Political Matrix

[Todd]

Someone in an earlier thread (it may have been the so-called "Progressive" thread) was complaining that people on this forum are so conservative, but the scores here disagree.  You bunch of pinkos.


My results:

Economic score: +2.97
Social score: -5.57

Your score pegs you as economically center-capitalist and socially libertarian.
Center-capitalists often support free trade and low taxes, but take pragmatic stances on economic issues, supporting what they see as the best balance between encouraging business and maintaining free trade.

Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favoring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.

The questions for this test have morphed over time, and some are rather weak and don't really address the topics they bring up very well.  I'm also puzzled by the line "the best balance between encouraging business and maintaining free trade."  Um, business is responsible for trade.  Anyway, I'm satisifed with my score I suppose, understanding that it is just a lark.

[Josquin des Prez]

Why are you against gay marriage and abortion?

Gay marriage because it seeks to interfere with the institution of family. Family was one of the corner stones of Roman civilization, and has been pivotal in the development of European civilization as well. Liberals seek to redefine marriage as a purely individualistic custom, completely separated from any sense of duty regarding family and society in general. Homosexuals cannot have children, adoption is a limited option, and raising children in such an environment may not be ideal in the first place. It just seems irresponsible to me to mess with an institution that has served civilization for centuries just to satisfy some superficial personal need of what is after all but a tiny minority.

Abortion because it promotes promiscuity and irresponsibility. Liberals always like to blabber about freedom of choice and such nonsense, when we all know the real issue is one of convenience. This is what abortion is all about, to be able to engage in sex casually without any worry about the consequences and responsibilities attached to a pregnancy. We live in a pornographic society where sex is considered the highest and ultimate goal one can attain in life, and unwanted pregnancies are just one of the many obstacles towards complete sexual freedom. It also fosters a moral relativistic point of view towards the extinguishing of life after inception, which is where religious people tend to go ballistic. The liberal idea of free abortion is not one in which society is willing to accept a necessary evil, but one in which abortion has no moral connotation at all. Killing a fetus has as much moral weight to a liberal as amputating an appendix. 

[Franco]

The questions for this test have morphed over time, and some are rather weak and don't really address the topics they bring up very well.  I'm also puzzled by the line "the best balance between encouraging business and maintaining free trade."  Um, business is responsible for trade.  Anyway, I'm satisifed with my score I suppose, understanding that it is just a lark.

I think they are parsing the differences in the ideas of "free trade" and "fair trade" - the latter would include some restrictions on foreign competition to benefit domestic industry.

[Todd]

Abortion because it promotes promiscuity and irresponsibility.

I don't know if abortion promotes promiscuity, though abortion itself is the height of irresponsibility.  There is nothing more irresponsible than destroying a potential human life because it poses an inconvenience.

That written, I support legal, but not publicly funded, abortion, because ultimately, if people want to make horribly bad, irresponsible decisions that they will regret for the rest of their lives, they should generally be free to do so.  Other shouldn't have to fund it, though.

I think they are parsing the differences in the ideas of "free trade" and "fair trade" - the latter would include some restrictions on foreign competition to benefit domestic industry.

Possibly, though it's poorly worded and, if true, premised on faulty logic.  So-called "fair trade" is one of the dumbest political ideas in existence. 

[Père Malfait]

No surprises here . . .

Economic score: -3.74
Social score: -5.22

Your score pegs you as economically moderately leftist and socially libertarian.

Moderate economic leftists generally support regulation of free trade and business to assure that workers are fairly treated and prices remain stable.

Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favoring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.

[Franco]

Gay marriage because it seeks to interfere with the institution of family. Family was one of the corner stones of Roman civilization, and has been pivotal in the development of European civilization as well. Liberals seek to redefine marriage as a purely individualistic custom, completely separated from any sense of duty regarding family and society in general. Homosexuals cannot have children, adoption is a limited option, and raising children in such an environment may not be ideal in the first place. It just seems irresponsible to me to mess with an institution that has served civilization for centuries just to satisfy some superficial personal need of what is after all but a tiny minority.

Abortion because it promotes promiscuity and irresponsibility. Liberals always like to blabber about freedom of choice and such nonsense, when we all know the real issue is one of convenience. This is what abortion is all about, to be able to engage in sex casually without any worry about the consequences and responsibilities attached to a pregnancy. We live in a pornographic society where sex is considered the highest and ultimate goal one can attain in life, and unwanted pregnancies are just one of the many obstacles towards complete sexual freedom. It also fosters a moral relativistic point of view towards the extinguishing of life after inception, which is where religious people tend to go ballistic. The liberal idea of free abortion is not one in which society is willing to accept a necessary evil, but one in which abortion has no moral connotation at all. Killing a fetus has as much moral weight to a liberal as amputating an appendix.

The political philosophy I find most appealing is conservatism that prioritizes

1. liberty for the individual over power of the state,
2. little government intrusion into personal lives, and
3. robust capitalistic economic policies. 

Considering the 2nd item, I do not support government intrusion into an individual's private life, preferring a society where people are free to make lifestyle decisions based on how their conscience guides them, even if their choices would not be mine (but if asked, I might counsel them to consider a different choice).

It should go without saying that I would oppose any attempt of the state to tax me in order to pay for someone else's choice, e.g to have an abortion.  If they want one, fine, just don't ask me to pay for it.

[not edward]

Gay marriage because it seeks to interfere with the institution of family. Family was one of the corner stones of Roman civilization, and has been pivotal in the development of European civilization as well. Liberals seek to redefine marriage as a purely individualistic custom, completely separated from any sense of duty regarding family and society in general.

I've got a good friend who's gay and who's spent a huge amount of time over the last two years helping to take care of his husband's elderly father who was recovering from a serious stroke. I'm not sure how letting him get married to the man he loves harmed the institution of family.

Homosexuals cannot have children

My wife and I can't have kids. Do you think we should we have been banned from marrying?

superficial personal need

Just out of curiosity, have you ever been in love?

[71 dB]

Gay marriage because it seeks to interfere with the institution of family. Family was one of the corner stones of Roman civilization, and has been pivotal in the development of European civilization as well. Liberals seek to redefine marriage as a purely individualistic custom, completely separated from any sense of duty regarding family and society in general. Homosexuals cannot have children, adoption is a limited option, and raising children in such an environment may not be ideal in the first place. It just seems irresponsible to me to mess with an institution that has served civilization for centuries just to satisfy some superficial personal need of what is after all but a tiny minority.

I don't think gay marriages would interfere anything. Heterosexual marriages would be the same as they have been. We have to allow gay people to have the same rights, if possible, because they exist, can't do anything about their sexuality and because equality is a new cornerstone of civilization.

Homosexuals can't have children but so can't many heterosexuals either. Many heterosexuals don't even want children. The only thing needed for a marriage is two individuals loving each other.

Studies show that children raised in gay families aren't suffering from the situation.

You gave valid-sounding arguments but they can be debunked easily.

Abortion because it promotes promiscuity and irresponsibility. Liberals always like to blabber about freedom of choice and such nonsense, when we all know the real issue is one of convenience. This is what abortion is all about, to be able to engage in sex casually without any worry about the consequences and responsibilities attached to a pregnancy. We live in a pornographic society where sex is considered the highest and ultimate goal one can attain in life, and unwanted pregnancies are just one of the many obstacles towards complete sexual freedom. It also fosters a moral relativistic point of view towards the extinguishing of life after inception, which is where religious people tend to go ballistic. The liberal idea of free abortion is not one in which society is willing to accept a necessary evil, but one in which abortion has no moral connotation at all. Killing a fetus has as much moral weight to a liberal as amputating an appendix.

It's about how much freedom you want to give to people. You have freedom in many ways (for example to express your thoughts here) and that freedom fades away when people stars to care too much about irresponsibility and get too moral about things.

[Gurn Blanston]

It's about how much freedom you want to give to people. You have freedom in many ways (for example to express your thoughts here) and that freedom fades away when people stars to care too much about irresponsibility and get too moral about things.

Just f******* kill me now and get it over with... 

[71 dB]

I don't know if abortion promotes promiscuity, though abortion itself is the height of irresponsibility.  There is nothing more irresponsible than destroying a potential human life because it poses an inconvenience.

Where do you draw the line of a potential human life? Is it wrong to not have sex? Is it wrong to use a condom? In what point can we start to talk about a potential human life? My solution to this philosophical problem is to draw the line half-way into the pregnancy.

[Brahmsian]

These were my results.

Economic score: -4.9
Social score: -2.26

Your score pegs you as economically moderately leftist and socially center-libertarian.

Moderate economic leftists generally support regulation of free trade and business to assure that workers are fairly treated and prices remain stable.

Social center-libertarians generally have moderate social views, with a slight lean toward avoiding government intervention. However, they support government intervention in matters that they see as threats to society.

[Todd]

Where do you draw the line of a potential human life? Is it wrong to not have sex? Is it wrong to use a condom? In what point can we start to talk about a potential human life? My solution to this philosophical problem is to draw the line half-way into the pregnancy.

This is sophomoric thinking if ever I saw it.  There is a fundamental difference between preventing pregnancy and terminating pregnancy.  There is nothing philosophical about it. 

Abortion is used primarily as birth control by people too lazy, ignorant (or stupid), or selfish to take preventative steps, and who don't want to take responsibility for their actions. 

Again, abortion should be legal, but let's not try to gloss over what happens with supposedly philosophical posturing.

[Josquin des Prez]

I've got a good friend who's gay and who's spent a huge amount of time over the last two years helping to take care of his husband's elderly father who was recovering from a serious stroke. I'm not sure how letting him get married to the man he loves harmed the institution of family.
My wife and I can't have kids. Do you think we should we have been banned from marrying?
Just out of curiosity, have you ever been in love?

Typical liberal response. My argument flies over your head so you resort to some knee jerk emotional response by citing some feel-good personal anecdote. You are also confirming what i said by mention love, already redefining marriage not as institution specifically created to regulate procreation and child rearing (and by extension society), but as a mere engagement between two loving people, which is a selfish point of view.

Homosexuals can't have children but so can't many heterosexuals either. Many heterosexuals don't even want children. The only thing needed for a marriage is two individuals loving each other.

Marriage is in principle a union between two individuals with the specific purpose of producing and raising offsprings. The fact some heterosexual couples cannot have children does not change what marriage is. But by allowing two people to marry who cannot have children in principle, you are redefining what marriage is and thus eliminating the need for the institution in the first place. After all, you don't need marriage to spend the rest of your life with somebody whom you love, so what would be the point? This is the biggest irony of all because while liberals are fighting so strongly to defend gay marriage, they are hard at work at destroying marriage as an institution in all facets of society. Divorce rates are on a staggering high and more and more people chose to simply live together rather then engage in marriage, since they no longer see the point in the institution. And they are right, there is no point to marriage once you change the definition of what marriage is in the first place. This is how liberals are destroying the institution of family.

Studies show that children raised in gay families aren't suffering from the situation.

Studies also show that families do not need fathers, which is utter bullshit.

It's about how much freedom you want to give to people. You have freedom in many ways (for example to express your thoughts here) and that freedom fades away when people stars to care too much about irresponsibility and get too moral about things.

Freedom is one thing, moral relativism is another. Liberals are not trying to free society from moral restrictions which may or may not be considered to be excessive, they are trying to annihilate all forms of moral absolutism under the rubric that all standards are arbitrary in the first place. Thus, society is slowly bending itself backwards to accommodate an infinite number of individual variables which slowly but surely are reverting civilization back into barbarism.

[not edward]

Typical liberal response. My argunet flies over your head so you resort to some knee jerk emotional response by citing some feel-good personal anecdote.

Sorry, you don't have an argument. You have a collection of hypotheses all tossed together without evidence.

I'll give you about 2/10 for trolling: try harder next time.

[Josquin des Prez]

I don't know if abortion promotes promiscuity, though abortion itself is the height of irresponsibility.  There is nothing more irresponsible than destroying a potential human life because it poses an inconvenience.

That written, I support legal, but not publicly funded, abortion, because ultimately, if people want to make horribly bad, irresponsible decisions that they will regret for the rest of their lives, they should generally be free to do so.  Other shouldn't have to fund it, though.

Perhaps. It was the test which implied that being against a certain practice in principle means one is in favor of restricting said practice in the first place. The fact i am against abortion from a moral point of view has nothing to do with whether i want or do not want the government to restrict it (i'm also against cheating from a moral point of view but i don't think people should go to jail for it). The problem is that liberalism is pushing abortion from a moral point of view as well as a legal one, by positioning their point view within moral parameters in the first place (a woman's right to chose!). They are saying that abortion should not only be illegal, but should also not be immoral as well. It should in fact be a human right.

Abortion is used primarily as birth control by people too lazy, ignorant (or stupid), or selfish to take preventative steps, and who don't want to take responsibility for their actions. 

Indeed.

[Bulldog]

Economic Score: + 2.84
Social Score: - 5.81

My score pegs me as economically center-capitalist and socially libertarian.

That's what I expected - support individual rights and private enterprise.

[71 dB]

Abortion is used primarily as birth control by people too lazy, ignorant (or stupid), or selfish to take preventative steps, and who don't want to take responsibility for their actions. 

How about raped women? How about women who experience something terrible during the pregnancy? Sometimes abortion can be a responsible action.

[Todd]

How about raped women? How about women who experience something terrible during the pregnancy? Sometimes abortion can be a responsible action.

Go back and reread what I wrote.  I used the word primarily, not exclusively.  Do you understand the difference?  Your questions indicate you do not.

[Bulldog]

My view is that Government has no business being involved in abortion - that includes providing monies for abortions.

[Todd]

My view is that Government has no business being involved in abortion - that includes providing monies for abortions.

A most sensible position.