I think I was closer to the origin point last time I did this.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...4.38&soc=-5.69
Printable View
I think I was closer to the origin point last time I did this.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...4.38&soc=-5.69
We had a pretty good discussion of this on the old CC last time we did this. IIRC i asked the same question and RB and i debated it. If that helps you search it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by NGS
One thats always caught me out is "charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged". I dont know. Surely this is a factual question? Can anyone enlighten me?
I'll give it a go, thanks for the tip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawnie
Aye, that's riddled with subjectivity. Context-sensitive, as well (at least, more so than all the other questions).Quote:
One thats always caught me out is "charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged". I dont know. Surely this is a factual question? Can anyone enlighten me?
IIRC wasn't the whole counter-argument centered around the word "advantage", claiming that sometimes it's better to be slower?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawnie
I never bought that logic, though I can't remember if I participated in that discussion. It's like saying you can't claim a car has a speed advantage over a horse because sometimes you won't like where you're driving to. The problem with one party systems is not in how fast they can get things done, it's in what they get done. Their speed of action is an advantage that often isn't used towards good ends.
Meh, slight slowing down is good, it prevents going-with-the-flow of public outcry and media attention. see also, from the thread about R ratings in Australia:Quote:
Originally Posted by NGS
Things like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by termite
Well, USA has more focus on voluntary donations, e.g. charity, European countries usually more through taxes and the state, e.g. social security. I prefer social security, afraid charities will only help their own (e.g. Christian charities help Christian people and needs but not atheist or Muslim ones).Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawnie
This is a much more eloquent articulation of what I was thinking. And even if you don't like where you're driving, well then, your speed allows you the time to turn around and get out of Dodge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Also, the A+ari search feature is so beyond inefficient it's likely I'll never find the argument without knowing significantly more information...which is fine by me.
Yet it seems to me a one-party system wouldn't be concerned with public outcry or the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
EDIT: this letting-you-know-about-a-post-made-while-you-were-posting thing is pretty frackin' sweet! :up:
Depends, they still need popular support to stop people from rising up I suppose. In fact, with a multi party system people will be less busy with rising up since they can simply wait for the next election and elect THEIR favourites. One party system has no alternative!Quote:
Originally Posted by NGS
It really is! I hope that stays on vBulletin.Quote:
EDIT: this letting-you-know-about-a-post-made-while-you-were-posting thing is pretty frackin' sweet! :up:
I've heard it expressed as "Your ability to survive should not be dependent on your ability to make people like you.".Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
In that fashion a state support system makes sense as it's supposed be unbiased and not care who you are (ignoring all the measures put in place to make sure that someone somewhere isn't getting something they don't deserve)
On the other hand, if your charity has strings attatched is it really charity?
I think what you're describing depends on how liberal (Locke) the people are. If we have a society full of sycophant Timmys there won't be much of a problem for the government. Actually, I think this mirrors what happened in the CC pretty well; those with the courage and righteousness stood against the new regime and left, while those who didn't know any better have seemed to conform. And there's even a mini-revolution (with the avatars) which really hasn't done anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Alright alright...
Economic Left/Right: 3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.21
http://i48.tinypic.com/2aa0dja.png
Maybe this will convince Tear that I haven't stopped thinking. :o
It looks like I'm still the queen of the left.
:think: I am suddenly wondering if I appear batshit insane, though.
Excuse me? We got the exact same score on the left-right scaleQuote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
Did we? Oh good. I didn't want to be all alone.
I'm still queen, though. You can be princess.
Normally I'd call you a whore, but the fair and balanced moderating process at Atari have proved I'm the whore, and you're the untarnished princess, princess. :coffee:Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
:lol: That is so fucking unfair. I want my sex WL, damn it.
Whore.
Economic Left/Right: -3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13
I'm pretty far left apparently.
No, you aren't.
I didn't think you'd be that far left economically, supermario man...:bulb:
You sound so disappointed :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Being screwed over by Wall Street tends to do that to people I guess. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
1) Same score from teens to mid 20s means you're thinking? I'd say it means the opposite. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
2) There's a difference between what one's beliefs are and how he defends them.
Me:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...Picture1-3.jpg
A couple of thoughts:
1) I wish I could compare 1/00,1/05 and 1/10. I'm pretty sure I've shifted leftwards on economics, and libertarian wrt religion in response to the Bush years and the economic plunge.
2) I found on almost every economic question that I wanted a 5th answer that was right in the middle. So actually I think I lie rightwards on that.
Economic Left/Right: 3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.26
Dread copied me. :o
Bullshit, my point is that my views have shifted, but not in the extreme that you suggest.Quote:
Originally Posted by '
Now nowQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The questionnaire is flawed
And you do seem pretty corporate-happy
Lots of things make me happy. Doesn't make me a right-wing extremist.
You're using tainted language there; right-wing extremism is ripe with all sorts of jackasses ranging from "white supremacists" to evangelical preachers. No one is saying you hate negroes or crave for Rapture. However you do seem to support most of the heinous economical right-wing views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The thing is I'm not sure they are all that far right if you put them on a scale of economic views. Maybe compared to Communist Scandinavia, but it's not like I'm saying we should privatize firefighters and such.
Yep, this point goes very far IMO. I think too many people and politicians support activism/actionism. In the end what is more for important than fast legislative is a stable political system. This way companies can do long term investments. Things that need short hand reactions (like handling disasters) should be handed to the executive anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Of course I am a little based, living in one of the slowest political systems of the world. But we seem to do well with it.
Hm.
I just found a link to one of these that i did a while ago. Looks like ive changed a lot more than i thought.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...5.88&soc=-7.33
And for some reason our children are so much better off than yours. Is it racial, or is it the socialism :coffee:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
(Unfortunately we are going extinct :flail:)