Post by: Sandwich on September 21, 2005, 08:06:41 am
| You are a Social Moderate (41% permissive) and an... Economic Moderate (56% permissive) You are best described as a:
|
Post by: aldo_14 on September 21, 2005, 08:22:48 am
| You are a Social Liberal (71% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (18% permissive) You are best described as a:
|
Post by: Sandwich on September 21, 2005, 08:29:52 am
And the Nerd test:
Post by: Tieowbeijas on September 21, 2005, 08:30:10 am
| You are a Social Liberal (73% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (23% permissive) You are best described as a:
|
And the nerd test:
Post by: Lt.Cannonfodder on September 21, 2005, 08:40:02 am
| You are a Social Liberal (71% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (28% permissive) You are best described as a:
|
Post by: aldo_14 on September 21, 2005, 08:42:46 am
What's a GPA?
Post by: karajorma on September 21, 2005, 08:45:09 am
| You are a Social Liberal (65% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (21% permissive) You are best described as a:
|
Post by: bash on September 21, 2005, 08:56:22 am
I gues this test should say "Americans only" since the result does not apply to me even in the slightest.
Biggest nerd so far ;7
Post by: aldo_14 on September 21, 2005, 09:02:21 am
Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
Actually Aldo judging from your comments on this board I'd say that you were a socialist (In the European meaning of the word, not the American same thing as communism meaning).
Aye, but bear in mind the easiest thing to get vocal about is the status quo; most of the arguements I have tend to be with people who are sort of top right (on that spectrum), so I tend to take a more or less diametrically oppossed position as a way of emphasising what I don't like. Or something.
Post by: Fragrag on September 21, 2005, 09:06:13 am
| You are a Social Liberal (60% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (36% permissive) You are best described as a:
|
Post by: Sandwich on September 21, 2005, 09:08:02 am
It's American for "average grade". :rolleyes: They do love their acronyms.
Post by: kode on September 21, 2005, 09:52:08 am
Post by: Sapphire on September 21, 2005, 09:53:52 am
Post by: kasperl on September 21, 2005, 10:05:25 am
| You are a Social Liberal (80% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (20% permissive) You are best described as a:
|
Some of this stuff is most definetly odd, and very America centered.
I am more on the left side of the spectrum, as the test gave out, but calling me a socialist in the US sense is indeed quite a bit a too much, I'd geuss. Or I could reason that since most Americans are quite on the right side of the line, everything close to centre then them is a commie in their eyes. (Off course, no offence meant but to those who take offence at every political discussion.)
Post by: Janos on September 21, 2005, 10:05:55 am
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74
Which puts me nicely in the moderate left, more liberal wing. Holy ****, I'm becoming a libertarian! nooooooooooo
edit: Well I took the test and..
| You are a Social Liberal (80% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (21% permissive) You are best described as a:
|
Seems like I'm a socialist! Yay!
Edit 2
Hey dude, you're nothing unless you are a true, heavy-duty anarchocapitalist.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Post by: Bobboau on September 21, 2005, 10:09:57 am
| You are a Social Liberal (70% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (76% permissive) You are best described as a:
|
so now when any of you are asking yourself "Bobboau, what the fcuk are you!?" now you know. a militaristic libertarian.
Post by: Ford Prefect on September 21, 2005, 10:22:40 am
| You are a Social Liberal (86% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (18% permissive) You are best described as a:
|
Post by: Goober5000 on September 21, 2005, 10:27:55 am
| You are a Social Liberal (61% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (81% permissive) You are best described as a:
|
Not exactly sure how they define "liberal", but the b&w graph looks about right. This is only as far as government, mind; my moral compass and my legal compass are rather different. :)
Post by: Grey Wolf on September 21, 2005, 11:26:50 am
Political Compass, meanwhile, places me here:
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y2/gw2k9/policomp.gif)
Post by: Descenterace on September 21, 2005, 01:40:53 pm
| You are a Social Liberal (65% permissive) and an... Economic Moderate (41% permissive) You are best described as a:
|
Post by: redmenace on September 21, 2005, 01:53:00 pm
Post by: CP5670 on September 21, 2005, 01:54:32 pm
Social Liberal
(63% permissive)
and an...
Economic Conservative
(84% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Capitalist
Quote
I found that bloody hard to answer honestly, since I don't really give a **** about a lot of issues.
Same here. :p
Post by: Martinus on September 21, 2005, 01:57:33 pm
| You are a Social Liberal (70% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (21% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
[color=66ff00]Pretty accurate I'd say.
[/color]
Post by: Ghostavo on September 21, 2005, 01:57:35 pm
| You are a Social Liberal (70% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (30% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
OMG I'm a democrat!!! :nervous:
Post by: Unknown Target on September 21, 2005, 01:59:38 pm
| You are a Social Liberal (76% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (18% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
Post by: deep_eyes on September 21, 2005, 02:03:50 pm
| You are a Social Conservative (10% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (33% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
Post by: Mongoose on September 21, 2005, 02:13:01 pm
| You are a Social Moderate (43% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (28% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
Bwahaha, I think they're a little bit off there. I'm almost as conservative as they come. :p
Edit: And that Political compass sight put me at Economic Left -1.50 and Social Libertarian -0.41, on the negative x-axis. I think the questions on both tests were either too specific or far too leading. Going by what their definitions are, and the people who are like them, I'd be well into Authoritarian Right.
Post by: Descenterace on September 21, 2005, 02:15:51 pm
Post by: BlackDove on September 21, 2005, 02:24:02 pm
| You are a Social Liberal (61% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (28% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
Post by: CP5670 on September 21, 2005, 02:24:04 pm
Post by: Descenterace on September 21, 2005, 02:33:09 pm
If so, I bow to your godly nerdiness.
Post by: CP5670 on September 21, 2005, 03:02:23 pm
Post by: Ford Prefect on September 21, 2005, 03:22:41 pm
Quote
Bwahaha, I think they're a little bit off there. I'm almost as conservative as they come.
Edit: And that Political compass sight put me at Economic Left -1.50 and Social Libertarian -0.41, on the negative x-axis. I think the questions on both tests were either too specific or far too leading. Going by what their definitions are, and the people who are like them, I'd be well into Authoritarian
You may have answered "agree" or "disagree" in some places where you could have put "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree". I think the degrees are relatively important in their system of evaluation.
Wow, I'm still the frontrunner in social permissiveness! I'm just downright disreputable.
Post by: BlackDove on September 21, 2005, 03:40:01 pm
Post by: Mongoose on September 21, 2005, 04:10:10 pm
Not too bad. If you want a real test of your nerdiness, click here (http://www.innergeek.us/). And be prepared to spend at least twenty minutes on it. :p
Post by: Goober5000 on September 21, 2005, 04:44:55 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Unknown TargetThere are multiple definitions of liberal, though. One means progressive, one means permissive, and one means open-minded. Much of the time some of those definitions are in conflict. :)
The interesting thing is, most of the people on this forum who took this test on this forum are in some way semi-liberal. :) Shows how our debates always manage to get out of hand! :D
Post by: redmenace on September 21, 2005, 05:09:46 pm
| You are a Social Liberal (80% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (100% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
ROFL, I was expecting Libertarian, not anarchist.
Post by: BlackDove on September 21, 2005, 05:12:03 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Goober5000
There are multiple definitions of liberal, though. One means progressive, one means permissive, and one means open-minded. Much of the time some of those definitions are in conflict. :)
If I disagreed with you, I'd be proving your point.
Oh the irony.
[size=999]THE IRONY![/size]
Post by: MatthewPapa on September 21, 2005, 05:23:30 pm
| You are a Social Conservative (31% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (60% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating |
Post by: Rictor on September 21, 2005, 05:45:20 pm
Though Goober is quite right. Adam Smith liberal doesn't mean the same thing as Michael Moore liberal, or even close. But this is an American test, and goes with the more common definiition, the latter.
Post by: mikhael on September 21, 2005, 07:33:45 pm
| You are a Social Liberal (80% permissive) and an... Economic Moderate (43% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating |
Oh and, bugger me dead, I did NOT see that coming:
I was known as the "King of the Nerds" growing up, and all through Uni.
Post by: Grey Wolf on September 21, 2005, 08:57:56 pm
Post by: phreak on September 21, 2005, 09:13:07 pm
| You are a Social Liberal (61% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (88% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
damn shooting for anarchist. vote with bullets *****es.
edit:
Post by: FireCrack on September 21, 2005, 09:16:51 pm
| You are a Social Liberal (60% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (76% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating |
Too many commies on this board...
Also, i'm Donald Trump!
Also, form last 10 suggested laws...
"Rich people and poor people get to switch positions for a year, and the rich people can't use their connections to get them out of the ghetto. "
—JIK from Williamsburg, VA
"I would dictate that all schools and federal government branches recognise our Christian heritage. I don't care what religion you are, this country was founded on Christian principles by men of God. The federal government does not have the right to separate church and state because it was not meant to be separated."
—LCS from Wilmore, Ky
WTF!!!!!
"I would dictate that...bored people do these"
—CAG from winchester, VA
and
Post by: phreak on September 21, 2005, 09:26:08 pm
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/wcower7.gif)
Post by: FireCrack on September 21, 2005, 09:30:20 pm
Post by: mikhael on September 21, 2005, 10:08:55 pm
Before owning or operating a computer, whether for personal or work use, everyone must attend mandatory training and testing and obtain an operators license. Such license shall designate what sorts of computers and office machinery each person may operate.
Post by: Deepblue on September 21, 2005, 10:17:47 pm
Quote
Originally posted by deep_eyes
You are a
Social Conservative
(10% permissive)
and an...
Economic Liberal
(33% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Totalitarian
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
You landed right on Bin Ladin!
Quote
Books with potentially deadly knowledge (like instructions for making awesome bombs) should be regulated.
"Awesome bombs!" :lol:
I fall right between John Kerry and the Pope... Scary...
| You are a Social Moderate (43% permissive) and an... Economic Moderate (41% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
Post by: aldo_14 on September 22, 2005, 04:37:58 am
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
My law (updated):
Before owning or operating a computer, whether for personal or work use, everyone must attend mandatory training and testing and obtain an operators license. Such license shall designate what sorts of computers and office machinery each person may operate.
Christ, no! Think of all the tech support people who'd be laid off rather than spending their days telling people to take coffee cups out the cd or plug in the machine before pressing 'power'!
Post by: mikhael on September 22, 2005, 06:48:34 am
CHRIST YES.
I'd take getting laid off if it meant that there'd be fewer idiots running 0wned Linux boxen because they didn't bother to A) update and B) shut off all the extra services. Same goes for 0wned Windows boxen. It would also cut down on the number of Mac users calling up tech support and getting confused when the tech asks them what version of software they're using:
User: I'm using X!
Tech: which X?
User: What do you mean which X?
Tech: They have versions, like 10.1, 10.2, etc.
User: Oh you mean the CAT like Tiger, Jaguar, Panther, Puma!
Tech: *facepalm*
Post by: übermetroid on September 22, 2005, 08:25:26 am
| You are a Social Liberal (73% permissive) and an... Economic Moderate (43% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
Post by: Goober5000 on September 22, 2005, 11:13:24 am
Quote
Originally posted by BlackDove:wtf:
If I disagreed with you, I'd be proving your point.
Oh the irony.
[size=999]THE IRONY![/size]
Quote
Originally posted by RictorThat may not be accurate. Here's what I got when I took the test from a political point of view:
But this is an American test, and goes with the more common definiition, the latter.
| You are a Social Conservative (30% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (78% permissive) You are best described as a:
|
Post by: BlackDove on September 22, 2005, 11:53:04 am
Quote
Originally posted by Goober5000
:wtf:
[size=999]THE IRONY!!!
.....
HEART![/size][/b]
Post by: Descenterace on September 22, 2005, 12:38:33 pm
I'm disappointed.
Maybe it has something to do with my hating Star Trek (infinitely prefer B5; it has an ongoing storyline) and not actually knowing much about historical figures.
I suspect the fact that I spend more time playing games than reading books has something to do with it, too.
Post by: TrashMan on September 22, 2005, 05:28:59 pm
| You are a Social Conservative (33% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (21% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
Well looky here...I'm right next to Pope John Paul II!!! :D
Post by: Deepblue on September 22, 2005, 05:32:58 pm
I can't believe it. Just cause I know who all the science guys pictures were and all the elements... For crying out loud I use Windows!
Post by: TrashMan on September 22, 2005, 05:50:43 pm
Post by: Nuclear1 on September 22, 2005, 06:10:01 pm
| You are a Social Conservative (30% permissive) and an... Economic Moderate (56% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
Now for the real shocker...
I need some fresh air. :nervous:
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
You are best described as a:
Totalitarian
And you're my project leader. :nervous:
Post by: Deepblue on September 22, 2005, 06:34:09 pm
Post by: TrashMan on September 22, 2005, 06:48:37 pm
Quote
And you're my project leader. :nervous: [/B]
What? The description in hte test is rather nice...
Post by: Spicious on September 22, 2005, 07:01:01 pm
| You are a Social Moderate (56% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (20% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
Post by: vyper on September 22, 2005, 07:28:50 pm
| You are a Social Liberal (81% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (21% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
Post by: Setekh on September 22, 2005, 08:32:16 pm
| You are a Social Conservative (38% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (28% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
Post by: WeatherOp on September 22, 2005, 08:50:12 pm
| You are a Social Conservative (35% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (33% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
Post by: mikhael on September 22, 2005, 10:54:06 pm
Quote
Originally posted by nuclear1
And you're my project leader. :nervous:
You really don't read the politics threads, do you? Trashman's all about the totalitarianism.
Post by: Drew on September 22, 2005, 11:16:16 pm
| You are a Social Moderate (55% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (96% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
its nice to know im right up there with ass holes like thomas jefferson and ted nugent
Post by: TrashMan on September 23, 2005, 05:33:24 am
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
You really don't read the politics threads, do you? Trashman's all about the totalitarianism.
A totaliatirian is described (in this test) as someone with a clear understanding of right and wrong and a firm belief in equality.... or something liek htat
Hell, I'm right next to the Pope - that CAN'T be bad!
Post by: aldo_14 on September 23, 2005, 05:59:11 am
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
Hell, I'm right next to the Pope - that CAN'T be bad!
:rolleyes:
(You're also in the same category as Osama Bin Ladin, Stalin and Darth Vader)
Post by: Ford Prefect on September 23, 2005, 11:54:44 am
Quote
A totaliatirian is described (in this test) as someone with a clear understanding of right and wrong and a firm belief in equality.... or something liek htat
No one has a clear understanding of right and wrong.
Post by: aipz on September 23, 2005, 12:01:22 pm
We're, how to best describe it?.....
"liberal totalitarians"
:lol:
Post by: Zuljin on September 23, 2005, 12:15:00 pm
| You are a Social Liberal (71% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (18% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
On the other test I got:
Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82
Post by: übermetroid on September 23, 2005, 03:32:37 pm
Post by: Janos on September 23, 2005, 04:16:51 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Zuljin
I
On the other test I got:
Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82
Welcome, brother; you are part of the leftist agenda. We are the intelligentzia of the downtridden poor.
Post by: TrashMan on September 23, 2005, 05:39:32 pm
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14
:rolleyes:
(You're also in the same category as Osama Bin Ladin, Stalin and Darth Vader)
ERm..nope. they are below me. i'm smack on hte Popes stomach :D
Quote
No one has a clear understanding of right and wrong.
That's the description dude.. and I doubt it refers allways and in all cases.. but mostly...yes. I do belive I mostly have a clear picture of those issues.
Post by: aldo_14 on September 23, 2005, 06:23:44 pm
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
ERm..nope. they are below me. i'm smack on hte Popes stomach :D
All sit within the Totalitarian category.
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
That's the description dude.. and I doubt it refers allways and in all cases.. but mostly...yes. I do belive I mostly have a clear picture of those issues.
It's the 'believe' part that's relevant. After all, even Hitler and Stalin believed they were right.
Post by: TrashMan on September 23, 2005, 06:34:32 pm
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14
All sit within the Totalitarian category.
All sit in the Human category too. Should I be ashamed I'm human. Category is irrelevant...I'm with the Pope, not those f***tards
Quote
It's the 'believe' part that's relevant. After all, even Hitler and Stalin believed they were right. [/B]
There's a big difference between me and them - tehy were lunatics.
Part of my belief is that I I'm not allowed to harm ANYONE.
Post by: aldo_14 on September 23, 2005, 07:12:25 pm
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
All sit in the Human category too. Should I be ashamed I'm human. Category is irrelevant...I'm with the Pope, not those f***tards
But no that scale of measurement (however much value you put on it), the Pope is (was) himself verging on that category. So if you seek to associate yourself with the Pope, then you associate his, yours and Stalin, etc, with their relative positions.
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
There's a big difference between me and them - tehy were lunatics.
Part of my belief is that I I'm not allowed to harm ANYONE.
Um..I'm going to try and phrase this in a way so as to not get in an arguement, because TBH I can't be bothered justnow :)
Anyways... your definition of harm is subjective. Take, for example, that whole CCTV arguement a while back; you didn't consider it harmful to violate civil liberties (likewise the profiling stage). I disagreed. Now, there is no method to determine who is right in that; so the definition of what causes harm is really down to what you believe is acceptable in terms of your aims.
The Pope(ok, the Catholic church if you wish to abstract responsibility) believed that stopping people using condoms was more important than stopping the spread of aids using 'non catholic' methods like barrier contraception. The church was prepared to lie, for example, about the efficacy of condoms versus the aids virus. The Catholic church would say this was not harmful; I would differ. I would guess that our relative opinions on the harmfulness of this strategem will lead to my opinion of the Pope being substantially worse than your own.
Wholly subjective thing, right and wrong, harmless and harmful. You can judge that within the totalitarian grouping, it is not what forms the right and wrong, but the conviction and actions taken towards that matter most. It's dangerous to dismiss the likes of Hitler and stalin as simple lunatics though; the seeds of bigotry, power lust, etc are within all of us, after all.
Post by: Ace on September 23, 2005, 07:21:17 pm
| You are a Social Liberal (73% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (15% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
Post by: mikhael on September 23, 2005, 10:46:15 pm
Quote
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (-
So uh. Yeah. you might exhibit a very well-developed sense of right and wrong. The test doesn't tell if your sense of right and wrong is CORRECT, only that you have one.
You believe in economic fairness. Except fair is relative. What I think of as fair (as a slightly socialist person) is not the same "fair" as a fairly capitalist person might consider fair.
I prefer the dictionary definition:
Quote
totalitarianism: A centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
No differing opinions? Dictatorial controls (watching everyone's every movement)?
WE HAVE A WINNER!
Post by: Ford Prefect on September 24, 2005, 02:00:19 am
Quote
There's a big difference between me and them - tehy were lunatics.
Part of my belief is that I I'm not allowed to harm ANYONE.
Hitler was quite sane. Stalin was possibly unbalanced, but not psychotic. Atrocities are committed by the sane and insane alike. None of us, raised in a civilization, believe that it is good to harm another person, but nor do we see people who are remote from us as real human beings. I don't care what your belief is-- the life of some guy walking down the street is not worth crap to you, nor is his life worth crap to me, or to anyone who doesn't know him. How do you think Hitler succeeded? Because the Germans are evil people who take pleasure in genocide? He succeeded because people do not feel the weight of human suffering unless it affects us personally.
Post by: Janos on September 24, 2005, 12:40:04 pm
So if discussing TrashMan's totalitarian leanings, we can safely ignore that line. It has preciously little to do with the rest of the analysis.
Post by: Tolwyn on September 24, 2005, 01:06:35 pm
You are a
Social Conservative
(20% permissive)
and an...
Economic Moderate
(50% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Fascist
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (-113, 0)
modscore: (30, 12)
Post by: TrashMan on September 24, 2005, 05:40:34 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Hitler was quite sane. Stalin was possibly unbalanced, but not psychotic. Atrocities are committed by the sane and insane alike. None of us, raised in a civilization, believe that it is good to harm another person, but nor do we see people who are remote from us as real human beings. I don't care what your belief is-- the life of some guy walking down the street is not worth crap to you, nor is his life worth crap to me, or to anyone who doesn't know him. How do you think Hitler succeeded? Because the Germans are evil people who take pleasure in genocide? He succeeded because people do not feel the weight of human suffering unless it affects us personally.
quite wrong about me in that regard.. Icponsider all life sacred..
I even pay attention when I walk not to step on an ant (no kidding). I don't kill spiders I let them live (and if there's too much of them I just throw a few out of the house)
The only living thing I ever killed were a couple of roches and mosquitos..
so no.. I wouldn't never, EVER harm phisicly of any other way anotehr human being if he's not thretning my life or someone elses DIRECTLY.
Post by: aldo_14 on September 24, 2005, 05:53:47 pm
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
quite wrong about me in that regard.. Icponsider all life sacred..
I even pay attention when I walk not to step on an ant (no kidding). I don't kill spiders I let them live (and if there's too much of them I just throw a few out of the house)
The only living thing I ever killed were a couple of roches and mosquitos..
so no.. I wouldn't never, EVER harm phisicly of any other way anotehr human being if he's not thretning my life or someone elses DIRECTLY.
But how do you define harm or suffering? From your previous posts, it would seem that you don't include losing the right to privacy, or the right to equality as being harmful. I would disagree with that; suffering cannot be measured in terms of pain or death but in all aspects of life and psyche IMO, and that the likes of surveillance, racial/ethnic/religious profiling bias inflict suffering in terms of the way they removal basic civil liberties and human rights.
Post by: Ford Prefect on September 24, 2005, 06:48:26 pm
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
quite wrong about me in that regard.. Icponsider all life sacred..
I even pay attention when I walk not to step on an ant (no kidding). I don't kill spiders I let them live (and if there's too much of them I just throw a few out of the house)
The only living thing I ever killed were a couple of roches and mosquitos..
so no.. I wouldn't never, EVER harm phisicly of any other way anotehr human being if he's not thretning my life or someone elses DIRECTLY.
But you act this way consciously, not instinctually. You make a point of avoiding the infliction of harm simply to validate the notion to yourself. I'm not saying that's bad. It's how civilization works; we make conscious efforts to defy our instincts simply to prove to ourselves that it's possible. But, I would argue that your belief in the sancity of all life is purely an intellectual one, not an emotional impulse, and thus will only hold its sway so long as there is no compelling reason to abandon it. I'm sure there were many people in Nazi Germany whose religious beliefs dictated that all life is sacred, but that didn't stop them from contributing to the fascist movement, because if they didn't have any Jewish/Gypsy/homosexual/trade unionist friends, they could not possibly feel the suffering that actually took place, whereas they did feel the pressure of the government breathing down their necks.
Post by: TrashMan on September 24, 2005, 07:02:58 pm
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14
But how do you define harm or suffering? From your previous posts, it would seem that you don't include losing the right to privacy, or the right to equality as being harmful. I would disagree with that; suffering cannot be measured in terms of pain or death but in all aspects of life and psyche IMO, and that the likes of surveillance, racial/ethnic/religious profiling bias inflict suffering in terms of the way they removal basic civil liberties and human rights.
Where do you get that crap from? Since when I'm against privacy or since when am I against equality?
You sir, are making an elephant out of a flea...
Post by: aldo_14 on September 24, 2005, 07:04:56 pm
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
Where do you get that crap from? Since when I'm against privacy or since when am I against equality?
You sir, are making an elephant out of a flea...
CCTV & use of racial/ethnic/religious profiling threads.
Post by: Rictor on September 24, 2005, 07:59:48 pm
Unless I'm wrong, the Pope doesn't have armed missionaries anymore who go around converting people under threat of death. He is the accepted leader of those who choose to call themselves Catholic, but he has no authority over the lives of either Christians or non-Christians, and no means (and I would say desire) to gain such authority or exercise it. Unless you're part of the clergy that it, in which case you willingly join with all the heirarchy that that entials.
Modern political parties and their respective ideologies are much more likely to exert pressure on the unwilling to further their beliefs than a few old men sitting around in robes.
Post by: BlackDove on September 24, 2005, 08:54:25 pm
*points and laughs*
Yes, I know socialist doesn't mean communist, get off my nuts
Post by: Janos on September 24, 2005, 09:12:32 pm
Post by: Kamikaze on September 24, 2005, 09:37:32 pm
| You are a Social Liberal (83% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (18% permissive) You are best described as a: You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (124, -119) modscore: (11, 50) raw: (1548)
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
Looks fairly accurate.
Post by: Singh on September 24, 2005, 09:52:39 pm
Social Moderate
(43% permissive)
and an...
Economic Liberal
(25% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Democrat
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (-25, -94)
modscore: (15, 26)
Post by: Ace on September 24, 2005, 10:46:51 pm
Quote
Originally posted by BlackDove
[size=999]ACE IS A COMMIE HA HA HA!!![/size]
*points and laughs*
Yes, I know socialist doesn't mean communist, get off my nuts
Silence Commissar BD! Lest you betray the fact that BWO is the ultimate piece of propiganda for the Motherland!
Death to the facist imperialists! :drevil:
Post by: WMCoolmon on September 25, 2005, 03:08:56 am
Going by previous tests, I'm a Democratic Liberal Republican Libertarian. :wtf:
Post by: mikhael on September 25, 2005, 09:44:46 am
Quote
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.
Post by: TrashMan on September 25, 2005, 10:16:59 am
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14
CCTV & use of racial/ethnic/religious profiling threads.
Don't put meaning in my words that isn't there. Unlike torturing people and beating them or scaring the living hell out of them, CCTV is something very debatable even among normal people. that's far from being against privacy..
As for the profiling thread you completely (again) missed my point. My poin was that if you are looking for Al-Quaida terrorists the best place to look for them is among those private religious teachers (as they are not that dumb to spread their message in large public moscs)
Wether you like it or no all Al-Quaida are muslim.. so it only makes sense to look there. but that doesn't men to bother all of them either...
Post by: mikhael on September 25, 2005, 10:22:06 am
From where I and he sit, your ideas on racial profiling and use of CCTV for monitoring the populace violate the rights of the populace. From where you sit, they do not.
For what its worth, most totalitarian dictators have at one time or another said something along the lines of, "Look, you just didn't understand what I meant by [insert dictatorial pronouncement here]." You're in good (or bad, depending on where you sit on the subject of individual and economic freedoms) company.
Post by: Flipside on September 25, 2005, 10:24:45 am
| You are a Social Liberal (80% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (18% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
Edit :- Oh, and.....
"I would dictate that... All Bananas be painted Red, just to confuse the monkeys."
Post by: Marauder on September 25, 2005, 10:34:27 am
Not nerdy but not hip? :rolleyes:
Post by: CP5670 on September 25, 2005, 10:38:14 am
Post by: Flipside on September 25, 2005, 10:41:49 am
Quote
Originally posted by Marauder
Not nerdy but not hip? :rolleyes:
Yeah, I thought 'Hip' went out of date years ago.
Post by: aldo_14 on September 25, 2005, 01:20:14 pm
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
Don't put meaning in my words that isn't there. Unlike torturing people and beating them or scaring the living hell out of them, CCTV is something very debatable even among normal people. that's far from being against privacy..
As for the profiling thread you completely (again) missed my point. My poin was that if you are looking for Al-Quaida terrorists the best place to look for them is among those private religious teachers (as they are not that dumb to spread their message in large public moscs)
Wether you like it or no all Al-Quaida are muslim.. so it only makes sense to look there. but that doesn't men to bother all of them either...
Don't you understand that it's a question of interpretation?
I'm not insane, (AFAIK) you're not insane, and yet we totally disagree on whether this is right, but yet both have a clearly defined sense of what we think is right and wrong.
I think CCTV violates privacy, and profiling violates the right to equal treatment before the law. That's part of my belief in what is wrong, same as you believe they are right because you don't believe that they cause that harm, whereas I do.
You have to understand is that a 'well developed sense of right and wrong' is not a positive or negative attribute (hence why it is as applicable to Stalin as it is to Ghandi). It's what you believe is right, and what you believe is wrong that matters.
That's my point here; knowing what you believe is right doesn't make totalitarianism a good thing. That's not a personal judgement aimed at you, but a point of note towards the category.
Post by: TrashMan on September 25, 2005, 05:23:27 pm
Didn't you read the end of my last post?
Post by: Bobboau on September 25, 2005, 05:38:58 pm
(note: this obviusly does not extend to fabricateing evidence, so don't bring that up)
Post by: TrashMan on September 25, 2005, 06:19:45 pm
As I recall in the documentary I saw the cell leaders are usually private religious tutors - they teach religion in small houses or visit their pupils regulary. What better way to recruit?
Post by: Grey Wolf on September 25, 2005, 07:23:27 pm
As for profiling, there have been plenty of terrorist attacks that did not include any link to Islam or al-Queda. The Unabomber, the Olympic Bombings in 1996, and the sarin in the subway in Japan.
Nothing, NOTHING, can justify racial profiling.
Post by: mikhael on September 25, 2005, 09:48:32 pm
You forgot the Oklahoma City bombing, Grey Wolf, and any number of abortion clinic and church burnings in that list.
Post by: Grey Wolf on September 25, 2005, 09:58:39 pm
Post by: Janos on September 26, 2005, 12:08:42 am
Post by: Sandwich on September 30, 2005, 04:57:25 am
In some cases, racial profiling in combination with behavioral profiling is both appropriate and effective. When the attacks start coming in different forms, the countermeasures will be adjusted accordingly.
There's nothing revolutionary with this methodology; I don't see what the big fuss is.
And yes, *bump*.
Post by: aldo_14 on September 30, 2005, 05:53:13 am
Even within a restricted group you have a lot of people being treated differently (heightened suspicion), who are completely innocent. If you tighten the profile, then you leave huge gaps - and that's assuming you have a decent set of information to profile upon, which IMO there isn't in 99.9% of cases.
Worse still, if you're applying this discrimination, then you're breeding the ideal conditions for (reactionary) extremism.
I guess Israel is an exceptional case (compared to, say, the UK, Germany, etc) due to the political and geographic situation, but at the same time I'd wager it's stil only a tiny amount of people who are 'guilty', and a massive amount who are being led to resentment through the likes of roadblocks and soforth. Whether that situation has gone to far to be retrievable in the Israel/Palestine case, I don't know, but I do know that the peace process in NI did more to destroy the IRA than the British Army ever did. Likewise how the increasing devolution of the Basque region has turned the population against ETA (compared to, say, Francos time).
This (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/profiling.html)is a good article, incidentally.
I'd also note http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/Soc_Psych_of_Terrorism.pdf;
[q]In profiling the terrorist, some generalizations can be made on the basis on this examination of the literature on the psychology and sociology of terrorismpublished over the past three decades. One finding is that, unfortunately for profiling purposes, there does not appear to be a single terrorist personality. This seems to be the consensus among terrorism psychologists as well as political scientists and sociologists. The personalities of terrorists may be as diverse as the personalities of people in any lawful profession. There do not appear to be any visibly detectable personality traits that would allow authorities to identify a terrorist.
...
In short, a terrorist will look, dress, and behave like a normal person, such as a university student, until he or she executes the assigned mission. Therefore, considering that this physical and behavioral description of the terrorist could describe almost any normal young person, terrorist profiling based on personality, physical, or sociological traits would not appear to be particularly useful.
...
International terrorists generally appear to be predominately either leftist or Islamic. A profiling system could possibly narrow the statistical probability that an unknown individual boarding an airliner might be a terrorist if it could be accurately determined that most terrorists are of a certain race, culture, religion, or nationality. In the absence of statistical data, however, it cannot be determined here whether members of any particular race, religion, or nationality are responsible for most acts of international terrorism.
[/q]
NB: below that it makes a case for small case, very specific profiling;
[q]Until those figures become available, smaller-scale terrorist group profiles might be more useful. For example, a case could be made that U.S. Customs personnel should give extra scrutiny to the passports of young foreigners claiming to be “students” and meeting the following general description: physically fit males in their early twenties of Egyptian, Jordanian, Yemeni, Iraqi, Algerian, Syrian, or Sudanese nationality, or Arabs bearing valid British passports, in that order. These characteristics generally describe the core membership of Osama bin Laden’s Arab “Afghans” (see Glossary), also known as the Armed Islamic Movement (AIM), who are being trained to attack the United States with WMD.[/q]
you'll note this profile wouldn't have caught the 9/11 hijackers; specifcially, 5 used the 'visa express' program that allowed rapid entry of Saudi citizens into the US without an Id check (a programme introduced because of tightened id checks due to a terror alert!). (a few were also older than the 'young' profile, depending upon its definition here). One had lived in the US since 1991 (Hanji Hanjour).
(incidentally, a few of the hijackers apparently asked for a state id card on August 2 2001.....)
Of the non Saudis; the Lebanese, Ziad Jarrah was from a secular family and attended a Catholic school. In 99 he became more religious, and then more secular once more in 2000 (shaving his bear, etc; presumably to fit in the US better). Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan al Qadi Banihammad (reportedly not Saudi, although I can't seem to find his age or nationality listed) entered also under Visa Express; without specifying a job, area of residence and stating he wouldn't be living in the country. Marwan al-Shehhi; UAE (so not on this suggested list, although I don't know how he got a visa anyways), a devout and ultimately extremist muslim but changed his appearance to be more secular.
Of course, you could expand that suggested profile to include these people, but then you'd also be massively increasing a workload on checking innocent people. On the other hand, if they'd done proper id and history checks, they'd likely have picked up some.
(just on Visa Express -because I hadn't heard of this before - apparently it was introduced in May 2001 at a time when the threat alert was 'off the charts' and it had been identified most al-Queda members were Saudi. It allowed Saudis to be granted a visa without having to apply in person or provide a photograph, at a travel agency. Apparently the reporter that broke this story was later arrested by the State Department)
Post by: Sandwich on September 30, 2005, 06:28:28 am
When I walk up to a bus stop in downtown these days, about 75% of the time, the armed guard there will come up to me and ask how I'm doing. Now, if you remember from pictures, I don't look anything like a descendant of Ishmael. I have very white skin, light brown hair, etc. Also, I'm pretty tall (6'4" or so), which isn't as common among the Arab peoples as it is among westerners.
Nevertheless, more often than not, I am "confronted" by the security people. All they are looking for is to see my reaction; am I under pressure, nervous, etc? Originally I thought they wanted to hear my voice (checking my accent), but I've discovered that they're satisfied with a friendly nod and smile. Why? Behavioral profiling.
Now, had I been of Arab descent or appearance, I do not doubt that I would be confronted by security guards closer to 100% of the time I approach a bus stop. Hence the difference between racial and behavioral profiling, and how both come into play in the precautions taken against terrorism here in Israel.
Post by: aldo_14 on September 30, 2005, 06:45:14 am
It's only when combined with existing effective methods - that don't require a 'profile' to be effective - that it can have any effect IMO.
Because I think there are or will be a lot of Arabs who feel unfairly discriminated against in Israel, or particularly those who travel through Israeli checkpoints between the various territories. I also think that places or reinforces cultural barriers that prevent any hope of peace and/or reconciliation; such as when, for example, you hear of ambulances stopped at checkpoints and leading to the death of a birthing mother or child*.
i.e. I don't think these things do anything to erode the base support of terrorists. In some ways, IMO, it's comparable to police stopping and searching far more blacks than whites in 1960s America; people will react to it.
* I understand the reasons for this (previous use of ambulances to transport militants and/or weapons), but there's also the impact that weighs in here upon 'the other side' that I'm referring to. If a mother and/or child dies because of a checkpoint, the natural instinct will be to blame the checkpoint, and it's not entirely unfair to do so.
Why they can't just have some sort of trust arrangement - perhaps even extending to Israel providing ambulance services under some bond of protection for their doctors when in the PT - I don't know. But that's a side issue.
Post by: Sandwich on October 02, 2005, 01:52:54 am
Anyway, that's discriminatory against ANYONE who purchaces their tickets from overseas, AFAIK. I can't be sure that it's not just against people who book their flights from the Mid-East, but I'm an American citizen, and I don't think they would put "American citizen in Mid-East" above "British Muslim" in the ranking of suspicion.
Post by: Grey Wolf on October 02, 2005, 11:16:23 am
Post by: Galemp on October 02, 2005, 12:13:17 pm
Interesting.