- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Political compass: interesting test — Page 2
- Time
- Post link
As I said before, some of the questions don't make much sense. Just look at the first one.
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
Why is this an either/or option? What's good for trans-national corporations is good for humanity in general because said corporations produce the goods and services that keep the world running. Now if any corporation is exploiting people unethically for their own ends, then they should be punished. But the question assumes that the profit motive of global companies is somehow intrinsically hostile to the good of humankind, which is ridiculous.
Answering that question and a few others the typically 'right wing' way changed my results from this:
To this:
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
What's good for trans-national corporations is good for humanity in general
What's good for trans-national corporations is good for humanity in general
ha,ha,ha,ha,haa spoken like a Republican. Just curious, how would you have worded the question?
I personally think there should have been more ways to answer the questions. At the very least, they should have allowed people to say "not sure".
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
I know Clinton is more Authoritarian than I am, but according to that, she's more economically right wing. She wants to make a national health care plan and she's economically right wing? Please.
As I said before, some of the questions don't make much sense. Just look at the first one.
ha,ha,ha,ha,haa spoken like a Republican. Just curious, how would you have worded the question?
I know Clinton is more Authoritarian than I am, but according to that, she's more economically right wing. She wants to make a national health care plan and she's economically right wing? Please.
As I said before, some of the questions don't make much sense. Just look at the first one.
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
Why is this an either/or option? What's good for trans-national corporations is good for humanity in general because said corporations produce the goods and services that keep the world running. Now if any corporation is exploiting people unethically for their own ends, then they should be punished. But the question assumes that the profit motive of global companies is somehow intrinsically hostile to the good of humankind, which is ridiculous.
I agree with this. Answering the questions the way they were stated was a pain in the ass. On some of them, I could clearly tell they were geared toward extremes, so I just looked at them from the opposite extreme and answered appropriately.
Originally posted by: Sweeney599
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
What's good for trans-national corporations is good for humanity in general
Why is this an either/or option? What's good for trans-national corporations is good for humanity in general because said corporations produce the goods and services that keep the world running. Now if any corporation is exploiting people unethically for their own ends, then they should be punished. But the question assumes that the profit motive of global companies is somehow intrinsically hostile to the good of humankind, which is ridiculous.
I agree with this. Answering the questions the way they were stated was a pain in the ass. On some of them, I could clearly tell they were geared toward extremes, so I just looked at them from the opposite extreme and answered appropriately.
Originally posted by: Sweeney599
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
What's good for trans-national corporations is good for humanity in general
ha,ha,ha,ha,haa spoken like a Republican. Just curious, how would you have worded the question?
Ah yes, because again, as we all know, trans-national corporations are nothing but evil. Pure evil I say! Evil!!!
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: sean wookie
Sounds like someone didn't get a result he wanted.
Seriously the test is just for fun.
Sounds like someone didn't get a result he wanted.
Seriously the test is just for fun. True, I was expecting to be more libertarian and on the right side, but I got dead center and that's boring.
But, as Chaltab pointed out, the questions are too heavily based upon ambiguous, political rhetoric. That is a secondary reason I get upset is because this site declares the pretense of being able to tell people what they are (politically) and who they would want to vote for. Nowhere do I see an analysis of real principles of right and wrong:
"Do you care about children being healthy and happy while growing up? Why, that means you're a communist since they care more about children being happy and healthy! You'd most support Hillary Clinton in the general election!"
After all of that, yes, I do find tests like this to be fun. I just wish they would properly qualify their test to people as one that merely ranks us according to popular stereotypes (and how the results are not accurate beyond that).
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: C3PX
Did anybody bother reading the analysis ro the FAQ? It freely admits to not being perfect, and it explains the reason for using ambiguous questions. Again, it is based on European politics, so it is quite a bit off when it comes to US politics. That is why they placed Hilary deep within the conservative section, because to them she is a conservative. I bet if she took this thing on her own, she would be much more on the left side.
Well, that's weird. If their only purpose is to measure "feelings and prejudices" and whether we "lean towards extremism or moderation" on their compass, those are extremely subjective ideas. Therefore, someone like me, who likes to moderate and double-think every decision I make, despite being extreme with my political principles, can come out dead center and left of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, which is absurd. This is more a test of moderation than anything else.
Oh and the whole FAQ sounds like it was written by a snippy, know-it-all asshole. Every question has a quick, inconsiderate reply like this one which replies to concerns that the test might influence test-takers to be more politically correct than they otherwise would be:
"Not really, because we've assured them that not only are their identities unknown, but their responses totally unrecorded. So the only actual pressure will come from themselves. We've found that a lot of people aren't comfortable with the first result, so they go through the propositions again, changing some of their earlier responses. It's a bit like an overweight person stepping back on the scales after removing their shoes."
And, whoever wrote the FAQ up is heavily biased:
"Interestingly, many economic libertarians express to us their support for or indifference towards capital punishment; yet the execution of certain citizens is a far stronger assertion of state power than taxation."
Is he (or she) serious?! Executing a human being that kills another human being (a MURDERER) as a way to protect every other human being's right to have their own life is a "far stronger assertion" of state power? I can practically call it self defense! This person can't claim to know how to classify people on a scale of political rhetoric and then turn right around and defend the test with more rhetoric.
Essentially, the FAQ tells me that this person believes that they are scientifically gauging something (relating to their "compass") and I would disagree. This is for more than just fun as far as they are concerned and I find that odd.
Originally posted by: C3PX
Hmm, I missed the part where the site claimed to be able to tell you who you should vote for.
Did anybody bother reading the analysis ro the FAQ? It freely admits to not being perfect, and it explains the reason for using ambiguous questions. Again, it is based on European politics, so it is quite a bit off when it comes to US politics. That is why they placed Hilary deep within the conservative section, because to them she is a conservative. I bet if she took this thing on her own, she would be much more on the left side.
Well, that's weird. If their only purpose is to measure "feelings and prejudices" and whether we "lean towards extremism or moderation" on their compass, those are extremely subjective ideas. Therefore, someone like me, who likes to moderate and double-think every decision I make, despite being extreme with my political principles, can come out dead center and left of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, which is absurd. This is more a test of moderation than anything else.
Oh and the whole FAQ sounds like it was written by a snippy, know-it-all asshole. Every question has a quick, inconsiderate reply like this one which replies to concerns that the test might influence test-takers to be more politically correct than they otherwise would be:
"Not really, because we've assured them that not only are their identities unknown, but their responses totally unrecorded. So the only actual pressure will come from themselves. We've found that a lot of people aren't comfortable with the first result, so they go through the propositions again, changing some of their earlier responses. It's a bit like an overweight person stepping back on the scales after removing their shoes."
And, whoever wrote the FAQ up is heavily biased:
"Interestingly, many economic libertarians express to us their support for or indifference towards capital punishment; yet the execution of certain citizens is a far stronger assertion of state power than taxation."
Is he (or she) serious?! Executing a human being that kills another human being (a MURDERER) as a way to protect every other human being's right to have their own life is a "far stronger assertion" of state power? I can practically call it self defense! This person can't claim to know how to classify people on a scale of political rhetoric and then turn right around and defend the test with more rhetoric.
Essentially, the FAQ tells me that this person believes that they are scientifically gauging something (relating to their "compass") and I would disagree. This is for more than just fun as far as they are concerned and I find that odd.
Originally posted by: C3PX
Hmm, I missed the part where the site claimed to be able to tell you who you should vote for.
I'm not sure if that was this site actually. But I was pretty sure that I remembered, in the past, this site offering to tell me which political candidates I was best aligned with.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Ah yes, because again, as we all know, trans-national corporations are nothing but evil. Pure evil I say! Evil!!!
actually I would have used the term greedy. They only care about one thing: making money. Ah yes, because again, as we all know, trans-national corporations are nothing but evil. Pure evil I say! Evil!!!
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Sweeney599
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Ah yes, because again, as we all know, trans-national corporations are nothing but evil. Pure evil I say! Evil!!!
actually I would have used the term greedy. They only care about one thing: making money. Ah yes, because again, as we all know, trans-national corporations are nothing but evil. Pure evil I say! Evil!!!
Most companies are this way. After all, you can't stay in business if you don't make money. This isn't limited to trans-nationals. In fact, for most public companies, they answer to the shareholders. If they aren't making money, then confidence in management goes down, the stock price goes down, and eventually the employees leave and they go out of business.
So technically, every person or company that's in business to make money is greedy. Otherwise, they'd just give everything away for free. Free doesn't usually pay the mortgage or put food on the table though.
How big is the company you work for Sweeney? My job has over 50 employees now. That's just about considered small-medium business in California. In fact, we had a huge bunch of regulations kick in when we hit the 50 employee mark. Sure, they care about their employees, but they also care a whole lot about keeping costs low and making money. So much so that we regularly put pressure on suppliers to give us a lower price. Sounds an aweful lot like a "trans-national", except we're still a pretty small company.
"Trans-nationals" get a bad rap. If people really didn't like them, they wouldn't buy products from them. Me, I got to Walmart as little as possible (usually just for an oil change) because I can't stand the place. I can find products just as cheap online and I don't have to deal with the typical Walmart shopper or the employee.
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
- Time
- Post link
Here's what I got
Your true political self:
You are a
Social Moderate
(43% permissive)
and an...
Economic Conservative
(61% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Centrist (61e/43s)
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (-25, 43)
- Time
- Post link
He's DEFIANTELY not where they placed him. He's for small government... so I don't quite understand that and I kinda doubt the accuracy of the test... although the others as far as I saw seem to be accurate except Hillary who should be a bit more Authoritarian.
The other problems is that "right wing/left wing" have switched as of late. It use to be that conservatives believed in Small government, small budgets, no wars, no global interferenece and such...
but looking at how it is today, I almost question the veracity of saying "right" or "left" without giving perhaps somewhat of a clearer statement as to what each means especially seeing as they seem to think that Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton are only a few ticks apart which is perhaps the most absurd statement that anyone could make.
Is it not sad that in this time, we are more surprised by acts of love than acts of hate?
-Me
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Most companies are this way.
you admit it and yet you agree with this statement:
What's good for trans-national corporations is good for humanity in general
Most companies are this way.
you admit it and yet you agree with this statement:
What's good for trans-national corporations is good for humanity in general
that just shows how much of an idiot you are.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Sweeney599
that just shows how much of an idiot you are.
What's good for trans-national corporations is good for humanity in general
that just shows how much of an idiot you are.
Bold words amigo. So seriously, they really don't teach economics in schools anymore? Please Sweeney tell me you were a big fan of playing hookie and you simply couldn't stand economic and so never showed up. Surely it is still deemed as important. If not then I am convinced they are training us to be sheep.
I find it ironic companies like Wal-Mart are evil greedy corporate empires that are making the world a horrible place, while at the same time the poor single mothers who Hilary claims to be supporting probably all shop at Wal-Mart because they can afford it. You know that the even greedy Wal-Mart even gives out scholarships and supports charities. How dare they!
Corporations have to be "greedy" the whole point is to make money. If they are not making money then they are failing, if they are making money then they succeed. When they succeed they provide jobs for you and me, thus improving our lifestyles. Big business is your friend, it is a economic fact. Yes, there should be checks put on them, and laws they have to abide to, not because corporations are evil, but because the people running them are human. Because I am disagreeing with Sweeney the all knowing future Jeopardy champion, I am very likely to be called an idiot for posting this.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
- Time
- Post link
Look at Microsoft for cripe's sake! Your personal opinion of Bill Gates aside, Microsoft's pursuit of profit motive has created thousands of new jobs, made personal computers easier to use, standardized computer language (even programs run on Mac OS open in what amount to windows), and given Open Source advocates a villain to unite against. When Microsoft breaks the law, they should be punished... but when they are pursuing their own interests within the boundaries of the law, they contribute to society. The same goes for any corporation.
On the new test:
Your true political self:
You are a
Social Moderate
(55% permissive)
and an...
Economic Conservative
(71% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Capitalist (71e/55s)
Yay capitalism!
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: C3PX
Corporations have to be "greedy" the whole point is to make money.
and not serve humanity. thanks for making my point, moron. Wasn't it your Saviour said you can't serve two masters at the same?
Originally posted by: C3PX
I find it ironic companies like Wal-Mart are evil greedy corporate empires that are making the world a horrible place, while at the same time the poor single mothers who Hilary claims to be supporting probably all shop at Wal-Mart because they can afford it. You know that the even greedy Wal-Mart even gives out scholarships and supports charities. How dare they!.
Corporations have to be "greedy" the whole point is to make money.
and not serve humanity. thanks for making my point, moron. Wasn't it your Saviour said you can't serve two masters at the same?
Originally posted by: C3PX
I find it ironic companies like Wal-Mart are evil greedy corporate empires that are making the world a horrible place, while at the same time the poor single mothers who Hilary claims to be supporting probably all shop at Wal-Mart because they can afford it. You know that the even greedy Wal-Mart even gives out scholarships and supports charities. How dare they!.
Wasn't Wal-Mart the company that put mom and pop stores on main street out of business? Also those scholarships and charities are chump change to Wal-Mart. They only do that stuff to look good.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Sweeney599
Wasn't Wal-Mart the company that put mom and pop stores on main street out of business? Also those scholarships and charities are chump change to Wal-Mart. They only do that stuff to look good.
Originally posted by: C3PX
Corporations have to be "greedy" the whole point is to make money.
and not serve humanity. thanks for making my point, moron. Wasn't it your Saviour said you can't serve two masters at the same?
Sweeney, I don't give a damn what my "Saviour" said. Would you please stop using scriptures of which you know nothing about and have no respect for in order to "prove" your points. It is really getting retarded. I am not going around pushing my religious beliefs on you, stop pushing what you "think" my religious beliefs are on me.
Originally posted by: C3PX
I find it ironic companies like Wal-Mart are evil greedy corporate empires that are making the world a horrible place, while at the same time the poor single mothers who Hilary claims to be supporting probably all shop at Wal-Mart because they can afford it. You know that the even greedy Wal-Mart even gives out scholarships and supports charities. How dare they!.
Corporations have to be "greedy" the whole point is to make money.
and not serve humanity. thanks for making my point, moron. Wasn't it your Saviour said you can't serve two masters at the same?
Sweeney, I don't give a damn what my "Saviour" said. Would you please stop using scriptures of which you know nothing about and have no respect for in order to "prove" your points. It is really getting retarded. I am not going around pushing my religious beliefs on you, stop pushing what you "think" my religious beliefs are on me.
Originally posted by: C3PX
I find it ironic companies like Wal-Mart are evil greedy corporate empires that are making the world a horrible place, while at the same time the poor single mothers who Hilary claims to be supporting probably all shop at Wal-Mart because they can afford it. You know that the even greedy Wal-Mart even gives out scholarships and supports charities. How dare they!.
Wasn't Wal-Mart the company that put mom and pop stores on main street out of business? Also those scholarships and charities are chump change to Wal-Mart. They only do that stuff to look good.
Yes, Wal-Mart does put mom and pop stores out of business. It is called economics. If you really understood it you could see that you are free to shop where ever you want. The only thing Wal-Mart is guilty of is providing better prices and services. It is the consumers choice of whether or not to shop there. The market (essentially the consumer) decides who will live and who will die. The mom and pop store can't provide prices as low as Wal-Mart, sure, that is sad. But they have the option to adapt and attempt to compete, if they can't then they have to close shop. If they go out of business it is not because Wal-Mart put them out of business, it is because the market chose Wal-Mart over the mom and pop store.
If we really felt this was a great injustice upon mom and pop stores, as you seem to, then rather than having the government tax them to death (which = prices go up, and we the consumers make up for it), or having the government regulate them in ways that somehow restricts them from putting small businesses out of business, why not just go out and practice your freedom of speech by telling people not to shop at Wal-Mart and letting them know how they are destroying small businesses. If your news media outlets would start pumping that into people's brains and informing them how the power to turn the tides on Wal-Mart is in their hands, and that if they would shop at mom and pop's instead of Wal-Mart, mom and pop wouldn't be out of business. Ironically many small businesses use Sam's Club as a means for aquiring inexpensive supplies and merchandise... not quite sure how that adds up but... whatever.
"Also those scholarships and charities are chump change to Wal-Mart. They only do that stuff to look good."
Yup, no doubt. But chump change or not, it is still money that is going to help people. A good deed done for an arguably selfish purpose is still a good deed is it not? If Ebeneser Scrooge offered you five hundred bucks, and somebody else offered you five cents, which one would you rather have? Sure, appreciate them both, but the five hundred bucks is going to stretch a lot further than the five cents.
Hmm, if you added up all the mom and pop stores and all their donations and scholarships they provide, I wonder how it would add up to Wal-Mart's chump change?
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: C3PX
Y The only thing Wal-Mart is guilty of is providing better prices and services. It is the consumers choice of whether or not to shop there. The market (essentially the consumer) decides who will live and who will die. The mom and pop store can't provide prices as low as Wal-Mart, sure, that is sad. But they have the option to adapt and attempt to compete, if they can't then they have to close shop..
you can't ask mom and pop stores to compete with an evil empire like Walmart!
1. Walmart does not provide better service than Mom and pop stores
2. there is no way mom and pop stores can sell stuff at prices Walmart does. Walmart is able to buy cheap stuff cheaply. Mom and pop stores can't do that.
Originally posted by: C3PX
Hmm, if you added up all the mom and pop stores and all their donations and scholarships they provide, I wonder how it would add up to Wal-Mart's chump change?
Y The only thing Wal-Mart is guilty of is providing better prices and services. It is the consumers choice of whether or not to shop there. The market (essentially the consumer) decides who will live and who will die. The mom and pop store can't provide prices as low as Wal-Mart, sure, that is sad. But they have the option to adapt and attempt to compete, if they can't then they have to close shop..
you can't ask mom and pop stores to compete with an evil empire like Walmart!
1. Walmart does not provide better service than Mom and pop stores
2. there is no way mom and pop stores can sell stuff at prices Walmart does. Walmart is able to buy cheap stuff cheaply. Mom and pop stores can't do that.
Originally posted by: C3PX
Hmm, if you added up all the mom and pop stores and all their donations and scholarships they provide, I wonder how it would add up to Wal-Mart's chump change?
they couldn't possibly donate as much as Walmart, they don't have as much!! But what they give, comes from the heart, not to make themselves look better. that was unfair attack on mom and pop stores.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Sweeny, you can't be that stupid. It's not humanly possible.
Sweeny, you can't be that stupid. It's not humanly possible.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
- Time
- Post link
Wal-Mart started out as a mom and pop store. Actually, no, there was no mom. Just the pop.
- Time
- Post link
You are a
Social Liberal
(70% permissive)
and an...
Economic Liberal
(18% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Socialist (18e/70s)
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (74, -119)
modscore: (11, 42)
Social Liberal
(70% permissive)
and an...
Economic Liberal
(18% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Socialist (18e/70s)
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (74, -119)
modscore: (11, 42)
I'M NOT A SOCIALIST!!!!!!
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Sweeney599
that just shows how much of an idiot you are.
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Most companies are this way.
you admit it and yet you agree with this statement:
What's good for trans-national corporations is good for humanity in general
Most companies are this way.
you admit it and yet you agree with this statement:
What's good for trans-national corporations is good for humanity in general
that just shows how much of an idiot you are.
Let's try to follow the logic children. Trans-nationals only care about making money. In order to make money, they have to hire people to do things like accounting, make products, QA, etc, etc. So those people are now making money because the trans-national is making money. See how that works?
Money isn't made out of thin air. It takes a lot of work and a lot of effort by a lot of people.
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Sweeny:
Wal-Mart started out as a mom and pop store. Actually, no, there was no mom. Just the pop.
Sweeny:
Wal-Mart started out as a mom and pop store. Actually, no, there was no mom. Just the pop.
Quality products at low prices if I'm not mistaken. But now that they're huge, they're evil.
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: sean wookie
I'M NOT A SOCIALIST!!!!!!
You are a
Social Liberal
(70% permissive)
and an...
Economic Liberal
(18% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Socialist (18e/70s)
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (74, -119)
modscore: (11, 42)
Social Liberal
(70% permissive)
and an...
Economic Liberal
(18% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Socialist (18e/70s)
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (74, -119)
modscore: (11, 42)
I'M NOT A SOCIALIST!!!!!!
I've been trying to tell you that you are for a long time Sean.
