Heartland

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69

I thought I was far more Left... whatever, I probably just got counted more right for those "some...are..." questions which are true because indeed some, but rather few, qualify to those perimeters...

Ghandi as well here.

But what strikes me the most, is some of the questions...

...which shows that you people have TOTALLY different worries on your mind than us Belgian, for example...

Some questions that struck me as either odd or even weird:

"You cannot be moral without being religious." - there's actually a party in the UK stating this?

"Astrology accurately explains many things." - WTF? Scientology stuff or something?

"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." - this was a difficult one. What made me vote 'disagree' was the word 'democratic'. Omit that and I say, yeah right, you got a point. But nothing much democratic about one party deciding about stuff...

"No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding." - That's something that bothers most UK-citizens, I guess

"Good parents sometimes have to spank their children." - wrong statement. This one gets a 'disagree'. If the question were: 'it ain't necessarily wrong in a parent-child relationship to give a physical punishment from time to time if need arises' then I'd agree. Now it seems as if you HAVE to spank your child from time to time ELSE you are not a good parent.

"No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it." - on for the UK or USA citizens, I don't think you can sell this one in Belgium, ever... not even on Vlaams Behang...

IZ.

"You cannot be moral without being religious." That's not a political thing, per se, but it implies a less neo-conservative approach to politics and society.
As for pride in one's home country, hah. As if. It's just a big rock off the coast of France.

Eco -6.50
Social lib. -6.41

I'm a commie?
Nope!
I just don't trust in structures (Surprise!) that act according to mathematical laws (in this case the laws of micro and macroeconomy) to be able to leave at health what they themselves grow on. The equations do know singularities and exponential growth to infinity. But these apparently aren't possible in nature.
So I see social, environmental and ethical laws have to limit them. That drove my ranking fairly far to the left.
And a brilliant bloke once gave the slogan "Global government is good, global companies are bad", which I subscribe generaly. An ideal state that yet can't be achieved, but should be some time. While I see the risk of that one government getting corrupted as critical.
That means the economical interests of Disneys and McDonalds (and their caterpillar effect on cultural differences) have to be located at way lower ranks than personal rights and the rights of differences of cultures need to be on a high level to give the different people a juridical fundament on which all may exist with the chances for a fullfilled and species-appropriate life. (You think that's a strange term in this place? I don't... ) Thus my very liberal rating.
I actually think at the same time that for a lifeworthy environment humans need quite a bit of steadiness, which opposes the anarcho tendency my results may sugest rather strongly.
So I consider that test a bit too crude for a decent picture.
But then, I wouldn't trust any statistic result I didn't fake myself anyway.

Numerous ones would have got a neutral response from me, had there been such an option. That's a LibDem voter for you - "I can see value in both sides of the argument", haha

Dark: Why should not, if one's country is worth admiring and one's people hold the virtues of their own close, which are also your virtues, one be proud of one's country and people and heritage?

i think one should be. Not at this day and age, but certainly 2000 years ago.

The problem these days is, no people have any virtues of their own. The thing is, i think countries and cultures that are remarkably different in the homogeny, should be proud and unrelentless in preserving their heritage...countries like, say, IRAN.

Also the problem is, that these are very very unfashionable thoughts and foreign thoughts. But they didn't used to be. And NONE of you are any more sophisticated or intelligent than the people who lived at the time when they were popular thoughts.

markfiend wrote:Whee! Ness is more of a lefty than me!

Collectivised any farms yet comrade?

Lefty? me? hee hee. They just didn't ask any of the sort of questions that would have shown my 'righter than right' credentials

Because there is a difference between pride in my country, the "green and pleasant land", and pride in its constituent population.

And I disagree that we are no more intelligent than those 2000 years ago. The knowledge of visible quantum science trumps the word of prophets about an invisible god.

I think the issue here is that the questions are weighted from the perspective of a certain mindset. Had they been different, I may well have scored the very opposite.

Another example: the "abortion" question. That obviously comes from the US perspective, where the "religious right" oppose abortion. Now, as an Irish person who was brought up a Catholic, yes, I do have certain baggage in that area. As a vaguely humanist/"life-ist" type person, yes, I do hate the very concept of abortion. But I also believe that nothing whatsoever gives me the right to force my opinion on this on anybody else. So that was a question that was actually impossible for me to answer.

Dark wrote: The knowledge of visible quantum science trumps the word of prophets about an invisible god.

But that's all relevant, just because you don't know about something in particular, doesn't make you any less intelligent.

Dark wrote:And I disagree that we are no more intelligent than those 2000 years ago.

Actually I tend to agree with itnAklipse on this one. We are no more intelligent than we were 2000 years ago - the human brain hasn't evolved any measurable amount in a mere 2 millennia (such evolution takes far longer). We may know more about science, but we're not more intelligent. So a human being 2000 years ago had the same power of reasoning that we do today.

Dark wrote:The knowledge of visible quantum science trumps the word of prophets about an invisible god.

I give you Aristotle and George Bush.

mh wrote:
Another example: the "abortion" question. That obviously comes from the US perspective, where the "religious right" oppose abortion. Now, as an Irish person who was brought up a Catholic, yes, I do have certain baggage in that area. As a vaguely humanist/"life-ist" type person, yes, I do hate the very concept of abortion. But I also believe that nothing whatsoever gives me the right to force my opinion on this on anybody else. So that was a question that was actually impossible for me to answer.

OOOh, driving through South Dakota was a very strange thing. In nearly every town there were 'cemetaries' of little white crosses for 'the unborn foetuses' killed by abortions. And houses proudly showing the number of the unborn murdered that day.


....more worrying...these people have guns.....

Dark: And you have this prophetic wisdom to state unilaterally that quantum science trumps the words of a prophet about an invisible god...you know this...how, exactly?

Haha. You are merely prejudiced. You know NOTHING about the words of a prophet about an invisible God. And i doubt, truly, that you know much about quantum science, either. Nor do you know what Einstein was adding to his PLAGIARISED theories, and from which source.

itnAklipse wrote:Dark: Why should not, if one's country is worth admiring and one's people hold the virtues of their own close, which are also your virtues, one be proud of one's country and people and heritage?

i think one should be. Not at this day and age, but certainly 2000 years ago.

Twothousand years ago mostly all of europe spoke roughly the same language, so you would have to pick a time which you choose as a root or startingpoint of what you'd call your culture. So that's a slightly difficult point.

itnAklipse wrote:The problem these days is, no people have any virtues of their own. The thing is, i think countries and cultures that are remarkably different in the homogeny, should be proud and unrelentless in preserving their heritage...countries like, say, IRAN.

It surprises me that you who tends to insist on naturalness for your oppionons picked a state as example that was shaped with a ruler.
What I want to say is: The natural borders flow, thus you can decide between ethnical groups, but less clearly between countries as such. (Now one ethnical group dominates a country, wants it ethically "clean", and there you go, another homicide takes place.. I think the entire concept of shaping countries with borders is wrong.

itnAklipse wrote:Also the problem is, that these are very very unfashionable thoughts and foreign thoughts. But they didn't used to be. And NONE of you are any more sophisticated or intelligent than the people who lived at the time when they were popular thoughts.

As societies evolved on, some ideas got extinct. No longer fitting..
There's a time and place for everything.
But that's not everytime and everywhere.

Who the f**k wants more UNWANTED CHILDREN in this world?

The problem with people against abortion is that they do not understand in the least that the problem of having children is a social/cultural one. That is the reason for most abortions, cultural/social climate which they've helped to create.

There would be no problem with abortion or having babies if people had freedom. The same freedom NATURE has granted EVERY being. People simply love oppressing each other in the name of their own stupidity.

eotunun: That ideas go extinct is a human idea altogether, not a natural one. The fact that someone still supports the old ideas is proof positive that those ideas have not gone extinct.

And that which lies sleeping may not eternally lie.

As much as people try to DESTROY and RAPE nature, as much nature has endurance and patience.

*Editted twice to reenter a morphed context
Not my day, hm?*

When the last human bit the dust his ideas are gone as well.
Human replies to natures challenges wil vary and will depend on the situations in which the come up. These situations may be similar, but never identical, so the same idea never will be the perfect response to the challenges posed twice.

itnAklipse wrote:Dark: And you have this prophetic wisdom to state unilaterally that quantum science trumps the words of a prophet about an invisible god...you know this...how, exactly?

Haha. You are merely prejudiced. You know NOTHING about the words of a prophet about an invisible God. And i doubt, truly, that you know much about quantum science, either. Nor do you know what Einstein was adding to his PLAGIARISED theories, and from which source.

I don't know this. But I'll stick with it until God/Yahweh/Allah/Brahman/Amateratsu Omikami or any other deity comes and tells me I'm right or wrong, then maybe I'll reconsider.

I know plenty about gods. Though not as much as you, I'm sure. Though I'd be wiling to wager that I know more about quantum and nuclear science than you.
And I don't recall mentioning Einstein.

Though as far as abortion goes, I can't say I'm against it. In any case, I don't have to experience it, so my views are probably of slightly less importance.

This thread's going fast.

Dark wrote: But I'll stick with it until God/Yahweh/Allah/Brahman/Amateratsu Omikami or any other deity comes and tells me I'm right or wrong, then maybe I'll reconsider.

That usually occurs during a life-threatening moment - it's amazing how many people plead to 'somebody up there' when their life is in extreme danger.

Well, Dark, your problem obviously is that you've already decided what you're waiting for. Too bad for God if It doesn't meet your requirements.

Whatever. The world is chock full of all sorts of idiots and viewpoints and you can't carry water into a well.

Beauty will still save mankind. Anytime.

I think I can stand disappointing God for now. Until he gets off his arse and shouts at America, the UK, the Middle East, everywhere, to shut up, stop fighting and focus on the fact that they're all worshiping the same god.
Anyway. If he's mellowed out from being a vengeful god, killing all over the place and settled for "God is love", maybe some prejudices can start being kicked out.
Yeah, yeah, wishful thinking. Do I get a fatwa or excommunication, I can never remember...

Dark wrote:I think I can stand disappointing God for now. Until he gets off his arse and shouts at America, the UK, the Middle East, everywhere, to shut up, stop fighting and focus on the fact that they're all worshiping the same god.
..

I think he's just sun-tanning or flooding us into surrender, at present....

Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.62

Power To The People

Woah, this has fairly gathered pace!

itnAklipse wrote:Dark: Why should not, if one's country is worth admiring and one's people hold the virtues of their own close, which are also your virtues, one be proud of one's country and people and heritage?

i think one should be. Not at this day and age, but certainly 2000 years ago.

The problem these days is, no people have any virtues of their own.

This is another of these issues where I can see both sides... I used to have a kneejerk hatred of anything that smelt remotely of nationalism for fairly obvious reasons. However, in recent times I've come to see the value of the sense of identity that the concept of a nation can provide, in much the same way as tribe, religion, social groups and even subcultures do. Human beings do seem to have an instinctive need to feel part of something greater than themselves, to place themselves within it somehow, and provided that need is understood and not exploited, it can be relatively benign. However it so frequently is misused that I think vigilance is important.

As far as the idea of homogenous virtues is concerned - is it necessarily a bad thing for humanity to hold common virtues and morals? The existence of drastically different cultures certainly helps us question things we may otherwise swallow unquestioningly, but would it be so bad if we came to a point where we were all guided by similar principles, based fundementally on preserving and minimising needless suffering to our species? If one culture or country was to hold ideas which led to slaughter and oppression of millions, should they be celebrated just because they're "different"?

itnAklipse wrote:Also the problem is, that these are very very unfashionable thoughts and foreign thoughts. But they didn't used to be. And NONE of you are any more sophisticated or intelligent than the people who lived at the time when they were popular thoughts

Hmm. 2000 years ago, nationalism barely existed as the idea of the nation state only really came into being during the past half-millenium or so. Having said that it's a bit of a moot point, people still has the same sense of pride in their city-state, tribe, empire or what have you. And although many modern, western, educated people now shun those sentiments instinctively, I think we still have a similar drive to find the place we belong. It's just we have to look ourselves now, find where we fit in, it is not given to us on a plate. Which can encourage people to think for themselves I suppose... but taken to it's extreme even that can be negative. Modern Western society, where you find and define yourself, seems to leave a lot of people drifting, unsure of who they are and where they fit in. Swings and roundabouts mate