Your Political Profile

[D a w n]

this is my result. Kinda expected something like that
http://politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-1.25&soc=-2.15

 

[Midnighters]

I've met idiots (in behavior) who were actually quite smart

Also note that not everyone learns the same way, some people can still retain the information even acting like fools in class, or like they could learn what they want/need to know outside of class but just be unable to control themselves in a social situation.

It's too difficult to make such a wide generalization like that due to the many different types of people.

It's very easy to make this generalization. I just did, and if they can't control themselves, they need to learn to do so.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Just because you say something doesn't make it correct

 

[Midnighters]

I could say the same exact thing to you.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

At least I qualify my statements, instead of making broad generalizations.

 

[Varine]

Just because what you say to qualify it means something to you, it doesn't to everyone. There isn't an inherit requirement to justify what you believe beyond the fact that it's what you believe.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Just because what you say to qualify it means something to you, it doesn't to everyone. There isn't an inherit requirement to justify what you believe beyond the fact that it's what you believe.

If you don't justify your side of the argument, you're not arguing.


Also note that "qualify" in a persuasive sense means to point out that what you're saying isn't universal, that there are occasions where it doesn't work, thus making it more realistic (and thus more convincing).

 

[Midnighters]

I did justify my side of the discussion, and I say discussion, because I don't consider this an argument.

 

[En_Fuego]

I did justify my side of the discussion, and I say discussion, because I don't consider this an argument.

That's cute, but an argument is generally a discussion carried out by 2 sides that oppose eachother.

Usually takes place over some rule or resolution or abstract idea.

 

[Midnighters]

An argument involves petty insults to try and prove your point, and both people raging at eachother to some extent, which I am not.

 

[Varine]

If you don't justify your side of the argument, you're not arguing.


Also note that "qualify" in a persuasive sense means to point out that what you're saying isn't universal, that there are occasions where it doesn't work, thus making it more realistic (and thus more convincing).

You're thinking of a debate, not an argument. And no, I'm not really debating because I don't really care to justify my views much. You might, and others might, but how often is it successful?

All it leads to is various examples. Then how do you show how those examples are typical and just random oddballs? If you're trying to qualify something (at least with any success) you have to show that those examples are the overwhelming majority. You could show me thousands of examples of 'traumatized' kids because they were spanked or slapped when they were out of hand. What you might see as poor kids who could have had a better life, I would likely see as mostly shitty kids with unlucky parents. Then we continue on to justify what we see differently, and it goes on and on, and gets no where except people might have a different disposition to one another in the end.

 

[Midnighters]

No, a debate is generally a well behaved discussion, and argument is something you do when angry. There is a difference.

 

[Varine]

That wasn't directed at you, there were just several posts before I got around to pushing the button. I added the quote from Wherewolf to clarify it.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

No one expects arguments/debates/whateveryouwanttocallittoactlikeyou'renotarguing online to go anywhere normally.

Just note that if you're not willing to back up your statements, why have a point in the first place?

 

[ragingspeedhorn]

Star Wars is the best in the world.

 

[fladdermasken]

The topic was right about here http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/1924494-post1.html
Then all of a sudden...

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

No beard-man reply Fladd?

 

[Varine]

No one expects arguments/debates/whateveryouwanttocallittoactlikeyou'renotarguing online to go anywhere normally.

Just note that if you're not willing to back up your statements, why have a point in the first place?

By your first point, it really doesn't matter whether anyone backs it up anyway. The entire point of this thread was to show your political views, not defend them. That's why.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

By your first point, it really doesn't matter whether anyone backs it up anyway. The entire point of this thread was to show your political views, not defend them. That's why.

And that has correlation with spanking your children how?

This thread got majorly offtopic, but that's no reason logic shouldn't apply here.

 

[fladdermasken]

No beard-man reply Fladd?

[REACTION=http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4143/4848544345_4680098be2.jpg]
And a beard-man reply you shall have.[/REACTION]

 

[Varine]

I didn't intend it to have correlation with the previous discussion. We moved on from that a while ago.

 

[Zombie]

I've taken this test some time ago and concluded it was more or less inaccurate. I don't believe in democracy, uncontrolled immigration and I consider myself a believer of the importance of national values, but I don't agree with corporate ruling or racial / national superiority despite that. I think I'm more right than left, all in all.

Yet, it placed me among the ranks of known communist leaders.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

I've taken this test some time ago and concluded it was more or less inaccurate. I don't believe in democracy, uncontrolled immigration and I consider myself a believer of the importance of national values, but I don't agree with corporate ruling or racial / national superiority despite that. I think I'm more right than left, all in all.

Yet, it placed me among the ranks of known communist leaders.

Basically, you should be in the purple corner. Anarchy + Right Wing

 

[Zombie]

Well, it didn't do that.

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm144/zombie2279/lies.png

 

[Linaze]

http://politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-3.25&soc=0.62

Interesting. I usually just refer to myself as a nationalist and I thought I was going to get national socialism or a similar ideology as my result, considering some of my answers.

I can't say for sure whether or not this is very accurate. I lacked a thought-through opinion on many of the quiz's questions.

 

[Devine]

Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

This is comparable to ghandi, I suppose.

 

[Fussiler1]

I thought I was going to get national socialism or a similar ideology as my result, considering some of my answers.

you thought you were going to get.. nazism?

 

[Linaze]

Seeing how I'm a leftist nationalist, I really can't see why that wouldn't be possible. Of course I don't agree with everything national socialism stands for, but I think this applies to most persons (such as communists not agreeing completely with all the teachings of communism).

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

They probably should get some better comparison people, while saying someone is like Ghandi is generally positive, saying someone is like the Nazis is a very negative connotation.

 

[Linaze]

Saying that someone is like Hitler politically is not necessarily negative. For example: Hitler created more welfare than anyone else ever had under a reign as short as Hitler's.

Oh and please refrain from using the concentration camps argument. Them camps had little nothing to do with Hitler's economical and social politics.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Well of course, but that's not exactly a greater known factor of his rule- he got to power by being a good leader, but he's remembered for being a mad-man. I'd imagine most people wouldn't take that comparison very well

 

[Linaze]

Sure, I see what you're saying. But can you honestly think of a man (or woman) whose politics resemble Hitler's ditto that's considered "good" by the great mass? I doubt you can. These persons (Hitler included) are considered evil by the majority because the media wants them to consider these persons evil, not because their politics were evil in nature.
One should not feel ashamed or be offended if their political opinions resemble those of Hitler, simply because Hitler's politics aren't equal to concentration camps and gas chambers.

 

[D4RK_G4ND4LF]

Sure, I see what you're saying. But can you honestly think of a man (or woman) whose politics resemble Hitler's ditto that's considered "good" by the great mass? I doubt you can. These persons (Hitler included) are considered evil by the majority because the media wants them to consider these persons evil, not because their politics were evil in nature.
One should not feel ashamed or be offended if their political opinions resemble those of Hitler, simply because Hitler's politics aren't equal to concentration camps and gas chambers.

even if they were only slightly related I would consider them as evil

 

[Linaze]

That's what I'm saying, the vast majority reason this way (even though I consider it an extremely invalid reasoning). People whose political opinions resemble Hitler's ditto even slightly are considered evil (just like the führer himself), so there's not really any way to replace Hitler with someone who's considered "good" on this quiz.

 

[The_Silent]

Hey marx, didn't see you coming there "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

no surprise there:
http://politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-8.12&soc=-7.90

(such as communists not agreeing completely with all the teachings of communism).

no, communists just don't usually agree with the view that stalin and the soviet union had ever anything to do with communism, or rather marxism.

Seeing how I'm a leftist nationalist, I really can't see why that wouldn't be possible. Of course I don't agree with everything national socialism stands for, but I think this applies to most persons

what parts do you agree with?

 

[En_Fuego]

no, communists just don't usually agree with the view that stalin and the soviet union had ever anything to do with communism, or rather marxism.

Communists don't agree over anything, that's why there's almost 6 branches of communism that all greatly differ and many other offshoots that random philsophers come up with on their own.

 

[Linaze]

what parts do you agree with?

Well, I don't believe in the entire "lebensraum" thing. I believe every people, whether we're talking about the Jews, Danes or Somalis, deserves a country to call their own. As an ethnic Swede I want to live in the country that belongs to my people among just my people, the Swedes. 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. As you might have guessed I oppose immigration (especially from non-Western countries). I also want a large part of the immigrants already here to return to their home countries.

Now that's cleared out. Where was I? National socialism, right. I believe in a political system like that of WW2-Germany instead of the modern democracy. I oppose captialism, globalism, radical feminism, egoism, class stuggle and other elements that I consider dangerous for my people and our country.

I want to see a healthy family policy replace our current one. Nuclear families with lots of children should be encouraged. Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt children because I believe every child needs and deserves a father and a mother.

What more can I add? Economically, I'd say I am a leftist just like national socialism is a leftist ideology (again, economically). I believe in a strong state with lots of resources to spend on whatever the people requires.

I probably missed a few things out, but you should get the general idea.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

simply because our different cultures and genes make us completely incompatible with each other.

You can't exactly connect one's behavior with their ethnicity

Gah, you know I'm not even going to bother continuing this argument because all it's going to do is just provoke a flame war. I know exactly how this would go go on, after both of us explaining our views someone would chime in about opinions being completely derived from your country of origin (US vs. Europe is always how it turns out) and then it would turn into a huge ordeal about nationalism and conservatism. All I really have to say is that nationalism should never supersede logic, when it does it fosters a nation of blind fools willing to do anything that their country tells them too so long as it's drawn across ethnicity lines.

 

[Linaze]

Of course I can. Behaviour depends on a lot of things, one example being IQ which has been scientifically proven several times to differ from people to people (or from race to race).

Culture also plays a large role, obviously. But a people's culture comes from its ethnicity. A culture is made exclusively for one people, and the people have obviously formed it to fit them as much as is possible. A culture is basically a reflection of the people's ethnicity.

With all this said, not all individuals of a certain people are exactly the same, we still have our own personalities and such.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufzI1dnd0Uw&feature=related

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

I'm just going to point to my above edit and leave it at that, I don't feel like getting into this argument with you again.

 

[Fussiler1]

National socialism, right. I believe in a political system like that of WW2-Germany instead of the modern democracy. I oppose captialism

Why?

globalism

I want to see a healthy family policy replace our current one. Nuclear families with lots of children should be encouraged.

Why?

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

Look capitalism is a nice thing, many things of communism are ridiculous but some are actually good. What is kind of pissing part of capitalism, is it allows some greedy people to make money if possible from others breathing the air outside your house so to say. Sure make money, but dont get ridiclous in the ways you do it. And democracy has so many doors for such things, all you need is 'there is no law that disallows it' so you can do it. Some end up like claiming property of the Sun like that Spanish woman.

 

[D4RK_G4ND4LF]

Well, I don't believe in the entire "lebensraum" thing. I believe every people, whether we're talking about the Jews, Danes or Somalis, deserves a country to call their own. As an ethnic Swede I want to live in the country that belongs to my people among just my people, the Swedes. 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. As you might have guessed I oppose immigration (especially from non-Western countries). I also want a large part of the immigrants already here to return to their home countries.

I oppose[...] egoism

I dislike the idea of a piece of earth which belongs to someone
sure it's ok if you buy it but a whole country is a bit much imho
well I guess there have to be borders somewhere since nobody found the best way to make all people on earth live peacefully together yet

since you did not write anything about burning other people living in your country this kind of political view about things is acceptable I think (however I don't agree with it but whatever)

Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt children because I believe every child needs and deserves a father and a mother.

usually children who are adopted didn't have mother and father
sure both would be better but as long as they don't force their sexual orientation on their adopted children I would say it is better than nothing

 

[Linaze]

Homosexuals (or other people for that matter) don't adopt children to help them out, but because they can't get children of their own. If homosexuals want to help out orphans they should donate the adoption-fee to an orphanage that could help hundreds of children instead on one for the same amount of money.

 

[The_Silent]

I'll have to ask. What sources exactly says that there is an IQ difference between different ethnic groups solely based on biology and that social environment and/or anything else don't interfere. Find a test to determine that impossible to comprehend. And hell, whats wrong with having two dads or to moms? I grew up with only a mother, and it didn't make my life worse in any way. So I don't understand that argument.
I also noted that quite many of your views seems conservative rather than socialistic. Could just be me though.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Homosexuals (or other people for that matter) don't adopt children to help them out, but because they can't get children of their own. If homosexuals want to help out orphans they should donate the adoption-fee to an orphanage that could help hundreds of children instead on one for the same amount of money.

There's anything wrong with them wanting children even though they're physically incapable of having their own? If anything I'd imagine the children would be better off with homosexual parents then in an orphanage, in that having parents they'd get individualized attention (that's sort of the point of an orphanage anyways, to house the child while they try to find them a family to adopt them).

Frankly this seems like thinly disguised homophobia.

 

[Linaze]

@The_Silent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufzI1...eature=related

And there's nothing "wrong" with having homosexuals parents or living only with your mother, I merely believe children need both a male and female role model. I also believe it's more healthy for a child to be raised by parents that they are biologically related to.

@WherewoldTherewolf:
Call me homophobic, I don't care.

And I also think that living with two parents of the same sex is better than the average third-world orphanage, obviously. But what I said is that money spent on adopting a single child could help many, many more if donated to an orphanage in say China. My point being that people don't adopt to help out orphans (unless they're economically-retarded).

 

[Sky Green]

@The_Silent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufzI1...eature=related

And there's nothing "wrong" with having homosexuals parents or living only with your mother, I merely believe children need both a male and female role model. I also believe it's more healthy for a child to be raised by parents that they are biologically related to.

@WherewoldTherewolf:
Call me homophobic, I don't care.

And I also think that living with two parents of the same sex is better than the average third-world orphanage, obviously. But what I said is that money spent on adopting a single child could help many, many more if donated to an orphanage in say China. My point being that people don't adopt to help out orphans (unless they're economically-retarded).

Agree. It's not natural being homosexual or gay (whatever you prefer). In a city (Split) nearby the town (Sinj) I live, there's a gay parade at the begining of the summer. Ok I have nothing against gays nearby but why THE F**K should they go half-naked trough the city and I should feel comfortable to watch them. It's not natural and when did you see heterosexual parade? I'm proud of what I am, why do they need to make a parade to show off?.

I am homophob but I'm right. Homosexuals couldn't let's say raise a girl. Why? She doesn't have a mother which she could ask her questions when the time is right. Guys can't answer that I don't care how inteligent they are, it's the mother instinct and love that males and females need.
If two lesbians have a child it doesn't have a male authority that would teach them discipline and such things.

Gays shouldn't have a child if there are better parents that aren't homosexuals. It's unnatural and other kids could tease or joke about the childs parents and than it could create a problem.

I think that homosexuals have a mental problem and that they need treatment. There are two sexes for a reason ya know?

 

[The Reborn Devil]

Oh gawd. Another uneducated person talking about homosexuality. You know, it's important to possess some knowledge about a topic before you start stating things.

First of all, homosexuality is NATURAL. It's just as natural as heterosexuality. Homosexuality has been observed in the animal kingdom among thousands of species. Within some groups homosexuality is actually dominant.
Get your facts straight.

Second of all, tests that have been conducted show that kids raised by homosexual parents function just as well, or perhaps better than those raised by heterosexual parents.

It annoys me so much when people just spread lies like they were truth, so stop with it, and start paying attention in class.

Now, I hereby demand that you get back to the topic, or this thread will surely be closed.

 

[Fussiler1]

If two lesbians have a child it doesn't have a male authority that would teach them discipline and such things.

I'm pretty sure that in a lesbian/homosexual relationships one takes the feminine/male role.

I think that homosexuals have a mental problem and that they need treatment.

No.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628205430.htm