The Political Compass test!

[Jodan]

i found that survery atrouciously worded but here it is

Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.49

 

[Quazimofo]

Huh... and I thought I was being pretty harsh in some ways. Weird.[/QUOTE]

yeah, for some of those so did I, but i wound up rather extremely on the left, and right on the line between authoritarian and libertarian. (because while people are inherently good and well meaning for the most part, they really need direction and control because they make COLOSSALLY bad decisions FAR too often when left to their own devices.)

 

[ScaryAlmond]

Personally disagree with their famous estimates.
They are missing several different people
A bit shifty if you ask me

Much better
Here is my score seem pretty similar to what i expect bend to AUTHORITY!!!
[img src="http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=0.75&soc=9.38"]
Pretty similar to some other guy but can't put my finger on it

 

[creatorx2]

The word-choice has an inherent bias, as far as I can tell.

"It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society."

How precisely does one disagree with this? Does anyone legitimately believe that people who do not contribute should be given nicer things than people who contribute?

 

[MrGalactus]

^
The effects of a life of punk music and activism, ladies and gentlemen

Not sure how to post images, however i was quite well on the right/libertarian side, 3.62 left/right and -4.92 up/down. Must say, fits pretty well.

Right click the image, copy the image URL, paste it in the comment box. Put (img) before it, and (/img) after it, replacing the round brackets with square brackets.

 

[Zen Toombs]

Mother of All Snips

Good lord! I was going to make some [footnote]not very[/footnote]witty remark about how it took you three days to respond, but when I saw that you responded to my relatively short post with a bloody novel, so all I'll say is "dude, you care WAY too much about this."

And now for some responses:

False dichotomy? False in what way?

I'll let you speak for yourself.

You say we cannot continue the death penalty. I say murderers cannot walk our streets.

See, there's a third option you don't seem to understand. We can keep them in jail. It is a false dichotomy that our choices are "kill them!" and "just let them walk the streets!"

Murderers have to go somewhere upon release, which means innocent people have killers living next door. You might have a released murderer -- not one who simply was never caught, but one who was caught, convicted, and then released -- within 100 feet of you right now. You may never get to read this post because your next door neighbor might decide it's been WAY too long since he last tasted raw human kidney.

Dude. Not suggesting that we should let crazy people just do whatever they want. Not suggesting we should let unrepentant psychotic murderers go nuts. Never suggested that. Stop it, for the love of all that's holy.

Oh and mostly because you asked,here are the statistics on recidivism,

Spoiler: Magical Justice Department Link Go!

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm [Linky link!]

You have expressed great concern over 3-4 people per year being wrongly sentenced to death. Forgive me if I sound callous, but that's a drop in the bucket next to the guilty who escape punishment entirely. Going from 35.29% failure to 35.31% failure doesn't seem all that horrible, especially if the overall murder rate, or the rate of recidivism, could be reduced to the point where we'd have a net gain of human life. I believe this would happen if there were more executions.

This is a myth.
The[footnote]http://www.deathpenalty.org/downloads/RadeletDeterrenceStudy2009.pdf][/footnote] death [footnote]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty[/footnote] penalty [footnote]http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=82[/footnote] doesn't[footnote]http://www.acadp.org/contents/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=41:deterrence&catid=14[/footnote] deter[footnote]http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000983[/footnote] crime[footnote]http://www.futurity.org/society-culture/death-penalty-may-not-impact-murder-rate/[/footnote]. Also, how is the number of people who escape punishment relevant to this discussion?

Forget release, forget up close and personal, if you found out a convicted murderer had killed two guards and a fellow inmate while still in jail -- three more lives that could have been saved -- would you still feel you had the right idea?

It was a question, not a statement. You ask me to think of the 141 death row inmates who had their convictions overturned due to innocence. Have you thought of the inevitable casualties involved in allowing convicted killers who definitely did it to stay alive in prison, or even walk among us?

There we go! Now we're starting to move towards something resembling a reasonable conversation slash debate![footnote]Not sarcastic, I actually mean that and am excited about that.[/footnote]
I also really appreciate you pointing out the (as far as I can tell) only hole in my argument.

Now to respond. In short because I'm tired, that's why we need to restructure our prison system, that's what solitary and such was designed for, and we frequently don't know that someone who has been put in prison is without a doubt a murderer. We've had people go all the way to being put to death before the system realized "oh wait, whatever evidence proves that this person is innocent".

TL;DR I think two things, and I'll put them nice and separate so that it's totally clear:

1: We should not continue the death penalty in the United States for a number of moral, ethical, and economic reasons.
2: We need to reform our prison system from being a "retributive" system to a "rehabilitative" system.

 

[BrotherSurplice]

This doesn't come as a suprise:

Spoiler: viva la revolution!

 

[Bostur]

I'm as boring as most other it seems.

Spoiler

Maybe gamers have some anti-commercialism in common. Also I think politicians may be trending towards the authoritarian due to their job. They are in the business of authority after all. I don't think I would like to have leaders that are as libertarian as I am.

I did miss an option that said "I don't know", or "Undecided". I also felt like disagreeing with all the questions since I tend to disagree with any statement that is so simplified.

 

[Bestival]

Not very surprising to me. What made me chuckle though was that I only really had 'strong' feelings on the last two pages. Sex for everyone! Religion for no one! MUAAHAHAHA.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

Not really at all surprising. Thought I would be a bit more authoritarian, though. This is not at all becoming of Templar...

 

[Lt._nefarious]

Um... Yay?

Although compared to what I read of the rest of you guy's(?) results I am a horrible person and, it would seem, rather boring...

 

[dudycat1]

Spoiler

turns out i am politically similar to Nelson Mandela (and everyone else on this forum), who knew.

 

[Launcelot111]

Mine's about as close to the middle as I would expect

Spoiler

Although the spectrum that I learned and appreciate more back in the day looked a little more like this.

Spoiler

Getting rid of left/right designations makes things a little better.

The best I've seen (which I can't find a picture of) is just the top right quadrant of an XY graph where (0,0) is pure freedom, your x is your willingness to sacrifice freedom for order, and your y is your willingness to sacrifice freedom for equality.

 

[Azeal]

So I'm economically right, which doesn't surprise me at all. The reason so many people are so far left here is because that's just the general opinion of the younger generations. I am socially left (libertarian) though, I don't feel like restricting other socially is a good idea at all.

Also, there were a ton of liberal slanted questions. Disagreeing would make you sound like a terrible person, even if you don't agree with that idea. There were some blatant conservative ones as well, pretty glaring when I got to 'em. But I felt annoyed that some of these questions were a bit biased.

 

[Ljs1121]

Why not, I'll bite. It's been awhile since I've took one of these.

Spoiler: yay

Yeah, that's about the same area I got the last few times. A bit skewed toward the left, but overall no major leanings one way or the other. I'm pretty apathetic when it comes to most things.

 

[Kopikatsu]

What's with all the Liberals? Hot damn.

Spoiler

I have a feeling all the Escapists being so close together is an indicator of our ages and economic levels. I am in my twenties and don't make much money. How about all of you?

I'm in my twenties as well, but I have a considerable amount of money.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

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

I agreed with this. It just seems unfair to the child that it would have to live with it's parents disabilities. And a bit less so to tax payers that will probably have to support the child.

I'm sorry but your argument seems a bit off to me. If you went ahead and asked people with an inheritable disability that they got from one of their parents such as a dangerous heart condition whether or not they would like to exist I'm sure most if not all of them would say yes. In fact now that I think about it I find your stance rather offensive. Surely no inheritable disability is bad enough to warrant preventing the person who has it from ever being born? Isn't it better to live with your parents disability than to not live?

We're talking about an enormous restriction on the lives of a statistically relevant portion of the population. A violation of basic human rights. Imagine the goverment forcibly detaining and castrating you because you have an inheritable heart condition. Your argument is hardly convincing enough to warrant something like that, and even if it was enforcing such a law would be horrible for your countries morale, not to mention extremely impractical.

 

[A Satanic Panda]

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

I agreed with this. It just seems unfair to the child that it would have to live with it's parents disabilities. And a bit less so to tax payers that will probably have to support the child.

I'm sorry but your argument seems a bit off to me. If you went ahead and asked people with an inheritable disability that they got from one of their parents such as a dangerous heart condition whether or not they would like to exist I'm sure most if not all of them would say yes. In fact now that I think about it I find your stance rather offensive. Surely no inheritable disability is bad enough to warrant preventing the person who has it from ever being born? Isn't it better to live with your parents disability than to not live?

We're talking about an enormous restriction on the lives of a statistically relevant portion of the population. A violation of basic human rights. Imagine the goverment forcibly detaining and castrating you because you have an inheritable heart condition. Your argument is hardly convincing enough to warrant something like that, and even if it was enforcing such a law would be horrible for your countries morale, not to mention extremely impractical.

I'm not talking about plain old heart conditions or normal inheritable diseases. I'm talking about the more extreme stuff. Disabilities that would normally kill the child before it reached adolescence. Diseases that occur in say 1 in 300 million. Diseases that make the said child's life just one long visit to the ER again and again. And with no practical treatment.

 

[Upbeat Zombie]

Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77

Not too surprising. I was more surprised to see that Barrack Obama, and most liberal American politicians aren't even considered on the left side.