Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Socialist

17 (33.3%)

Green

8 (15.7%)

Peace and Freedom

2 (3.9%)

Democratic

1 (2%)

Transhumanist

11 (21.6%)

Libertarian

8 (15.7%)

Republican

2 (3.9%)

Constitution

2 (3.9%)

Total Members Voted: 50

[wierd]

Not everyone is smart. This is a truth. However, education does not make you smarter. It unlocks the potential of the smarts you have.
Being denied access to that essential tool, because some dipshit thinks you are too dumb, is a tragedy. Understanding that education neither grants intelligence, nor assures success is vital to understanding why everyone, despite achievement levels, must be granted equal and quality access to education.

[Cruxador]

I think even a 5th century Kazakh goatherd would answer yes to that.

I didn't. A right is something inalienable, something that can be infringed upon at most. Something that you don't have without the intervention of other people isn't a right. It's practically advisable, but that doesn't make it a right.

Someone who disagreed might say something like "some people are stupid. They shouldn't have the right to waste the institution's time going through the motions of their inevitable failure out of a misguided sense of fair play."

Since it says "quality" education, that's not valid. A quality education is appropriate to the abilities of the educated.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Look at me, Mr. Progressive, progressing all over the place!
https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=59.1&d=71.3&g=73.8&s=82.5

[WealthyRadish]

A right is something inalienable, something that can be infringed upon at most. Something that you don't have without the intervention of other people isn't a right.

There seems to be a difference of terms here, with two very different things being suggested. Are you saying that you only support "natural" rights (grounded in some universal moral authority, as opposed to statutory rights) or saying a right can strictly speaking only specify what a person or government can't do to someone (as opposed to a right guaranteeing someone something)?

It's very confusing, because the latter statement that a right can't be something that you have "without the intervention of other people" seems circular and contradicting to the point where under that requirement no rights can exist. For example under this logic I may have the natural right to my own life because I guess it's something I possess without someone giving it to me, but that doesn't mean anything if other people don't agree and participate in a societal system that intervenes to prevent people from murdering me.

[feelotraveller]

Gives me: Libertarian Communism, ugh...

95.1 Communist
93.6 Cosmopolitan
93.8 Anarchist
96.7 Revolutionary

Which for the poll would make me progress focussed, but I am more interested in the civil axis (of a progressive bent, of course).  So no polling for me. 

"The vote changes nothing, the struggle continues."  (Another stolen slogan.  )

[Arx]

Spoiler: Dem socks, dough (click to show/hide)

		Economic Axis: Social
Equality	73.8%		26.2%	Markets
		Diplomatic Axis: Peaceful
Nation	34.0%		66.0%	World
		Civil Axis: Moderate
Liberty	51.2%		48.8%	Authority
		Societal Axis: Neutral
Tradition	40.6%		59.4%	Progress

[misko27]

Wow. I guess the rest of the forum has to find something else to brag about, because you got the left-wing thing down feelotraveller.

Oi, the rest of you! Join the Neutrals! We have sensible clothing! Sometimes. We have a neutral amount of sensible and non-sensible clothing!

[feelotraveller]

If I have anything to brag about it is that I don't even know what left(-wing) means.

Sensible neutral clothing is best burnt, or cleanowned then atom-smashed.  Be sure to extract any sentients first...

[hops]

I tried to be as evil as I possibly can and I got neutral...

[Haspen]

Results
Economic Axis: Social
61.6%
Diplomatic Axis: Balanced
57.4%
Civil Axis: Moderate
52.7%
Societal Axis: Progressive
64.3%
Closest Match: Social Liberalism

Well huh. I mellowed out since the days of my early 20s social authoritarian mindset :vc

[hector13]

Libertarian Socialism.

Fair enough.

[Cruxador]

A right is something inalienable, something that can be infringed upon at most. Something that you don't have without the intervention of other people isn't a right.

There seems to be a difference of terms here, with two very different things being suggested. Are you saying that you only support "natural" rights (grounded in some universal moral authority, as opposed to statutory rights) or saying a right can strictly speaking only specify what a person or government can't do to someone (as opposed to a right guaranteeing someone something)?

A statutory right is only a "right" (in a sense that transcends specifically extant policy) as a definition or specification of a natural right. If we consider statutory rights as intrinsically relevant for the purpose of this question, then the question becomes "does your nation say that people are entitled to this" which is obviously not pertinent when we're talking about political ideals rather than just assessing our current political reality.

It's very confusing, because the latter statement that a right can't be something that you have "without the intervention of other people" seems circular and contradicting to the point where under that requirement no rights can exist. For example under this logic I may have the natural right to my own life because I guess it's something I possess without someone giving it to me, but that doesn't mean anything if other people don't agree and participate in a societal system that intervenes to prevent people from murdering me.

Someone murdering you is in itself an intervention. In absence of that intervention, you will not be murdered, so you have a right to life which may be infringed upon by a murderer. You may also, in pretty much every country, be entitled (by statute) to protection from murder. However, this protection is not a right. There's an implied "within reason" tacked on the end. If the police show up fifteen minutes too late, your government did not commit a human rights violation. If you go out of your way to live in the mountains far away from everyone with no human contact, the expectation that someone will intervene to prevent your death becomes much less reasonable. However, the expectation that someone won't intervene to kill you doesn't change.

[Glloyd]

Glorious cosmopolitan revolutionary transhumanist anarcho-communism checking in.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Nationalism and patriotism are a cancer, etc. etc. I feel like if I took this test ten years ago it would largely be the same, except I'd probably be a lot closer to the middle on the authority slider.

[Ghazkull]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Democratic Socialism, sounds about right...i really tend to veer to the left in economic question and especially Welfare question these days.

Although im rather suprised that i am moderate in terms of liberty vs. authority...

[Kot]

Nationalism and patriotism are a cancer, etc. etc.

*shakes AK angrily*