No seriously, I thought I was more opinionated than this.... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It doesn't make you more or less opinionated, it just means your opinions are more neutral. You could put strongly agree and strongly disagree to nearly every question and you could still get neutral scores since different questions balance eachother out.
Here's something to spark discussion. Is it important to have all of one's views aligned? Is it really worth having a "moderate" stance? Do you believe the mindset of "be far left or don't be left at all" (and same for the right) is valid?
For example, what if I was taking this survey and some of the economics questions I answered were "Strongly Agree" in favor of the left, but I sometimes answered some questions "Strongly Agree" in favor of the right? The score will paint me as a moderate, but am I? No, I would have extreme left and extreme right views. But is that indicative of being "balanced," or does that mean I'm inconsistent and uneducated about my so-called views?
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Nov 13 2004, 07:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 13 2004, 07:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Good lord I'm bang on John Kerry <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> THERE IS NO GOD!!!!
This had better not be accurate.... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> it's tempting to take this quote out of context and use it in my sig. <!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no god.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> wow...
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Windelkron+Nov 13 2004, 08:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Nov 13 2004, 08:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> yea, which is why I redefined it as "democratic socialist" rather than "communist." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> you are probably close to <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism' target='_blank'>Anarcho-syndicalism</a>
Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -0.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.26
Looks like i've found my center....<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
To be honests, that test is fairly inccurate. I would not go so far to call it rubbish, as it actually correctly displays the attributes of poilitical behavior. Their analysis of Hitler is catually a good example. He was inclined to strenghen the state above all other priorities, as it was his belive, that only a strong nation and people can withstand the contest between the cizilisations. Some twisted sort of sozial darwinism. However, the people were the second most important priority. They had top be diciplined and ready for war, strong and able, and they had to have work to be satisfied. It is called National <i>Sozialism</i> for a reason. He basically did the same as the communists, as he simply gave work to everybody. (ingnoring the facts that this was not to work out forever.....) The major difference to the sovjet sozialism lies in the acceptance of the free market. The comparison with "Iron Maggy" is somehwat harsh, but not that mislead. Thatcher was a straight forward, kapitalistic hardliner and nationalist. She would not mass murder anybody, but she was willing to start a war for some worthless islands at argentine just to demonstrate Englands resolve and preserve the status as military power. Falkland was a show, not more. It said, "we are still here". She was mercyless in her political course and made nessesary but hurting descisions that plunged many people into poverty. She is actually correctly displayed on that table from my PoV.
What makes the test inaccurate in my eyes is, that the qestions are not going beyond the obvious. Sorry, I lack a proper term to explain it atm, so im going to describe it. It is too populistic to be turely accurate. It asks, for example:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everyone not really accustomed to global economy or just thinking out of an natural sense for justice will agree to this statement. Thats what anti-globalizing groups tell us. However, they do not realize that actually the companys that use the cheap labor in underdeveloped countries to produce cheaper products, actually serve in those countries development. Thats exploiting the poor, sure, but it eventuelly leads to infrastructure, medical care, jobs, urbanisation, education, recreation and labor unions (which are arguably a good thing <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) This way it worked out in the beginning of the 20th century in all industrial nations too. So I disagree to that statement, because I know, despite all my resentiments against microsoft, that the corporations are the ones that bring the jobs.
<!--QuoteBegin-Windelkron+Nov 14 2004, 12:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Nov 14 2004, 12:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Nov 13 2004, 07:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 13 2004, 07:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Good lord I'm bang on John Kerry <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> THERE IS NO GOD!!!!
This had better not be accurate.... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> it's tempting to take this quote out of context and use it in my sig. <!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no god.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> wow... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, you'd need to do it like this
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Nov 13 2004, 07:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 13 2004, 07:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->THERE IS NO GOD!!!!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> that seals it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm bang on...THERE IS NO GOD!!!!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Nov 14 2004, 06:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Nov 14 2004, 06:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everyone not really accustomed to global economy or just thinking out of an natural sense for justice will agree to this statement. Thats what anti-globalizing groups tell us. However, they do not realize that actually the companys that use the cheap labor in underdeveloped countries to produce cheaper products, actually serve in those countries development. Thats exploiting the poor, sure, but it eventuelly leads to infrastructure, medical care, jobs, urbanisation, education, recreation and labor unions (which are arguably a good thing <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) This way it worked out in the beginning of the 20th century in all industrial nations too. So I disagree to that statement, because I know, despite all my resentiments against microsoft, that the corporations are the ones that bring the jobs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In that case I would argue that that example of economic globalisation is serving humanity. The primary intrest of serving humanity probably doesn't mean the distruction of international corperation, after all, where would humanity be without economics. Based on the phrasing of that question, I would acctually be surprized if anyone reading it properly didn't say agree.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Nov 14 2004, 06:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Nov 14 2004, 06:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everyone not really accustomed to global economy or just thinking out of an natural sense for justice will agree to this statement. Thats what anti-globalizing groups tell us. However, they do not realize that actually the companys that use the cheap labor in underdeveloped countries to produce cheaper products, actually serve in those countries development. Thats exploiting the poor, sure, but it eventuelly leads to infrastructure, medical care, jobs, urbanisation, education, recreation and labor unions (which are arguably a good thing <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) This way it worked out in the beginning of the 20th century in all industrial nations too. So I disagree to that statement, because I know, despite all my resentiments against microsoft, that the corporations are the ones that bring the jobs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> While I agree that question was a little loaded, I considered it to be asking more about environmental effects than the traditional "sweatshop" debate, I said that I agree with it for this reason. IMHO pay people whatever you can pay them, and more people will have jobs, and go to another country if its more efficient. However, if the reason for the offshoring is to avoid environmental regulation, then it becomes criminal. No one benefits from that.
----edit---- what happended here ? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> It looks like my post somehow got screwed up. Sorry.
Comments
jumpin' jiminy, yes
(democratic socialist)
Edit: WITH A GUN< LOLZ
Edit2: sorry
Edit3: To illustrate:
<img src='http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v44/windelkron/political.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
No seriously, I thought I was more opinionated than this....
No seriously, I thought I was more opinionated than this.... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't make you more or less opinionated, it just means your opinions are more neutral. You could put strongly agree and strongly disagree to nearly every question and you could still get neutral scores since different questions balance eachother out.
Is it important to have all of one's views aligned? Is it really worth having a "moderate"
stance? Do you believe the mindset of "be far left or don't be left at all" (and same for the right) is valid?
For example, what if I was taking this survey and some of the economics questions I answered were "Strongly Agree" in favor of the left, but I sometimes answered some questions "Strongly Agree" in favor of the right? The score will paint me as a moderate, but am I? No, I would have extreme left and extreme right views. But is that indicative of being "balanced," or does that mean I'm inconsistent and uneducated about my so-called views?
This had better not be accurate.... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
it's tempting to take this quote out of context and use it in my sig.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no god.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wow...
you are probably close to <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism' target='_blank'>Anarcho-syndicalism</a>
Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28
= left wing liberal communist sympithizer...
Economic Left/Right: -0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.26
Looks like i've found my center....<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
To be honests, that test is fairly inccurate. I would not go so far to call it
rubbish, as it actually correctly displays the attributes of poilitical behavior.
Their analysis of Hitler is catually a good example. He was inclined to strenghen the state above all other priorities, as it was his belive, that only a strong nation and people can withstand the contest between the cizilisations. Some twisted sort of sozial darwinism.
However, the people were the second most important priority. They had top be diciplined and ready for war, strong and able, and they had to have work to be satisfied.
It is called National <i>Sozialism</i> for a reason. He basically did the same as the communists, as he simply gave work to everybody. (ingnoring the facts that this was not to work out forever.....) The major difference to the sovjet sozialism lies in the acceptance of the free market. The comparison with "Iron Maggy" is somehwat harsh, but not that mislead.
Thatcher was a straight forward, kapitalistic hardliner and nationalist. She would not mass murder anybody, but she was willing to start a war for some worthless islands at argentine just to demonstrate Englands resolve and preserve the status as military power. Falkland was a show, not more. It said, "we are still here".
She was mercyless in her political course and made nessesary but hurting descisions that plunged many people into poverty. She is actually correctly displayed on that table from my PoV.
What makes the test inaccurate in my eyes is, that the qestions are not going beyond the obvious. Sorry, I lack a proper term to explain it atm, so im going to describe it. It is too populistic to be turely accurate. It asks, for example:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everyone not really accustomed to global economy or just thinking out of an natural sense for justice will agree to this statement. Thats what anti-globalizing groups tell us.
However, they do not realize that actually the companys that use the cheap labor in underdeveloped countries to produce cheaper products, actually serve in those countries development. Thats exploiting the poor, sure, but it eventuelly leads to infrastructure, medical care, jobs, urbanisation, education, recreation and labor unions (which are arguably a good thing <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
This way it worked out in the beginning of the 20th century in all industrial nations too. So I disagree to that statement, because I know, despite all my resentiments against microsoft, that the corporations are the ones that bring the jobs.
This had better not be accurate.... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
it's tempting to take this quote out of context and use it in my sig.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no god.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wow... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, you'd need to do it like this
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Nov 13 2004, 07:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 13 2004, 07:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->THERE IS NO GOD!!!!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that seals it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm bang on...THERE IS NO GOD!!!!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everyone not really accustomed to global economy or just thinking out of an natural sense for justice will agree to this statement. Thats what anti-globalizing groups tell us.
However, they do not realize that actually the companys that use the cheap labor in underdeveloped countries to produce cheaper products, actually serve in those countries development. Thats exploiting the poor, sure, but it eventuelly leads to infrastructure, medical care, jobs, urbanisation, education, recreation and labor unions (which are arguably a good thing <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
This way it worked out in the beginning of the 20th century in all industrial nations too. So I disagree to that statement, because I know, despite all my resentiments against microsoft, that the corporations are the ones that bring the jobs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
In that case I would argue that that example of economic globalisation is serving humanity. The primary intrest of serving humanity probably doesn't mean the distruction of international corperation, after all, where would humanity be without economics. Based on the phrasing of that question, I would acctually be surprized if anyone reading it properly didn't say agree.
Everyone not really accustomed to global economy or just thinking out of an natural sense for justice will agree to this statement. Thats what anti-globalizing groups tell us.
However, they do not realize that actually the companys that use the cheap labor in underdeveloped countries to produce cheaper products, actually serve in those countries development. Thats exploiting the poor, sure, but it eventuelly leads to infrastructure, medical care, jobs, urbanisation, education, recreation and labor unions (which are arguably a good thing <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
This way it worked out in the beginning of the 20th century in all industrial nations too. So I disagree to that statement, because I know, despite all my resentiments against microsoft, that the corporations are the ones that bring the jobs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I agree that question was a little loaded, I considered it to be asking more about environmental effects than the traditional "sweatshop" debate, I said that I agree with it for this reason. IMHO pay people whatever you can pay them, and more people will have jobs, and go to another country if its more efficient. However, if the reason for the offshoring is to avoid environmental regulation, then it becomes criminal. No one benefits from that.
what happended here ?
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It looks like my post somehow got screwed up. Sorry.