Jump to content

Your Political Compass


Recommended Posts

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 by GryphonKlaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 23
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compass.JPG

 

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

 

I will go through it again but properly this time :P

Edited by ForceX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez, do you think the guys behind that quiz are left-wingers? Just maybe? :P

 

Some of the wording was pretty politically charged IMHO. Some of it inflamitory. And that's coming from a guy futher left than Gandhi!

 

Economic Left/Right: -8.00

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97

 

Somehow it didn't surprise me that Bush and Paul Martin (Canada's PM) are on the opposite side of the spectrum. Never did like their views much...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez, do you think the guys behind that quiz are left-wingers?  Just maybe?  :P

 

Some of the wording was pretty politically charged IMHO.  Some of it inflamitory.  And that's coming from a guy futher left than Gandhi!

 

Economic Left/Right: -8.00

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97

 

Somehow it didn't surprise me that Bush and Paul Martin (Canada's PM) are on the opposite side of the spectrum.  Never did like their views much...

You're 0.25 points lefter than me! You filthy communist :P

The wording was indeed oriented. Sort of "The poors can starve as long as I have my BigMac: strongly disagree / disagree / agree / strongly agree" lol

Well, not oriented that much, but oriented nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-7.12

-5.95

I don´t know, it is just an internet test.

About the McDonalds stuff,hehe, ironically, look what happened to Russia whien they opened to capitalism, the country was flooded with Mac Donalds, jeans and stuff, on the other hand the number of poor people, homeless increased and many people had to get a second job to maintain their living standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A whole bunch of stuff that me and taratata said

Well then, atleast its all settled now. :D

Well then, yeah :rolleyes:

 

About Russia, only the richest part of the population has had a real profit from the political change. The country is democratic in appearance, but there are huge political pressures on judges, journalists and opposing businessmen.

 

The poorest parts of the country have only had a change for worse: they don't have the social system anymore (schools, health care, etc...) even if it was far from ideal before, and they don't have the benefits of free trade (don't forget that money attracts money; it goes also the other way round: poverty scare potential investors and push the most dynamic people to leave the place).

In richer parts of the country, there's a different problem. Like Alexis said, the wealth tends to concentrate in fewer hands, while more and more people get poor, and they get poorer and poorer. It's not a far-in-the-future nightmare I'm describing here, it's just the way pure and raw capitalism goes when it is uncontrolled.

 

Don't get me wrong there: I'm not saying Russia was better before; I'm just saying that although free trade and capitalism work in some countries (and still, with major flaws), just popping McDonald's and Coca-Cola out of a hat (or worse, out of a gun) won't do any good anywhere.

 

Since the topic is about politics I think I'm not too much off-topic :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...