Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Political Leanings QuizFollow

#202 May 09 2011 at 11:32 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,625 posts
The One and Only ShadorVIII wrote:
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.


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


I assume that he's talking about your "white pride" comments. Though maybe that's just a smaller part of the whole, I can't speak for Ugly on that.
____________________________
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.
#203 May 09 2011 at 11:42 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,149 posts
Belkira wrote:
The One and Only ShadorVIII wrote:
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.


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


I assume that he's talking about your "white pride" comments. Though maybe that's just a smaller part of the whole, I can't speak for Ugly on that.


Piffle and nonsense. I acknowledge no such comments.








Disclaimer: Any and all comments made by Shador on the subjects of race, religion, sexuality, or politics are subject to revocation and denial at any time and for any reason (or no reason at all). Such comments shall be treated (subsequent to such denial/revocation) as though they had never existed and no subsequent reference to them shall be acknowleged as valid. Said comments shall also be expunged from Shador's public record to every extent possible.

Edited, May 9th 2011 2:01pm by ShadorVIII
#204 May 09 2011 at 11:45 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
I don't like the guy, but I'll at least give Shador credit for this: he seems to occasionally demonstrate a sense of shame and a willingness to reconsider his own viewpoints.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#205 May 09 2011 at 11:48 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
I don't like the guy, but I'll at least give Shador credit for this: he seems to occasionally demonstrate a sense of shame and a willingness to reconsider his own viewpoints.

Reconsidered viewpoints indicate flaws in logic or rationale in the initial analysis.

As such, I have none that need revision. I love being right.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#206 May 09 2011 at 12:45 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
Quote:
As such, I have none that need revision. I love being right.


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

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#207 May 09 2011 at 12:57 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,617 posts
Belkira wrote:
I assume that he's talking about your "white pride" comments. Though maybe that's just a smaller part of the whole, I can't speak for Ugly on that.
This. The avatar. The gun. The flip flopping. The avatar. Its a toss up for me. In some ways, I prefer Shador, in others I prefer Alma. If I had to chose one over the other, I'd rather keep Shador, because I don't have to seem him as much.
____________________________
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

#208 May 09 2011 at 1:05 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,149 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I assume that he's talking about your "white pride" comments. Though maybe that's just a smaller part of the whole, I can't speak for Ugly on that.
This. The avatar. The gun. The flip flopping. The avatar. Its a toss up for me. In some ways, I prefer Shador, in others I prefer Alma. If I had to chose one over the other, I'd rather keep Shador, because I don't have to seem him as much.


Ok, I understand the dislike over the gun, the flip-flopping, and various statements (that were never made).

But I still can't fathom how anyone could hate Stephany.
#209 May 09 2011 at 2:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,617 posts
The One and Only ShadorVIII wrote:
But I still can't fathom how anyone could hate Stephany.
For starters, I'm not 10.
____________________________
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

#210 May 09 2011 at 2:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,927 posts
idiggory wrote:
So I'm guessing that was a no? Legislating to prevent change isn't controlling outcomes like legislating to cause it does?


No. It's not. In the same way that stopping someone from burning down your house doesn't change your condition, but burning it down does. Or preventing someone from robbing you doesn't affect you, but robbing you does. Are you actually claiming to be unable to mentally understand this difference?

Quote:
And gbaji, this might be difficult for you:

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


Except that you've replaced the definition of liberalism with the one for democracy/republic. Liberalism is about the degree of liberty the citizens have, not how they are represented. While some form of democracy is certainly the best way to go, that's not what defines liberalism. Liberalism is about not having a government that intrudes upon your life.

Quote:
I don't really see why it's hard for you to grasp.


I do grasp it. You're the one operating on incorrect assumptions.

Quote:
A liberal gov't should = the people, a fascist gov't = a small group of them.


Liberal government isn't just one in which the people have a say, and if you'd studied any US history, you'd understand this. One of the greatest fears of the founders was that if they didn't put sufficient protections into their system, it might become a tyranny of the majority. They absolutely understood that the mob is capable of imposing on society just as much as any king sitting on a throne. And that danger is made all the more real exactly because many people (like yourself) mistakenly assume that as long as you have democracy, you can't have authoritarianism.

That's absolutely false. You're just wrong. I can't say this more clearly.

Quote:
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).


What the hell are you talking about? First off, you keep insisting on bringing in a new term "fascism", which isn't present in this discussion. We're talking about "libertarianism" versus "authoritarianism". Libertarianism (or classical liberalism if you prefer) is entirely about not having a government which intrudes on your life. Authoritarianism is the opposite (should be obvious by the name). In this context, these are opposite ends of that axis. Stop pretending we're talking about something else.

Quote:
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).


You're inventing definitions to make your word use work. That's *not* what the two things in question mean.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#211 May 09 2011 at 3:10 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Yes, but you're still Shador.

This would be why I need to check if there's another page to read before I hit reply.

Edited, May 9th 2011 7:56pm by Majivo
#212 May 09 2011 at 3:35 PM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
Quote:
You're inventing definitions to make your word use work. That's *not* what the two things in question mean.


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

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#213 May 09 2011 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,713 posts
Uh, Gbaji is correct here idig...
____________________________
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."
#214 May 09 2011 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
Di wrote:
liberalism- a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)


No, he isn't. There's nothing about liberalism that demands anarchy.

[EDIT]
Quote:
Liberal government isn't just one in which the people have a say, and if you'd studied any US history, you'd understand this. One of the greatest fears of the founders was that if they didn't put sufficient protections into their system, it might become a tyranny of the majority. They absolutely understood that the mob is capable of imposing on society just as much as any king sitting on a throne. And that danger is made all the more real exactly because many people (like yourself) mistakenly assume that as long as you have democracy, you can't have authoritarianism.


Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I said that the people = the government. I never said that majority ruled.

Edited, May 9th 2011 6:09pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#215 May 09 2011 at 4:17 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,914 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Uh, Gbaji is correct here idig...


Really. Is that so...?

Joke's on both of you either way. You're reading the things gbaji says.

Edited, May 9th 2011 10:18pm by Kavekk
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#216 May 09 2011 at 6:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
I don't like the guy, but I'll at least give Shador credit for this: he seems to occasionally demonstrate a sense of shame and a willingness to reconsider his own viewpoints.

No, he has a willingness to reject his viewpoints when they become embarrassing to him, and immediately embrace the next radical ideology he wanders across. These are very different things.
#217 May 09 2011 at 7:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,625 posts
Majivo wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
I don't like the guy, but I'll at least give Shador credit for this: he seems to occasionally demonstrate a sense of shame and a willingness to reconsider his own viewpoints.

No, he has a willingness to reject his viewpoints when they become embarrassing to him, and immediately embrace the next radical ideology he wanders across. These are very different things.


I have no idea what you mean. It's not like he went from a raving Mormon defending the bible at all costs to a raving atheist who bashes Christianity at any turn!


Wait...
____________________________
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.
#218 May 09 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,927 posts
idiggory wrote:
Di wrote:
liberalism- a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)


No, he isn't. There's nothing about liberalism that demands anarchy.


I didn't say anarchy. I said "government which intrudes on the individuals as little as possible". Read the bolded section. I'll also point out that you're using the definition of "liberalism", which unfortunately includes both classical and social versions. Hence, why the second part of your definition includes using the government to fix social inequities.

Libertarianism, which is the word we started with, is associated with "classical liberalism". Using a modern reference to liberalism as a whole will include social liberalism, which includes assumptions about government which libertarians absolutely disagree with.

You are, once again, attempting to play with the word use and cherry pick definitions to suite you.

Stop trying to come up with ways to make something appear to be correct and look at what we started with. We had an axis which included "libertarianism" on one end and "authoritarianism" on the other. This should suggest to any reasonably intelligent person that contradictory word usage aside, we're using the word "libertarian" to mean "the opposite of authoritarian". Do you see how pulling in out of context definitions of words that are semantically close doesn't really work?

Quote:
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I said that the people = the government. I never said that majority ruled.


Wow! You really haven't thought through what you are saying, have you? You just got done insisting that as long as government is acting based on the will of "the people", that it can't be authoritarian. So how is that not acceptance of "majority rule"?

The assumption held by libertarians is that unless government is limited in its actions to "preventing harm", then it can and will become authoritarian because there is no end to what the people may demand in the name of creating positive social outcomes. What prevents a democracy from becoming a "majority rules" authoritarian system is the limited government concept of libertarianism. Take that away and you take away what prevents the government from intruding endlessly into our lives.


It honestly seems like you just completely don't understand the principle I'm talking about. To me, it's very easy to see the dividing line between a system in which the government is limited to preventing harm by one person against another (stopping a negative), and a government which attempts to generate positive outcomes. It's night and day, but it's like you just can't see the difference. Can you? Even hypothetically?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#219 May 09 2011 at 9:09 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Belkira wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
I don't like the guy, but I'll at least give Shador credit for this: he seems to occasionally demonstrate a sense of shame and a willingness to reconsider his own viewpoints.

No, he has a willingness to reject his viewpoints when they become embarrassing to him, and immediately embrace the next radical ideology he wanders across. These are very different things.


I have no idea what you mean. It's not like he went from a raving Mormon defending the bible at all costs to a raving atheist who bashes Christianity at any turn!


Wait...


Smiley: lol Fair point!
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#220 May 09 2011 at 9:13 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
Wait, Shador is/was a Mormon?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#221 May 09 2011 at 9:21 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,625 posts
idiggory wrote:
Wait, Shador is/was a Mormon?


I think the term is "rabid Mormon."
____________________________
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.
#222 May 09 2011 at 9:28 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
Oh god, is that like lycanthropy?

Note to self, approach Mormons ONLY WITH EXTREME CARE.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#223 May 09 2011 at 9:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
He was a Jehovah's Witness, as I recall.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#224 May 09 2011 at 10:14 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,625 posts
Jophiel wrote:
He was a Jehovah's Witness, as I recall.


Oh, damn, that's right. My bad. As I was typing that, I was thinking, "Wait, was it Mormon or Latter Day Saints...?" For got the JW.

Thanks.
____________________________
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.
#225 May 09 2011 at 10:40 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
I don't have any clue what Jehova's Witnesses even believe...
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#226 May 09 2011 at 10:44 PM Rating: Good
******
41,408 posts
idiggory wrote:
I don't have any clue what Jehova's Witnesses even believe...
That Jesus was a door to door salesman, I think.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#227 May 09 2011 at 11:58 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
idiggory wrote:
I don't have any clue what Jehova's Witnesses even believe...

That's okay, neither did he.
#228 May 10 2011 at 4:27 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,817 posts
idiggory wrote:
I don't have any clue what Jehova's Witnesses even believe...

I don't know either, but I have some friends and family members that are JW and it seems they don't believe in many things, i.e. anniversaries outside of marriage. No birthdays, Christmas and apparently they are against war according to my friend (didn't research that). It was funny because they wouldn't celebrate birthdays or Christmas but would "randomly" get gifts around their birthdays.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#229 May 10 2011 at 7:12 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
Erm, this might be wrong, but I think the JW take the Book of John rather literally. That is, they think that the number of souls who will be saved on judgement day will be 144,000. Belonging to virgin men. Who are predetermined in their destiny to be saved. They won't get it wrong. Because they are such morally pure guys.

So it's always puzzled me why they are such a proselytising bunch.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#230 May 10 2011 at 7:18 AM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Erm, this might be wrong, but I think the JW take the Book of John rather literally. That is, they think that the number of souls who will be saved on judgement day will be 144,000. Belonging to virgin men. Who are predetermined in their destiny to be saved. They won't get it wrong. Because they are such morally pure guys.

So it's always puzzled me why they are such a proselytising bunch.

It's multi-level marketing for Jesus.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#231 May 10 2011 at 8:40 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
That's... interesting.

I normally don't try to judge religions beyond the way they personally affect my life. I don't believe in God, but I respect their ability to do so. So, as long as they aren't actively making my life worse, I try to ignore things.

But... c'mon. That's just stupid.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#232 May 10 2011 at 8:47 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,149 posts
Majivo wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
I don't like the guy, but I'll at least give Shador credit for this: he seems to occasionally demonstrate a sense of shame and a willingness to reconsider his own viewpoints.

No, he has a willingness to reject his viewpoints when they become embarrassing to him, and immediately embrace the next radical ideology he wanders across. These are very different things.


What can I say? Uncertainty scares me. Radical ideologies are nice because they make everything so clear.
#233 May 10 2011 at 9:01 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
"Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

~Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (Lewis Carroll)
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#234 May 10 2011 at 9:58 AM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
"Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

~Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (Lewis Carroll)

Opium's a bitch.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#235 May 10 2011 at 10:11 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
The One and Only ShadorVIII wrote:
What can I say? Uncertainty scares me. Radical ideologies are nice because they make everything so clear.

This is the first time I've ever rated you up. Don't spend it all in one place.
#236 May 10 2011 at 11:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,713 posts
The One and Only ShadorVIII wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
I don't like the guy, but I'll at least give Shador credit for this: he seems to occasionally demonstrate a sense of shame and a willingness to reconsider his own viewpoints.

No, he has a willingness to reject his viewpoints when they become embarrassing to him, and immediately embrace the next radical ideology he wanders across. These are very different things.


What can I say? Uncertainty scares me. Radical ideologies are nice because they make everything so clear.


The only time things are absolute is when they are absolutely wrong.
____________________________
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."
#237 May 10 2011 at 11:46 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
Quote:
The only time things are absolute is when they are absolutely wrong.


You and Nietzsche must get along swell. :P
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#238 May 10 2011 at 11:51 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,713 posts
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
The only time things are absolute is when they are absolutely wrong.


You and Nietzsche must get along swell. :P


Well, neither of us are nihilists or neo darwinists, so that's something.
____________________________
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."
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 37 All times are in CDT
Allegory, CoalHeart, Debalic, ElneClare, gbaji, Anonymous Guests (32)