(July 6, 2014 at 7:49 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Where does 'comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable' come out on the graph ??

I think I'm missing a joke here, but, unless you having feelings about whether the government should comfort the afflicted or afflict the comfortable, it doesn't.

---

(July 6, 2014 at 5:58 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Pretty far to the left, and close to the bottom.

Left of Gandhi---that's impressive.

Quote: 'Is one race superior?' shouldn't even exist in a quiz, that's just forcibly making people more liberal than conservative...

It works over here.

(July 6, 2014 at 8:23 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: 'Is one race superior?' shouldn't even exist in a quiz, that's just forcibly making people more liberal than conservative...

It works over here.

Where I live showing a nazi cross will get you jail time.

(July 6, 2014 at 8:27 pm)Blackout Wrote:

(July 6, 2014 at 8:23 pm)Minimalist Wrote:


It works over here.

Where I live showing a nazi cross will get you jail time.

Free speech is free speech regardless of content. We have it worked into our constitution.

We seem to make exceptions for college campuses though. Besides, it's nice of these "kind" folks to self identify so we know who to look out for.

(July 6, 2014 at 8:30 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(July 6, 2014 at 8:27 pm)Blackout Wrote: Where I live showing a nazi cross will get you jail time.

Free speech is free speech regardless of content. We have it worked into our constitution.

We seem to make exceptions for college campuses though. Besides, it's nice of these "kind" folks to self identify so we know who to look out for.

Free speech and freedom of association is restricted in our constitution regarding fascism and nazism, between democracy and the law, the law prevailed, since we lived in a fascist state for more or less 60 years no one wants to take chances. Same goes for racism and racist associations. In this particular case it's best to take the safe side and let authority prevail over liberty for society's good.

Here is mine:


I find it interesting that the average quiz takers are in the left Libertarian square, non-interventionalists and culturally liberal. I'm a little MORE of all of those than average, but it seems like the quiz takers, at least, are tending to lean that way.

And yes, I agree that simply calling people liberal or conservative is too restrictive and misleading. Even this graph can only go so far. I'm pro-choice and pro-gay rights, but I don't think everyone has the right to procreate (I should addend that to procreate ENDLESSLY). I obviously think we need to lock up murderers and rapists, but I'm anti-death penalty. So on the one hand, I don't think we should regulate people's moral choices, but on the other hand, there are circumstances where I totally think we should regulate people's moral choices. Both times they asked that question, I didn't know how to answer it, so I didn't. It is dependent on the specific situation.

(July 6, 2014 at 8:59 pm)Blackout Wrote: Free speech and freedom of association is restricted in our constitution regarding fascism and nazism, between democracy and the law, the law prevailed, since we lived in a fascist state for more or less 60 years no one wants to take chances. Same goes for racism and racist associations. In this particular case it's best to take the safe side and let authority prevail over liberty for society's good.

Free speech was even more severely restricted when Germany was a fascist state. (I'm assuming we are talking Germany here--right me if I'm wrong because there was more than one fascist state) I think allowing authoritarianism to prevail, not free speech, was the problem. Voicing opposition to fascism was dangerous was it not?

---

(July 6, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Aroura Wrote: Here is mine:


I find it interesting that the average quiz takers are in the left Libertarian square, non-interventionalists and culturally liberal. I'm a little MORE of all of those than average, but it seems like the quiz takers, at least, are tending to lean that way.

And yes, I agree that simply calling people liberal or conservative is too restrictive and misleading. Even this graph can only go so far. I'm pro-choice and pro-gay rights, but I don't think everyone has the right to procreate (I should addend that to procreate ENDLESSLY). I obviously think we need to lock up murderers and rapists, but I'm anti-death penalty. So on the one hand, I don't think we should regulate people's moral choices, but on the other hand, there are circumstances where I totally think we should regulate people's moral choices. Both times they asked that question, I didn't know how to answer it, so I didn't. It is dependent on the specific situation.

No it isn't perfect. Just better. Throw in international relations and you'd need a cube.

But your position on endless reproduction would raise you up several notches on the graph while your position on the death penalty would bring you down a couple. In other worlds it's represented on the graph, or would be if the question was asked.

(July 6, 2014 at 9:07 pm)Jenny A Wrote: [quote='Blackout' pid='702368' dateline='1404694768']

Free speech and freedom of association is restricted in our constitution regarding fascism and nazism, between democracy and the law, the law prevailed, since we lived in a fascist state for more or less 60 years no one wants to take chances. Same goes for racism and racist associations. In this particular case it's best to take the safe side and let authority prevail over liberty for society's good.

Quote:Free speech was even more severely restricted when Germany was a fascist state. (I'm assuming we are talking Germany here--right me if I'm wrong because there was more than one fascist state) I think allowing authoritarianism to prevail, not free speech, was the problem. Voicing opposition to fascism was dangerous was it not?

I'm talking about portugal. Germany was even more severe in terms of restrictions, but hitler's leadership didn't last for 60 years, ours lasted in practical terms from 1928-1974... Usually when I talk about fascism I'm not talking about germany, when I refer to germany I use the word 'nazism'. There is also Italy and Spain in terms of fascism. Political science experts describe our former regime as authoritarian and not fascist, since it didn't have the magnitude and some extreme measures that existed in germany and italy, we had our differences in terms of using fascism and implementing dictatorships.

I was saying my constitution forbids fascist propaganda and associations, making the government's authority and the law prevail over democracy and free speech by a matter of security.

(July 6, 2014 at 6:01 pm)Blackout Wrote: I think both liberals and conservatives should try to reach an agreement while making decisions instead of verbally and reciprocally insulting and bashing each others with prejudiced expressions that only confirm stereotypes, eg Liberals calling conservatives 'racist' because they are against affirmative action, or conservatives claiming liberals 'want to live with other people's money' just because they want to regulate major business to prevent abuses.

American conservatives abhor the very idea of compromise. I don't mean that as an exaggeration; it is literal truth. Republicans who aren't conservative enough are referred to as "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) and are castigated by the conservative base.

If one side is dead set on never, ever compromising with us, the only options available to the rest of us are either being just as uncompromising or allowing them to run roughshod and make things even worse than they have.

I don't think anybody but the hardest conservatives have made the choice, unilaterally, that everybody else in this country is an enemy to be destroyed without mercy, but moderate conservatives are being purged and since that's the choice they've made, they've made an ideological death struggle inevitable.

(July 6, 2014 at 8:19 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Left of Gandhi---that's impressive.

Not quite left of Ghandi... really close to aligning him though.

Here's the thing: I think people in general, and USians (thanks Boru) more specifically tend to think in terms of sympathy rather than empathy. If we were all more empathetic, lines in the sand wouldn't have to be so pronounced, and if it weren't for our sympathetic nature, we wouldn't have people citing "ew gross" over same-sex marriage. I'm for many fewer laws than what we're currently saddled with, at least federally, and "ban this" or "ban that" are completely unpatriotic, in my view.

Also, I tend to think in terms of human rights rather than individual rights. If one of the Koch brothers had his money taken away for some reason, and then given to some homeless guy, I'd probably cheer. As much as capitalism is a great thing in many ways, it's turned into extreme hoarding to the detriment of my country, and I'm not cool with that.

When I really look at the US and what problems it has, it's not hard to notice that the extreme sides of the political spectrum are what are fucking my country up. Black and white doesn't work in a country with 314 million people, and I'm sick to death of the pretense that it does through the electoral college.

Jeezus. Sorry guys; didn't mean to go on a rant.