Your Political Profile

[PurplePoot]

So what exactly is "the spiritual" then?

 

[Tank-Commander]

Bah forget it private you will never understand my views, the changes can happen if we strive for the spiritual not the material but alas that wont happen soon.

Certainly this isn't the world for you then, since the complete opposite is happening. People want facts and science now, not spiritual guidance. The world is much more materialistic than it was, and will continue to go that direction for generations to come.

 

[trolman]

Virtue>Vice

Sadly in this wicked world people tend to be soaked in vice and not realise it

 

[Tank-Commander]

I'm sure you know all about that.

 

[chr2]

Really trolman? Spiritualism? What happened to the "I want machines to take over man's job, so no one has to work and we will all be equal bla bla"? Machines =/= spiritualism. Again, you keep contradicting yourself. This is becoming less a discussion and more you just making a fool out of yourself.

 

[Tank-Commander]

Really trolman? Spiritualism? What happened to the "I want machines to take over man's job, so no one has to work and we will all be equal bla bla"? Machines =/= spiritualism. Again, you keep contradicting yourself. This is becoming less a discussion and more you just making a fool out of yourself.

Don't forget how he said he wanted everyone to have personal freedom, but then also said that there'd be "certain consequences" for those who didn't want to live their life they way he invisions it.

 

[RiotZ]

Don't forget how he said he wanted everyone to have personal freedom, but then also said that there'd be "certain consequences" for those who didn't want to live their life they way he invisions it.

That's how religion works.

Live like you want, but make sure you're Christian, because if you aren't, that's bad.

 

[trolman]

Its enevetable machines will eventually replace manual labor and humans wont need money to live for thus dealing a heavy blow to materialism.There is no contradiction. Again personal freedom doesent mean you get away with doing bad. I just love how you guys make shit up and pretend like im saying it then you insult me for contradicting myself.

 

[Tank-Commander]

Its enevetable machines will eventually replace manual labor

Think nuclear war is a bit closer than that.

and humans wont need money to live for thus dealing a heavy blow to materialism.

That'd do the complete opposite, if there's no need to work, procreation is all humans would feel a need to concern themselves with. Carrying on their own family genetics and enjoying themselves, materialism would be what ruled the human side of the world. Life would be about enjoying yourself - which directs you toward "sinful" things.

There is no contradiction. Again personal freedom doesent mean you get away with doing bad.

And who chooses what's right and wrong?

I just love how you guys make shit up and pretend like im saying it then you insult me for contradicting myself.

But we don't.

 

[trolman]

~highly improbable

~Im not talking about a matyr lifestyle but a place where people love eachother,help eachother and are happy.You can do others good and they will return it.The new society will value thier morals.And dont ask me how because this all mega hypothericly and derailed from the original post.

~I will write the constitution

~

But we do.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Tank-Commander]

~highly improbable

More likely than machines replacing us, as far as distance to occurence.

~Im not talking about a matyr lifestyle but a place where people love eachother,help eachother and are happy.You can do others good and they will return it.The new society will value thier morals.And dont ask me how because this all mega hypothericly and derailed from the original post.

And this is different from how society functions and acts now, how? People do stuff for people in expectance of something in return, generally anyway. People do love eachother. And people are happy. But getting rid of hatred/anger/unhappiness/etc. isn't part of being human. Those emotions are just as important to keep us going as any others.

~I will write the constitution

You haven't exactly been a saint, and certainly can't speak for more than yourself.

Fixed it for you.

Quite the opposite, All I've done is quote you then give opinions, not made a single thing up.

 

[trolman]

~yeah maybe but it would be better for all of us if it doesent happen

~Not enough unfortionaly,way not enough with all the wars economic swings and weather changes i am not too sure.And im not talking about a total elimination of those things but a preference to good things over bad.

~History wont remember >>

~Instead give me opinions and tips how i can get to power and make those changes today!(well not all of them but the realistic ones)

 

[Tank-Commander]

~yeah maybe but it would be better for all of us if it doesent happen

Obviously, but it's still a million times more likely to happen before machines replace human labour

~Not enough unfortionaly,way not enough with all the wars economic swings and weather changes i am not too sure.

Who are you to decide what's enough?

And im not talking about a total elimination of those things but a preference to good things over bad.

People do prefer good over bad. Why would you think they don't?

~History wont remember >>

You'll be forgotten. Like almost all of the human race. So no they won't, but you won't be remembered for anything good either.

~Instead give me opinions and tips how i can get to power and make those changes today!(well not all of them but the realistic ones)

Most of the sane planet don't want those changes, and pretty much none of them are realistic.

 

[trolman]

~eventually it will,not all of it but most parts,think about it most factories already have a weak human presance.Who is to say than in about a thousaind years with all the advances, human labor will be needed?

~and you are saying it is?Do you watch the news?

~They prefer but they sure as tough dont act that way.And no some people do act and prefer good but too many dont.

~Nah im sure somewhere in these disscusions i'll find the cure for cancer.

~People dont want to be happy and good?They just havent seen my ideas and are too lazy.Imagine how unrealistic our world is to the people who lived a thousaind years ago.

 

[Tank-Commander]

~eventually it will,not all of it but most parts,think about it most factories already have a weak human presance.Who is to say than in about a thousaind years with all the advances, human labor will be needed?

Consider the fact that our planet won't be big enough for us very soon, by then we're going to have to fight over resources. Or atleast are much more likely to, hence we'd have to expand to space quite quickly and find more planets to fuel our species. If we can't, the human race slowly dies out, or very quickly from nuclear warfare, or just general warfare breaks out. Building machines to replace humans wouldn't be a big priority and wouldn't really ever be unless we found a massive planet of infinite resources.

~and you are saying it is?Do you watch the news?

News is exaggerated and obviously there's always some trajic news story, considering thousands die a day it's hardly surprising, considering there's normally only one of these trajic events a day, I'd say that's close enough for me. Enough is different for everybody though. So it doesn't really matter what either of us consider enough.

~They prefer but they sure as tough dont act that way.And no some people do act and prefer good but too many dont.

"Too many"? Again, who're you to decide what's "too many"?

~Nah im sure somewhere in these disscusions i'll find the cure for cancer.

Be serious if you want to have a useful debate.

~People dont want to be happy and good?They just havent seen my ideas and are too lazy.Imagine how unrealistic our world is to the people who lived a thousaind years ago.

Probably not that unrealistic, our ways of which our lives are governed are pretty similar in structure. Our technology sure is unrealitic to them, but our political systems aren't new that's for sure. Consider how greece functioned, more specifically Athens, considering they had Court, Juries, etc. I'm no History professor, but I'm sure a lot of people had similar ideas in a lot of places which apply still today.

Also people want to be happy and "good" but what's "good" depends on the person, anything can be considered "good" if you have the mind for it. Ergo, everybody strives to be good. Unless they deliberately try otherwise, but even so, they contradict what they believe is understood to be "good" because in one way or another, people aim to be happy, and things which make them happy, they will consider "good" in their own way.

Additionally, are you saying all of us are "too lazy"?

 

[trolman]

~Nah there is still plenty of time and with the needed system change we should be ok.Also theres stuff like building abovewater platforms for more room and genetic engeering for more food.They make square watermelons now.

~Im talking about global events like wars N stuff, also crime seems to be a big problem in the us considering it is the country with the highest percent of prisoners per citizen.

~I need pseudo comic relief so i dont lose motivation

~Nah aincient greek democracy was shitty if it fell to Imperialism for about two thousaind years.And yes good can be seen in many ways but the mob rules.

 

[Tank-Commander]

~Nah there is still plenty of time and with the needed system change we should be ok.Also theres stuff like building abovewater platforms for more room and genetic engeering for more food.They make square watermelons now.

There certainly isn't, Considering our raw material consumption - Metals and the like we're going to need more planets to support ourselves.

~Im talking about global events like wars N stuff, also crime seems to be a big problem in the us considering it is the country with the highest percent of prisoners per citizen.

Doesn't change my point.

~I need pseudo comic relief so i dont lose motivation

Strange need, that's for sure.

~Nah aincient greek democracy was shitty if it fell to Imperialism for about two thousaind years.

Sure, doesn't mean people didn't have the same ideas

And yes good can be seen in many ways but the mob rules.

No it doesn't. Disagree? Prove me wrong.

 

[trolman]

~Depends on what period we're talking about, i belive we'll be good for the next seemingly hundred years

~Sure whatever

~

~No i really dont feel like debating anymore

 

[Tank-Commander]

~Depends on what period we're talking about, i belive we'll be good for the next seemingly hundred years

Most believe we'll run out of raw material somewhere between the next 50 and 100 years. (Although some believe a lot longer) However remember that the lifespan of a single generation is about 60-80 years on average, so "hundreds of years" could be as much as 3-7 human lifespans. Since you take faith in 100 years, then we'll be running out before either you or me are dead. (assuming we live to this lifespan average if not longer) Ergo, in the space of a single generation or two, We'd have to have found additional resources or found other methods of getting these resources, or the human race will be forced to fight for survival. Meaning nuclear war is possible if not likely. Also genetic engineering doesn't garuntee us enough food, considering the increase in human population - especially recently due to science and medical advancement, grows exponentially. Means we won't have enough space or food on this entire planet for much longer (and by longer I mean the grand sceme of things) In the case of that occuring (assuming we can't terraform other planets to make them hospitable for humans without sending tanks of oxygen) We'd be forced to reduce our population or limit it through other means, for instance lottery for living, exterminating the mentally sick and or Physically weak (i.e. the disabled) and suchlike, wouldn't be very wonderful, but it'd be necessary. And that'd be more likely in the event of nuclear war or just general war doesn't occur. In either of these cases, your reality you dream of, won't occur.

~No i really dont feel like debating anymore

Great! So I win?

 

[thuzad]

This conversation is just STUPID!! Moderate authoritarism is not bad, the same way moderate libertarianism is not bad either. Individuals cannot live without the support of the society the same way the society cannot improve without the individuals' efforts. So, this is how I see it - the best system is moderate capitalism, with an enfasis in freedom, liberty, and property-owning democracy, but health and education should be minimaly regulated by the State. Obviously, this must not be the general rule, the State has to be only in charge of the minimal things. It's the same with orthodox capitalism - we cannot let a few individuals control the whole economy, because capitalism should be within range of everybody who wants to improve his life and make some money.

This are my test results, and I can say I'm pretty proud of being a true liberal conservative: http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/30x20.gif

 

[Apheraz Lucent]

Just figured out that ones can't live without the others. They feed upon each other

 

[Wyldcard Fenix]

http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-results-alt.html

How the hell am I Authoritarian? I'm a neutral party...

 

[Crazed_seal2]

Took the other one.
Kind of the same result.

 

[Deleted member 177737]

You are a left moderate social libertarian.
Left: 6.6, Libertarian: 1.62

 

[chr2]

You are a center-right moderate social libertarian.
Right: 2.3, Libertarian: 2.6

Went pretty much as expected, though I would've though I would be more of a libertarian than that.

 

[Rui]

Added your results. Keep participating, people!

As you've probably noticed, I've split up the results in 2 boards. They're both populated with Political Spectrum results, but the texts were stacking(?).

 

[trolman]

People stop faking your results.

Also vicus reported.

 

[Nuclear]

Well, in a year, my views have changed a bit...

Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49

And the other one
Left: 4.2, Libertarian: 2.99

 

[Brambleclaw]

I am a center-left moderate social authoritarian

http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-results-alt.html

oh joy according to the results and comparing to my countries political parties. I am unable to vote for a single one of them and be happy . Wohoo politics

TROLMAN

Edit: Trolman after reading your comments here is a view.

Firstly you're an opptomist. You want to please everyone hence your many contradictions as this is impossible.
Secondly: Your opptomism surpasses your realism. Be realistic no humans are not humpty dumpty people. Sure when we are swamped in decadence we will be happy to co-live with other humans with other beliefs etc. But as soon as you take away that decadence war comes along. And people try to take from others to become decadent again.

Hurr durr - Now beside the obvious points.

Firstly no Robots will not replace manual labour jobs. And if you seriously think that then i am concerned.

Robots at the moment are extremly expensive and limited. They are getting better but in 50-100 years they still won't be economically viable even if they had human functionallity.

Non only are there energy costs and the new batteries which can power these monsters, which you have to think about, but the extreme cost in metal time and building.

Yes humpty dumpty world Robots gonna build robots. No they are not. Derp there would be some parts which are just to intricate to program a robot to make.

Oh and ofc don't forget despite all this metal consumption that there are what 7 billion people. in 100 years there will be say at the current rate of increase excluding nuclear warfare maybe 50 billion people most likely alot more.

And you are gonna have bots to build all those houses and to farm crops for all those people. Again where are the resources? You dont just hit a rock and find metal. Not to forget the planet would struggle to feed this many. Let alone spacial issues.
And you would suggest everyone gets a bot or only the elite few. Cause this may be the start of a civil war/ Dictatorship. -==
So we have gotten beyond some more realistic points now lets think further.

Say that even if we did have all this magic metal productioni and impossible food supply. We now have 1 bot per person. And everyone lives happy with affordable tin cans. yeh eh no--

because even then Bots dont last forever and there isn't 100% efficiancy in recycling. So you will slowly run out anyway.

Oh and btw again Energy supplies. Yes because we are gonna run bots of Solar panels. Or we are gonna just eat up the sun. The only likely solution is fusion reactors which are at the moment highly unlikely to be built in the next 30-50 years due to need of a decent medium. They won't ever last long enough to be efficiant.

But say you had all of that, you have everyone happy with bots. Hmm wait a second but no the way to this there will be WAR ROBOTS. Yes that will be the first and foremost reason for using the bots as every nation wants an upper hand. There already are drones etc. And these will get more and more advanced. So now you have tyrants wanting to kill each other with Robots. Even better hey?

Oh nuclear detterant you say. Na not gonna happen, nuclear detterants are a joke.
If anynation wanted to seriously invade another country they could. Just get every child and man in their country. Supply them with some sort of weapon. and run to a neighbouring country and create mass warfare.

So then worst case scenario everyone dies via nuke. Or the invasion is unsuccsefull and a whole nation is now dead and a huge loss for the other nation.

Happy days?

Why invade another country you ask if they are decadent. Well who will get the robots first ofc developed countries. So the other countries will want to gain mroe power. It will be a global revolt due to the global tyranny which currently exists.

The only safe way for this to even work. Is to have one global dominion which supresses everyone rights freedom and makes everyone basically slaves to the state.

Sounds like a very happy world to me. don't ya think?

Sounding like a child not awhere of real life. Its a bit naieve i think

Tank commander

Please supply some statistics about the current rate of consumption of metal and the current supply, because this is a huge planet and there is alot of metal. And one of the most common metals iron may be able to be produced at huge energy costs. Maybe it might be possible but i agree other planet colonization or exploitation will be a must

 

[trolman]

Im a naive child?Again people you fail to read between the lines that i say i'm not talking the next fifty-hundred years but far into the future when all those big wars you speek of already happened and humanity realises its wrong. Eventually robots will enter the daily life of the people,weather you like it or not.Personal bots?I didnt say that. But anyways with each part of your sentance i see how you cant read or understand.You guys bore me to tearsr thats why i stoped talking to the private. If another one starts i wont bother with you fools.

 

[Magtheridon96]

There certainly isn't, Considering our raw material consumption - Metals and the like we're going to need more planets to support ourselves.

I predict that in the next hundred years, the human population will be controlled to the extent that it won't increase nor decrease by much at all.

It would require no more than 1 or 2 children per family.

1 child = decrease
2 children = no effect
3 children or more = increase

But with increasing average lifespans, there will be small increases in the human population because the elders would be dying later than usual.

When we reach our lifespan threshold and set laws for people to have 1 or 2 children per couple, we would notice that the population is stabilizing and it will begin to decrease. (Simple math, you're making 2 people out of 2 people. And the 2 that created will be dead eventually, so the system has not changed at all.)

But then we have to take into account natural disasters and epidemics.
I can imagine a time in the future in which governments are encouraging people to have kids.

But back to my point, yes, you are correct, we would need different planets and celestial objects to extact metal and shit.
I only wanted to point out that with a decreasing population, you would get a decrease in the amount of demanded energy, so our sun would probably be more than enough for our survival.

Too bad it's going to die out in 5 billion years and kill us all c:
Or maybe it would get hit by a star in the Andromeda Galaxy during the upcoming collision in 4 billion years.

And if that doesn't get it, then the cooling of the universe in 3 trillion years should.

 

[Brambleclaw]

Mag i prefer the idea of Paradise where everyone is killed at 70 :L

Trolman read between the lines. Stop talking in riddles then derp you should be putting your point across plain and straight. Not inferring it.

Anyway yes i know what your saying you are the one incable of reading. Anyways even in 1000 years into the future robots will not be of daily use. And the context you were speaking of was 100 years as the previous post as you did not state properly.

The reasons for robots not being in daily use is they are not economically viable. They will require excessive energy and excessive production costs for little out put. Even if you have 1 bot lasting 50 years its not a long term plan. That is why these sort of robots will always be for the elite as they are expensive. Anyway robots would mainly if ever, would be used in manafacturing. They have such in japan already.

Robots will also be in minature form and sometimes larger form as entertainment.

But they would never be in a daily life taking up jobs and we would not be in some fantasy world where we can do nothing all day. That is unpractical and that is what you are saying need me to quote your exact words?

 

[trolman]

Not really,in prehistoric times people who let the fire burn out were killed,but today you just use a lighter and you forget about it.Point is that with the advance of technology things that seem hard today and with the incredible jump we made in the last century thats still blowing of the roof, i say that sooner or later, robots will play a big part of society.

And no having a robot do the job is cheaper than having a human but robots are currently expensive so only in the big factories is human labor mostly removed.

Also about the world popylation that things are going out of control and we'll have to kill atheists retarded people. Well thats just bullshit a countrys popylation could be easily made to decrease,just look at China.

 

[Tank-Commander]

And no having a robot do the job is cheaper than having a human but robots are currently expensive so only in the big factories is human labor mostly removed.

Actually the electricity bills would beg to differ, Although consider this:
Has it crossed your mind that those machines bring up a big bill, but increase the amount of product significantly? Those robots are efficient to use but only because they up efficiency of production, A robot doing something which doesn't increase income would /Not/ be efficient in the slightest or useful to replace humans. For instance: Zookeeper robots. no matter what they do, they'll be inefficient to use, they won't be any "better" at it than the person who programmed them, and would spend most of the day not doing a whole lot but eating up electricity, the same would apply to a variety of jobs

Also about the world popylation that things are going out of control and we'll have to kill atheists retarded people. Well thats just bullshit a countrys popylation could be easily made to decrease,just look at China.

you say it's easy, but China is communist, most of the entire world is definately not. Actually getting people to agree to a law limiting children per family would be extremely difficult. Not to mention all the ethical problems and then how it'd mess up the gender ratio and could jepodise the entire human race

 

[Nuclear]

Mag i prefer the idea of Paradise where everyone is killed at 70 :L

I have no idea what the discussion is about, but that sounds like hell to me.

 

[trolman]

Well i dont know if a months electric bill would be more than the worker's pay,health care,vacationday,human rights etc. Altough most companies tend to move their factories to places where they can get away with it.

Its not really a law but has more to do with taxes, people with less children pay less and people with more pay more so it naturaly decreases the ammount of children without needless slaughter.

 

[Tank-Commander]

Well i dont know if a months electric bill would be more than the worker's pay,health care,vacationday,human rights etc. Altough most companies tend to move their factories to places where they can get away with it.

Job or not people would still have healthcare to pay for - assuming it was in a country which it costs, since in some it doesn't (for atleast basic care, ergo work doesn't pay for it) Human rights has never had a cost? And machines would have electricity bills, maintainence (which'd need humans and thus would add costs of them as well), oh and the cost of building it and getting it in the first place could be upwards of a few hundred thousand pounds/dollars/euros/etc.) Which is more than you'd pay a human for 10 years work in some cases.

Its not really a law but has more to do with taxes, people with less children pay less and people with more pay more so it naturaly decreases the ammount of children without needless slaughter.

Actually, no that doesn't decrease it, it just causes poverty - people in finanicial trouble (ergo can afford health care or whatever, and since we don't have any jobs because robots took over them) couldn't get any money) Would need to have more children in hope that one would survive, thus meaning they have more children and get pushed further deep into poverty, and just turns it into a vicious cycle.

Edit: Oh and it's unlikely that people would agree to such a policy in taxes

 

[Magtheridon96]

70 years? D:
That's about 50 years less than the highest age a man could achieve currently.
Of course, this maximum is increasing over time with the development of medicine, nutrition and other shit like that.
It's said that the first person who will live to be a 150 years old has already been born.

I don't know if there could be a limit to how long human beings can live, but I'm sure we would be able to control the aging the process some time in the future.
Once we're able to understand /exactly/ how the aging process works, then we might be able to control it.

Oh wait, we do ;D

 

[trolman]

Robots and machines would eventually get cheaper you know and they're not all that expensive!

That law would lead to poverty?Is that why China is currently the strongest country in the world?

 

[Tank-Commander]

Robots and machines would eventually get cheaper you know and they're not all that expensive!

That law would lead to poverty?Is that why China is currently the strongest country in the world?

China limits to one child, or rather makes it practically impossible to have more than one, and it's either poverty for them or killing their own children if they're not the gender they want, which they do. And why would they get any cheaper?

 

[trolman]

Im anti-abortion but this way, seems the best way to avoid the slaughter scenarios.

Compare the cost of cars last century,and their cost now.Once they were only for the richest people of a certain region but now they're almost everywhere for almost everyone.

 

[Tank-Commander]

Im anti-abortion but this way, seems the best way to avoid the slaughter scenarios.

Well I have no problem with abortion, but those that do aren't going to see that way, and clearly you're not that anti-abortionist if that's your reposnce.

Compare the cost of cars last century,and their cost now.Once they were only for the richest people of a certain region but now they're almost everywhere for almost everyone.

Also consider their practical application, and alternatives at the time when they were only for the rich - we didn't have proper roads, and there was little need for such transportation, now it's a necessity for basic human dialy needs. Other reasons would be competition from other companies.and such. Sure competition for building machines would involve price fights, but fact is they still need to be cost efficient so there is a limit to how low their prices can be, much like the costs of cars, they make them cheaply, so they can sell them cheaply. but making machines to do /jobs/ wouldn't be made cheaply.

Also didn't I disprove this rediculous concept of machines replacing human work many many posts ago? you should go read that again.

 

[trolman]

Well I have no problem with abortion, but those that do aren't going to see that way, and clearly you're not that anti-abortionist if that's your reposnce.



Also consider their practical application, and alternatives at the time when they were only for the rich - we didn't have proper roads, and there was little need for such transportation, now it's a necessity for basic human dialy needs. Other reasons would be competition from other companies.and such. Sure competition for building machines would involve price fights, but fact is they still need to be cost efficient so there is a limit to how low their prices can be, much like the costs of cars, they make them cheaply, so they can sell them cheaply. but making machines to do /jobs/ wouldn't be made cheaply.

Also didn't I disprove this rediculous concept of machines replacing human work many many posts ago? you should go read that again.

Using a condom =/= abortion,

Dissaprove?If thats what you mean by making me too bored to talk.

 

[Tank-Commander]

Using a condom =/= abortion,

Dissaprove?If thats what you mean by making me too bored to talk.

Using a condom =/= 100% effective

Disprove* means you have no case. Or rather, every point you made was deemed invalid by logic and reasoning

 

[trolman]

Not having sex 99.999999999999999% effective

Not really you were despretly trying to disprove me while i didnt even have a debate, and because I have better things to do I will let you think you've won,goodbye now

 

[Tank-Commander]

Not having sex 99.999999999999999% effective

We're animals designed to reproduce, celebacy isn't a desireable solution to almost the entire human population

Not really you were despretly trying to disprove me while i didnt even have a debate, and because I have better things to do I will let you think you've won,goodbye now

hardly desperation, I did. Honestly backing down as far as I'm concerned indicates that you have no counter-arguement. So go figure.

 

[trolman]

Not my problem.

The Machinisation has already started,when was the last time you washed your clothes with your hands?Sure it seems crazy now but it is the future.And i never said that all labor would be replaced just the majority.

 

[Tank-Commander]

Face it with time almost all jobs will become obsolite, done by machines requiering no human intervention.

Sounds like you did say "almost all" that's pretty damn close

 

[trolman]

But still not all of them.

 

[Tank-Commander]

But still not all of them.

"Almost all" is a phrase used to say that you think it'd be all but you're playing safe, so saying almost all incase there's exceptions, almost all would also entail that it's higher than 90% of jobs. I'm saying robots are only practical to use and run for significantly less than that.