pollute to their heart's content in the meanwhile (/sarcasm).
And economic controls are generally accepted so as to prevent the few (aka, the richest people in charge of corporations) from ruling the lives of the masses. That is to say, we don't like feudalism.
But when it comes down to personal liberties, we are dead set against controlling people unless not doing so would lead to a massive infringement on the rights of others.
For instance, I'm not going to say that people should be free to murder if they so choose. Because acting on that desire automatically violates, to the utmost degree, the personal liberties of another.
But I'm fine with abortion, because I don't consider a fetus a person. And, as such, it doesn't have rights.
And this is somewhat irrelevant, but note that my notion of person-hood isn't restricted to humans. I'm very much against the slaughtering of higher-intelligence creatures for instance, especially those (like dolphins) that are actually self-aware.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Quote:
Economic Left/Right: 1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.67
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.67
I figured I would be a little more to the Libertarian side. Some guy named Friedman is in my quadrant, though much more severely right than me.
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam
Sedao
Sedao
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
All liberals should end out toward the authoritarian side of the social scale, if it was actually measuring the degree to which society is free/controlled.
It's fun to see how he's been taught.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
It's fun to see how he's been taught.
And then it's depressing, because corporations != society.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Recent Visitors: 341
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (341)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Political Leanings Quiz
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC