|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Sept 29, 2005 12:35:54 GMT -5
1 for me, no shocker there. Us commie pinko f.a.g.s have to stick together.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Sept 29, 2005 13:25:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 29, 2005 13:40:00 GMT -5
My results in that quiz illustrates my usual objection to such quizzes - I was labeled as a centrist. Come on now ... we all know I"m not really all that much of a centrist, don't we? The problem is that a test like that is written from the perspective of A LOT of assumptions. As an example - one of the questions is "I believe that professional athletes are paid too much money". If I'm being honest, I would agree with that. So what? I would guess that there is an assumption built into that question that if you believe they are paid too much money, then you think something should be done about that. I don't. There were several questions I came across that I had to either answer honestly, or answer as they were looking for me to answer them, because the two were two entirely different things. I answered them honestly. It made me into a centrist. |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Sept 29, 2005 13:46:26 GMT -5
It labeled me as a socialist. I definately consider myself to be more liberal than most, but I don't think I'm quite a socialist.
|
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Sept 29, 2005 14:03:11 GMT -5
Funny that people will shamelessly cuddle up to 1 but no one dares even show a hint that they are near 10. Cuz anyone who has studied the two subject knows, unless they are completely blinded by their ideology, that Communism and Fascism are, in a sense, the same damn thing. Probably thinking I'm the one that picked #8. Actually I wish I knew who did. I picked 7, being that I wanted to be as far away from fascist as possible but believe strongly that what the "mainstream" considers "moderate" at the moment is much more left than it is right. Everything moved over one notch. What was conservative yesteryear is now considered "Fascist". What was Moderate yesteryear is now considered "Conservative". What was "Liberal" yesteryear is now considered "Moderate", and, finally, what was downright Communist yesteryear is now considered "Liberal". Therefore, if I don't believe that the original intent of the 1st Amendment was to protect graphic pornography you would call me a.......hmmmm. If I considered, even considered looking into a study of whether censorship is necessary and healthy for a democracy, there comes the "Fascist" brand again, even though nobody on the right that I can think of recently has even vaguely suggested that we should censor ideas. Just a handful have been brave enough in a depraved society to say that we should actually censor pornographic acts in magazines or videos, or censor movies that are mere rhapsodies to violence, or censor some the more obscene lyrics in some rap music. And why would they attempt to do such a thing? For the children! If one child gets a hold of Grand Theft Auto or Hustler magazine or Tupac Shakur, it would be better that none of it existed. Then people will say,"Where do you draw the line?" And also would so nonchalantly draw the conclusion that since there's some difficulty on where to draw the line, we just shouldn't draw one at all. How stupid and most of all, how uncaring. The left doesn't give a damn about the innocense of children. They want to feed them, sure, but when it comes to spiritualityl, nah. "The government should stay out of all that." Because, get this, if the government makes a decision that appears that it has some moral background, that appears in any way that it judges for itself for something to actually be "obscene" or "degrading" then they have overstepped their bounds. But when it comes to making sure children have a good education, or enough food to eat, hell, that's all that matters. We should stop there and allow them to fill their minds with absolute filth and live in a moral trash can all of their lives because it's simply not the government's, or anybody's, place to tell these people that they don't have a "Right" to enjoy their depravity, and not only enjoy it but out loud from their car stereo for every child to hear at every red light. Should there be any limits to how vulgar the lyrics blasting into your children's ears can get? Why HELL NO!!! That's gonna lead us down the road to FASCISM! RUN, RUN from FASCISM. IT'S COMING AFTER US. Hell, somebody wants to protect children's ears and eyes. Horror of horrors!!
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 29, 2005 14:13:24 GMT -5
I chose the 8. I chose it because it was three away from the end, and several people who I consider to be as liberal as I am conservative said they put 3. I think the reason that no one has chosen 10 is because no one around here is THAT far to the right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Sept 29, 2005 14:13:26 GMT -5
Says I'm a social liberal...I took one that was better then that one...I'll try to find it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Sept 29, 2005 14:15:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Sept 29, 2005 14:18:41 GMT -5
Actually that wasn't the one I thought it was...oh well...
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Sept 29, 2005 14:39:18 GMT -5
Yeah, some of those are worded a little funny, like "It's wrong when environmental regulation puts people out of work, like when limits on logging make it harder for loggers to log logs."
Are they trying to make people disagree by wording it so idiotically? A lot of them could be answered, "It depends upon..." But it wasn't too far off - said I was a social liberal, economic conservative (but that depends upon...) and best described as a Libertarian.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Sept 29, 2005 14:50:50 GMT -5
I came up as a socialist on this test, with a strong belief in economic justice and social liberty. Interestingly enough, I think that's where I would've come up when I graduated high school as well. This test did, however, make me out to be a little more liberal than I really am. It asked several "government should ..." questions, where I'm very ideologically liberal, but more pragmatically centrist in the real world. But I went ahead and went along with where I thought that score put me, and so I voted for a 2. I'm not a communist, but I'd be a lot happier in a socialist democracy, all in all.
|
|
|
|
Post by riley on Sept 29, 2005 14:51:30 GMT -5
Funny that people will shamelessly cuddle up to 1 but no one dares even show a hint that they are near 10. Cuz anyone who has studied the two subject knows, unless they are completely blinded by their ideology, that Communism and Fascism are, in a sense, the same damn thing. Probably thinking I'm the one that picked #8. Actually I wish I knew who did. I picked 7, being that I wanted to be as far away from fascist as possible but believe strongly that what the "mainstream" considers "moderate" at the moment is much more left than it is right. Everything moved over one notch. What was conservative yesteryear is now considered "Fascist". What was Moderate yesteryear is now considered "Conservative". What was "Liberal" yesteryear is now considered "Moderate", and, finally, what was downright Communist yesteryear is now considered "Liberal". Therefore, if I don't believe that the original intent of the 1st Amendment was to protect graphic pornography you would call me a.......hmmmm. If I considered, even considered looking into a study of whether censorship is necessary and healthy for a democracy, there comes the "Fascist" brand again, even though nobody on the right that I can think of recently has even vaguely suggested that we should censor ideas. Just a handful have been brave enough in a depraved society to say that we should actually censor pornographic acts in magazines or videos, or censor movies that are mere rhapsodies to violence, or censor some the more obscene lyrics in some rap music. And why would they attempt to do such a thing? For the children! If one child gets a hold of Grand Theft Auto or Hustler magazine or Tupac Shakur, it would be better that none of it existed. Then people will say,"Where do you draw the line?" And also would so nonchalantly draw the conclusion that since there's some difficulty on where to draw the line, we just shouldn't draw one at all. How stupid and most of all, how uncaring. The left doesn't give a damn about the innocense of children. They want to feed them, sure, but when it comes to spiritualityl, nah. "The government should stay out of all that." Because, get this, if the government makes a decision that appears that it has some moral background, that appears in any way that it judges for itself for something to actually be "obscene" or "degrading" then they have overstepped their bounds. But when it comes to making sure children have a good education, or enough food to eat, hell, that's all that matters. We should stop there and allow them to fill their minds with absolute filth and live in a moral trash can all of their lives because it's simply not the government's, or anybody's, place to tell these people that they don't have a "Right" to enjoy their depravity, and not only enjoy it but out loud from their car stereo for every child to hear at every red light. Should there be any limits to how vulgar the lyrics blasting into your children's ears can get? Why HELL NO!!! That's gonna lead us down the road to FASCISM! RUN, RUN from FASCISM. IT'S COMING AFTER US. Hell, somebody wants to protect children's ears and eyes. Horror of horrors!! paragraphs young fella. paragraphs. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Sept 29, 2005 17:41:19 GMT -5
You know, Umberto Eco did a grand study on fascism called Ur-Fascism (in 1995), which was published in his book of essays Five Moral Pieces. In it, he tries to find a unifying feature of fascism throughout the twentieth century; he studies Nazi paganism, Franco's National Catholicism, Mussolini's corporatism, Russian communism, etc...He does not succeed in coming up with this unifying feature, but he does find a set of rules that may be attributed to all forms of fascism. As listed:
1) The truth is revealed once and only once.
2) Parliamentary democracyis by definition rotten because it doesn't represent the voice of the peopel, which is that of the sublime leader.
3) Doctrine outpoints reason, and science is always suspect.
4) Critical thought is the province of degenerate intellectuals, who betray the culture and subvert traditional values.
5) The national identity is provided by the nation's enemies.
6) Argument is tantamount to treason.
7) Perpetually at war, the state must govern with the instruments of fear.
8) Citizens do not act. They play the supporting role of "the people" in the grand opera that is the state.
Now, you can read into it whatever you want, Melon. Author and political commentator/satirist Lewis Lapham proposes that the country has been veering and embracing a form of fascism since World War II, and depending on your political leanings, you may read the aforementioned posts as proof or slur. Still, be cool, buddy. You're starting to sound like Morality2004.
|
|
|
|
Post by PC on Sept 29, 2005 18:42:41 GMT -5
If you don't want your children to be exposed to objectionable content, fine. But it should be up to the parents, not the government, to protect their kids. But that's just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Sept 29, 2005 19:35:50 GMT -5
Melon, at 7, you're no farther from the center than the 4s. The labels are loaded words. There's a lot of room even between the increments on that scale!
I recall a conversation - might have been at RS - where we were discussing different models of the continuum, like a circle with fascism and communism meeting. I'm sure Mary was in on it!
So, 'fess up - who is the other "all mixed up"? Eh? ;D
|
|
