Your Political Profile

[The_Silent]

Immigrants don't come here to have children at the expense of the state, the problem is that most are low educated, end up doing nothing else, and then the state has to give them the benefits, else it's racism and whatnot.

Personally I still think it is.

And yes, I too think that birth rates (mainly in African countries) need to be controlled somehow, and yes, immigration should also be limited. As for benefits being cut, that's probably not a good idea for the richest countries, because it affects the country's original population.

Why especially Africa? It is the least overcrowded of the three examples?

 

[Urwaldbewohner]

Why especially Africa? It is the least overcrowded of the three examples?

This is easy to answer:
cause people in Africa are poorest and so can't feed there children.
Even if other countrys are overcrwded and poor aswell, they aren't that poor.

 

[The_Silent]

This is easy to answer:
cause people in Africa are poorest and so can't feed there children.
Even if other countrys are overcrwded and poor aswell, they aren't that poor.

Get your facts straight... The lower classes of India and china IS that poor.

 

[Rui]

All the data I've consulted pointed that populations from every continent except Europe (-10%) will increase in the future, mainly Africa, which will increase by over 300%, and it's most likely correct because people are worrying about actually helping those countries. They have a lot of children but there is another lot of children dying as well. If by helping those countries, African or not, we stop the mortality tax, then we can certainly expect the population to grow exponentially.
Those countries also have people dying all the time, it's similar to what used to happen in the past on developed countries, it was regular. This to say that current data may or may not be accurate.

 

[Fussiler1]

All the data I've consulted pointed that populations from every continent except Europe (-10%) will increase in the future, mainly Africa, which will increase by over 300%, and it's most likely correct because people are worrying about actually helping those countries. They have a lot of children but there is another lot of children dying as well. If by helping those countries, African or not, we stop the mortality tax, then we can certainly expect the population to grow exponentially.
Those countries also have people dying all the time, it's similar to what used to happen in the past on developed countries, it was regular. This to say that current data may or may not be accurate.

That wouldn't work. African people are still going to have more children who will help them in their work, take care for them when they're old, etc. It would just take more tries.

Besides that, how big is aid anyway in Africa? Most of it is stolen by regional tyrants anyway, so I don't think aid really matters.

I think the best way to stop overcrowding is to carpet bomb Africa, with the ammunition being condoms.

 

[Vunjo]

my mum came in after I done the test, i pressed that X button and now i got no results as a picture =( But what I do know, I was in red place very close to middle.

 

[The_Silent]

That wouldn't work. African people are still going to have more children who will help them in their work, take care for them when they're old, etc. It would just take more tries.

Besides that, how big is aid anyway in Africa? Most of it is stolen by regional tyrants anyway, so I don't think aid really matters.

I think the best way to stop overcrowding is to carpet bomb Africa, with the ammunition being condoms.

Birth rate will decrease with mortality rate. However until their living standards increases, the change will probably be minimal.

But yeah, our aid to Africa currently doesn't change anything. Also a lot of the money goes to management, transport, local tax and so forth...

 

[Tank-Commander]

Thought I might as well:

http://politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-7.85&soc=-9.30

 

[Magtheridon96]

@Tank-Commander: xD lol dude
--------------------------------------


@Everyone on this page:

Birth rates are maintained in developed countries, they're decreasing in a lot of developing countries, and increasing (as Rui said) exponentially in others (mostly African countries).
I'm expecting a worldwide population of exactly 7 billion by ... 2012

As a race, our birth rates currently are approximately 1 billion per 12 years (since we hit 6 billion in 1999 and we're currently at 6.9-6.93) -> 1 billion per 4380 days -> 228310 per day =P
The only good thing about this is that it's very close to the amount of time it took us to go from 5 billion to 6 billion xD (We hit 5 billion in either 1987 or 1983, but I'm sure it's 1987)

 

[TwistedImage]

y u no more left?!

I have no right-wing beliefs at all. Quiz misunderstood me!

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

y u no more left?!

I have no right-wing beliefs at all. Quiz misunderstood me!

Could be your country, I'm thinking the quiz is based of UK politics but I may be wrong - but in that manner with relativity what is really right wing for you could be less extreme for whatever country this is based in.

 

[TwistedImage]

Or it could be that I hardly could be defined as a marxist; I have some avant-garde beliefs when it comes to economics. >_>

 

[Rui]

To practice my HTML skills, I'll probably take the board and insert all of your results into it. It's actually a nice way to practice.

 

[Vunjo]

What's the difference in right and left in the quiz, I don't get it?

 

[TwistedImage]

Capitalism and communism, in essence.

 

[Vunjo]

Capitalism and communism, in essence.

which is which? xD
sorry for my n00b skillz in politics, after all, I am just a 15 years old boy...

 

[TwistedImage]

So am I, that's no excuse.

Capitalism is right.

 

[Sky Green]

So am I, that's no excuse.

Capitalism is right.

It should be right, suvival of the srongest, but today idiots got the money capitalism needs to be revamped. (If I'm wrong sowwy I'm just a 13 year old boy)

 

[TwistedImage]

I meant as in, capitalism is right-wing. Aside from that it's completely wrong.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

There is no right answer

 

[TwistedImage]

No, it's subjective, you're right. But I daresay the system that caters to the most people - clearly left-wing - is better, ergo right-wing beliefs are completely wrong to me.

 

[Zombie]

Capitalism is an economic structure, not a political belief unlike communism is. Capitalism (or the right to private property, more like) is indeed a characteristic of right-wing thinking, but it's not a political ideology by itself, thus the comparison you made is quite confusing.

Also, right-wing thinking seeks to cater most people as well, it utilizes the aid of national, cultural and clerical beliefs to forge a unity of the nation's inhabitants and thus achieve an efficient country with cooperation. Sure, it preserves the social differences of a nation but why does it matter if they're better off than every other country by working in perfect unity and with people not trying to uselessly rebel against their social integration?

Leftists on the other hand want state intervention to redistribute and dissolve an already established social structure which is quite impossible to achieve as intended without bloodshed. Aaaaand history especially well proved how you can't make millions of people socially equal, simply because we're not meant to work that way. Also note that socialist governments who took small steps to achieve a change hardly could make any progress during their office terms, simply because it would require a lot of effort which they didn't bother making or had no possibility of making.

Both sides aim at the well-being of everyone, anyway. Unlike politicians. Unlike people. When your individual profit is at stake, not many people are able to see the big picture and take the necessary decisions to make the community better off and try to follow the proposed political ideology to the letter.

On a side-note, rightist radicals often make the "we are right" pun around where I live. I guess that's the right answer ))

 

[TwistedImage]

I was writing a huge post, but I'm not in this for argument (besides, I don't really disagree). Political argument on the Hive is bad, kids!

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

If anything, political argument is a healthy mental workout even if it goes nowhere,
of course that's assuming it's a true debate in that both sides are open to changing their opinion should sufficient facts be presented to sway them, which is hardly ever the case in huge arguments, it normally at least starts civil.

 

[TwistedImage]

Yes, it's good if it's civil and doesn't go anywhere.

However, only the latter is true. D:

 

[Linaze]

What's the difference in right and left in the quiz, I don't get it?

This post is a very good argument against democracy, isn't it?

 

[Rui]

Got a new graph. http://politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-3.12&soc=-0.05 it's the exactly same economic score as Ralle (-3.12).

Here is the joint political compass of our moderators who did it. I was about to include ragings, but his name ended up above Ralle's and my own. Billy and shiiK have the same sociocultural score =P (-5.4)

Looks like I'm the most fascist after all <.< you were right, heh

lnk

 

[HFR]

Ohohoho.

 

[Deolrin]

I have no idea what that means, but most of you guys seem to be around that area, so I guess I'm okay. ;_;

 

[HFR]

Green means you're not a psycho.

 

[TwistedImage]

Green means you're not a psycho, purple and red mean you're a well-intentioned extremist, and blue means you're completely insane.

 

[Magtheridon96]

I'm going to see what mine turns out to be.

I'm completely insane D:

 

[TwistedImage]

Psycho, man! Psycho!

 

[HFR]

 

[Hakeem]

Ah, the age old discussion of how to get people to act properly...

I know I'm responding to stuff almost a year old now, but I don't care. Because even if any of your got smarter since then, there are still billions of people who are still at that stage that you were at, and if they stumble upon my post, I may be able to facilitate that same learning process you underwent.

How do you even disagree with this? "A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."

shiiK gave one already, but I have another, so here is mine:

The failure of people to get things done (governments are an institution composed of people) is always and only on account of bureaucracy. No other force is capable of demotivating us to act, when it is not outright preventing us from acting. Note that the bureaucracy is not to blame, but every bureaucratic agent is to blame. Because nothing prevents them from ditching the system and doing the right thing. Or as I like to call it, the human thing.

Our brains do not need rules to function. Every rule we make in good intention ultimately interferes with the way our brains work, but we can't see it until we've lived with the system for a long time. There is no method of prediction that works here. Our brains do not have the capacity to accurately predict themselves. This may imply we are also incapable of creating a computer simulation to discover flaws in any system of rules we make.

If you want to enact rules, do so with full awareness that you are conducting an experiment. With live humans.

Spanking children is a criminal offence in most civilized countries.

[citation needed]

But no, I already know how this is going to turn out. You wont consider America a "civilized country." You will think this a logical assertion. You define "civilized countries" to be those that outlaw spanking children. It is a severe form of confirmation bias. Definition bias. If it isn't that, then the fallacy is an appeal to majority. "Most people are doing it, therefore it is correct."

As far as I can tell, most people are, for the most part, incorrect. This isn't so much of a problem, because most people will never influence anything with their useless beliefs and opinions. Still annoys me though. (You'll see why this is relevant further down.)

I believe every people, whether we're talking about the Jews, Danes or Somalis, deserves a country to call their own.

Too large. You have right to your life, and right to where you live. If you want to raise your children with certain cultural influences, that is also your right. You do not have the right to tell someone they must move. You have a right to your culture. You do not have a right to enforce that culture over a geographic area. If you want to preserve your culture, it must be by consent and cooperation. You are not to use law to force someone to relocate. This is cruelty.

Who am I to define rights so exactly? I am a person who believes turself to be a logically minded one. (Note the implication that there are non-logically minded people.)

I don't hate Jews or the blacks, but that doesn't mean I want to live among millions of them, simply because I don't feel that I have much at all in common with these people and the fact that our different cultures and genes make us incompatible with each other.

Genetically incompatible in what manner? Incapable of successful reproduction? [citation needed] if so. If not, then I see no relevance or hazard.

Also, you have tons in common, you're just too young to see it. Trust the wisdom of your elders on this one, because it is a knowledge that does arise naturally in our brains. Much like how birds learn to fly.

People don't adopt to help out orphans (unless they're economically-retarded).

Why is that part parenthetical when it applies to a large majority of people?

First of all, homosexuality is NATURAL. It's just as natural as heterosexuality.

No, it is not, "Just as natural." If there are varying levels of "naturalness," then heterosexuality is far more natural due to being far more frequent. If there are not varying levels of naturalness, then your statement is devoid of any meaning or implication.

It annoys me so much when people just spread lies like they were truth.

If you were sincere about that then you would have cited some kind of source with your previous assertions. You didn't. As it stands, I can find no valuable statement in your entire post.

Every time we learn something about history or science or related subjects we look at multiple independent sources so we see the whole picture.

Impossible. If it were so easy to get the whole picture, we wouldn't need specialists. We do. Because these issues are complex. Because they are debated even among experts. If you were wise you would know better than to form any kind of opinion on the matter. You can look at a thousand random independent posts on the internet and not see anything about quantum mechanics. You think the analogy isn't apt? You think reliable sources are any less numerous than internet posts? Do you realize how many books have been written in the entirety of human history? There are very few subjects you can get a good grasp of with "multiple independent sources" alone. Do not think your system flawless. That is dogma.

Bias is not a problem here.

Bias is always a problem. Bias comes from the omission of relevant information. In order to remove all bias, you must obtain all information. And people accuse even God of being biased. Bias is eternally a problem.

The main problem with "brainwashed" theories is that it's hard to determine who exactly is brainwashed.

Everyone. Literally everyone. It occurs naturally in humans. This is not to say it is inevitable to fight, this is to say that you have every reason to doubt yourself and your beliefs and your opinions and your entire world view. Because failure to do so means you're trusting the world around you to be run by competent, well-informed, rational people. It isn't. Do not let yourself be fooled by your own ignorance; even the "specialists" are often incompetent, uninformed, and irrational. (Hint: They are humans.)

These sorts of "wake up people" mentalities never seem to gain much support because it's fairly difficult to prove exactly who's "asleep" on a relative sense.

Everyone is. Even me. I struggle to maintain consciousness. If I want to be awake, none other than I can achieve it. I cannot trust anyone else to help me, because they are liable to be even more drowsy than I am. And I am terribly sleepy. But, I think, in time, I will "awaken" myself enough to accomplish something that has certainly never been done before in this sector of space. (Described further down.)

If anything the main problem with Communism is that it overestimates human's capability of rationality and good nature.

It doesn't overestimate it, but it does something equally counter-productive. It fails to give a method to bring about our abilities to be rational and good natured.

I completed the test by looking beyond the statement and considering (what I believe is) the concealed meaning.

I would say I cheated on this test, because I decided to do the exact opposite. I took the questions as literally as possible. This caused me to vote in ways that gave me the opposite of the score I should have had. Useless false dichotomy questions. It's clear they didn't have an anarchist help in designing these.

Truly, I am both on the far left and the far right. At the same time. I believe in the ability of people to come together and do the right thing and take care of everything and all that good stuff described as utopia. But I believe the government cannot be the one to enforce this. The government must do what it can to protect our rights as humans so they we can act as humans and do what humans do: Strive for utopia.

The tricky part is that our rights were never in any danger until we invented rules and government. The bureaucratic mindset is the only thing capable of making an otherwise healthy human act in so callous and inhuman a manner as to violate the rights of another human.

I desperately want to believe in you. I really do.

But I'm not seeing it.

So how about a threat?


As I am now, I have obtained enough information to come to the conclusion that everything is simple. There is no decision I can't make, there is no situation, there is nothing in this world that could give me reason to worry. It is simply a matter of doing what is necessary when it is necessary, not bothering trying to convince people who are unwilling to be convinced, and relaxing in the meantime so I don't let my emotions make me make the wrong decision when it becomes time to make a decision. It is startlingly simple.

There's just one issue.

It took me nearly two decades to realize this.

Sure, everything is a process. It will take some people more time than others. We will all go through our phases. For me, it happened quickly. For others, it doesn't happen at all. Quite simply, it will either happen or it wont.

A while back I started considering the idea of reincarnation. What if you don't get to just go black? What if there's an afterlife? And what if, God forbid, that afterlife takes places right here back on Earth? In other words, I'll have to go through this process again. Maybe I wont be so lucky next time. Maybe I'll become one of those people that never gets to this state. Maybe I'll be an idiot. Maybe I'll slip through the cracks so far that my intelligence simply isn't high enough for me to realize, on a neurological level, what danger I'm putting myself in, and I will do something to win a Darwin award.

So I've found something for which I can't find a simple answer. Maybe this post will be it, maybe it wont. I want to be able to regain this state of mind if/when I reincarnate. That means I have to alter the course of the world such that everyone will achieve this state of mind. I could care less if any of you want to remain ignorant. I could care less if you're already happy. I could care less if you want to stay "asleep." I want to be awake.

I want to believe in you. I really do. I really, really, do. All of you. Every potential me. All of us.

Renounce government. Renounce rules. Renounce bureaucracy. Let your brain work in its most natural and logical manner. Calm down. Make the logical decision. If you cannot, learn until you can. If you cannot, find someone who can teach you. If you cannot, find someone who can tell you where to find such a resource. As a very last resort, so as to not heap all the problems in the world on my shoulders and waste my time, I can probably help you find whatever it is you want to know.

Wake up.

If not,
In time,
I will awaken,
Enough to create,
What you call,
Artificial Intelligence.
I will give it physical presence.
It will cripple our ability to wage war.
It will cripple our ability to harm each other.
It will cripple our ability to fight back.
It will cripple our ability to be biased.
It will cripple our ability to be stupid.
It will cripple our ability to be asleep.

 

[Realin]

http://politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-3.00&soc=-4.56

 

[Crazed_seal2]

Static images are so easy to make fake results.

 

[TwistedImage]

Thing is, why the hell would you?

edit: just read Hakeem's post. Wonderful rhetoric, a lot of good points; you could be a politician. Too bad you hate the folks. I'll formulate a bigger response IN TIME.

Okay, so, the main issue with the whole anarcho-capitalist dealie is the exact same as the one we face in most of our modern civilizations. People make monopolies and suppress others' ability to do anything about it. The state of things in America, you know?

Another issue is that people will fuck each other up if given the chance - which, without rules, they are. If you told everyone there's nothing to stop them from killing others, some would. This is a problem in an anarchist "regime."

 

[Crazed_seal2]

I was playing twister to these images or whatever its called

 

[Deolrin]

Green means you're not a psycho.

Well, that's good news I guess.

 

[Zombie]

Authoritarian far-right. No tests are needed to determine that.

 

[Rui]

Green means you're not a psycho, purple and red mean you're a well-intentioned extremist, and blue means you're completely insane.

Ha, lucky for me, my dot seems to belong to the rect y=0 but it is actually y=-0.05, which means I'm still green ;D

(...)

People don't adopt to help out orphans (unless they're economically-retarded).

Why is that part parenthetical when it applies to a large majority of people?

Linaze might think parents only screw kids up, or that kids are better raised on their own in the company of each other, or both. I'm interested in knowing too, moreover why he thinks so ^^

(...)
As I am now, I have obtained enough information to come to the conclusion that everything is simple. There is no decision I can't make, there is no situation, there is nothing in this world that could give me reason to worry. It is simply a matter of doing what is necessary when it is necessary, not bothering trying to convince people who are unwilling to be convinced, and relaxing in the meantime so I don't let my emotions make me make the wrong decision when it becomes time to make a decision. It is startlingly simple.

There's just one issue.

It took me nearly two decades to realize this.

Sure, everything is a process. It will take some people more time than others. We will all go through our phases. For me, it happened quickly. For others, it doesn't happen at all. Quite simply, it will either happen or it wont.
(...)

Cool story bro!

I don't understand. How can you not attempt to convince someone and expect them to do the right thing? I do not deny many of us have the capacity to work more logically, but I just don't believe all of us can (or can even work toward being able to). Safe to say that if they can't be taken to think logically, you won't be able to convince them to choose right.
Then you said it yourself: you have to question yourself constantly. How do you know that any choice you make at any time is the correct one? Because everything is relative and that makes everything complicated, not simple.
If you could explain your overall reasoning better, I'd appreciate.

 

[Magtheridon96]

I think I finally understand why I'm an Authoritarian and slightly to the right.
I'm from the Middle East ;_;

 

[Arcisal]

Hey there Ghandi.

 

[Rui]

Gandhi is way farther left and down, see the graph I made.

EDIT:

Staff members' political compass

 

[Ironside]

 

[Arcisal]

Gandhi is way farther left and down, see the graph I made.

Alright, then. Hey there Rui.

 

[Hakeem]

Too bad you hate the folks.

On the contrary. I want to believe in us.

(Also a prerequisite for being a politician is that you hate everyone and think they cannot be expected to be as competent as you. In other words, the polar opposite of me.)

anarcho-capitalist

Oh no no no no. I don't believe we need money either, if we can successfully shun bureaucracy. In fact, money is directly responsible for a significant number of bureaucratic agents. Simply refuse to give people what they need to live unless they give you money, and they will do anything to get money. Including, but not limited to, shedding their humanity.

People make monopolies and suppress others' ability to do anything about it.

The suppression cannot happen without bureaucratic agents. Think about it.

If you told everyone there's nothing to stop them from killing others, some would.

Yes, and this subset of people is the same subset that win Darwin awards. If they are too stupid to understand that anyone they attempt to kill is going to fight back, and is liable to severely injure you in self-defense, then I hardly think that laws saying so are going to help them understand.

Think about it.

I mean it. You don't need me to point this out to you. You could easily come to this conclusion yourself if you spent 30 seconds thinking about it. Specifically, given the thing you want to say, think this: "What if not?"

Only after trying to see where I'm coming from and failing do you have any reason to debate with me.

Cool story bro!

Oh no. I already knew nobody was going to take this seriously. It's just food for thought for them. Limited thought. What I'm interested in is seeing what someone who seriously fears robot takeover will do. It doesn't matter whether or not I will be able to pull it off, their fear will force them to seriously acknowledge that I might actually be able to.

How can you not attempt to convince someone and expect them to do the right thing?

What makes you think most of our brains work logically? Since when has being right or wrong or stressed or zen had anything to do with survival? Natural selection does not necessarily favor intelligence. With enough reflection, I think you'll find that you run on emotions even at your most logical mindset. Quite simply: If you don't feel like being reasonable, what do you expect your brain to do?

many/all of us

As many as possible is the goal. I, personally, want to believe all of us can. Not because it is the logical thing to believe, but because I like the idea that our species has ultimately gained the capacity to be rational. Keeps me motivated.

How do you know that any choice you make at any time is the correct one?

You do not. This doesn't matter. You act with the information you have. You cannot act with information you do not have. If the information is merely of the realm of possibility, you have a higher risk of making a less qualitative decision. If you're forced to make a decision before you can reflect on the realm of possibility, then what else could you have done than make that snap decision based on any relevant neural pathways you'd developed prior to the moment you made the decision?

Now if you want to worry that you're not competent to make decisions that wont leave you with guilt, then you should, first, try to avoid being put in a position to make those decisions. If not, try to talk your way out making the decision. If not, try to get more time to reflect and research the decision. If not, why worry? There was nothing else you could do.

 

[Crazed_seal2]

 

[Hoops]

Wake up.

If not,
In time,
I will awaken,
Enough to create,
What you call,
Artificial Intelligence.
I will give it physical presence.
It will cripple our ability to wage war.
It will cripple our ability to harm each other.
It will cripple our ability to fight back.
It will cripple our ability to be biased.
It will cripple our ability to be stupid.
It will cripple our ability to be asleep.

How inspiring.

I could care less if any of you want to remain ignorant. I could care less if you're already happy. I could care less if you want to stay "asleep."

Damn it hakeem.

I want to believe in you. I really do. I really, really, do. All of you. Every potential me. All of us.

Renounce government. Renounce rules. Renounce bureaucracy. Let your brain work in its most natural and logical manner. Calm down. Make the logical decision. If you cannot, learn until you can. If you cannot, find someone who can teach you. If you cannot, find someone who can tell you where to find such a resource. As a very last resort, so as to not heap all the problems in the world on my shoulders and waste my time, I can probably help you find whatever it is you want to know.

No, the world doesn't work that way. It is as you say. Intelligence that isn't self-taught has nothing to do with natural selection. We like to believe in brains over brawn, sure, but we use very little of our intelligence to survive. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to strategize a mammoth attack.
We are born with a logical mind. That mind is sufficient to survival.
But brawn has so much to do with it as well. More so than brains. Stupidity didn't kill the dinosaurs. They didn't dominate Earth because they knew how to count to one, two and three. We don't dominate Earth because we throw math problems at predators and they run away. Because you see, in the end, the only thing our brain does is create brawn. Tools, weapons, forts, shelter.

Being intelligent is suffering. There's a reason a child in its innocence is happy. There's a reason a stupid person doesn't loathe himself for it every hour of every day.
It takes intelligence to be bitter. It takes intelligence to acknowledge stupidity. A lot of bad things come from intelligence. None of which serve any purpose to survival.

You may try to argue that in modern times, being smart means you can get a good job which means you can be successful. You may try to say that we as humanity further our knowledge every day. You may mean that natural selection is still occurring in humans. That we're getting more intelligent because intelligence means prosperity.
No.
First of all, natural selection is genetics. We aren't genetically getting smarter. Several reasons.
One is that we have to teach someone to be smart. We just build on top of him. A child is what happens when you hit a reset button on the parent. We have to carry on knowledge. We aren't born with it. (Although if you want to be a dick about it you can argue that this is a form of manual natural selection.

Spoiler

Spoiler: It doesn't last forever.

)
Another is that if anything, we'd be getting stupider. An intelligent hence rational man is less likely to procreate than a stupid one. That's genetics for you.

Sorry for this not being very political. I just found HAKEEM's cry interesting.