K
Kestrel
Guest
In light of recent events I'm just going to say I'm proud of Iwaku when I ctrl+f "Innocent until proven guilty." Good job, people. Thank you.
Question #1 said:What is your position on the separation of church and state? Do you think that churches & other religious entities deserve their tax-exemption status?
Question #2 said:What is your position on abortion? Do you think there should be any limitations on abortion?
Question #3 said:What is the role of government in society? Should it be big, or small?
Question #4 said: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?
Question #5 said:Is military intervention in other nations (save in cases of total war) ever acceptable?
Question #6 said:What is your opinion on the death penalty?
Question #7 said:Should healthcare be privatized, two-tiered, or owned entirely and solely by the state?
Question #8 said:Do identity politics have any place in a democratic society? If so (or if not), in what ways are they most or least appropriate?
Question #9 said: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?
Question #10 said: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?
Question #11 said: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?
Question #12 said:Do you believe your country reflects your current political views? If not, do you think this is a serious problem?
Question #13 said:Do you think your country would be better off with more or less political views other than your own? If so, why?
Question #14 said: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?
Question #14 said:Should religious paraphernalia and other practices which otherwise violate the law or standard labour practices be tolerated? To what extent should they be tolerated?
Question #15 said: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?
Question #16 said:Would you ever advocate for the limitation and perhaps even elimination of certain inalienable human rights, should it be required by your political views?
Question #17 said:What are your thoughts on immigration in general? (Excluding the current refugee crisis.)
Question #18 said: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?
Question #19 said: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?
Question #20 said: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?
Question #21 said:How adorable are ferrets on a scale of "absolutely" to "Brovo is completely insane?"
Question #1 said:What is your position on the separation of church and state? Do you think that churches & other religious entities deserve their tax-exemption status?
Question #2 said:What is your position on abortion? Do you think there should be any limitations on abortion?
Question #3 said:What is the role of government in society? Should it be big, or small?
Question #4 said: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?
Question #5 said:Is military intervention in other nations (save in cases of total war) ever acceptable?
Question #6 said:What is your opinion on the death penalty?
Question #7 said:Should healthcare be privatized, two-tiered, or owned entirely and solely by the state?
Question #8 said:Do identity politics have any place in a democratic society? If so (or if not), in what ways are they most or least appropriate?
Question #9 said: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?
Question #10 said: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?
Question #11 said: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?
Question #12 said:Do you believe your country reflects your current political views? If not, do you think this is a serious problem?
Question #13 said:Do you think your country would be better off with more or less political views other than your own? If so, why?
Question #14 said: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?
Question #14 said:Should religious paraphernalia and other practices which otherwise violate the law or standard labour practices be tolerated? To what extent should they be tolerated?
Question #15 said: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?
Question #16 said:Would you ever advocate for the limitation and perhaps even elimination of certain inalienable human rights, should it be required by your political views?
Question #17 said:What are your thoughts on immigration in general? (Excluding the current refugee crisis.)
Question #18 said: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?
Question #19 said: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?
Question #20 said: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?
Question #21 said:How adorable are ferrets on a scale of "absolutely" to "Brovo is completely insane?"
Question #1 said:What is your position on the separation of church and state? Do you think that churches & other religious entities deserve their tax-exemption status?
Question #2 said:What is your position on abortion? Do you think there should be any limitations on abortion?
Question #3 said:What is the role of government in society? Should it be big, or small?
Question #4 said: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?
Question #5 said:Is military intervention in other nations (save in cases of total war) ever acceptable?
Question #6 said:What is your opinion on the death penalty?
Question #7 said:Should healthcare be privatized, two-tiered, or owned entirely and solely by the state?
Question #8 said:Do identity politics have any place in a democratic society? If so (or if not), in what ways are they most or least appropriate?
Question #9 said: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?
Question #10 said: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?
Question #11 said: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?
Question #12 said:Do you believe your country reflects your current political views? If not, do you think this is a serious problem?
Question #13 said:Do you think your country would be better off with more or less political views other than your own? If so, why?
Question #14 said: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?
Question #14 said:Should religious paraphernalia and other practices which otherwise violate the law or standard labour practices be tolerated? To what extent should they be tolerated?
Question #15 said: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?
Question #16 said:Would you ever advocate for the limitation and perhaps even elimination of certain inalienable human rights, should it be required by your political views?
Question #17 said:What are your thoughts on immigration in general? (Excluding the current refugee crisis.)
Question #18 said: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?
Question #19 said: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?
Question #20 said: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?
Question #21 said:How adorable are ferrets on a scale of "absolutely" to "Brovo is completely insane?"
There is a balance and agreement between the Church and the State in secular countries. The Church cannot impose its will upon the state by pressing for the passing of laws based on religious doctrine. In return the State cannot impose its will upon the Church (and those people who engage in its activities) by taking money on the Church for secular purposes. It's a solid balance and one of the few things that we've gotten right. Anyone who thinks religious organizations should not be tax exempt probably didn't get the memo that you stop taking Nietzsche seriously when you graduate high school.Question #1 said:What is your position on the separation of church and state? Do you think that churches & other religious entities deserve their tax-exemption status?
In a Democracy the matter should be decided by local and State governments, let the majority vote on it and that way whatever the local majority population wants it can get. Personally I feel that if you are well off financially and have a partner who will take care of the child. You should keep the child. We need more children to not grow up in poor, fucked up households who can actually be a functioning member of society. If you're poor, abort it. There are enough children scarred by the horrors of single mothers and poverty. And this is coming from a man who was raised by a poor single mother.Question #2 said:What is your position on abortion? Do you think there should be any limitations on abortion?
Instead of the question of small and big government. Instead I think the role of the Government should be solely making sure that the social contract between the Government and the people isn't completely fucked. It's in every Government's best interest is to make sure the people are fed, working and somewhat content. Because if the people aren't these three things, the government ends up on a chopping block. Whether you are a big scary Stalinist State, or a laissez faire state that simply doesn't give a fuck. If your citizens are starving, unemployed and unhappy. People are gonna get hung, and it'll most likely be government officials.Question #3 said:What is the role of government in society? Should it be big, or small?
Lol. Hate speech laws are made more for silencing unpopular opinions then stopping the local kkk rally of five old dudes. Frankly in a world where misery is abundant on a scale and in a way that any citizen of the 1st world can't possibly comprehend. If you can't handle people saying "offensive" things and want the government to silence them. Than i personally think those people should be silenced for their hypocrisy and blatant power-playing bullshitQuestion #4 said: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?
Lets replace intervention with what it really is. An invasion. Intervention is just a euphemism to keep the poll numbers from dipping back home. And there are only two variables to determine if an invasion is acceptable. Does the government in question want to and will the citizens let them? If the answer to both these questions is yes than there you go. "Acceptable" is attaching morality to war when that is a truly foolish thing to do. The ones who refuse to participate simply because "its wrong" are the ones who will get fucked in the end. Do you think any country found Putin's annexation of Crimea acceptable? Or his continuing military contributions in the Ukraine acceptable? Of course not. They denounce it as illegal or immoral and yet because Putin does not attach morality into war and approaches it with the logic of what is best for him and his nation. He wins while the EU and the US shuffles its feet, unwilling to take the steps necessary to curtail him because they decided to attach morality to war.Question #5 said:Is military intervention in other nations (save in cases of total war) ever acceptable?
Don't careQuestion #6 said:What is your opinion on the death penalty?
Do not know enough to answer this question. But speaking as a U.S citizen, either we have universal healthcare or we don't. No half ass compromise. Than again thats pretty much the only thing you get in Democracies.Question #7 said:Should healthcare be privatized, two-tiered, or owned entirely and solely by the state?
Of course! However else could the party bosses manipulate people into voting them back in? Divide them all up by ethnicity and make them weak, bitter and resentful. Pander to them and reduce them to children. Give them a scary boogy man to blame all their problems on. This is a staple of Democracies since the very beginning, its one of the few ways to control the stupid masses so chaos doesn't spread. It just feels more prominent now because as the ethnic minorities in the U.S gets bigger, ethnic tensions rises which leads to manipulation and people getting taking advantage of. Though keep in mind this isn't a permanent solution. Problem with identity politics is that eventually the people associated with that identity turn on each other. You can already see signs within the LGBT community as gay men are slowly being pushed out due to adapting quicker to society than other members of the LGBT community, making them part of the mainstream and less of the identity group (and therefor slowly ostracized)Question #8 said:Do identity politics have any place in a democratic society? If so (or if not), in what ways are they most or least appropriate?
As a person whose dearest friend has been a victim of sexual assault. The burden of proof lies on the accuser. Its a shitty world and I don't know what to say. Though I will state that women lie about rape and ruin lives. That study that says 1 in 5 women on college campuses will be sexually assaulted/raped is misleading, full of shit and offensive to people who have actually been subjects of sexual trauma as they are now nothing more but a part of a political soundbite that will use and manipulate their pain to garner power and influence. If there is a hell I certainly hope those people rot in it.Question #9 said: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?
I subscribe to a combination of Hobbes, Machiavelli and Socrates. Hobbes because the social contract between the government and the people is the be all, end all. Machiavelli because to run a successful country and protect your citizens and make life prosperous for them, you generally have to be willing to do pretty nasty things, often at the expense of other people. Socrates because I believe he was right about democracies, as in they do not work, especially in a large scale. The masses are simply too stupid to be relied upon to make competent decisions for their country. You can look at the democracies in ancient Greece or how the Roman Republic disintegrated and the answer is that they got too big for a democracy to sustain and fell apart.Question #10 said: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?
People, especially in the modern age, are not violent and would not fight, let alone die for a cause. They'd much rather spend their days watching T.V. playing videogames, shit-posting on roleplaying websites, fapping, drinking or actually getting laid. No one wants to rock the boat because everyone benefits by having things the way they are. If things get to the point where there is "Political Activism" (AKA: Insurrection) than boy that Government must have really fucked up. The real question is that when this happens, and it will happen eventually in the States and a lot quicker in Europe, Will our brave activists triumph and take over the country and realize that all their ideals learned in classrooms means jack shit in the land of politics? Or will they be gunned down in the street? Find out in the next episode of Dragon Ball Z!Question #11 said: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?
lol nope. I am a man who believes democracy is a fundamentally broken system when your country is a global super power and that Democracies don't work all that well to begin with. I also believe we are entering an age akin to the beginning of the decay of the Roman Empire. Which really sucks because I would much rather be alive to see the whole thing fall apart than die knowing how fucked my children are going to be.Question #12 said:Do you believe your country reflects your current political views? If not, do you think this is a serious problem?
My political views is essentially Political nihilism. Which I fully admit does not contribute to a healthy government in the slightest. But on the other hand its not like those people who subscribe to your traditional left or right leanings make this country better. They make it just shitty enough to make you continuously hopeless, but just entertaining enough so you don't completely opt out. My political views is the effect, the cause is growing up in a fundamentally broken way of governmentQuestion #13 said:Do you think your country would be better off with more or less political views other than your own? If so, why?
My views are not superior to anyone else, just more realistic. I'm sure that utopia that some guy's got cooked up sounds fantastic. I just can't be bothered to believe in something that will never happen. And my views are changing all the time, just the core remains the sameQuestion #14 said: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?
don't careQuestion #14 said:Should religious paraphernalia and other practices which otherwise violate the law or standard labour practices be tolerated? To what extent should they be tolerated?
Anyone who has taken those types of classes knows they're bullshit. You want true cultural sensitivity? Go and work with people of that culture, say a few fuck ups, piss people off, get embarrassed and there you go. You've learned enough about a culture to not be an idiot. But good lord how embarrassing must it be for the people in these cultures that a bunch of HR people think that your culture is so fragile and sensitive that they have to hire some white woman to lead a class about how to not hurt their feelings. Sounds like the culture in question is a culture of weaklings if you ask me :^)Question #15 said: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?
You have no rights. You never did. The only rights any government can give you is the right not to die of starvation and that's only for its own benefit and even then it fucks up.Question #16 said:Would you ever advocate for the limitation and perhaps even elimination of certain inalienable human rights, should it be required by your political views?
Bring in people with a skill or trade. Nothing more. Here in the United States it made sense before to take in millions upon millions of immigrants to work in factories and tend to farmland donated to us by the Indian Casino Foundation. But now that we have no more Factories and are out of land (Til Donald Trump becomes president and annexes Mexico that is) there is no reason to take in large quantities of unskilled workers. We do not need to put our infrastructure under such strainQuestion #17 said:What are your thoughts on immigration in general? (Excluding the current refugee crisis.)
Like I said earlier, you have no rights. That being said it would be stupid in this day and age to pass laws discriminating against one particular race. It would cause serious internal unrest and Charles Manson's Helter Skelter would come to fruition. On the other hand, what the majority wants, its going to get. And if the majority wants to throw out muslims or mexicans or whatever. The only way you can stop the majority is with a gun, and chances are they have guns too and there is more of them. Basically you can say laws that discriminate are wrong, but if they are supported by popular opinion you're pretty much fucked.Question #18 said: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?
Nah, this is part of the whole separation of church and state thing. We all agree that the Church has no say in the State's affairs. We can't be hypocrites here and be alright with the State saying what the Church can and can't do. The Gay community can get married, this doesn't mean some dumbing boring wedding where the booze is bad and the bridesmaids ugly as sin (so you drink more booze so you don't feel shame waking up in their bed). This is about tax benefits a gay couple can now receive. Everything else is superfluous bullshit.Question #19 said: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?
I personally am a rugged poet individual that no one understands and I must walk this road alone! However society in general would be better off more collectivist, we get shit done more that way. Basically I want everyone working towards the greater good while I take no part and discover myself. I have the feeling this is pretty much the mindset of everyone these days. WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD!Question #20 said: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?
kawaiiQuestion #21 said:How adorable are ferrets on a scale of "absolutely" to "Brovo is completely insane?"
Question #1 said:What is your position on the separation of church and state? Do you think that churches & other religious entities deserve their tax-exemption status?
Question #2 said:What is your position on abortion? Do you think there should be any limitations on abortion?
Question #3 said:What is the role of government in society? Should it be big, or small?
Question #4 said: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?
Question #5 said:Is military intervention in other nations (save in cases of total war) ever acceptable?
Question #6 said:What is your opinion on the death penalty?
Question #7 said:Should healthcare be privatized, two-tiered, or owned entirely and solely by the state?
Question #8 said:Do identity politics have any place in a democratic society? If so (or if not), in what ways are they most or least appropriate?
Question #9 said: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?
Question #10 said: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?
Question #11 said: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?
Question #12 said:Do you believe your country reflects your current political views? If not, do you think this is a serious problem?
Question #13 said:Do you think your country would be better off with more or less political views other than your own? If so, why?
Question #14 said: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?
Question #15 said:Should religious paraphernalia and other practices which otherwise violate the law or standard labour practices be tolerated? To what extent should they be tolerated?
Question #16 said: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?
Question #17 said:Would you ever advocate for the limitation and perhaps even elimination of certain inalienable human rights, should it be required by your political views?
Question #18 said:What are your thoughts on immigration in general? (Excluding the current refugee crisis.)
Question #19 said: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?
Question #20 said: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?
Question #21 said: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?
Question #22 said:How adorable are ferrets on a scale of "absolutely" to "Brovo is completely insane?"
Which quiz was this?A friend sent me some stupid quiz and I got this.
Centrist Anti-Government Total-Isolationist Ultranationalist Liberal
You are a: Socialist Pro-Government World-Federalist Bleeding-Heart Libertine5 Dimensional Policial Compass
Coulda sworn that's what this thread was about. I'm buzzing pretty well so do forgive me.
For something. Fuck if I know what.
Edit: holy shit auto link titles is the tits
Unsurprisingly, we have little in common.Centrist Anti-Government Total-Isolationist Ultranationalist Liberal