Politics & Political Leanings

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Brovo, Nov 29, 2015.

?

For your country's politics, how far left or right leaning would you (generally) associate yourself?

  1. I do not believe I hold any particular political leaning/undecided.

  2. Extreme left.

  3. Far left.

  4. Moderate left.

  5. Center-left.

  6. Center.

  7. Center-right.

  8. Moderate right.

  9. Far right.

  10. Extreme right.

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Because I'm curious if the Iwaku I think exists is the Iwaku which is, I may as well leave a list of questions here and a poll. Before we get to the fun stuff though, here's a list of things to keep in mind.
    1. Just the thread title alone will get moderators watching. Closely. Pull anything and its your ass that'll get flame broiled by the mods & admins, not mine. Also, for any moderators reading this, thank you for putting up with nonsense flame-tard bait garbage. For no pay. I really do appreciate it.
    2. This is not a derpbate thread, this is a thread dedicated to me (and anyone else who is curious) trying to learn more about the general political consensus of Iwaku and if it reflects what I think it is. Some things should be obvious, others less-so. Do not debate other people's view points here. The mods can feel free to be slap-happy with thread bans if it's necessary. This means, simply, answer the questions, and don't criticize the views of others in here. Tolerate them. If you must, go make another thread and talk about it there. I'm sure @Grumpy will be absolutely thrilled with the idea.
    3. Since I live in North America (in ye olde land of maple leaves and hockey players specifically), expect some political questions to be context-sensitive to Canada & The US. In other words: Your Mileage May Vary in how controversial any of these questions may be.
    4. Be kind to each other. This is a thread to learn shit about one another, and how we think. As a result, you can ask questions of someone's views, if you use the appropriate tone. Curiosity good, criticism bad. Please don't damage my already frail faith in humanity by lacking basic social skills and/or self-control here. :ferret:
    Now that we have these nice rules out of the way, we can get to the questions. Keep in mind that these are questions directed to who you are individually. You can be left leaning and hold some right wing beliefs, or vice versa.

    Oh, and if you notice some overlap with these questions, that is intentional. It's meant to make you think carefully in how you respond. :ferret:

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------​

    #1: What is your position on the separation of church and state? Do you think that churches & other religious entities deserve their tax-exemption status?

    #2: What is your position on abortion? Do you think there should be any limitations on abortion?

    #3: What is the role of government in society? Should it be big, or small?

    #4: Hate speech laws. Should they impede freedom of speech, and if so, when is it appropriate to use them? What should they be used to combat?

    #5: Is military intervention in other nations (save in cases of total war) ever acceptable?

    #6: What is your opinion on the death penalty?

    #7: Should healthcare be privatized, two-tiered, or owned entirely and solely by the state?

    #8: Do identity politics have any place in a democratic society? If so (or if not), in what ways are they most or least appropriate?

    #9: In cases of certain, extraordinarily difficult to prove crimes (ex: rape, sexual assault) should the victim always be believed and the accused should prove their innocence, or the innocence of the accused always be presumed as is the status quo for other types of crime?

    #10: Among various political views (socialism, libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, et cetera), what would you most strongly identify yourself to be, if any of these things?

    #11: Do you believe that political activism should ever become violent if its demands are not met by the state? If so, at what point, or under what circumstances, would it be appropriate to engage in acts of violence?

    #12: Do you believe your country reflects your current political views? If not, do you think this is a serious problem?

    #13: Do you think your country would be better off with more or less political views other than your own? If so, why?

    #14: Do you believe your current political views are fundamentally superior to all others and will never change, or do you believe that your political views could be changed given appropriate circumstances?

    #14: Should religious paraphernalia and other practices which otherwise violate the law or standard labour practices be tolerated? To what extent should they be tolerated?

    #15: Are cultural sensitivity training sessions in businesses and similar type classes in post-secondary educations useful, or pointless? Further, should they be mandatory, or optional?

    #16: Would you ever advocate for the limitation and perhaps even elimination of certain inalienable human rights, should it be required by your political views?

    #17: What are your thoughts on immigration in general? (Excluding the current refugee crisis.)

    #18: Should rights and freedoms be granted or curtailed based on one's race, gender, or sexuality--whether to grant special privileges, such as gender quotas, or protect traditional values, such as banning gay marriage?

    #19: Should anti-gay marriage churches, organizations, and businesses, be forced to service homosexual couples? Should anti-gay views be punished with fines or hate speech laws?

    #20: Would you describe yourself as more collectivist or individualist in general? In other words: Are the many more important than the one, or is the one more important than the many?

    #21: How adorable are ferrets on a scale of "absolutely" to "Brovo is completely insane?"

    Copy-paste
    To make it easy to appropriately format your responses, simply copy-paste the contents here and reply to each question one by one. :ferret:

    [quote=Question #1]What is your position on the separation of church and state? Do you think that churches & other religious entities deserve their tax-exemption status?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #2]What is your position on abortion? Do you think there should be any limitations on abortion?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #3]What is the role of government in society? Should it be big, or small?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #4]Hate speech laws. Should they impede freedom of speech, and if so, when is it appropriate to use them? What should they be used to combat?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #5]Is military intervention in other nations (save in cases of total war) ever acceptable?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #6]What is your opinion on the death penalty?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #7]Should healthcare be privatized, two-tiered, or owned entirely and solely by the state?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #8]Do identity politics have any place in a democratic society? If so (or if not), in what ways are they most or least appropriate?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #9]In cases of certain, extraordinarily difficult to prove crimes (ex: rape, sexual assault) should the victim always be believed and the accused should prove their innocence, or the innocence of the accused always be presumed as is the status quo for other types of crime?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #10]Among various political views/groups (socialism, libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, et cetera), what would you most strongly identify yourself to be, if any of these things?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #11]Do you believe that political activism should ever become violent if its demands are not met by the state? If so, at what point, or under what circumstances, would it be appropriate to engage in acts of violence?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #12]Do you believe your country reflects your current political views? If not, do you think this is a serious problem?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #13]Do you think your country would be better off with more or less political views other than your own? If so, why?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #14]Do you believe your current political views are fundamentally superior to all others and will never change, or do you believe that your political views could be changed given appropriate circumstances?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #14]Should religious paraphernalia and other practices which otherwise violate the law or standard labour practices be tolerated? To what extent should they be tolerated?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #15]Are cultural sensitivity training sessions in businesses and similar type classes in post-secondary educations useful, or pointless? Further, should they be mandatory, or optional?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #16]Would you ever advocate for the limitation and perhaps even elimination of certain inalienable human rights, should it be required by your political views?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #17]What are your thoughts on immigration in general? (Excluding the current refugee crisis.)[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #18]Should rights and freedoms be granted or curtailed based on one's race, gender, or sexuality--whether to grant special privileges, such as gender quotas, or protect traditional values, such as banning gay marriage?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #19]Should anti-gay marriage churches, organizations, and businesses, be forced to service homosexual couples? Should anti-gay views be punished with fines or hate speech laws?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #20]Would you describe yourself as more collectivist or individualist in general? In other words: Are the many more important than the one, or is the one more important than the many?[/quote]

    Put your answer here!

    [quote=Question #21]How adorable are [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfXB9Tsy2g8]ferrets[/url] on a scale of "absolutely" to "Brovo is completely insane?"[/quote]

    Put an answer here!


    Thank you for answering these questions. May Ferret Jesus watch over you, and keep you as chill as Snoop Dogg, so that this thread may not implode. :ferret:

    [​IMG]
     
    #1 Brovo, Nov 29, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2015
  2. Separate them like you would butt cheeks when bending over and spreading for a fart.

    Abort away, ye great number of fetii!

    Smaller the government, the better.

    Nothing, absolutely nothing, should impede the Freedom of Speech (yes, capitalized). Hate speech is still speech, and even if you do not like hearing it, the person has the right to say it (though that does not protect them from the social consequences of saying it).

    Yes. It would be nice to stop a genocide or two once every generation.

    Let 'em fry.

    The U.S. government can hardly keep a solid grasp on Social Security. Do you really think giving them control of healthcare is a good idea?

    Your special interest group is in no way more important than any other special interest. Unless clearly the voice of the majority: go away!

    Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

    Libertarianism. Die, government, die!

    Americans were given the 2nd Amendment for a very specific reason. If the state cannot, or will not, become subject to the will of the people, then it is our right, via the Constitution, to use violence (if necessary) to amend things.

    Yes, and no. Socially we are moving towards a progressive climate that I find absolutely adorable and palatable. Politically, um... Well...

    More of mine. Die, government, die!

    Yes. I am smarter than you, and my opinions are more righter than yours (though you do have your right to express your dumb views).

    Abso-fuckin'-lutely not. They should never be tolerated in any scope. Fuck your religious right to "Do this, in spite of federal law." This is the law of my land-- you will abide by it!

    We must be culturally sensetive and aware, but we should also be willing to call out dumb cultural shit. Honour killings, using little boys as sexual pleasure devices, and maiming of little girls vaginas are no bueno-- saying "it's their culture" is absolutely retarded, and if you apologize for them, you are a terrible person and I will be sorely tempted to punch you in the teeth before delivering you to them so you can experience "culture."

    Absolutely not.

    Paperwork must be done, licenses and security must be maintained. Use the proper channels. Only under crisis of war and human rights violations should refugee status be given and, I'm sorry, but these people must be put into a political and medical quarantine.

    No.

    If funded by or representing a government or public office or entity, or a open-to-the-public place of business, then yes. Also, yes.

    If we can't protect the one, how can we protect the many?

    Fuck you.


    NSFW (open)

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Religion should hold no sway in politics. I don't think that churches should be "tax-exempt" exactly. I think the money should be claimed, and if say 85% of it goes towards charity there should be a major deduction on their taxes.

    Abortion shouldn't be used as birth control. That being said, I do believe that it's not something for government to decide. It should be a decision for the person, their family and their doctor to decide within a reasonable time frame (before the third trimester) unless there are extenuating circumstances.

    Balanced

    The problem I have with hate speech is that it very rarely stops at speech. It incites and enrages and the situation escalates beyond words. Behind the veil of freedom of speech people become self righteous and hateful and society seems to have lost all sense of common courtesy. I don't think hate speech laws is the answer though. I think the problem lies elsewhere in society, earlier in people's lives.

    I truly believe this is a situational thing.

    I think it's the humane thing to do; it's also more cost efficient than housing/feeding/giving medical treatment to serial murderers.

    State

    No. They are never appropriate.

    Innocent until proven guilty, but the victim shouldn't just be dismissed.

    A big mash up of everything. I believe what I believe, there's not really one group I identify with.

    No. Simply put: because nothing will get solved that way.

    Nope.

    Deliberately left blank.

    No. I'm wrong sometimes and will look at the evidence objectively. If someone can use logic and facts to back up their views in a respectful manner I will listen and consider them.

    Nope. Your religion does not excuse you from following the law.

    This is a loaded question.

    No.

    Legal immigration is great. File the paperwork, get a legal job, take the test and become a citizen. By all means, if you want to immigrate do so! More power to those that do.

    Nope.

    If it's a private business, church, or organization, no. They should reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, and why would somebody want to force them anyway. Go give your money to somebody else who is happy to take it. Get married in a church you'll feel welcomed in. Government offices should not be allowed to refuse service based on individual beliefs though. They're paid by the taxpayers to do a job and they should do the job regardless. If the employees feel they morally cannot complete their job they should find a new one.

    There should be a balance. But if I have to choose one or the other, I'd say I'm a collectivist.

    No.
     
  4. My first instinct is to say no, religious entities should not receive any special privileges just because they're religious entities. However, I'm aware of what religion means to some people and how the organizations can help those in need. As such, it may be better to practice some discretion and have select organizations be granted privileges based on their charity practices rather than their religious bearing.

    No, there should be no limitations. There should be some discretion in later terms, but ultimately it's the woman's choice what to do with her body.

    The role of government should be to foster a happy, healthy and safe society while trying to preserve the freedom of individual units within the society as much as possible. It should be more of a great mediator rather than an all consuming ruler.

    Your Canadian is showing.

    No. People should be aloud to say and believe in whatever terrible things they please, as long they don't act on those belief in a way that damages people or society as a whole.

    I find it interesting that you exclude cases of total war, as if intervention in such cases is written into the laws of the universe or something.

    Context and discretion is key with any difficult international affair, even more so in situations of war. I don't really know, I'm not well versed enough in macro-politics to really have an opinion.

    Overall a bad deal. Dubious on a moral level and disrupting on a social level.

    Two tiered. Yes, this probably means wealthier units will receive better health care than poorer ones, but it does lessen the burden a bit on the state. And it's not like society benefits by forcing everyone to settle for mediocre treatment anyways.

    No. Maybe in contexts where one's identity is relevant, though determining which situations are relevant to one's identity is a pretty iffy issue on it's own.

    Hmm, I'm going to skip out on this one. Not because I don't have an opinion on the subject or care if people know about it, but because I can't help but think there is some sort of agenda behind this question.

    Moderate? Maybe. I guess. I believe the status quo is overall pretty good, but could use some tweaking.

    My opinion is actually pretty complicated on this matter and I don't have the patience to go into the real nitty-gritty of it. In an attempt to summarize it, "context is important."

    Overall, pretty much. Even it it didn't it'd be pretty arrogant of me think it was a serious problem that the government did not conform to my specific views.

    This question confuses me. Isn't the point of political views to say how you think the country would best be run? Anyone who holds views intended to damage the country is either insane or hates the concept of countries to begin with.

    Given time I'm sure my views will mould and change over time. Not only because that happens to pretty much everyone, but because it would be incredibly naive for me to think I have this whole society thing, something humanity has struggled with since the dawn of it's existence, figured out at the venerable age of twenty-one.

    Question #14 2: Electric Boogaloo!

    This is something that should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, too much potential bullshit to go and lay down absolute laws here.

    Another question that seems to have an agenda. Pass.

    No, mostly because my political views align pretty handily with our current perception of human rights.

    Generally a good thing. Especially in first world nations that can't replenish their population with reproduction.

    I'm going to just say no and just leave it at that for now.

    No they shouldn't. Sure, it's pretty fuckin' dickish thing to do and I don't agree with the practice one bit, but any private institution should be allowed to deny service to anyone for any stupid reason they want.

    I think my answers here have made it pretty clear I'm pretty collectivist. I do value the rights and happiness of individuals, but it's not society's job to cater to the needs of a few individuals at the expense of the whole.

    Ferrets are smelly snake-rats. End of discussion.

    EDIT: That ferret Jesus picture is terrifying and will most likely haunt my dreams tonight.
     
    #4 Snakey, Nov 29, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2015
  5. #1: What is your position on the separation of church and state? Do you think that churches & other religious entities deserve their tax-exemption status?

    Religion should not ever touch politics. Ever. Under any circumstances. Religion is based in superstition. The world need to be governed by logic and science.

    #2: What is your position on abortion? Do you think there should be any limitations on abortion?

    It is a womans choice what she does with her body. Nobody but the person in question should affect that. The option HAS to be there.

    #3: What is the role of government in society? Should it be big, or small?

    I am a Scandinavian Democrat. I believe in a goverment that help the poor, runs healthcare, budgets towards all forms of education.

    #4: Hate speech laws. Should they impede freedom of speech, and if so, when is it appropriate to use them? What should they be used to combat?

    No. They generally do not. Hate speach has serious, real life consequences. Especially when spoken by people of influence; See Radical Imans and Homophobic Priests. This is what the swedish definition of hate speach operates upon. Incitement of violence and outright, slanderous and harmful impact is punishable. Everyone is allowed to be an ass, but you cannot go around and recrtuiting for ISIS or Harassing people over heir skincolor.

    #5: Is military intervention in other nations (save in cases of total war) ever acceptable?

    I am unsure. I feel it could be, to prevent genocide of a entire people per example.

    #6: What is your opinion on the death penalty?

    Capital punishment rarely impact crime if my understanding is correct.

    #7: Should healthcare be privatized, two-tiered, or owned entirely and solely by the state?

    Atleast two tiered, Ideally owned solely by the state, provided you have the financial backing of it. I am protaxes for this reason.

    #8: Do identity politics have any place in a democratic society? If so (or if not), in what ways are they most or least appropriate?

    Not as such. Identity policy suffers from a narrow perspective and focus. It often forgets the broader picture.

    #9: In cases of certain, extraordinarily difficult to prove crimes (ex: rape, sexual assault) should the victim always be believed and the accused should prove their innocence, or the innocence of the accused always be presumed as is the status quo for other types of crime?

    The Victim must be given the care and respect they deserve. not treated with the suspicion and disdain I see towards many victims. The accused must be treated as a accused and not as a de-facto guilty party.

    #10: Among various political views (socialism, libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, et cetera), what would you most strongly identify yourself to be, if any of these things?

    In the US/Canada i'd be considered a socialist (Rofl), I am a Scandinavian Democrat. I believe in the free market and a strong state and Humanitarian values. I am also a Feminist.

    #11: Do you believe that political activism should ever become violent if its demands are not met by the state? If so, at what point, or under what circumstances, would it be appropriate to engage in acts of violence?

    Where do we consider it violent? And you might have to get violent when your rights are violated on a daily basis and people suffer en masse.

    #12: Do you believe your country reflects your current political views? If not, do you think this is a serious problem?

    Somewhat. Although the solidarity, humanitarian and factual people I grew up with have turned into xenophobic, racist fearmongers.

    #13: Do you think your country would be better off with more or less political views other than your own? If so, why?

    No comment. I make no assumption that my views are superior.

    #14: Do you believe your current political views are fundamentally superior to all others and will never change, or do you believe that your political views could be changed given appropriate circumstances?

    No. I believe the word is a giant ass Mess. I do believe my views do hold a lot of merit however. I am just not as obnoxiusly arrogant as to think I have all the answers.

    #14: Should religious paraphernalia and other practices which otherwise violate the law or standard labour practices be tolerated? To what extent should they be tolerated?

    No.

    #15: Are cultural sensitivity training sessions in businesses and similar type classes in post-secondary educations useful, or pointless? Further, should they be mandatory, or optional?

    They are usefull. It is always good to consider your fellow man. I don' think they should be mandatory. Very few things should be mandatory.

    #16: Would you ever advocate for the limitation and perhaps even elimination of certain inalienable human rights, should it be required by your political views?

    No. That would make them "alienable."

    #17: What are your thoughts on immigration in general? (Excluding the current refugee crisis.)

    It is beneficial, it is natural, we have a duty towards our fellow man to welcome them and integrate. GOes both ways mind you. It has ALWAYS happened in history.

    #18: Should rights and freedoms be granted or curtailed based on one's race, gender, or sexuality--whether to grant special privileges, such as gender quotas, or protect traditional values, such as banning gay marriage?

    Rights and Freedoms are not race specific. Everyone deserves a fair chance. The starting field is different for everyone and we should work on leveling the playingfielkd.

    #19: Should anti-gay marriage churches, organizations, and businesses, be forced to service homosexual couples? Should anti-gay views be punished with fines or hate speech laws?

    We can't force people to do things in general, but I feel we should ban openly discriminatory treatment of people yes. It is about setting precedence.

    #20: Would you describe yourself as more collectivist or individualist in general? In other words: Are the many more important than the one, or is the one more important than the many?

    50/50

    #21: How adorable are ferrets on a scale of "absolutely" to "Brovo is completely insane?"

    You are completely fucking bonkers. But they are pretty cool I guess.
     
    #5 Hellis, Nov 29, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2015
  6. Can confirm thing #1, I am watching and have the flame thrower ready. Also I'm certainly not paid for this, so the only reward I get is destroying peasants who step out of line. Just give me a reason, I fucking dare you. 8D

    Now it's time for me to be the verbose piece of shit I was born to be and answer those questions.

    I am 100% for the separation of church and state. The joining of faith and rule has always led to the faith-based rulers imposing their faith upon others and persecuting/executing/exiling those who hold other faiths. No thanks to all that noise. Faith is like a penis: it's fine to have one, it's okay to be proud of it, and it's perfectly fine to fondle it in the privacy of your own home, but you shouldn't be shoving it in other people's faces or try to force them to fondle it as well. That's just fucked up, and that's basically what the joining of church and state always leads to.

    As for tax exempt status, well, that's a tricky one. On the one hand, not taxing religions mean that they aren't paying in to taxes and thus do not as an organization have a credible stake in saying how the country ought to be run, therefore maintaining the separation of church and state. On the other hand, they tend to stick their noses into the business of politics anyway, usually in the indirect way of forming coalitions of religious leaders to endorse candidates and campaign for them outside of churches whilst abusing their standing as a religious leader to up their influence, which is effectively as good as tax exempt religious groups getting involved in politics. They also lobby for things, and in fact in the US religious organizations can even spend money on lobbying efforts, which is a blatant and direct political action despite the supposed separation of church and state; it's worth noting, however, that "churches" and "religious organizations" are different things under the law and "churches" cannot put any money toward political activities. So I'm torn on this. I feel like the separation of church and state = no taxes setup is good, it just needs to be actually enforced. I would be okay with a new rule saying any political action by the body or leadership of a church or religious organization will make it lose its tax exempt status, because at that point they're already a political entity that has broken the separation and should be paying into the system that they want to influence, but I would also be okay with strict enforcement of the separation. I guess I agree with the tax exemption in theory, it's just not being done correctly in practice.

    I'm fine with abortion, even in the case of a woman just deciding she'd rather not have the baby, so no limitations on circumstance and whatever. The one thing I wish could be done is to allow the man to have some say in what goes down because the fetus is half his creation as well, but there's currently no way to do that without violating the bodily autonomy of women so pragmatically there's nothing that should be done about it. It's just one of those things that contribute to the truism "life isn't fair," unfortunately.

    Going from specific policy questions to an overarching political theory question, eh? Alrighty then.

    I believe the role of government in society can be defined by a short list of duties: protecting the rights and freedoms of the nation's citizens, national defense, diplomacy with other nations, running and overseeing the justice system, regulating the economy to protect all citizens, aiding in the distribution of goods and resources as needed by the citizens, and generally working toward and protecting the public welfare of the citizens. Or, more simply put, the job of the government is to protect its citizens from the shittiness of other people. Protecting rights and freedoms is protecting citizens from the shittiness of power abusing asshats, national defense and diplomacy is protecting citizens from foreign depredations, running the justice system is protecting citizens from lawless shitheads, and the last few things on the list are various ways of protecting citizens from other citizens who operate within the law but harm or take advantage of them (everything from curbing predatory lending practices to trying to rein in life-ruining medical bills to counteracting the fact that most companies don't pay their employees a living wage nowadays). Doing all of these things requires a large government, so big government it is.

    Fuck hate speech laws. They should not be a thing at all. Freedom of speech is meant to protect distasteful and unpopular speech (including hateful speech), because tasteful and popular speech has no need for protection. Seriously, the entire idea of "you can't say this because it upsets people" is directly opposed to the concept of freedom of speech. The US does a lot of things wrong, but we're the closest to perfect as far as freedom of speech goes because most free speech exceptions under US law are things that cause direct and quantifiable harm, such as incitement to violence or libel and slander or using copyright protected material you don't own, rather than just hurting feelings. We've also got some stupid crap like obscenity not being protected speech, but that's a far sight better than criminalizing any speech that can be classified as hateful.

    Yeah, sometimes, but it's very much a matter of context. Stuff like "preemptive defense" is not acceptable; if you're convinced that another nation is going to slap you, you don't slap first, you stand ready to counter by kicking them in the dick hard enough that they and their ancestors regret their folly. Interfering in civil wars is also not acceptable in most circumstances, let 'em deal with their own problems. The only cases I can think of in which military intervention in other nations may be acceptable are to prevent genocide and other systemic human rights abuses or to aid an ally that is being attacked by another nation. For the former, intervention to prevent genocide and mass rapes and enslavement and such is a good thing, though ideally it should only be done as a joint action with many other nations who deplore such abuses, maybe through UN peacekeeping missions; by the way, preventing further atrocities is the only reason I would approve of intervening in a civil war. For the latter, if a nation you're buddies with is attacked by some jerkoff other nation, then I'd say it's cool to help them out. This is just common sense: alliances are meant in part to scare off those who might try to attack a weaker nation for fear of a stronger one intervening, so if anyone has the temerity to attack anyway then you need to show the alliance has teeth else you might as well throw the entire concept in the garbage.

    I'm fully in favor of the death penalty. Locking people away for life is stupid. If we've determined that someone is too much of a danger to society to be allowed to be a part of it, then we should just kill them and be done with it. A human life does not have some special and sacred value, there are literally billions of us, and the loss of a few thousand terrible ones won't be a bad thing. And for those who say "but the death penalty costs more than lifelong incarceration," to that I say "that's only because we're a bunch of weak-willed pussies about it, a bullet costs less than a dollar." I don't think putting someone down like Old Yeller counts as cruel or unusual punishment, personally, but that makes me kind of a hard-ass. I've had people say that I'm an extreme right-winger just because of this stance, despite all the other things that I'm sure make people think I'm a bleeding heart liberal. :D

    My idealism says fully socialized and owned by the state. My pragmatism says two-tiered would be okay. If you had state-run healthcare, meaning everything from medical supplies to pharmaceuticals to the medical buildings themselves owned fully by the government with doctors and nurses and medical technicians and so on being government employees, then a reasonable system could be established to effectively and fairly do what health insurance pretends it does: make sure all those who buy into the system have the coverage they need without being overcharged. In reality, since health insurance providers are for-profit businesses, and all the various health industry businesses from those who make IV tubes to those who make all the fun drugs they stuff in our faces are also for-profit and those costs get passed along to the health insurers and thus passed along to those who buy into health insurance, this is total bullshit. A socialized healthcare system would only need to be funded enough to produce the required goods, maintain facilities, pay personnel, and expand operations as required to meet demands. There would be no need to also make a large profit to make shareholders happy and wealthy, thus costs could be driven down a lot. All of this is of course a hypothetical ideal scenario where socialized industries don't have profiteering shenanigans, but I'd still prefer the crap being run by the government because then there's some real accountability for shitty practices rather than private industries being able to say "lol too bad, we gotta make money and it's not illegal for us to make a 5000% profit on a lifesaving drug, suck it nerds."

    The two-tiered system would be fine because private healthcare wouldn't really be able to compete with availability and affordability, so they'd have to shoot for quality. I would be fine with letting people who have lots of money opt out of the public health system to pay for the super expensive high quality health care of the private system.

    No, none at all. A democratic society is (or ought to be) concerned primarily with the rights and well-being of individuals. Identity politics are collectivist by nature, and when collectivism reigns you invariably see the rights of individuals destroyed because the collective doesn't give a shit about them. In modern identity politics one of the ways this manifests is as demands for hardworking and capable straight white males to be removed from positions of wealth and power they have earned through their effort and dedication in order to force demographic representation in its place. The intent is not a bad one, but they're basically saying "yeah, I don't care about those guys who worked to get where they are, I don't care whether or not you can find people of certain demographics who have the experience and skills necessary to replace them, fucking throw them out and bow before my ideology." You also see people demanding special protections and extra rights for various minority groups, which is bullshit and unfair to those who would then be in the position of having less rights than others. Most who support and push for identity politics are well meaning people, but you've always got to remember that old idiom about roads paved with good intentions. Identity politics are not really democratic at best, full on totalitarian at worst.

    A fair and equitable justice system requires the presumption of innocence, no matter the crime. The standard of "innocent until proven guilty" is part of the foundation of a free democratic society. It also follows the basic tenets of logic: the burden of proof lies upon whoever makes a claim of fact. Flipping the script on this would be a gross miscarriage of justice and should never be done for any crime, no matter how challenging it is to prosecute.

    Liberalism is the best fit for me, without a doubt. I've got a mix of the emphatic defense of individual rights and belief that the main role of the government is to protect people from each other found in classical liberalism plus the bits from social liberalism that say the role of government also includes addressing social and economic issues. The only reason I don't fully identify with social liberalism is because those parties and policies often aim to limit individual rights in the name of their view of the public good, and I am vehemently opposed to that. Hell, if you were to ignore the role of government issues, my views of freedoms and social issues could make me a libertarian. I'm all over the liberal spectrum.

    Urgh, that's a tough one. There are circumstance in which it's appropriate to elevate from plain activism to violence, but trying to define where that line is drawn is hard. There are plenty of instances throughout history of civil wars being waged for rather reasonable causes, and that's what I'm thinking of when trying to gauge when violence is an appropriate recourse. I guess I'd have to say that the civil war thing is the key to it: political activism turning to violence is only appropriate if a group feels that the current government is being so unjust or oppressive toward them that overthrowing it is the only way it seems their demands might be met. It's a highly subjective thing, of course, but I feel like that's a fine guideline. Things like beating or killing police just to express displeasure or rioting and destroying private property because you're mad at the government are never okay, in my opinion. The only time violence should be used is if other avenues have failed and it is the only recourse left to you, which applies just as much to political activism as it does to general interactions between individuals.

    No, the United States most certainly does not reflect my views of individual freedoms above all else, as can be seen in basically everything done in the name of national security ever since September 11, 2001. They've got all the roles of government I listed covered, so it's not all wrong, but they've fucked a lot of it up by doing things like putting the interests of corporations above those of individuals, so that's bad. I'd say it's a very serious problem, or rather a series of serious problems. Some of the differences of views are things I can live with (like the trend toward outlawing the death penalty), but others like the violation of individual freedoms and pro-corporation leanings I already mentioned are awful and need to be changed forthwith. Priorities, y'know?

    Well obviously it would be better off with more political views like mine. I wouldn't hold them if I didn't think they were the best views to be had, now would I? If all views conformed to my own then the country would be reshaped into my ideal vision, thus it would be the best country ever known.

    That said, I do value differing political views. At the very least, being confronted with alternate views forces you to reassess your own and make sure you have solid reasoning for having them. While I do think my political views are the best, I fully acknowledge that the stagnation and echo chamber that would be caused by every person in the country sharing them would be detrimental in the long run. I've had my mind changed by good arguments before, so killing the possibility of that would be bad. Pragmatically speaking, if I could just customize the political views demographic I'd make 75% of people agree with all my views and let the other 25% go crazy with different things, because then my views would be dominant and in control but there would be plenty of opportunities for said views to be changed by others.

    Oh hey, I already kind of answered this. I do believe my views are fundamentally superior to all others, but they can change. The views I hold are the end result of everything I currently know and have been exposed to being filtered through my morals and values, thus I think they're superior because they're based on my own personal ideals. However, should new information or experiences come along they might end up changing things, because only a zealous fool would dismiss new things that don't mesh with their beliefs. For example, some years ago I used to be very much against any kind of military action that wasn't fully defensive and I was pretty much an isolationist in how I thought the US should deal with other nations, but over time I saw and heard things that changed my mind. Believes and opinions ought to constantly evolve to keep up with new things, otherwise they risk losing touch with the ever-changing nature of reality.

    In other words, should religions be given exemptions to part of the law other than taxes? Nope. If your religion says using a certain drug is a spiritual thing but the law of the land says possession of that drug is illegal, then too bad, sucks for you, don't get caught with it or you ought to face the same penalties for possession as everyone else. To do otherwise would essentially give members of certain religions more rights than others, and I'm not cool with that. Advocate for changes to the law to make your religious practices legal, whatever, that's fine (so long as it's individuals of a certain faith doing it rather than religious organizations themselves), but fight for total change rather than special religious exemptions.

    Whether they're useful or pointless depends largely on their content and presentation, so that's a total toss up. I think they should be optional, with HR departments and disciplinary boards having the option to suggest attending such a session as a way to avoid being punished for minor things like unwelcome flirtation or making racist jokes or so on. The person should of course have the option of saying "nah, I'll take the write up or whatever instead," because forcing someone into a lesson on your ideology (yes, gender/racial/cultural sensitivity is an ideological thing) is bullshit.

    Absofuckinglutely not. One of my political views is "individual rights > all" so any potential points of conflict get shut down hard, if I hold a view that seems to lead to the necessity of limiting or eliminating individual rights then that view is in need of revision, end of story.

    It should be a thing, but it should be regulated. For the US in specific, I'm all for providing plenty of avenues for people to come into this country and eventually attain citizenship, but immigration laws exist for a reason. To be blunt, we should put the needs of current citizens above those who wish to become citizens, and immigration quotas should be based on that premise. If we have a lot of unemployment, we should probably not be bringing in hundreds of thousands of people who are also going to want jobs; if we get to a point of experiencing a major labor shortage, then bring on the immigrants. We should also enforce basic common sense shit like automatically deporting and permanently banning any non-naturalized immigrant who commits a violent crime in the US, because why the fuck should we keep someone who is a danger to our citizens? Y'know, basic stuff. The job of a government is to look after its own citizens, not be nice to all people around the world, so when immigration clashes with the good of the citizens then immigration is what ought to be curtailed.

    I feel like I've already reiterated my view on rights and freedoms a lot, so I'll keep this answer simple.

    No, nobody gets special rights that place them above others, equality means everyone has the exact same rights and freedoms regardless of what information they'd put on a census form, damn it. >:[

    This is another individual rights question as far as I see it (because organizations are owned by and made up of individuals who have rights that still apply), but I'll explain this one thoroughly. Freedom of speech is also more expansively known as freedom of expression, and as such it includes all sorts of non-verbal expressions of one's thoughts and views. I am of the opinion that forcing any non-essential service (denying things like water and electricity and so forth to someone is bullshit because those are necessities and withholding them violates some basic human rights that are more important than freedom of expression) to provide service to anyone whom the owner and/or workers in that service do not wish to help or associate with in any way is a violation of their freedom of expression. This is because forcing someone to say or do something they disagree with, especially if it's something that appears to condone or approve of that thing they disagree with, is just as much a violation of freedom of expression as preventing a person from saying something they believe. Freedom of expression is basically the guarantee that you can express whatever you like (so long as it does not harm others) and you cannot be forced to express things you don't like. Churches against gay marriage should not be forced to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples (and atop freedom of expression they ought to also be protected by the freedom of religion), bakers who oppose homosexuality should not be forced to make wedding cakes for gay couples, a tattoo artist against homosexuality should not be forced to give someone a gay pride tattoo, so on and so forth. Forcing a person to go against their beliefs and do something pro-gay like that would be just as much a violation of freedom of expression as forcing a person to go on video and say they love and respect their oppressive dictatorial government.

    Given all the above, no, I do not agree with the government punishing individuals or organizations for not allowing their freedom of expression to be violated. I think anti-discrimination laws are deeply flawed because of this. They mean well, but they essentially say "don't you dare express your unpopular views through your business practices or else you're in deep shit, kiddo." I'm not down with that. I would prefer a flipped approach of incentive to self-censor your views when running your business and providing services to those you dislike or disapprove of for the sake of attaining that incentive, which would probably be best done as a tax break for not getting reported more than some arbitrary small number of times (so one jackass false claim won't fuck you over) for discriminatory services for the whole year. Nobody has a right to any services outside the government and the essential things that fulfill basic human rights (which honestly should be socialized so private discrimination can't affect them, but that's a whole other topic), but people do have a right to express whatever opinions they like in their speech and actions so long as they are not causing actual harm to another person. Hurt feelings aren't real harm, so as much as people might get upset about this sort of thing it's a clear matter of rights versus wants. The freedom of speech and expression exists to protect unpopular speech, and this is one of those cases. The law doesn't currently agree with it, and I find that to be rather unfortunate, but such is life.

    Heh, another quick and easy one for me. Individualist. See above answers for proof. :P

    9/10, not the most adorable creatures in the world, but pretty fucking adorable.


    tl;dr BOW BEFORE THE MIGHT OF MY WALL OF TEXT, PUNY MORTALS
     
  7. In light of Joricks part on Hatespeach, Hate speach laws here operate pretty much the same as what he says US laws operate. So ammendments is due!
     
  8. Leaning: Far Right, more or less.

    1) Honestly, I think church shuld not exist, its a control-tool for the masses, nothing more. But since it does, and it does have a sometimes-benefical efect on a societys moral compass, I think the two shuld be mostly separated. Mostly, but not fully, because of the afore-mentioned positive efect on society's morals (unles of corse the church it-self is corrupt, thats a diferent story, if so, total separation).

    2) This is a good example of vhere the church may have a positive efect on things. I'm AGAINST abortion, unless (and a very important unless), the woman concived against her will, thru rape. If so, absolutly ABORT. But in any other case - NO. Its nothing short of murder, it shuld be punishable like murder, and it sure wont help the gradual extinction of European society.

    3) Depends on vhat kind of goverment, and how corrupt it is. Realy there is no simple Large or Small here. Smal influence means more personal freedom but less stabilty and easyer outside influence on a country, large means less freedom, but more stability. So I'd say... Medium.

    4) No they shuldnt. People have the right to expres them-selvs how-ever they want. And regulating that only leads to more resistance to it. Its in human nature to rebel any and all restrictions.

    5) Depends if the intervention is sanctioned by the country in question. If it is, yes. If it isnt, no. Hence why Russia's campaign in Syria is absolutely positive and beneficial, at the request of Syria's lawful president Assad, and I see Russia as a big factor for restoring stability to Middle East as a vhole, and keep the terorist war-mongering ambitions of Turkey, Saudis and Israel (and USA to a sligtly lesser degree) in check. Now with their S400 systems there, they can *literaly* clip the wings off anyone causing troble! :) Also why USA interventions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan vere nothign short of criminal acts, in my view. Nobody invited them there, and they totaly ruined those countrys.

    6) Needed, welcome and necesary. Here in Croatia, our justice system is a fucking joke. Rapists get 1-3 years tops (if they even get convicted), murderers get 10 at most. And thats suposed to be justice? No. Someone kills someone? Kill them in return. Someone rapes someone? Castrate them. Punishment shuld ALWAYS fit the crime.

    7) Owned by the state. Privatized health-care in-evitably leads to preferential treatment of the privileged people.

    8 ) No they dont. If they do, its not a democratic society. But then, no society, even so-caled "democracys" are realy democratic.

    9) As much as I'm tempted to say yes on this, I'l have to say no, in the interest of serving justice better. Innocent until proven guilty, like all other crimes. If its the other way around, it culd easyli lead to alot of inocent people being convicted, since rape (as horible as it is) is very easy to fabricate, too.

    10) Semi-conservative National-Socialism.

    11) Yes. Violence is the most persuazive means of activism. But only if the matter in question is existential for the vhole society in question, and if the goverment simply refuses to be reasonable.

    12) Not in the least. If it were up to ME, my country wuld have walled-of the borders at the 1st sign of this migrant-sleeper-terorist invasion, instituted strict control of all foreigners, and promoted the wel-fare of native Croatians. Croatia for Croatians! Now, that the elections are over and the formation of new goverment is stil in progress, I hope the right-wing coalition wins the mandate, and undoes the damage of the past 4 years of leftist-governing.

    13) Definitly with more views like my own. Why? I culd go on a full page of reasons, a cople listed in the above answer, but I'l just say... it may finaly make our goverment grow a litle BACKBONE!

    14) No. Religion already has too much influence in all strata of society. Giving them any kind of preferential laws wuld only encurage that.

    15) Not sure I can ansver that since I dont even know vhat "cultural sensitivity training" is suposed to be? Someone can explain that? Sounds like some liberal joke to me lol. :P

    16) Not gladly, but to insure the cohesion of the kind of goverment I wuld like to have, yes. But even then, only if said rights can in no way be somehow integrated in-to the system w/o compromising it.

    17) Imigration is the result of globalization. That in itself makes it a negative force. It dilutes the worlds' nations cultural identity, and also promotes the degradations of national and in some cases values. Humans are teritorial creatures by nature, to deny and dillute that is damaging.

    18) Family above all. And any traditional value that supports teh institution of family is one that HAS to be enforced. Again I give Russia as a example, and their awesome laws regulating gay population. No matter vhat liberals may think, gay marriage is NOT natural, and it does NOT promote the continuation of the Human species, for the simple reason it can not produce offspring. And I say that even thogh I'm bisexual myself. But I see my bisexuality as a personal preference, a kink, NOT as something that shuld be cosidered natural, because it is not. Gay marriages? Absolutly WRONG.

    19) No... and VERY no.

    20) Right down the middle, I guess. Individualist in some views, colectivist in others. Both have merits and flaws, and a balance betwen the two is needed.

    21) Cuteeee! :)))
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Note: If anyone feels my wording here is harsh/going after them. I haven't even read anyone else's responses yet.
    Like Brovo requested, I'm not going after any individuals here. However my wording for my own views may be rather blunt.

    Separation of Church and State should definitely be a thing.
    The responsibility of the State is to lead a nation, not to cater to individual groups of beliefs.

    Especially when said beliefs have no scientific basis.
    Especially when there are multiple of said beliefs, and no actual away to determine which would be correct even if a God were proven.

    And even in the hypothetical that we not only proved God to be real but also which religion it was, they are still organizations in society and as a result should be paying taxes like everyone else.

    This topic has always been an interesting one, where I only ended up changing views on this about 2 years ago, largely as a result of a debate I had back on the Guild.

    Current position of mine would be that I'm Pro-Choice.
    Admittedly in non-rape, not life threatening cases I still have some issues justifying the act due to previously being Pro-Life.

    But Logically/Scientifically speaking, there's only one human in the equation, the mother.
    And that's where my position needs to stand, and not be ruining people's lives because of some personal doubt in the matter.

    Big, definitely big.

    We got too many people who fall between the cracks when Society takes a "Man eats man" approach to things, we need someone to come in and say "These people deserve to eat, be sheltered, schooled etc.".
    I get the concerns other's have though, if we have too big a government how can we possibly trust them?

    But my counter point to that is "How can we trust society?".

    People seem to look at it in the lenses of the Big Bag Government and the Good Meaning common folk.
    And yea, the common folk might mean well... For themselves and those they're close to.

    But too many people are inherently selfish for me to believe that we can simply trust people to help everyone.
    We need some rules, laws or method of making sure everyone has rights and can take part in society.
    We need ways to make sure resources go to vital projects like roads, scientific research etc, even if there's no immediate benefit.

    That's where Government comes in.

    Hate Speech laws shouldn't impact Freedom of Speech.

    Because when it does so, it is honestly a very subjective thing.
    You start leaving it up to if someone get's offended or not, and if the standards for punishing someone is if someone is offended?
    Well, a lot of people are going to get punished.

    Hate Acts? Now that should definitely be tackled.

    Make it so denying service to customers of X group is illegal?
    Make it so everyone has the same human rights?
    Punish violent acts?

    All those are perfectly acceptable things to be enforcing, because you are inflicting something tangible, physical harm or the rejection of a public service.
    But people's feelings? You open the door to a ton of abuse once people start learning they can cry offence and get opposing view points censored for it.

    There are definitely some cases.

    For instance we never got involved in WWII we'd all be speaking German.
    But in regards to wars today? It's tough to say because if you look at it America and Russia warring in other nations is the reason groups like ISIS exist to begin with.
    But at the same time, if we simply pulled all our men out now ISIS would get free reign to commit a ton of atrocities on the people there.

    It was definitely caused by military intervention that should never have happened.
    But that mistake has now resulted in a case where it might be too late to pull out.

    So in short, yes there are some cases it's acceptable.
    But in other's in not.

    I'm against it.

    It's basically society committing the same act as the person their punishing, but calling themselves justified out of some "Eye for an eye" mentality.
    Now, killing someone in self defence? That might be justifiable, you're in an emergency and there might be no other way to save yourself or a loved one.
    But the Death Penalty isn't that, it's long after the aggressor has been caught and locked away, making it nothing but calculated and pre-meditated.

    Additionally you just outright ended a human life, when he could have been used for programs such as monitored community service, maybe rehab.
    And regardless of those, there are people wrongly convicted of crimes, some of whom end up facing death row as a result.

    By the State.

    And that healthcare being whatever is needed to get the patient recovered.
    A society is simply stronger both financially and morally when everyone can be fixed up without fear of going out on the streets over it.

    I think it does when actual discrimination might take place in society, and we need a Martin Luther King to come in about the matter.

    But I also think that today among first world countries the standards for what counts as deserving has gone to a ridiculous low.
    Which leads me to the next question...

    Innocent until proven Guilty, just like every other crime.
    There's a reason the law is set up that way, because you need act on the evidence, not act on people's fears and personal feelings.

    Like seriously, I could get into more detail here.
    But the only people who I don't think get the concept of "Accusation =/= Proof" are the kinds of people who wouldn't be persuaded through logical explanation any ways.

    If I had to pick one, it'd be Socialist because I believe in supporting everyone in society, and that doing so let's everyone branch out and creates a stronger society.

    But I'm mainly reluctant to identify under a political label the second I say something like "I'm a Socialist" people start assigning _________ views to me, even if I don't hold all of those views.

    I want to say "Only if the state uses violence first".
    But looking recent cases, I know there are people who will set up situations where if law enforcement doesn't use some level of force that people will get hurt.

    Forcing the law to sometimes act first, and then society will turn around screaming "Look! They were violent against peaceful people! Oppression by the state!".
    So in all honesty, I'd have to take this on a case-by-case basis as a result.

    But the vast general rule is if you need to use violence to prove your point, your point doesn't deserve to be proven.

    I think for the most part Canada does.
    But it could do with some changes.

    Mainly to stop playing favouritism to Catholics (though from what I understand this one's more Provincial) and to give more a shit about people's education.

    However, we just got a new Prime Minister, so things might change.

    Both in all honesty. It depends on how they choose to express it.

    Do they come in peacefully, wanting to discuss, debate it, exchange ideas and use it to improve society?
    Or do they barge in convinced that either everyone oppressing them or that a specific group of people are to blame?

    Because a diversity of views can be great, it's how we grow as a result.
    But that only works so well if people want to be diverse, rather than forcing themselves in above all others.

    My Political views have already changed a few times so far, so I know better than to claim mine are superior and would never change.

    All I can say is at the present moment my current political views are the ones that make the most sense to me given the information I have been exposed to.

    No.

    They've violated the law that we all agree to.
    If we give people special treatment over religion we're basically saying "You can ignore the law, if you feel like it".

    Now if this is stuff like "Take X day off because religious Holiday".
    The owner of the store can just close the store if it's one of theirs, or the employee can get a shift change or simply ask for time off.
    Yea, they might not get it... Which really sucks. But remember there are also people forced to work Christmas.

    If you asked me this a few years ago I'd say they're important, but right now? No.

    Mainly because I had one of these classes back in ECE, and from what I saw it wasn't anything like it was intended to be.
    Be sensitive to our diverse society? Nah, here's an entire college class telling you to feel bad for all the Natives.
    Be sensitive to both sexes and let each individual do what they want? Nah, let's talk about how all men are paedophile rapists.

    Maybe if we could fix it to truly be about being diverse. But at the current moment they're just shaming campaigns.
    And are honestly just teaching people a very basic and obvious lesson of "Don't be a dick".

    This is honestly something I'm still trying to figure out fully.
    At least in the case of voting, because with our current system it's basically a "Who caters to the extremists" competition.

    But right now it's just concerns of "This is insane, and there's an obvious design flaw" and me wondering how to address it.
    Because as tempting as saying "Sane people vote only!" might sound there's a number of issues with that.

    1) Way too subjective
    2) We become no better than the oppressors (if not literally become them).
    3) We already have clear examples of where vote limitations lead us.

    I like it.

    It let's people move to societies they like better, and it exposes the world to more cultures.
    And the those cultures start to borrow from one another, and brand new cultures are created.

    Nope.

    Those kinds of things are literally legalizing discrimination.

    I want to say yes.
    But at the same time, it also opens the door for someone coming in and forcing someone to make a Cake with a message like "Kill all Gays" and the person can't refuse even if they don't support the message.

    Yes we could simply say "Then don't allow refusal of LGBT, but allow refuse to Hate Speech", but that goes back to my concerns mentioned with the Hate Speech question above.

    So I'd have to say this is a topic where I can't say for sure, but it looks like a matter where we might need to tolerate some bigoted discrimination if we don't want discrimination based on people's political views.
    No, for the same reasons mentioned in the Hate Speech question.
    The many are more important than the one.
    Because that many has many one's within it.

    That being said though there are some cases where the 'one' needs to be looked after because it will ultimately benefit the many any ways.

    Ex: Legalizing a Gay Marriage, Female Rights etc in a Sharia Law community.

    Technically these are a bunch of one's compared to the many.
    But at the same time legalizing any one of these helps make a more equal society (benefits all) and when you add the minorities together they suddenly become the many.

    Brovo is insane for expecting anyone to not say absolutely. :P
     
  10. Here's a bunch of shitty answers with dumb snark. Have fun.

    I think it's a great idea to use inflexible rules to help govern an ever-changing society.

    Also, no.

    Pro-choice. Limitations should installed but exclusively be health-related if only to protect doctors.

    Ideally it would serve as a servant-leader. I don't want to make big exclamations on this one though because my idealism on this subject doesn't go hand in hand with realism.

    I'd advocate free speech for a hundred percent if so many people weren't fucking idiots. Alas. When you're going through the streets dressed in white sheets screaming "Burn all niggers!" I think we could use a limitation on that. I feel people should be free to express their views, even if they are hateful, but not rally for violent action.

    That said I'm kind of a hypocrite because I'd honestly have no issue with certain people being silenced. That knife cuts two ways, though, so... Yeah.

    Morally speaking, I'd be leaning towards yes. Practically, on the other hand, if people never manage to solve internal issues what good will ever come of those nations? I think it's better to offer refuge to victims than to try and solve a nation's issues for them.

    I'd be in favour if I were to ever trust someone with this power. Even then only in the case of absolute, irrefutable evidence. Confessions do not count.

    Two-tiered. The state to provide the people what they need, private corporations to facilitate innovation and advancement in the field.

    Fuck identity politics. People should be chosen based on merit. Equality of opportunity, sure, but of outcome? Hell no.

    Hey, Brovo, I'm kinda low on funds atm so I'ma accuse you of rape. Because of my accusation, you owe me money, your castrated penis in a box and at least a thirty year sentence. I'm a victim therefore you cannot question me.

    I mean it's really shitty when you're an actual victim of such a crime and nobody believes you, but between that and that fancy new British law, I don't think I have to tell you which I consider the lesser evil.

    I honestly don't. It's always a balancing act. I mean I know the question states 'most' but I really don't wanna. I'm a special snowflake.

    This is a really tricky and situational question. I want to say no but I wouldn't dare saying no as an absolute. If a government abuses it's military force against it's people, for example, I couldn't tell people to not defend their selves and families. I mean it'd be great if we could all pull a Ghandi but I don't see it happening and it takes an extraordinary person to go to such extents of non-violence.

    There's a lot to bitch about, but comparatively we're off really well.

    I'm not sure if advocating a death sentence would work out all that great. Of course there are ways I believe a country should be ran, but if it's not supported by the majority of it's people, it's better to cut a few corners.

    If you close yourself off to new information you have failed as a human being.

    No they should not. Everyone should be equal under the law.

    Good luck trying to do business with Asian businesses if your American business has no idea how to. Really. Good. Fucking. Luck. I think cultural exchange is good and think certain elements of culture should be preserved because of sentimental reasons, but just the word sensitivity training rubs me the wrong way. I'm going to say no because of semantics.

    No. Despite maybe secretly wanting certain people not to have human rights, I could not advocate it.

    Chances are I'm going to live overseas in the future. Again. So. Yeah.

    I'm pretty sure I already answered this. Everyone should be equal under the law.

    No, they should not. I mean they shouldn't bully or back out of commitments like wedding cakes and I certainly hope it would make them go out of business for being douchebags, but we mustn't take away this right.

    I have strong opinions.

    Go home you're drunk.
     
  11. Oh? If I recall correctly, you're Swedish. From what I looked up, it seems Swedish law defines hate speech as "publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith, or sexual orientation" (according to Wikipedia, since I couldn't find an English version of the applicable Swedish law). Threatening is something I don't think should be protected, and most places just have general laws against threats of any kind which are fine, but expressing disrespect? Nah man, no amendment needed, that is stupid to criminalize.

    All hate speech laws I've seen have similar definitions, by the way. Everyone tends to agree threats and incitement to violence isn't okay, it's disrespectful speech against certain groups that they aim to criminalize. If I'm wrong, please, feel free to show me how, though maybe through PMs so we don't derail the thread. :P
     
  12. I have never seen it applied towards "disrespect". If it had, Swedish Democrats would all be in jail.

    Whenever I see it invoked, it has been when people gone of the deep end. I.e, A preacher telling his congregation "That it is their duty to encourage and carry out the punishment of gays."

    I mean. If Swedish Front can have marches where they get to be blatantly racist, neo-nazi scum, I don't think the disrespect rule is practically in play. Especially since you have them screaming obscenities at others who scream back at them.

    Edit; I think it can be tacked on as damning motivation for other crimes? Like. If you punch someone and then attack him over his religion or race, it ups the ante as it is a ideologically driven crime.
     
    #12 Hellis, Nov 29, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2015
  13. Poll: 0___0

    #1: What is your position on the separation of church and state? Do you think that churches & other religious entities deserve their tax-exemption status?
    > Go home, you're drunk.
    #2: What is your position on abortion? Do you think there should be any limitations on abortion?
    > Are you under eighteen and having a baby? Get an abortion. Really. get a life, what's wrong with you? You can't afford that child.
    #3: What is the role of government in society? Should it be big, or small?
    > No country ever had leaders for no reason.
    #4: Hate speech laws. Should they impede freedom of speech, and if so, when is it appropriate to use them? What should they be used to combat?
    > Any individual that resembles having an IQ of 5
    #5: Is military intervention in other nations (save in cases of total war) ever acceptable?
    > *coughs at Cyprus*
    #6: What is your opinion on the death penalty?
    > Off with their heads. No, not really. Matyrdom? Yes, let's breed more suicide bombing. (Disclaimer for any official who might read this previous comment: Please don't take it seriously, it is a joke.)
    #7: Should healthcare be privatized, two-tiered, or owned entirely and solely by the state?
    > I am happy with the NHS, dunno what the fuck the rest of you countries are doing. (Get off my lawn David Cameron)
    #8: Do identity politics have any place in a democratic society? If so (or if not), in what ways are they most or least appropriate?
    > KNOWING WHO PEOPLE ARE. Who doesn't like it. I mean hey lets be shady and pretend to be someone else and fuck off to another country. Lovin' life bro.
    #9: In cases of certain, extraordinarily difficult to prove crimes (ex: rape, sexual assault) should the victim always be believed and the accused should prove their innocence, or the innocence of the accused always be presumed as is the status quo for other types of crime?
    > There is a legal system for a reason! Yay for democracy.
    #10: Among various political views (socialism, libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, et cetera), what would you most strongly identify yourself to be, if any of these things?
    > Not idea, not applicable. JUDGE ME.
    #11: Do you believe that political activism should ever become violent if its demands are not met by the state? If so, at what point, or under what circumstances, would it be appropriate to engage in acts of violence?
    > When did having the bigger dick become a good answer? Get out.
    #12: Do you believe your country reflects your current political views? If not, do you think this is a serious problem?
    > Absolutely not. David Cameron and Edward Milaband.
    #13: Do you think your country would be better off with more or less political views other than your own? If so, why?
    > Oh hell no.
    #14: Do you believe your current political views are fundamentally superior to all others and will never change, or do you believe that your political views could be changed given appropriate circumstances?
    > Nope
    #14: Should religious paraphernalia and other practices which otherwise violate the law or standard labour practices be tolerated? To what extent should they be tolerated?
    > Nope, don't like it they should leave. Easy.
    #15: Are cultural sensitivity training sessions in businesses and similar type classes in post-secondary educations useful, or pointless? Further, should they be mandatory, or optional?
    > No, they're useful if only mildly. People aren't gonna change anyway but all you can do is try, RIGHT? *Shoves humanity down a well*
    #16: Would you ever advocate for the limitation and perhaps even elimination of certain inalienable human rights, should it be required by your political views?
    > And get gang raped by angry mobs? I'm good, cheers.
    #17: What are your thoughts on immigration in general? (Excluding the current refugee crisis.)
    > Cool, seriously. Wanna come to our country? that's fine. GIVE US SOMETHING BACK.
    #18: Should rights and freedoms be granted or curtailed based on one's race, gender, or sexuality--whether to grant special privileges, such as gender quotas, or protect traditional values, such as banning gay marriage?
    > ... I will not dignify this question with an answer.
    #19: Should anti-gay marriage churches, organizations, and businesses, be forced to service homosexual couples? Should anti-gay views be punished with fines or hate speech laws?
    > Yes, assholes.
    #20: Would you describe yourself as more collectivist or individualist in general? In other words: Are the many more important than the one, or is the one more important than the many?
    > I don't describe myself =O
     
  14. I may sound like an ignorant fart so I WILL APOLOGISE IN ADVANCE.



    Keep the church and state separate tyvm. People have different beliefs and values. Deal with it :P

    As for tax-exemption...I have no real opinion on that one -shrug-

    LET THE WOMAN ABORT PLZ. Seriously though, what if the woman is a risk of serious life-threatening conditions if she keeps the baby?

    Keep it small, but not small to the point that shitstorms be happening left and right and the government can't stop them because they don't have the power to do so.

    Everyone should have the right to say what they want, but of course, it's their fault if they say something that has a serious negative impact on society. Basically Freedom of Speech with a side order of common sense.

    Is it really necessary to intervene nations from fighting each other when you're not even involved in the conflict?

    I don't particularly like it...

    STATE-OWNED. People shouldn't have worry about blowing up their bank account just to save a family member or friend.

    I mean, while it is good for public awareness of a demographic, but then there are bound to be people who want 'special privileges' for some weird-ass reason. So in the end...LET'S NOT.

    The first part of that question is basically my answer. I mean, shouldn't that be always the case when proving someone guilty or innocent?

    @_@ I have no fucking clue. Never really thought about that tbh O_O
    Heh...Betcha if it becomes violent, the government will be more likely to not fulfil their demands...

    Ehhh...it's okay I guess over here in down under, but it's not exactly a problem since I'm not really living in fear

    My political view may not respond well to another person's political view...so even if it suits me if may not suit others so I wouldn't say the country will be better off with my political view.

    YEAH TOTALLY MY POLITICAL VIEWS ARE SUPERIOR HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH (please tell me you guys detect that sarcasm)

    Do that and I'll hop onto the next rocket ship to Mars.

    TBH I think that will just allow people to be able to call out others for "cultural appropriation". Of course, multiculturalism and acceptance is important, but do we really need cultural sensitivity sessions to do that?

    HOW ABOUT NOOOOO

    Pretty damn cool if I say so myself

    EQUALITY FOR ALL BRUH

    They should be servicing them imo. And anti-gay views shouldn't exactly be punished either. Just an opinion. A pretty bad opinion imo XD

    Kinda in between. While it's important that we can't serve and cater for everybody's needs, we also have to realise everyone's different and not force them to do things they don't wanna do.

    JUST SHOVE A FERRET UP YOUR BUM ALREADY IF YOU LOVE THEM SO MUCH XDDDDD
     
    #14 Yatagarasu, Nov 29, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2015
  15. #1: What is your position on the separation of church and state? Do you think that churches & other religious entities deserve their tax-exemption status?

    Answer: Separation is very, very good. The only thing that belongs in politics are facts. Not faith as that is weak and not everyone shares the same beliefs as you. As for tax-exemption status, I don't really have an opinion on it. It depends on the church honestly.

    #2: What is your position on abortion? Do you think there should be any limitations on abortion?

    Answer: I'm pro do whatever the hell you want with your body. If the woman is being irresponsible and using abortion as a form of birth control, that's her problem not mine. I do think that late term abortions should never happen unless the mother's life is on the line.

    #3: What is the role of government in society? Should it be big, or small?

    Answer: Government does many good things but it also has issues it needs to fix and as a result, it should be smaller until said issues are fixed or at least not a huge problem anymore.

    #4: Hate speech laws. Should they impede freedom of speech, and if so, when is it appropriate to use them? What should they be used to combat?

    Answer: Freedom of speech is one of the many things that makes America the country that it is. Unfortunately that means people have the right to say whatever they wish no matter what. As long as they don't harm anyone in the process, they're just talking shit. However just because you have the right to say whatever you wish, that doesn't mean there won't be consequences to said words. If you say a racial slur to someone, don't be surprised when that person kicks your ass. So in short, hate speech laws don't really accomplish anything and most hate groups nowadays don't have much of an effect as they used to so they're somewhat useless.

    #5: Is military intervention in other nations (save in cases of total war) ever acceptable?

    Answer: If our allies need our help and ask for it, then we should interfere. If they wanna handle things themselves, then let them handle things themselves. Basically it's situational.

    #6: What is your opinion on the death penalty?

    Answer: I definitely support it even though it's pretty expensive and it's rarely carried out. It's cheaper to just fry them instead of just housing them for life in my opinion.

    #7: Should healthcare be privatized, two-tiered, or owned entirely and solely by the state?

    Answer: Why exactly would I want the government in control of my healthcare?

    #8: Do identity politics have any place in a democratic society? If so (or if not), in what ways are they most or least appropriate?

    Answer: In this day and age, HELL NO! All it does is divide us and creates an "us vs them" mentality. We need to unite as the human race and stop letting labels tear up apart.

    #9: In cases of certain, extraordinarily difficult to prove crimes (ex: rape, sexual assault) should the victim always be believed and the accused should prove their innocence, or the innocence of the accused always be presumed as is the status quo for other types of crime?

    Answer: Innocent until proven guilty exists for a reason and it should stay that way. However the victim shouldn't be treated like crap either. Basically things should be as unbiased as possible.

    #10: Among various political views (socialism, libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, et cetera), what would you most strongly identify yourself to be, if any of these things?

    Answer: I prefer to call myself Independent since I think both the left and the right are stupid.

    #11: Do you believe that political activism should ever become violent if its demands are not met by the state? If so, at what point, or under what circumstances, would it be appropriate to engage in acts of violence?

    Answer: Violence isn't the answer and only serves to make things worse. Ferguson and Baltimore prove this. Martin Luther King is considered the father of the civil rights movement for a reason and we should all follow his ideology.

    #12: Do you believe your country reflects your current political views? If not, do you think this is a serious problem?

    Answer: In some areas yes and in some areas no. No I don't think it's really an issue.

    #13: Do you think your country would be better off with more or less political views other than your own? If so, why?

    Answer: America wouldn't be considered a melting pot if everyone had political views like mine. Diversity is great.

    #14: Do you believe your current political views are fundamentally superior to all others and will never change, or do you believe that your political views could be changed given appropriate circumstances?

    Answer: Seeing as how many of my views have changed in the past several months, I'm going with the latter question. I'm willing to compromise and talk with people who differ from me.

    #14: Should religious paraphernalia and other practices which otherwise violate the law or standard labour practices be tolerated? To what extent should they be tolerated?

    Answer: Hell no. Follow the laws of the land or get the hell out.

    #15: Are cultural sensitivity training sessions in businesses and similar type classes in post-secondary educations useful, or pointless? Further, should they be mandatory, or optional?

    Answer: Seeing as how those aren't being used properly and are a tad redundant, I'm gonna call them pointless for now. They should be optional since most people have common sense to not be discriminatory dicks. At least I hope so.

    #16: Would you ever advocate for the limitation and perhaps even elimination of certain inalienable human rights, should it be required by your political views?

    Answer: No. Everyone deserves rights even if some people are assholes.

    #17: What are your thoughts on immigration in general? (Excluding the current refugee crisis.)

    Answer: I support legal immigration fully. People immigrate for different reasons. Some immigrate because of their careers, some do it because they just want a better life, and some do it because they wanna travel and see the world. I'm all for learning about different cultures and being exposed to different things and people.

    #18: Should rights and freedoms be granted or curtailed based on one's race, gender, or sexuality--whether to grant special privileges, such as gender quotas, or protect traditional values, such as banning gay marriage?

    Answer: Absolutely not. It just creates tension between people and causes war.

    #19: Should anti-gay marriage churches, organizations, and businesses, be forced to service homosexual couples? Should anti-gay views be punished with fines or hate speech laws?

    Answer: If it's private, then no. If it's government owned, then yes since they have no choice according to the law. As for the second question, freedom of speech exists and sadly it protects people's rights to be bigoted assholes.

    #20: Would you describe yourself as more collectivist or individualist in general? In other words: Are the many more important than the one, or is the one more important than the many?

    Answer: I lean more towards individualism since collectivism has turned into totalitarianism now. Not everyone of a specific group or occupation is the same and things need to be approached as such.

    #21: How adorable are ferrets on a scale of "absolutely" to "Brovo is completely insane?"

    Answer: Flock off feather face.
     
  16. Churches need to be exempted from tax, otherwise the state has impeded on religious freedom. Conversely, I think removal of all things religious from the public sphere is hypocritical.

    Against it, except in special circumstances (mother's life is in danger, incest, etc.)

    Small. Big government is synonymous with tyranny.
    Hate speech laws are ridiculous. Education and communication are the tools to destroy racism and bigotry.

    If only they pose a direct threat. Or communist. Depends.

    I support it, but only for serial killers.
    Privatized. I'd be much happier to be in control of my own healthcare, thank you very much.

    Yes. Do they have any good place? Perhaps not. Vote on the issues that matter to you, and if nothing else, pick the lesser of two evils.

    Let the justice system determine it. Guilty until proven otherwise, as it should remain.

    Conservative libertarian.

    Only in the most extreme of circumstances should revolution be waged.

    I live in the United States, so my answer is barely.

    Perhaps more. Diversity is a thing to be appreciated now and again, but there comes a time when it ends up swarming against you.

    I'm stubborn, but I recognize everyone's beliefs are valid to themselves. Only a few years ago I was a socialist, so anything can happen.

    That depends on what we are discussing.
    Cultural sensitivity sessions are 100% pointless. Let everyone think for themselves.

    No. Inalienable rights are something to be defended, not fought against.

    I advocate for immigration reform. It needs to be a simpler process, but I stand firmly against illegal immigration for reasons of justice.

    Affirmative Action in any form should be demolished entirely. It is counterproductive to liberty. While I do advocate a nuclear family structure, I'm often neutral on gay marriage. I'm more in favor of civil unions.

    Churches and individuals should not be punished for expressing their religious views, or acting on them, as long as they are peaceful and no one is physically harmed.

    Individualist. Personal liberty serves everyone in the long run.

    11/10 would ferret again.
     
    #16 Uncle Legens Legentis, Nov 29, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2015
  17. 1. What is your position on the separation of church and state? Do you think that churches & other religious entities deserve their tax-exemption status?

    There should be no state-sanctioned religion or religious organizations ever. Theocracies inevitably wind up serving only the men [and women] who run them. Simultaneously yes, churches and religious entities DO deserve their tax exempt status.

    2. What is your position on abortion? Do you think there should be any limitations on abortion?

    Life begins at conception so yes, short of the life of the mother or rape/incest? I believe abortion destroys a human life.

    3. What is the role of government in society? Should it be big, or small?

    Government should remain as small as possible, with the responsibility to provide for the standing military, infrastructure (roads, railways, etc.), and the maintenance of law and order.

    4. Hate speech laws. Should they impede freedom of speech, and if so, when is it appropriate to use them? What should they be used to combat?

    Hate speech laws should be abolished, this very second. Unless it is a threat to someone’s life, person or property, there is no good reason to inhibit anyone’s speech on any subject. We are not born with the inalienable right never to be offended, and those who think we are need to man up and get a thicker skin. Similarly, for those who think it wise to say whatever comes to mind? Sure, you have the right to say whatever you like, but no one in this world owes you respect, no matter what stupid shit comes out of your mouth.


    5. Is military intervention in other nations (save in cases of total war) ever acceptable?

    Yes, of course it is.

    6. What is your opinion on the death penalty?

    For the most heinous crimes, absolutely.

    7. Should healthcare be privatized, two-tiered, or owned entirely and solely by the state?

    Privatized. There’s nothing more government and bureaucracy can’t screw up.

    8. Do identity politics have any place in a democratic society? If so (or if not), in what ways are they most or least appropriate?

    All politics are identity politics in the end.

    9. In cases of certain, extraordinarily difficult to prove crimes (ex: rape, sexual assault) should the victim always be believed and the accused should prove their innocence, or the innocence of the accused always be presumed as is the status quo for other types of crime?

    Justice without the presumption of innocence is a cruel farce.

    10. Among various political views/groups (socialism, libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, et cetera), what would you most strongly identify yourself to be, if any of these things?

    Libertarian/conservative

    11. Do you believe that political activism should ever become violent if its demands are not met by the state? If so, at what point, or under what circumstances, would it be appropriate to engage in acts of violence?

    No, I do not believe violence is acceptable simply for demands not met. At the same time, acts of violence are appropriate if one finds oneself genuinely endangered under tyranny.

    12. Do you believe your country reflects your current political views? If not, do you think this is a serious problem?

    I believe that, perhaps, about half my nation shares my views. I despair of the general lack of historical and political knowledge in general though.

    13. Do you think your country would be better off with more or less political views other than your own? If so, why?

    Saying yes to this negates free will and denies human nature, so I decline to answer as written.

    14. Do you believe your current political views are fundamentally superior to all others and will never change, or do you believe that your political views could be changed given appropriate circumstances?

    I believe my views are as well thought out and informed by both history and current events, as much as possible. They HAVE changed over time, so yes.

    15. Should religious paraphernalia and other practices which otherwise violate the law or standard labour practices be tolerated? To what extent should they be tolerated?

    Religious paraphernalia should always be allowed, except where they might cause actual danger to one’s self or another in circumstances. For example working about machinery with flowing hijabs, dangling scapulars or jewelry worn that could be caught up is obviously dangerous. And certainly no one should be allowed to cover their face for any reason, for an identification photograph. That’s just silly.

    16. Are cultural sensitivity training sessions in businesses and similar type classes in post-secondary educations useful, or pointless? Further, should they be mandatory, or optional?

    There is nothing wrong learning about other cultures – it’s when it is made mandatory that resentment rises, and often winds up in a decidedly pointless circle jerk where everyone sits around bored, eye rolling and checking off the box.

    17. Would you ever advocate for the limitation and perhaps even elimination of certain inalienable human rights, should it be required by your political views?

    No. Just no. Inalienable rights – the right to practice the religion of choice (or not), to equal protection under the law and freedom of speech are nonnegotiable.

    18. What are your thoughts on immigration in general? (Excluding the current refugee crisis.)

    Every sovereign nation is free to make its own immigration policies as it sees fit. Not much else to say on that.

    19. Should rights and freedoms be granted or curtailed based on one's race, gender, or sexuality--whether to grant special privileges, such as gender quotas, or protect traditional values, such as banning gay marriage?

    No, neither granted nor curtailed.

    20. Should anti-gay marriage churches, organizations, and businesses, be forced to service homosexual couples? Should anti-gay views be punished with fines or hate speech laws?

    A lot of this depends on what you mean by ‘anti-gay.’ Is simply saying one believes homosexuality to be a sin, ‘anti-gay?’ That marriage should be between a man and a woman, ‘anti-gay?’ In a nutshell, if participation in a certain act violates a person’s religious conscience, he/she is in no way obliged to do this act, even in the form of a business (ie. forcing a Muslim or Christian business owner to make a cake or take photos for a gay wedding coming right to mind). This seems ridiculously petty to me – go down the damned street and choose another baker/photographer/venue/whatever.

    I’ve already said what I think about hate speech.

    21. Would you describe yourself as more collectivist or individualist in general? In other words: Are the many more important than the one, or is the one more important than the many?

    Individualist, first and foremost.

    22. How adorable are ferrets on a scale of "absolutely" to "Brovo is completely insane?"

    They’re really cute, but honestly? Kinda smelly to have around the house ><
     
    • Love Love x 1
  18. For the longest time, I used to say that I don’t believe in these sorts of labels and that my political views are whatever I say they are in regards to specific issues. …But then it became more and more clear that most of my opinions do align with a left-wind ideology, so, fuck it, I guess I’m left.

    I had a hard time deciding between moderate left and far left, though, since I wasn’t really sure where exactly the line is drawn between the two. I eventually decided on moderate, though that might not be super accurate according to one’s definition of far vs moderate left, so… do with that what you will.

    I don’t think that any religion should have political authority or that laws should be passed that are based on the beliefs of a religion (for example, making something illegal because it is “a sin” or otherwise goes against a religion). That said, though, I understand the reasoning behind laws made in the interest of religion in general, and not any specific faith. Making churches tax-exempt falls into this category, since it applies to all churches and religious institutions regardless of faith as opposed to governing based on the principles of a specific religion (my response to question #14 falls under a similar vein of thought). Therefore, I agree with churches being tax-exempt. But, I agree that a religious entity shouldn’t have the power to influence politics and push for certain agendas “because it’s what God wants”.

    …Sorry, I feel like I’m not articulating my thoughts on this very well. Hopefully that made sense.

    Personally, from a moral standpoint, I take issue with abortion.

    But, I don’t believe that my personal thoughts on abortion, or anyone else’s, should mean anything in the eye of the law. A woman should always have the option.

    There are so many reasons why a woman might want to get an abortion, and the law shouldn’t be able to judge whether or not those reasons are good ones. As far as the law is concerned, it shouldn’t even matter if a woman is essentially using abortion as a form of birth control. I would discourage it from a moral standpoint, but the law should not create any barriers if a woman decides it’s the right decision for her. If you do something stupid and injure yourself, a hospital can’t deny you treatment just because the injury happened as a result of your own stupid mistake. So, if a woman’s poor decision-making results in an unwanted pregnancy, why should she be denied an abortion just because the pregnancy is seen as her fault?

    If you want to start a campaign telling women that abortion is morally wrong and shouldn’t occur except in extreme cases such as rape? That’s fine. I might even support an endeavor like that — just so long as you keep politics out of it. You can discourage abortion all you want, but, if a woman is dead-set on that decision, the option should be there. Period.

    Side note: Ideally, I do think that the father should have a say in it. But, that’s something for the man and woman to work out for themselves. There are reasons why the father’s permission shouldn’t be a legal requirement, such as in cases of an abusive partner trying to force a woman to have a child she doesn’t want, for example. It could be a complicated situation, and, as with the cause of the pregnancy, it shouldn’t be the law’s place to judge whether or not the father’s opinion matters enough, given all the possible extenuating circumstances. So, at the end of the day, it should be the woman who has the final say over what she does with her body.

    I think that the government should meet the needs of the people. If that means being more hands-on in certain areas, then so be it. But if there’s a clear example of government interference doing more harm than good (public education system, anyone?), then smaller is best. It all depends on the situation, then, and I don’t think a “big” or “small” government across-the-board is really what’s best. A government should be whatever it needs to be to best address the people’s needs.

    I don’t have a strong opinion on this.

    I feel like I’m not educated enough on this subject to have a strong opinion.

    I used to be a stronger supporter of the death penalty, but I’ve been having doubts lately. I’ll just say I don’t have a strong opinion for now.

    I was originally going to say owned solely by the state, but, after reading some other responses on here, I agree that two-tiered would probably be a better system. Still, I maintain that there should be a way for everyone to receive at least adequate healthcare without needing to pay a fortune.

    I feel that identity politics is just way too messy an issue for me to even have a solid opinion about. I judge identity politics-related issues on a very case-by-case basis, and even then, they’re just so… messy. I have no strong opinions here.

    Innocent until proven guilty. There should never be any exception to this.

    I haven’t looked into these groups much at all. I’ve only recently gotten comfortable with calling myself left-wing, given my little disclaimer at the top of this post. :P

    I don’t have a strong opinion on this.

    It’s hard to say whether or not “my country” shares my political views, given how ugly and polarized politics seem to be in the US. I’m sure there are lots of people who agree with me, and lots of people who disagree. It’s hard to say which of my views are even “in the majority”, given how closely-matched and deeply divided the political parties seem to be.

    I do think that this is a problem, but probably not for the reasons you were going for. It would be arrogant for me to say that people not sharing my opinion is a “serious problem” — the problem is more-so the heavily polarized nature of politics in this country, which seems to be leading us absolutely nowhere, and only turns politics into a screwed-up sports team mentality in which the rivalry between Democrats and Republicans has more to do with a name and personality than any actual political agenda. And that is a “serious problem”. I really just can’t wait to see the US pull out of this ugly neck-and-neck situation between the two major parties and have a clear majority party emerge. I would certainly prefer that said majority party be the Democrats, but, even if it was the Republicans, at least I know that shit would get done — and then, maybe, just maybe, that could actually get Americans thinking more about public policy than some dumb popularity contest. If the majority party does well and people are happy, then people are happy. But if the majority party fucks up and people are unhappy, they’ll vote for the people they agree with more. And then we’ll have politics actually working somewhat like it should.

    …But now I’m getting off-topic.

    To answer in terms of the “serious problem” described in the previous question: yes, because then we’d have a Democrat majority that can actually take us somewhere. But, again, that has less to do with my personal views than the fact that our political system wouldn’t be in a complete deadlock if one party managed to take the lead. …And I do certainly think things would be better if that lead was claimed by the Democrats.

    To answer more generally: this almost feels like a trick question. Of course I think that some things would be better if more people shared my opinion — that’s sort of how political opinions work. But, realistically, I’m not going to act like I have all the answers, and differences of opinion exist for a reason. My political views reflect what I think would be best for my country at this current point in time, based on my current understanding of things and my personal experiences. I’m not going to act like everyone should have my opinion — that would be absurd. Hell, just look at how many questions on here I was too uninformed about to even feel like I could comment.

    If would be arrogant to assume that my opinions are superior to all others. And of course my opinions have changed over time as I’ve gotten older, experienced new things, and been exposed to new ideas. And I expect them to change again in the future for those same reasons. That’s not to say that my views often do any complete 180’s — and my views on a lot of things usually stay mostly the same over time, but, yeah. It would also be arrogant to assume that my current political views are the best they’ll ever be and that I’ll never change my mind and conclude that my past self might’ve been wrong about a thing or two. :P

    I think it should be a case-by-case basis, decided primarily based on whether or not it would really harm anyone for a certain group to be exempt from a certain law.

    For example, if one says that their religion allows them to go out and murder people, it should be fairly obvious that they shouldn’t be allowed to do so just for that reason. Giving minors a sip of wine at communion, though? Yeah, it would normally fall under the category of underage drinking, but, not only is it part of a religious practice, it’s also such a small taste of wine that it isn’t going to do any harm to the minors drinking it. It’s a practice that’s important to the Christian faith, and it isn’t doing enough harm to warrant being prohibited in spite of that importance.

    Another case could be made for a Muslim woman having her head covered in her ID photo despite laws prohibiting people from wearing anything on their heads in legal ID photos. Religion is deeply important to people, and a Muslim woman would have an important religious reason to cover her head. I understand people’s concerns about unfair treatment under the law on the basis of religion, but, if you don’t have a religious reason to cover your head, do you really care that much that you aren’t allowed to wear headwear although a Muslim woman is allowed to? Is it really causing any harm that a child is allowed to consume a drop of wine once a week for the purpose of a religious practice?

    I’m not talking about people getting away with murder, but, religion is important to people, and, in cases where an exception to the law would do virtually no harm? Yes, I do think that exceptions should be allowed.

    I do think that cultural sensitivity training can be useful. It really isn’t difficult for someone to do or say something offensive to a particular group purely out of ignorance, and a little bit of education can go a long way in bridging the gaps between cultural groups. But, bouncing off of what Gwazi said, the effectiveness of such training depends a lot on what’s actually being taught. For that reason (among others), I don’t think it should be mandatory.

    I’m still working out my thoughts on this. No strong opinion for now.

    I feel that immigrants should adhere to whatever system is in place if they want to enter the country, as opposed to coming in illegally, but, at the same time, I do also believe that the current immigration system (at least here in the US) is just absurd and requires way too many hoops to get through, so illegal immigration is kind of understandable. I don’t see why immigration should be so exclusive — let people into the country. I have no issues with this. And then, ideally, under an immigration system that makes sense, potential immigrants should work with that system.

    That would be silly. No.

    I don’t think that private organizations should be forced to do things that are against their beliefs. If they lose business for it then that’ll be the consequence of their decisions. But if you’re working for a government organization, then, yeah no, your personal beliefs don’t matter. Your job is to serve the people and your prejudices shouldn’t stop you from doing that job.

    I have no strong opinion on this.

    I prefer meowmeow cats.
     
  19. Absolutely keep them separate. I don't think anyone really misses the days when the Vatican ruled over Europe and could order Crusades and shit.

    As for the tax-exempt status of churches and other religious establishment, I have no problems with it. Most get by with donations, and something seems kind of morally questionable about taxing people's faiths. It's like when Islam was becoming predominant and spreading back in ye olde days, practitioners of minority religions in settlements that fell under Islamic rule had to pay an extra tax. People's rights to practice religion should be preserved, and making it financially difficult can sway things in rather unpleasant directions.

    A woman's body, her choice of what she does with it. Governments and societies shouldn't be able to tell her what she can and can't do to it, and that includes letting her have an abortion.

    For limitations, no abortions past the third trimester, which I think is a pretty standard practice. I do think that people should consider putting a kid up for adoption if they don't want it, but that's ultimately down to an individual's choice.

    I tend to favour bigger governments with far-reaching social services. A government should be able to provide for it's people, and as someone who is pretty well off and works in a stable, lucrative line of work, even I needed to go on Employment Insurance and I shudder to think of what I would have had to pay in medical costs to date if my health care didn't cover it. Of course, a government should never be so big that they cannot be held accountable for missteps. I'm a firm believer that the government should serve the people, not its own interests at the expense of the people.

    I'm a firm believer that personal freedoms should be constitutionally protected, regardless of how we feel about their use. If we start making exceptions and putting limitations on these freedoms, where does the line get drawn? It starts us down a very slippery slope. As soon as you allow for one right to be infringed, and the population grows to accept it, more will very likely follow.

    That said, just because you allow for someone to engage in hate speech doesn't mean you are obligated to give them a platform.

    There's always going to be situations where a military solution is acceptable and oftentimes necessary. The effect does not necessarily even have to be hostile; technically, sending Peacekeepers is a military intervention, and military forces are often used to provide aid to tragedy and disaster-stricken areas.

    That aside, sometimes armed force is necessary, as well. It's up to a nation to decide what's appropriate, and all you can do is hope they're acting on good intelligence and are doing things according to international law.

    Mixed.

    On one hand, some people are incapable of being rehabilitated back into society, and I am a firm proponent of rehabilitation of inmates because statistics show that people who are treated like human beings while incarcerated are far less likely to re-offend, and the death penalty is the obvious solution to those people.

    On the other hand, statistically, it is WAY more expensive to keep inmates on death row than it is just to imprison them for life. Between the costs of retrials, investigations, court and other legal fees, and needing to be absolutely 100% sure you've proven an inmate's guilt, it ends up costing something like 10 times to sentence someone to death compared to just giving them a life sentence. I'd have to dig up the sources I found, but they're pretty easy to find via a quick Google search.

    Also, tied into that last point, there's way too many innocent people who were wrongfully executed than I'm strictly comfortable with to have the death penalty to be implemented.

    Two-tiered seems to be the best compromise. Nobody should be denied access to healthcare, and coming from Canada, I've seen both the huge benefits of having universal health care, and the drawbacks like months-long waiting periods and lack of doctors. If you had a privatized system like much of the US, you end up with insanely expensive healthcare no mortal can afford. A lot of the stories I hear from the US is simply criminal. Nobody should have to pay tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in medial fees just for the right to stay alive.

    On default, no. No one group should be given preferential treatment over another. However, in a democratic forum, everyone should have a voice, and if a party was elected that championed a platform with some identity politics, it should be respected that that was the result of the democratic process. However, if you start to make laws and begin to hold one group over another instead of holding everyone to the same standard, it is fundamentally wrong.

    I hope I understood this question well enough to give a satisfactory answer.

    Innocent until proven guilty. It's largely on the media to not talk about ongoing cases because it is quite possible the reputations of those involved will be destroyed and they'll have to deal with the consequences for the rest of their lives, even if they were rendered an innocent verdict. However, those claiming to be the victims do need to be treated with the utmost care and be taken seriously. It's such a complex issue that there's no simple solution, and it's almost impossible to approach it without bias because of how emotionally delicate it is. It's far too often cases like this are handled exceedingly poorly, and unfortunately, it's not easy to suggest a better way forward.

    I can't say I identify with any group in particular, but I'm a self-described left-leaning moderate. I believe it's good to keep an open mind towards other opinions and be able to change your views based on new evidence, compelling argument, or new circumstances.

    Violent activism rarely goes well. About the only time I can safely say I condone it is if the government violently cracks down on protesters and they defend themselves, but violence as a means to an end? Not a great idea. Most riots and violent protests people see rarely make a cause seem just or warranted, and on the extreme end of the spectrum, we've seen a lot of revolutions in recent history, and many ended up producing something far worse than the government they toppled.

    Just look at Libya or Ukraine and you can see how things can go horribly wrong, so fast. I'm also sure that the Russian revolutionaries in the October Revolutions in 1917 weren't expecting the Bolsheviks to take power and throw the country into decades of brutal dictatorship after they banded together to dispose of an out-of-touch and oftentimes cruel monarchy.

    I'm actually quite proud of how Canada turned things around the last election. The Conservative government, which I had voted for twice, had turned into everything I fear in a government and was taking some really undemocratic measures combined with xenophobic rhetoric and fear mongering tactics that I find disgusting. Apparently, about 75% of the country agreed that that shit was not cool and wasn't the Canada we know and love.

    So, as far as things go, Canada is a wonderful country that may have flaws, but I find myself comfortable with how it's led and it largely reflects my values.

    I think the key to any democratic society is to allow multiple perspectives and political platforms to flourish. This is why we need to abolish the horribly outdated first past the post system, which only allows for 2-3 parties to feasibly exist, and instead adopt something like single transferable vote.

    I know that's not quite what's being asked, but it leads into my answer. I think it's very important for there to be more opinions and ideals different than the ones I own, and it's important that they're given consideration.

    However, I will say I wish far more people would identify as moderates rather than inherently left or right because I oftentimes feel that people vote for the same party, no matter what, with zero consideration for other platforms because they refuse to listen to anything other than their own narrow political views. I'm pretty sure Hitler could run for the Conservative party and Alberta and Saskatchewan would universally vote for him because he ran as a conservative, just like I'm sure that out East in the Maritime provinces, it would be the same thing if Stalin ran for the Liberals. I really don't think a lot of people vote based on their own judgements a lot of the time, and instead latch onto a party and stick with it no matter what.

    I kind of answered this last question. I do think being a moderate is a better position than being overly left or right wing if for no other reason than I'm willing to consider both sides of an issue and make a decision based on facts or what I feel is a more moral decision rather than discard them entirely because they're on the wrong side of the political spectrum.

    However, part of being a moderate is being willing to listen to points, platforms, and arguments and being able to make decisions based off of what you learn. It's possible to be flexible without giving up your principles. As I mentioned earlier, I voted Conservative a few times because I felt their party and platform best suited my views and what Canada needed at the time. Now, I'm leaning towards NDP/ Liberal. This will likely change again as situations change and things develop.

    This is a situational question, but overall I would say no, because the law is the law and so long as an individual is incapable of observing the same codes of practices as other employees, or violate our laws, then it should not be excused. An example would be if your religion demanded you wear a headdress like a turban or need to have a beard, but these interfered with safety equipment like safety helmets and respirators, you become a liability.

    However, if a compromise is able to be found, I'm all for it. Our current Minister of Defense is a Sikh man who was a Canadian Forces combat veteran with decades worth of experience and he retired a Lieutenant-Colonel, which is two ranks removed from the General ranks. He obviously found something that worked within Canadian Forces protocol, and that is an organization that is permitted to discriminate against an individual if they are incapable of doing the job because of reasons like I mentioned in the previous paragraph, and being an organization that uses helmets and gas masks, I'd be interested to look into what the Minster did to work around it.

    I find if you make any kind of non-skill related courses mandatory, they kind of become something of a joke and aren't taken very seriously, even if the intent is good and people generally agree with it. Things like that should be voluntary or a case by case basis; for instance, if an employee is known for being discriminatory, maybe it would be good to put him or her through a course like that. The general workforce or student body? Not the best idea, and it would be expensive.

    Absolutely not. Preserving and championing human rights should be paramount with no compromises allowed. Some things stand above political opinions, and human rights are one of them.

    Love it. If someone is willing and able to relocate to a country of their choosing and are willing to follow the laws and accept the culture of where they're going, everyone benefits in the end. We can only become richer by exchanging cultures and ideas if it's benevolent.

    Nope. Egalitarian approach, all people should be granted the same rights and freedoms equally.

    No, they should not. It's one thing to make homosexuality legal, it's another thing to force someone to provide a service to someone they do not agree with. So long as someone in a government capacity isn't discriminating against a gay individual or couple, and there's options for said couple, then there's no reason why both traditionalists and gays can't get what they want.

    Someone like Kim Davis, for instance, is rightfully demonized for being an absolute cunt nugget for refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals because it was her damn job as a government employee. However, that one situation where a bakery refused to bake a cake for a gay couple? Sure, I don't agree with them for refusing to do the job because fucking hell, but as a business, they have the right to serve or deny whoever they please. Might not be the best business practice, but ask yourself this; if you were a business owner and some dude wearing Klan robes comes in and makes an order for reasons you know are going to be shitty and hateful, would you want to serve him?

    Now, I do not equate homosexuals to the Ku Klux Klan, and the reason for my example there was simply to find a situation where a universally hated group that we can all agree fucking blows whale dick could be applied to put anti-gay business perspectives into a certain light. If you feel you should be able to deny Krusty the Klan service at your establishment, then it would be hypocritical if you said Jebidiah the Baker should be forced to bake a gay couple a cake.

    That said, if Krusty the Klan came to you for a driver's license and his shit checks out, you legally have to give him his license, regardless of how you feel about him.

    More of a collectivist. While the individual should always be respected, we are much better off if we're all working together for a better society, even if that means things like more taxes for better services.

    They aren't bradypus sloths, but they're pretty cute.
     
    #19 Dervish, Dec 1, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2015
    • Love Love x 1
  20. The separation of Church and State is vital to a sane and secular society. Sure, without separation, there might come a day that a multiculturalist, scientifically-minded, benevolent "faith" may take government, but there is equally the same chance of a crazy fundamentalist government if there were no separation. So, no. Church and state must be kept separate with no exceptions.

    As for the tax-exempt status of Churches, I am of two minds. Yes, I would feel somewhat uncomfortable taxing the donations of other people, but at the same time, churches already spend an exorbitant amount of money every year lobbying for regressive policies in politics that align with their views. Literally billions of dollars is taken in by churches every year, mostly spent on the ludicrous salaries of mega-pastors. From this point of view, megachurches are clearly corporations and must be taxed in line with corporate tax legislations.

    Ultimately, abortion must be made legal and regulated. In the end, an unwanted child will be aborted, safely or not, and regulation is the one thing that makes sure that women are safe when pursuing the abortion of unwanted children--for whatever reasons as they might have. Well, clearly, post-birth abortions should never be done. There shouldn't be any limitations on abortion, for whatever reason. Clearly, there can't be late-term limits on abortion because of complications due to health or socio-economic status.

    Government is the arbiter and legislator. It should only be as big as necessary in order to ensure due process and due diligence to all its citizens.

    Hate speech, no matter how hurtful, cannot, in the interest of freedom of speech, be legislated against in the public square. First of all, the line between "hate" speech and legitimate criticism varies from person to person, and a clear definition will be ridiculously difficult to come by. Shielding oneself from the hurtful perceptives and proclivities of others indicates only hypersensitivity--as evidenced by the proliferation of campus "safe spaces" where dissenting opinions are considered "invalidating" and "triggering," ironically trivializing people who are actually invalidated by their peers and sufferers of trauma who are legitimaetly triggered by certain things.

    Whether we like it or not, a little dissenting opinion here and there helps us examine our positions better and find whatever faults as there might be in them. Mindlessly following a movement that holds itself as possessing the moral high ground is equivalent to mindlessly following the opposite movement and only does more harm than good. I know this for a fact. I've been on Tumblr.

    Military involvement of any kind is unacceptable. War is one of the most egregious inventions of the human race and deserves only to be eradicated. Weapons must be used solely in the defense of the planet and the species as a whole--not of individual sovereign states.

    The death penalty is unnecessarily harsh. However, the death penalty is not what is wrong with the criminal justice system.

    Healthcare, I believe, should be a part of the rights of every individual belonging to a country. However, if an individual wishes to seek out better coverage for private pay, they should be able to do so with no barrier to entry other than the evident financial one.

    Identity politics will present itself no matter the society if there is more than one homogenous group of people. Identity politics is necessary for those that identify with certain groups, and is definitely appropriate in the case of legislating against actual discrimination. However, the downside of identity politics is that there are certain groups that will always see certain things as perceived discrimination against them, often citing flawed "studies" that prove that they are being discriminated against, such as christians talking about how there is a war on christianity and the typical social media diatribe on how women earn 23% less than men(on aggregate, and without accounting for other things) or how the "male gamer" paradigm is false simply because console ownership statistics say so(without any indication of console usage).

    The innocence of the accused must always be presumed. There is no question. There is no justice when the accused is presumed guilty from the beginning. Logically and philosophically, the burden of proof lies upon the party that is making the positive claim--in this case the prosecution. If the prosecution fails to bring forward sufficient damning evidence, then there is no reason to believe that the accused is guilty.

    Of the things listed, none. My views stray toward the liberal side of the spectrum, but I have certain conservative views as well. I do not establish at all with socialism, and I believe that libertarianism takes things a bit too far. If anything, I consider myself an egalitarian, and not, as people on Tumblr want to suggest I call myself instead, feminist.

    Political activism should only ever become violent if its demands are not met by a tyrannical dictatorial state, where there is no other option but open rebellion. Otherwise, peaceful protest must be the means with which political activism is carried out, due to the self-evident risk of perpetuating a cycle of anger and violence.

    My current country of residence does reflect my current political views fairly well. I do not think this is a serious problem.

    A country could always do with dissenting opinions, so more political views other than my own are welcome. The only concern is that groups much like the republican party of the united states may manifest, in which case, they do more harm than good, expressing only archaic viewpoints that are fundamentally incompatible with modern paradigms. Those groups are unwelcome.

    I believe that what makes my current political views fundamentally superior to all others is the fact that they will change given suffice evidence. I am skeptical of all statements from both sides, even my own, and I take the time to examine them. If I find a viewpoint that suits my worldview that is sufficiently backed-up, then I will adopt it as one of my own. If a viewpoint I held in the past proves to be harmful in retrospect, then I will abandon it. Is this not how political views should change and evolve over time?

    It depends on the religious paraphernalia in question, as well as the labour involved. It is clearly something that must be decided on a case-by-case basis, but things such as human sacrifice, corrective rape, corrective therapy, child marriage, and other such things must never be tolerated.

    Cultural sensitivity training sessions are useful--however, they immediately lose their usefulness when they are made mandatory. Anyone who already has a prejudice against certain cultures will only feel affronted and coerced into participating into something that they don't want to, breeding resentment. Mandatory cultural sensitivity courses in universities, on the other hand, make an already difficult time in anyone's life even more stressful. A university student wants to finish all the courses associated with the degree they want to pursue in the shortest amount of time, while spending the least amount of money. Adding a mandatory credit--for which they have to pay and spend their time on--is not only stressful, but again breeds resentment.

    No.

    Immigration should be free and open for everyone, provided that proper screening processes are followed. People flee lives that they find untenable, so they must have the option of seeking out other places that will offer them better lives.

    "traditional" values can suck my dick. Tradition has never made a compelling nor convincing justification for anything. Gender quotas are insulting to all genders. A meritocractic system is the best option--though whether such is the case in the real world is a different matter entirely. Rights and freedoms should be the same across all people, but elevating certain groups and beating other groups down to make the playing field even is a fatal mistake.

    Anti-gay marriage churches should not be forced to service homosexual couples as that is their freedom of religion. For organizations and businesses, had this question been asked of me last year, I would have said they should be. Now, however, I do not think so. I think that such businesses should get to run their businesses however they like, and hopefully, the rest of the sane population will make sure that such businesses never see the light of profit again. Anti-gay views should not be legislated against, but the same freedom of speech and religion that they use to exercise their bigoted views must also allow the rest of us to criticise them and shut them down by starving them of business.

    Individualist, but if and only if the individuals in question are part of the people that I consider family. That is, my really close friends. Outside of our little circle, I consider myself more collectivist.

    Ferrets are relatively cute. They're like cylindrical cats.