Your Political Compass

[Wizard]

This is just to know where you are. So please keep the flaming out of here.

 

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalc...naire.pl?page=1

 

Economic Left/Right: -1.00

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.51

 

I'm around Nelson Mandela and The Dhali Llama

[Gryph]

Economic Left/Right: -2.38

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15

 

I'm close to Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama! Awesome!

 

My political party affiliation is Liberatarian. (Not in this test, just me telling you)

[taratata]

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.75

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.31

 

I'm way further than Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai-Lama

 

A question quite surprised me, and I'd like to have your opinion about it:

"People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce."

[Gryph]

"People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce."

To me people with serious inheritable disabilities don't have the mental or physical capacity to reproduce. But even if it was possible, it would do more damage than good for the child.

 

I said no.

[ken_cinder]

Economic Left/Right: -4.88

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.54

 

I'm around Nelson Mandela and The Dhali Llama, but farther to the left wing ideas.

[taratata]

"People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce."

To me people with serious inheritable disabilities don't have the mental or physical capacity to reproduce. But even if it was possible, it would do more damage than good for the child.

 

I said no.

I can tell you it is completely possible; inabilities can be mental or physical, not necessarily both. Therefore someone with a physical inability can be mentally perfectly sane, and vice-versa.

Forbidding people with inabilities to reproduce... sounds completely nazi to me. (and I also have other reasons to disagree)

[Weirdy]

Economic Left/Right: -0.75

 

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.72

 

jajajajajajaja....I'm almost on the same dot asThe Dalai Lama

 

 

maybe I could be the next one...j/k

[Gryph]

"People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce."

To me people with serious inheritable disabilities don't have the mental or physical capacity to reproduce. But even if it was possible, it would do more damage than good for the child.

 

I said no.

I can tell you it is completely possible; inabilities can be mental or physical, not necessarily both. Therefore someone with a physical inability can be mentally perfectly sane, and vice-versa.

Forbidding people with inabilities to reproduce... sounds completely nazi to me. (and I also have other reasons to disagree)

Dude...have you worked with severely mentally and physically handicapped people? They are no capacity to care for a child. It's not that they shouldn't be allowed, but they should be discouraged.

 

And the question asks about SERIOUS inhertible disabilities. Now if it said diseases instead of disabilities, it would be a different thing.

 

But that question is not very well worded because people with serious disablities, mental or physical, will find it very hard to reproduce.

[Weirdy]

Gryph, have you ever seen the movie "I am Sam" starring that Penn dude.

 

It's about this dude with down syndrome who sleeps with a hooker and the hooker spends time with him until she has his baby and she just goes away leaving him...a dude with down syndrome, with a daughter.

 

It was pretty strange, seeing as how the little girl was growing up smarter than him and he had the mental capacity of a 7yr old. Seeing that it isn't so much a bad thing for a mentally challenged person to reproduce (even if it is on accident)

 

Rainman on the other hand is a different story

[Gryph]

Gryph, have you ever seen the movie "I am Sam" starring that Penn dude. 

 

It's about this dude with down syndrome who sleeps with a hooker and the hooker spends time with him until she has his baby and she just goes away leaving him...a dude with down syndrome, with a daughter.

 

It was pretty strange, seeing as how the little girl was growing up smarter than him and he had the mental capacity of a 7yr old. Seeing that it isn't so much a bad thing for a mentally challenged person to reproduce (even if it is on accident)

 

Rainman on the other hand is a different story

Down syndrome isn't that serious... it can be but most people with it can function properly in the world to a certain degree.

Edited June 9, 2004 by GryphonKlaw

[taratata]

Dude...have you worked with severely mentally and physically handicapped people?

No, but I guess it gets near that.

And the question asks about SERIOUS inhertible disabilities. Now if it said diseases instead of disabilities, it would be a different thing.

Aren't all inheritable inabilities diseases?

But that question is not very well worded because people with serious disablities, mental or physical, will find it very hard to reproduce.

Of course it only concerns those that can.

[Gryph]

Dude...have you worked with severely mentally and physically handicapped people?

No, but I guess it gets near that.

Well then you should go to your closest developmental home and see first hand what I'm talking about.

 

And the question asks about SERIOUS inhertible disabilities. Now if it said diseases instead of disabilities, it would be a different thing.

 

Aren't all inheritable inabilities diseases?

 

That is true. I misspoke (mistyped). I couldn't think of a word that would help me distinguish between different degrees of inhertible diseases. For example, if a person has sickle-cell anemia, which as you know is a genetic disease, then there should be no objection. But if a person can't effectively communicate, they shouldn't be able to care for a child.

 

But that question is not very well worded because people with serious disablities, mental or physical, will find it very hard to reproduce.

Of course it only concerns those that can.

 

Well if a person has the physical and mental ability to reproduce, their disease isn't THAT serious.

 

I can see why we are disagreeing here. It is because we have a different view on what is a serious disease and what isn't. To me a serious inheritable disability is one like Rubenstein-Taybi Syndrome where it is definitely quite impossible to communicate with them. I watched a cardiologist try to do a heart check up on her last week and it was quite intense.

Edited June 9, 2004 by GryphonKlaw

[taratata]

Dude...have you worked with severely mentally and physically handicapped people?

No, but I guess it gets near that.

Well then you should go to your closest developmental home and see first hand what I'm talking about.

 

Thanks, but I'll pass. I think I don't speak out of my ass on this, since my father had a severe physical inability (hence my concern). His inability was only physical but I have also met people with mental disabilities, and I won't pretend it's nice to see.

But that question is not very well worded because people with serious disablities, mental or physical, will find it very hard to reproduce.

Of course it only concerns those that can.

 

Well if a person has the physical and mental ability to reproduce, their disease isn't THAT serious.

 

I can see why we are disagreeing here. It is because we have a different view on what is a serious disease and what isn't. To me a serious inheritable disability is one like Rubenstein-Taybi Syndrome where it is definitely quite impossible to communicate with them. I watched a cardiologist try to do a heart check up on her last week and it was quite intense.

I think I get your point there. In cases like Rubenstein-Taybi syndrome (I didn't know that one, but I found a description with google), it seems reasonable to discourage these having children. It is the "shouldn't be allowed to" that's a problem to me there, not to discourage them. It reminds me of the nazis' sterilization program for handicapped people.

Another thing is the difference between mental and physical inabilities. These are completely different things with completely difference consequences.

 

I think we haven't seen the question from the same angle. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you got it concerning their ability to raise children. I understood it from the point of a population's genetic perfection (damn, just writing this makes my back shiver). I think that was the real point of the question because of the term "reproduce" (it could not get more biological; reproducing doesn't imply any care for the children afterwards) and because it only concerns "inheritable" disabilities (no distinction between physical or mental).

[ForceX]

 

The above is the result I get when I select Strongly Disagree on all of the questions

 

I will go through it again but properly this time

Edited June 9, 2004 by ForceX

[Cominus]

Economic Left/Right: -0.38

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.92

 

So what the heck am I?