Poll: Think you think straight? Think again...
- Thread starter Raven's Nest
- Start date
Recommended Videos
By saying that Michelangelo's works are considered great by other people's standards, you partially agree that there must be something objectively good about his work. That isn't a completely subjective opinion.Vie said:
27% im not sure why but after taking that quiz i have an icecream headache and feel mentally violated -_-
You would have to make the same justification for banning anything that could harm others such as driving a car or playing a sport...Jark212 said:
The philosophy behind these questions are more important than the specific examples given...
I got exactly the same score and inconsistency. I kind of misinterpreted the first sentence though, because I read "unnecessarily" as "pointlessly". If I'd have read it correctly, I would have 0% inconsistencies, which is probably not correct.mireko said:
The test does admit that the crux is in this word:
This test attempts to tackle a lot of complicated issues, and it fails because it only allows "agree" and "disagree". Furthermore, some sentences are stated in such a way that whether you agree or not can depend on the part of the sentence you decide to focus on.
That is not completely true, because it hinges on the assumption that I believe that that junkie is not harming anyone else. Maybe he is harming my kids by giving a bad example. Maybe he is harming me and others by grossing us out. Maybe he is harming society by contributing to the drugs problem.Raven said:
Also, the statement doesn't say he's arrested for injecting heroin in front of me and my kids, although it kind of implies it (or at least people can be forgiven for interpreting it that way). So maybe I just think he should be arrested for breaking the law (having heroin on his person) and he just happens to be on the same park bench as me.
I don't want to nitpick, but this is exactly what is wrong with this test.
None, but I know I am a hypocrite and contrite myself on occasion without realising it. This test just didn?t bring up any of the things I am a hypocrite about.
Although a few of the questions need more than an agree or disagree option.
Although a few of the questions need more than an agree or disagree option.
Atheism generally isn't a faith though... it's the lack of faith.Phlakes said:
There aren't many atheists that will say they are for sure 100% there is and can be no god. Without a way to prove it, that idea becomes a faith. Such people are severely lacking in the logic department.
I said that "truth" is subjective but it thinks that me agreeing that the holocaust really happened contradicted that. The explanation was total bullshit.
I thought it meant like philosophical truths. I feel the tests interpretation of "truth" to be way to literal.
Also, I said art is subjective and it told me that contradicted my opinion about Michaelangelo. Thats not a contradiction, I stated my opinion.
It said that Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine. It thinks the fact that I believe that the government needs to test it first to be a contradiction. This is stupid.
I thought it meant like philosophical truths. I feel the tests interpretation of "truth" to be way to literal.
Also, I said art is subjective and it told me that contradicted my opinion about Michaelangelo. Thats not a contradiction, I stated my opinion.
It said that Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine. It thinks the fact that I believe that the government needs to test it first to be a contradiction. This is stupid.
That test is really, really stupid. I got a contradiction for raising taxes to help those in poor countries and money should be spent to save a human life. I disagreed to the first but agreed to the second because in a situation where money would help you should give money but the only ones that can help another country is the respective government. You give money to a poor person, their leader or occupying force will just take it like they did in the first place.
The contradictions are way too vague and the questions are too general. Show me a time when financial support has aided a poverty stricken country out of their poverty and I will be amazed.
Not even support from capitalist countries given to communist Russia in the early 20th century got them out of poverty, and their government wanted the people to live.
The contradictions are way too vague and the questions are too general. Show me a time when financial support has aided a poverty stricken country out of their poverty and I will be amazed.
Not even support from capitalist countries given to communist Russia in the early 20th century got them out of poverty, and their government wanted the people to live.
I got 7%.
You agreed that:
So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends
But disagreed that:
The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised
When I disagreed, I was thinking of drugs along the lines of heroin, not the odd spliff, but fair enough, I guess.
You agreed that:
So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends
But disagreed that:
The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised
When I disagreed, I was thinking of drugs along the lines of heroin, not the odd spliff, but fair enough, I guess.
13% tension quotient.
I say that the tension that they derived from my test is misplaced though. I could only answer agree or disagree and couldn't say 'from my point of view <yes/no> but from others it may be different' which is the only place they got the tension from.
I say that Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists and also that art is a matter of taste. They got tension from that because I say he is and that art is a matter of taste, which makes very little sense because I answered from my point of view. Those two only clash in a very loose sense.
The other it assumed there was tension between was moral relativity and genocide is evil. Again, I state that genocide is evil from my cultural background and that from the outside looking in it is violent, however when you are the one committing genocide it may not be the case. However to want to kill an entire race for little reason is evil, to want to kill an entire race because they all pose a threat is not.
I maintain that I do think straight, the test used a yes or no answer setting to create tension, rather than evaluate it. It's fair game, seeing that there are a near infinite number of answers to give and to make a test with them all would be impossible, but I do heavily encourage that the results be taken with a pinch of salt.
I say that the tension that they derived from my test is misplaced though. I could only answer agree or disagree and couldn't say 'from my point of view <yes/no> but from others it may be different' which is the only place they got the tension from.
I say that Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists and also that art is a matter of taste. They got tension from that because I say he is and that art is a matter of taste, which makes very little sense because I answered from my point of view. Those two only clash in a very loose sense.
The other it assumed there was tension between was moral relativity and genocide is evil. Again, I state that genocide is evil from my cultural background and that from the outside looking in it is violent, however when you are the one committing genocide it may not be the case. However to want to kill an entire race for little reason is evil, to want to kill an entire race because they all pose a threat is not.
I maintain that I do think straight, the test used a yes or no answer setting to create tension, rather than evaluate it. It's fair game, seeing that there are a near infinite number of answers to give and to make a test with them all would be impossible, but I do heavily encourage that the results be taken with a pinch of salt.
I shall copy and pasta my previous answer to this particular question...Jordi said:
The my wording was meant to be pretty ambiguous, I didn't want to lay out a specific dilemma, rather I wanted to encourage the thought process behind making such judgements. I meant to imply that the heroin user should be arrested for possession rather than being a nuisance to others. The level of potential harm is also subjective in this case...
The test isn't perfect, but I think it gives a good general indication of what it's trying to achieve. At the end of the day we wouldn't have so many branches of philosophy if one was deemed to be the most correct.
