There's a tick box missing on each question where the "I don't give a fuck" option should be.

Loser

I think you're the only person to ever spell loser correctly when using it in a derogatory manner.

Grats!

stitch up your loose mouth pansy

impressive

Our 3-letter-"suffiXeZ" contain the eXact same letterZ!

and it's sin!!!!!

Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74

Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13

Economic Left/Right: 8.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54

This test is pretty inaccurate though, and is full of weasel words and misrepresentations.

Agree, I needed to reread some phrases a few times, one or two I just answered out of confusion.

Economic Left/Right: -8.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.54

Your political compass
Quitter.

What?

i got through half of the first page of the test and then quitteded it

me too heh. got through the first page and realized there were 5 more left so i closed the window. nothing against this particular test, just don't have patience for online questionnaires.

^.^

I'm impressed dird, a link that's actually cool.

Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.23

Looks like we are all a bunch of hippies (or educated europeans rather.) Expect for dird.

??
im more left than you on economy youre more left than me on liberty but both are slanted left.
educated european yet expect instead of except :<

the retard baby Q killed my libertarian score :/ and a few others like mothers

It was a joke.

educated europeans???? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLZ

I'm assuming you missed the irony.

didnt have my artificial internet irony detector activated soz

Economic Left/Right: -4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08

Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41

Economic Left/Right: -4.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18

Im Ghandi.

u mean gandhi ?

No wai, that guy sucks dude.

ps, oops.

me too

same

Really, really, stupid fucking questions.

"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."
And umm what exactly is "serving", "humanity", and the difference between that and "trans-national corporations"?
Economy SERVING? ? Should gravity megafuxturbations primarily flow upwards rather than the in the ways of the evil galaxy mudjahadeen?
"I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong." Right or wrong? Is this for kinder gardeners? Moving on.
"No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it. "
Isn't using the word "foolish" foolish and asking if I'm proud of a place just because of it's location rather then anything else just shows you're a fucktard?
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
...dvznjv...cant go on

STFU DICKFACE I BET YOU FAILED

Sir, I believe the term is "RAPPAD"?

=D i dunno, wtf is that?

dunnno, lol!

i'm the dalai lama

these tests are age old; I've taken this one a multitude of times. more importantly, they don't really accurately represent anything. I know what I feel about things; I don't need a test to tell me, let alone to quantify it into some sort of simple number.

nevertheless, judging from what you have posted, I have a feeling that either you really didn't understand the things you were responding to, or you really have what I could call some MESSED up ideas about things. nevertheless, you're entitled to your opinion! as will be evidenced by my political compass:

Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.33

I think those with a number > -6 or so for social liberties is severely disturbed. honestly. how can you want your rights to be restricted so much?
oh well. so's life.

shut it hippie go run round in chaos

that's not what I asked, you erstwhile apathetic pseudofascist preteen. what I asked is how you can want your rights so violated?

too busy watching top gear reality show idol 2008 is what I'd hardly call a valid answer. how are you going to watch top gear 2008 idol american big brother if big brother becomes a real threat?

you will have to perform oral sex on a 'bobby' in order to be granted a television licence [sic], comrade.

I am sure Dird wouldn't mind this, but I'm asking a more general audience.

err sure

o/

one fist in the air, one fist tightly gripping a bobby's wiener. viva la status quo

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.95

Economic Left/Right: -6.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.23

As to yeltsin`s rants. Nothing is more irresponsible than blind complacency and buying into this whole "fortune passes everywhere" neoliberal economist crap.

Tobin´s Tax ftw.

Someone get Jamerio to do it :)

It will probably be something like Hitler only further to the right.

Hitler fascism
Friedman neo-liberalism

true, true

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95

+ "This test is pretty inaccurate though, and is full of weasel words and misrepresentations"

what are you people? a bunch of communists?

I was wondering about that, I believe in the freedom of the people, and a free market, however the market should not be abused, so should have some 3rd party watch dogs (like the coporate police.)

Free market economy is the only economy that works on a large scale, which is why the west is rich and the rest is... eh not. Even China is going towards a free market because they see that it works.

I was saying that to dird n co last night.

Free market economy does some pretty mean things to the progress. Pharmacy companies buy medical patents to throw them in the drawer, deny anone using them and keep selling their profitable pills. US company bought a Russian uranium processing facility just to close it down. Want some uranium? Buy it from us but it costs 17 times more! Marketing budgets that equal research budgets tenfold. Outsourcing jobs overseas to cut costs which leaves whole cities jobless overnight. etc etc Free market economy is a great concept but it should not be applied without respect to ethics and solidarity.

Which is why there should be regulations, but it should not be state regulated. If you put all the power in one basket, it's very easy for someone to come along and abuse it. In the same way, democracy is pathetic compared to a tyranny, however it works because it is far harder to abuse, and it is the only way to guarantee free rights for all people.

"Free market economy is a great concept but it should not be applied without respect to ethics and solidarity."

TBH this is an utopia on the same level with communism (which works too in theory..)

no system is perfect when applied to man..

monopolies \o/

systembolaget weeeeyyyyyyyyyy. lol

my stance is more libertarian than libertarian.

I believe in freedom of everything. essentially, I don't think government has any place regulating much of anythin at all.

I think it's tragic that corporations abuse various things for various reasons, but there's no reason to legislate against that, and do you honestly think that corporations as such could arise had we actually true personal freedoms? no. they simply couldn't, and, more importantly, we would be free to start our own social economy whenever we wanted. the corporations would have NO monopoly when they 1) have no power over the people and 2) try to establish a monopoly (all they could do is sell shit at low prices -- no one would put up with it if they didn't! no one would buy anything).

I'll admit that I haven't thought much through economically, because I really don't care about economics, so much of what I say could be flawed in principle, but I think communism or socialism a generally more viable idea than capitalism. what makes me say viable when you're ready to pounce on me with a multitude of, in your mind, counter-examples (china, russia, et al)?

meh. just because the ideal marxist communism hasn't been attained yet doesn't mean that it can't be or that it's just fantastical dreaming. it just means it hasn't happened. how often has it been tried, really? most communist regimes have used the 'proletariat of the dictatorship' and the promise of economic nirvana to lure the citizenry into allowing the installment of their ulterior motive -- true, permanent dictatorship, or fascism.

I'd hardly call china or russia examples of anything much. good examples of manipulation of stupid people, perhaps. manipulation of stupid people wouldn't be nearly as plausible in a society where those people had the right to speak out against all authority.

finally, on a different topic, this political compass is, indeed, slightly flawed. my compass returned a result of -4.75, -7.33. I'm much more liberal than that, atleast socially so. the only reason my social libertarian number is so high is because it asked personal questions like "A woman can have a job, but her blah blah blah main duty is as a homemaker?" to which I personally answered yes. It should have been worded much differently. while I think that to some degree of women, I don't think any government would have any business legislating such a thing -- not at all, in fact. the answers went a similar way in regards to several other questions.

Jamerio'd

except he knows what's saying, makes sense and isn't full of obvious shit.

hehe if you think you're gonna trick me into reading his post.. well, you're wrong! wrong i tell you!

I'm sure anarchy would be great, if we lived in perfect world with perfect people, however, no one is perfect. Remember that you will be living in a community with people around you, very similar to the people already living around you.

Anarchy would fail because it depends on people. Communism fails because it depends on people. Capitalism works because it only depends on certain people that actually work for it.

I'm not saying it's right, but I like to take the view point that will keep people as free as possible. Unfortunately anarchy will not do that, it will just allow people to be taken advantage of by other people.

You need laws, and you need government, you just need to make sure that the government isn't powerful enough to take over at any point. Or they will, there are so many examples that I can give as failures, it's not just China or Russia, the list goes on and on for centuries. In human history the most truly successful countries, for the people, have all been capitalist democracies, with varying degrees of market regulation, with the exception of a few monarchies (but very few.)

If power is given to any one entity or person, they will eventually destroy personal freedoms.

In the same way, I can list various inventive ways for companies to abuse a monopoly. (Bread, medicine, water?!, how about telephone bills? (www.hellkom.co.za) It also cuts down the amount of jobs available to the people, the amount of cash flow into a country etc. Needless to say, monopolies are BAD. And if it is an essential service or commodity, you HAVE to pay. You can't just wait them out.

I describe myself as very liberal, and would want to guarantee as much human freedom as possible, however there still needs to be guide ines or watchdogs, and rules to follow, because you just can't trust other people!

Economically, I would guess I am centre actually, standard free market with some regulations. Too far left, it all falls apart, too far right, it's abusing the people.

how do you know whether communism or anarchism fail? we haven't had any serious implementations in them in modern times. in fact, anarchism is what got us to where we are; it worked fine once, pre-hammorabi atleast? ;}

I know that no one is perfect. that doesn't tell me that anarchism is a bad idea. I believe there are genuinely evil people -- people who would murder without remorse, unadulterated from birth.

that, to me, is not at all a good argument against anarchy or anything resembling it. it isn't a good argument against democracy. it isn't a good argument against freedom of expression. it isn't a good argument against freedom.

I say things people don't like; I do things people don't like. some people will kill other people. heck, I may even be able to be pushed to that limit at one point in my life. who knows?

my feeling is that even though there may be genuinely bad people, the rights of all people precede the malevolence of the few.
my feeling is that even though there may be genuinely bad people, no one knows that there are.
my feeling is that even though there may be genuinely bad people, there are many more people still who aren't bad but have been perverted.

Steven Weinberg told a New York Times interviewer in 1999, “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

my feeling is that more people would remain virginized to the destructiveness of man were they left unscarred to man's potential be unvirginized.

I wonder if anyone really has any good reason at all to suspect that society would fall apart just because government were taken out of the equation. it simply hasn't been done! we don't know what would happen. this is Marxist, but I honestly think that society probably would collapse, in a sawtooth fashion, until it eventually receded into peaceful existence. that's what Marxism says about communism -- that there needs to be a transitional period, to be certain, but that there isn't any inherent tendency for humanity to be overtly corrupt, and it is only because humany is corrupt, through government, that it is corrupt at all.

Ummm, we have had many serious implementations of communism. The problem is some asshole always comes in and takes over, which is what I meant by it not working. The communism established in Soviet Russia, was true communism, until Lenin died and Stalin took over.

Regardless of the government, it would have failed even if everyone got along, communism doesn't fail because of the government, it fails because it's economically crap. You can't have a doctor, an astronaut, a scientist, etc. being given the same as a street sweeper, factory worker or a farmer. I'm sure that poorer people would love to have the same treatment and pay as more educated people, but it is quite unfair to someone who has worked really hard to get where they are. That's just one part of where it fails.

You talk of anarchism not being implemented either, well that too has been done in the past, the problem is that the country next door come's in and takes over, which would ultimately happen. You can be damn sure that if a country like the UK became anarchistic without a government or military you will have some other country in the world invading it.

Also regarding people, there is no difference between genuinely bad people and perverted people. They both do bad things, in an anarchistic society you only need one bad guy out of a million to do a whole lot of harm.

Also, it's very easy to say in a developed area like Europe that you don't need the government, but read up about Africa and see just how bad it can get without a stable government. Then there is still economic matters, which generally fucks everything up.

Maybe an anarchistic society will work, if implemented correctly, and everyone will be happy... until the first major disaster happens. Like a case of bird flu, or a hurricane, or a depression... Desperate people do desperate things, well anyway I'm going to leave this. I really don't see anyway that anarchy can be implemented long term, you need a police force and laws, with laws you need representation, with representation you spokes people, and then you need government. Then you would need every country on Earth to conform to that. Anyway, lata.

Ummm, we have had many serious implementations of communism.

no we didnt. if you read marx a bit more carefully you'd realize why china/russia are such bad examples.


edit:
the test fucking sucks i'm nowhere near gandhi / dalai lama what is this :< although bartok and prokofiev are kinda cool in my opinion.

this should be taken more lightly as it's only good for some amusement not as a starting point for a political debate. how did they come up with some of what is supposed to be "left"? i can't really agree with large parts of it :}

Could you give any actual examples?

Maybe it is answered in the FAQ?

Don't forget that this was clearly designed from a UK perspective and it isn't meant to be a definitive answer, more of a "guide".

not that easy....

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
as a "lefty" i'm supposed to strongly agree here while on the contrary i believe the whole question is a misconception: capitalism is build on the foundation that each on their own should care about themselves and we all will benefit in the end. globalisation isn't supposed to primarily serve humanity and it never will so what do i do? strongly disagree? i'd rather not pick an answer but that isn't possible.

Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.
"left" is probably supposed to be anti-war but i'm not and i don't see why i should be. long dicussion but bad question in my eyes.

Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
again... no they won't do it voluntarily but out of economic interest. what do i pick?

It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society. & The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders. & A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies..
see #1. it's capitalism : ) the few on top are not responsible for what's going on they just played the game right. why hate the player - hate the game etc...

There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
i got the feeeling the right "lefty" answer would be to agree? if so i don't see why.

Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.
!? : )

i like the authoritan - libertarian part of the questionnaire but i don't think the left - right questions are any good.
--------------------

i see even more problems when looking at the "analysis" chart:

chirac, aznar and olmert (leaders of democratic systems) are higher on the facism scale than benedict and (!) abbas? bush is the closest here to mugabe? come on... what the fuck is that supposed to tell me other than "we hate them jews and americans"? good job on at least getting the cliche right.
there's also an obvious lack of anarcho librarians like nozick etc.

basically the whole questionnaire is heavily biased and the best example is the outcome in this thread. no... esr isn't full of commies : )

Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.
"left" is probably supposed to be anti-war but i'm not and i don't see why i should be. long dicussion but bad question in my eyes.

Is an Up/Down question not Left/Right. Left/Right is ONLY economical view point.

There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
i got the feeeling the right "lefty" answer would be to agree? if so i don't see why.

Again Up/Down not Left/Right.


I agree that some of the other questions are slightly "wrong" but it's not meant to be a totally accurate representation of your beliefs it's supposed to be a "ball park" type of thing.

I don't see how the questionairre is biased, why would they care if you are right/left? I think people just ultimately are more left wing than they like to think, in the West left wing is seen very negatively for some reason (Especially in the USA).

Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.
"left" is probably supposed to be anti-war but i'm not and i don't see why i should be. long dicussion but bad question in my eyes.

the majority of most lefties arent anti-war and thats not the question. its wars that goes against international war like iraq

Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
again... no they won't do it voluntarily but out of economic interest. what do i pick?

your opinion. it is because of the economic interest that they wont do it so its whether you think regulations should be in place to force change e.g. amounts of pollution a company can emit

There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
i got the feeeling the right "lefty" answer would be to agree? if so i don't see why.
because racists see black people as scum & uncivilised & sometimes even savage. racists are righties

racists don't see black people as scum, and don't necessarily see anything as scum. racists see one or multiple races as being superior to one or more inferior races.

Ok, unfortunately I have not read Marx at all and am going by hearsay. I think Lenin wanted to approach the ideals of Marx, but he died before the goal was completed, or something like that anyway. I could be wrong on that point, I will look into it again.

He really didn't. He pretty much hijacked the revolution and forced communism on the entire nation. I'm pretty sure he believed in the forcing of the world to adopt communism too (Unless that was just Trotsky). Whereas Stalin believed that Russia could stand alone and be successful.

Lenin wasn't leader by position but he was de facto leader. His final word was gospel you could say and he was.

What makes Leninism truer than Stalinism?

Lenin was slightly less Authoritarian, but don't forget he believed in forcing communism on people. So it's not like Soviet Russia was all great, then Lenin died and Stalin ruined.

Regardless of the government, it would have failed even if everyone got along, communism doesn't fail because of the government, it fails because it's economically crap. You can't have a doctor, an astronaut, a scientist, etc. being given the same as a street sweeper, factory worker or a farmer. I'm sure that poorer people would love to have the same treatment and pay as more educated people, but it is quite unfair to someone who has worked really hard to get where they are. That's just one part of where it fails.

there's probably an official name for this argument. I call it the middle class argument. I have seen it before from middle class families in Venezuela, opposing Chavez. this was in [url]http://video.google.com/url?docid=5832390545689805144&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=revolution+will+not+be+televised&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D5832390545689805144%26q%3Drevolution%2Bwill%2Bnot%2Bbe%2Btelevised&usg=AL29H239r99jS9gy3T5feNtVlCt0KnaCDg=]The Revolution Will not be Televised[/url], linked here by Yeltsin before.

what makes you think that poor people haven't worked hard? if you think that no poor people have tried, then you're probably being naive. I think classism is probably responsible, to a large extent, for many people's misfortunes. if this is true, then it means that people who are poor now would most likely not be poor under a communist system, and, by poor, I mean they would be no different from astronauts or doctors, necessarily. they would be given a chance to contribute what they can to society.

not everyone can contribute equally. that is true. but why does structured government necessarily give rise to intellectualism? I thought intellectualism gave rise to intellectualism. why can't there be structured economy outside of government, for that matter? structure doesn't directly imply any sort of regulation. it just means that those who can contribute are given the means to do so.

this seems very similiar to a common argument for intelligent design, to me. creationists would assert that something as complex as one particular object of interest couldn't have arrived 'by chance,' but that the only explanation is design by an intelligent creator. what they missed is that evolution does not say things arise by chance. they arise through natural selection -- slow, incremental degrees of [nonrandom] change.

I don't presume to think you are saying that government creates or facilitates intellectualism or altruism. but what makes you think that those qualities can't (or don't) come about naturally, and be borne out through genuine human interaction?

Ummm, we have had many serious implementations of communism. The problem is some asshole always comes in and takes over, which is what I meant by it not working. The communism established in Soviet Russia, was true communism, until Lenin died and Stalin took over.
...
You talk of anarchism not being implemented either, well that too has been done in the past, the problem is that the country next door come's in and takes over, which would ultimately happen. You can be damn sure that if a country like the UK became anarchistic without a government or military you will have some other country in the world invading it.

I am not so sure about the first part as am I about the last. I don't know nearly enough about recent history to determine whether or not I would consider that to have been true communism. I obviously sincerely doubt, based on my own internal reasoning, that such a system has been established before, however.

I do agree, though, that anarchist or communist governments are particularly vulnerable. this has happened with Venezuela, Iran, and a number of other countries whose history I'm unfamiliar with. I guess I was thinking of anarchism on a more global scale.
It would probably be challenged at some point or another by a governmental country, so long as it had resources to be exploited.
I don't really think of anarchism, though, as being applied to a 'country.' I think of it as being a lack of country. it's very ideal, but, if anarchism were to exist, there obviously couldn't be much of any country.

communism is much the same, except I think it is a lot more practical, in the sense that communism can be applied to a country, and it can be defended by that country.

what it would take to implement anarchy on a wide scale is the cooperation of all people -- something rather far fetched, but which we can dream about nonetheless. I'm not actually sure why we're talking about anarchism though. I don't think I really mentioned it in my post.

Also regarding people, there is no difference between genuinely bad people and perverted people. They both do bad things, in an anarchistic society you only need one bad guy out of a million to do a whole lot of harm.

I'm not sure what your point is. in a society of no control, you would have no perverted people. terrorists are a familiar example. terrorists act because they have been oppressed, often, and they want to get a message out about this. if they can't be oppressed, then I think it's reasonable to believe that they would have no legitimate reason for committing terrorism.

you only do need one bad guy to do harm. that's the beauty of humanity, really. how often one man is right and millions are wrong. with government, that man has no voice except through terrorism. do I believe the thoughts of one man should precede the rights of others, even if I think he's somehow 'right?' no. of coruse not. but I believe he should be heard, for certain. if governments will not even entertain the ideas of few, then I think there is a reasonable case for change. african americans, after all, were few, and homosexual americans were few, and atheist americans are few.

I think, therefore, that just because one man is capable of doing harm, well that isn't a very good reason for controlling the actions of all men. if someone who genuinely has no reason commits harm inside or outside of government, then I think that's a sacrifice well worth it.

Also, it's very easy to say in a developed area like Europe that you don't need the government, but read up about Africa and see just how bad it can get without a stable government. Then there is still economic matters, which generally fucks everything up.

isn't that both a bit anecdotal and fallacious? african countries could be messed up (and, by african countries, we mean what? uhh.. somalia?) for many other reasons than their lack of governmental control.

Whoa, that's a long reply, I'll look at it later. I wanted to finish it as I don't really like writing long arguments online.

its not middle class and its not saying poor people dont work hard, its saying it has no chance of success.

if youre guaranteed the same wage for any job then are you going to A: spend 6 years in further education to do something like accounts/computing or B: take some job in a shop straight out of school and earn money for 6 years more than the aforementioned. if nobodies willing to lose those 6 years then nobodies going to fill the strongly academic dependent roles and we go back years. so how do we solve this? we force people to fill those roles and then what kind of world would that be.

lol i agree with the terrorist part when speaking of 'todays terror' but youll just have criminal groups/organisations trying to take control of the country instead. a paedophile is a paedophile because hes attracted to kids, not because he gets a buzz from the taboo. all removing law and order would do would be to eventually remove the stigma of molesting a 4 year old girl. murderers would run rampant in your utopia. you think the only reason serial killers kill is because of the buzz they get from evading law? what about the feeling/serious adrenaline rush they get from committing the act?

I didn't read your whole post, and I'm glad I didn't.

I did see the 'pedophile' part though, and I thought it was absolutely hilarious.

a paedophile is a paedophile because hes attracted to kids, not because he gets a buzz from the taboo.

how do you know?

all removing law and order would do would be to eventually remove the stigma of molesting a 4 year old girl.

removing law wouldn't remove any kind of stigma, and I hope you aren't pretending to claim that pedophiles go around molesting four year old girls just because they're pedophiles.

I also find it incredibly amusing that the first thing that popped into your brain was the old and tired 'think of the children' tripe that is the justification for all of the Orwellian junk that's legislated in contemporary western countries.

this is pure, postmodern conservative dogma. I don't want to save you've been brainwashed, but you're far from echoing the truth about anything except the truth in how to install tyranny.

murderers would run rampant in your utopia. you think the only reason serial killers kill is because of the buzz they get from evading law? what about the feeling/serious adrenaline rush they get from committing the act?

murders wouldn't run rampant in my utopia. murderers already run rampant in the present, if I need to remind you. there would be less reason for murder without government.

do I think the only reason serial killers kill is because of the buzz they get from evading law? that's a really stupid question, and I don't have to answer it. but I will, because you're being retarded:

1) I don't know.
2) I don't think serial killers are 'serial killers' -- I think they are people. all sorts of people have different reasons for doing different things.

I really wonder if you had any kind of a point, actually. I think I've addressed most of your 'arguments' and your attitude in general before you even replied. we seem to have a difference of opinion, but my opinion, I'd wager, is based more on reason.

you didnt read my whole 3 paragraphs (basically 2) or you chose to ignore the bits where you felt your logic wasnt all that logical, hmm.

research paedophile profilings for reasons/predicted reasons why they do it.

remove a law then something becomes a taboo, look at previous taboos to see that with time the stigma drops

murderers get punished in present day because of a little thing called law & order.

as you can clearly see from my post "its for the children" was not my first thought

less reason for murder without government? are you fucking deluded? if a man goes into a shop, shoots the owner then robs cash do you think hes doing it in protest of a republican government or because he wants cash. if theres nobody to lock him up do you think hes going to have a sudden change of heart or continue to rob shops whenever he needs some extra cash. the only murders related to government are politicians killed and they could just as easily be the shop owner in your ideal world of everyone working for the same wage

so if someone goes around killing multiple people in a community in your ideology youd just accept it because hes someone who has 'different reasons for doing different things'?

its ok though. youre not the first german to have a messed up ideology and you wont be the last; unless youre kdawg in which we already know about how fucked up you are ;)

I don't think you are quite understanding how an high liber-left soceity would work at all.

You wouldn't get people robbing a shop and shooting the owner because he isn't driven to that state by economic hardship.

The whole idea is that people work together for a better soceity, if there was a serial killer do you think the community would just sit about thinking "NOW IF WE ONLY HAD A POLICE FORCE"? No they would band together to "get rid" of said serial killer.

"You wouldn't get people robbing a shop and shooting the owner because he isn't driven to that state by economic hardship."
ahaha

you didnt read my whole 3 paragraphs (basically 2) or you chose to ignore the bits where you felt your logic wasnt all that logical, hmm.

I didn't read your three "paragraphs" because I hadn't intended to read your post. I managed to catch the part that I did because I skimmed it accidentally. and I don't want to read the rest of what you've written, because I'm sure it's pretty retarded. unfortunately, I'm compelled to reply to this, because, if I don't, then you win!!!

I have no idea what the latter part of your sentence fragment is on about.

research paedophile profilings for reasons/predicted reasons why they do it.

research why Dird is stupid.

remove a law then something becomes a taboo, look at previous taboos to see that with time the stigma drops

uhh.. what?

murderers get punished in present day because of a little thing called law & order.

wow!! 'a little thing.' hey, clint eastwood. I thought you were dead. sensationilism might be fun on the british equivelant of the discovery channel (and I guess you have to replace your Volkswagen Beetles with Vauxhall Novas), but I'm not that stupid, and neither is anyone else with half of a brain.

less reason for murder without government? are you fucking deluded? if a man goes into a shop, shoots the owner then robs cash do you think hes doing it in protest of a republican government or because he wants cash. if theres nobody to lock him up do you think hes going to have a sudden change of heart or continue to rob shops whenever he needs some extra cash.

people rob for cash because they don't have any. I also don't think murder is anywhere implicit in a robbery.

the only murders related to government are politicians killed and they could just as easily be the shop owner in your ideal world of everyone working for the same wage

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

so if someone goes around killing multiple people in a community in your ideology youd just accept it because hes someone who has 'different reasons for doing different things'?

I don't know what I'd do. I don't think that was hardly the point. if someone did that, though, they probably wouldn't be very well off for long.

its ok though. youre not the first german to have a messed up ideology and you wont be the last; unless youre kdawg in which we already know about how fucked up you are ;)

what makes you think I'm german? and I'm guessing you're talking about hitler? already invoking godwin's law? with your small mind, I'm not surprised. too much discovery (big brother) for you.

what makes you think I'm german?

Because you posted under a German ip, register an account...

Because you posted under a German ip

there's no such thing as a german IP.

register an account...

uhh. no?

more flawed reasoning from flawed people. you can't demonstrate why someone would assume that I'm german (even if there were something called a german "IP," in which case I could very well not be german anyway for thousands of reasons), and you can't come up with some asinine idea that I should "register an account" to appease your senses without any logical reasoning for that statement whatsoever.

try this one on for size: shave your asshair.

zzz

then don't post.

Smart Anonymous Turbo Power

Is it the Euro-Edition?

if i delete my initial post, will all the replies be gone? :D

OI!

Cheeky ;-)

xxsexual references to horse shoes xx

Pseudo-aggressive troll

zzz

then don't post.

zzz

Is communist an insult?

It is to ex-communist countries I'd have thought.

:D

Attached Misc File: 55332-abunchofcommies.wav (15KB)

It's just that this test is biased towards the left and libertarian wing. Most modern society values are transcripted in answers that will classify you as left/libertarian.

On the other hand, questions stating typical right wing values are formulated in such extreme ways that most people with """"normal"""" values for the year 2007 will have to disagree with.

I had the same position as Ghandi on the table although I consider myself to be more of the right wing. I'm pretty sure most of the states men they classified in the right-authoriatarian part of the table would have left-libertarian results in the test.

Liberal, as slightly left as it gets.

Economic Left/Right: -3.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.26

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.31

Yea, I'm almost exactly at Milton Friedman's position!

Economic Left/Right: 5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 7.74

eco-nazi

Economic Left/Right: -6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87

Economic Left/Right: -0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.31

so... is minus to the left, or to the right? :o even though I seem to be kinda in the middle though.

left
slightly libertarian
slightly communist

Seems like me ;)

This test has a huge bias to the left in how it is worded. Fuck it.

you have a right bias, that's why you think everything has a left bias.

i don't and i think the wording is fucked

Economic Left/Right: -4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.23

seems I'm a mix of Ghandi, the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela :<

Economic Left/Right: -9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77

^^^ Yeah I know, go ahead, call the police, start the witch hunt.

Is anyone else this progressive (-9) on Economics?
I was answering honestly too.

I took a class at my college in united states where I live called Principles of Macroeconomics. I think I disagreed with the professor on almost everything. Then again I pretty much also thought she was an idiot after she listed percents of government expenditure and they added to 120%.

Even if I am competent, talented and skilled at math and science and might be an engineer. I would rather share a ton of what I earn with the people who aren't. After all if I'm able might as well do my part to help. I am all for countries like Sweden with excellent public services and comprehensive welfare programs.

errr, progressive? doesn't it actually means the opposite -- stale, regulated, state controlled economy?

There is nothing inherently progressive or regressive about Left/Right.

in theory mate, in theory...

Oh.
In the US, since the word liberal has been more or less become a "poisoned" word by the right, most democrats (liberals) use the word "progressive" to describe their views and policies.

See if you say liberal, things like, tax raising, pot smoking, baby killing, weak on terror, atheist, tree hugging, elitist, trade regulating, pro illegal immigration, cut and runners will come to mind. And that doesn't really get you elected in the US.

But anyways it tends to be used by democrats as a synonym so they don't have to say the dirty "L" word.

damn hippies gave it a stigma :x

Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.13

Radicals Unite!

Progressive - Ha! Ha!! Those numbers really mean that you're a reactionist farming altruistic communist.

you forgot pot smoking, prius driving, lazy ass, vegetarian, unholy islamofacist.

Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.51

Another Gandhi here.

There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.

Where? I would like to see evidence of this said 'fusion'

fox news?

Haha, perhaps in the United States? But I do realise what you mean, I think I took the question a little to seriously for my own good.

I can't stand to watch most mainstream news programs for the amount of sheer garbage they spew onto the air.

Would paris hilton be in the news if this was not so?

It a shame some of those questions sandbag you.

I would of come off very left of center regardless, but I would have appreciated the survey more had the question not 'forced' you to take an overtly biased left stance. However liberal I assume myself to be, the answers I had to give to some of those questions only skim the surface of the subjects in question, and totally neglect more balanced options.

Thought provoking anyway.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

Economic Left/Right: 0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.46

I'm neither left nor right, but seems i'm on the authoritarian scale (infact, i lie on the same line as hitler, just not as high).

I'm not advanced enough to even begin to conder politics.

Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.97


hmmm wtf. Guess ive been voting wrong last couple of years:|

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64

Economic Left/Right: -3.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.72

Economic Left/Right: 0.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.62

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.92

Im the most rightwinged person here :P?

I'm sharing a spot with the Dalai Lama :-)