USA Politics (redux)

[Florestan]

https://www.idrlabs.com/morality/6/test.php

Your scores:

Care 100%
Loyalty 50%
Fairness 100%
Authority 67%
Purity 100%   
Liberty 100%

You have no one strongest moral foundation.

Your morality is closest to that of a Conservative.

I knew it already. 

[greg]

How in the blazing tarnations did you score 100% on 4 of the 6? 

[Florestan]

How in the blazing tarnations did you score 100% on 4 of the 6? 

I don't know, I just answered the questions. 

[SimonNZ]

Fairness 100%

SJW. Next you'll be quoting the sermon on the mount by that other SJW.

Does "100% Liberty" mean you're now for a woman's right to choose to have an abortion and for gay people to marry and adopt? Or is that "100% my liberty to be against the liberty of others"?


edit: just took the half the test and those are some ridiculous finger-on-the-scales questions, so gave up

[Karl Henning]

 Sabrina Shankman:

In Boston, there are now twice as many nights when temperatures don't drop below 70 degrees.

In Milton, the earliest 90-degree day now falls two weeks earlier than the historical average.

And in both places, the number of 90-degree days has steadily climbed — fully doubling in Milton, at the Blue Hill Observatory and Science Center — over the course of this decade, compared with historical averages.

Experts have long said that climate change will bring more extreme heat and accompanying health threats. As residents of Boston sweat out these early June days in cooling centers and air conditioners work overtime, that trend appears to be bearing out. Emergency calls for medical help jumped by a third over the weekend.

"It has been getting consistently warmer, and invariably that means what was a warm day 20 years ago is going to be a lot warmer today, simply because the background has shifted," said Raymond Bradley, a climatologist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

The extreme heat that has settled over the state in recent days falls in line with the trends that meteorologists have been tracking. "With climate change, it's not just about how hot it gets and how frequent — it's also about how cold it's not getting," said Andy Nash, the meteorologist-in-charge at the National Weather Service Forecast office in Norton.

On Sunday, the temperature never dropped below 70 degrees. On Monday, the low was 73. When temperatures stay that high, some scientists say, there's no chance for the body to cool down, heightening danger.

That means that with these extreme temperatures comes extreme risk.

"The evidence is clear that the first heat wave is the most deadly, and that seems to be particularly true in places like Boston where we're not really used to the heat," said Aaron Bernstein, interim director of The Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

When temperatures soar and stay there, emergency room doctors see a flood of patients with a host of health issues, including respiratory problems, seizures, heart attacks, strokes, and heat exhaustion, Bernstein said.

Boston Emergency Medical Services experienced a 31 percent increase in call volume on Saturday and Sunday compared to a typical day, according to the office of Acting Mayor Kim Janey.

While the effects of extreme heat are wide-ranging, they're felt more acutely in some populations than others.

"The folks who are most vulnerable to heat are often people breathing the most polluted air, who are often poorest. And in this country, particularly, Black Americans live in neighborhoods that are hotter than others because of redlining," said Bernstein. "You cannot disentangle heat risk from racial injustice."

Studies have shown that the deadliness of extreme heat will depend on how the world responds to the climate crisis. A 2020 study found that under a worst-case scenario of warming, Boston could see between 200 and 500 excess deaths from extreme heat in 2090. Another study found that by the 2080s, Boston would see a four-fold increase in extreme heat deaths under a moderate warming scenario, versus a seven-fold increase under a worst-case scenario.

The current heat wave comes at the same time that scientists have logged the highest-ever amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Experts from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association announced on Monday that the May average for atmospheric carbon dioxide was 419 parts per million, and the highest level recorded since measurements began 63 years ago at the NOAA observatory in Mauna Loa, Hawaii.

"We are adding roughly 40 billion metric tons of CO2 pollution to the atmosphere per year," Pieter Tans, a senior scientist with NOAA's Global Monitoring Laboratory, said in a statement. "That is a mountain of carbon that we dig up out of the earth, burn, and release into the atmosphere as CO2 — year after year."

Massachusetts has warmed roughly 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the last century, and even under best-case scenarios for global warming, the temperature is expected to continue rising.

In the past, from 1971-2000, Massachusetts logged an average of four days above 90 degrees. But by the middle of the century, that number could be between 10 and 28 days. By the end of the century, experts say, that could be between 13 and 56 days.

The weather pattern that brought this week's heat to Massachusetts features high pressure off the country's southeast coast, which is pumping hot and humid air into the region, said Samantha Borisoff, a climatologist with the Northeast Regional Climate Center at Cornell University.

"In the case of the recent heat, you have a naturally occurring weather pattern that sets Massachusetts up for hot weather plus the background of a warming climate making it that much more likely for Massachusetts to experience these really hot days," she said.

[greg]

Does "100% Liberty" mean you're now for a woman's right to choose to have an abortion and for gay people to marry and adopt?

The gay rights thing might exclusively be under freedom, but I think abortion is not as clear cut, because the unborn baby can't consent to its own life or death, so it's basically telling the woman that she can have liberty/freedom to choose while the baby can't. (not 100% against abortion, just a point worth mentioning)

[Florestan]

SJW. Next you'll be quoting the sermon on the mount by that other SJW.

Does "100% Liberty" mean you're now for a woman's right to choose to have an abortion and for gay people to marry and adopt? Or is that "100% my liberty to be against the liberty of others"?


edit: just took the half the test and those are some ridiculous finger-on-the-scales questions, so gave up

As different from you, I attach no importance whatsoever to these tests and I don't take them seriously but for fun only. And fun I had when I saw all those 100%s, putting me more to the left than the left. 

The conservative morality estimate, though, is 100% accurate (pun).

[Fëanor]

The gay rights thing might exclusively be under freedom, but I think abortion is not as clear cut, because the unborn baby can't consent to its own life or death, so it's basically telling the woman that she can have liberty/freedom to choose while the baby can't. (not 100% against abortion, just a point worth mentioning)

An human embryo is human but not a human being.  At what point exactly does a human fetus become a human being with a full suite of human rights?  Indeed, is the new born, without conscious life experience and very limited perception of its environment, fully a human being?  Or are we just drawing the line at the point of birth?

[greg]

At what point exactly does a human fetus become a human being with a full suite of human rights?

That's a line that is difficult to draw, why everyone is so mixed on the issue.

Indeed, is the new born, without conscious life experience and very limited perception of its environment, fully a human being?

And if you push this reasoning far enough, yeah, you could probably even justify killing newborns. Or maybe even up to the age of four, since they are practically on autopilot until then. And if you took that one step further with the idea of someone that's not "fully human being" not being able to have the choice, then you could say that since the brain doesn't stop developing until the age of 25-ish, people aren't fully human beings, so their parents still have the right to kill them then. 

It's one of those things where it's difficult to match the logic with the morality, because your moral compass lets you know how bad something is in shades of a color. So I think most people's gut feeling is that aborting at 8 months would be dark, while aborting at 2 months would be much lighter. 5 months a medium tone. But this is not how the legal system works, it has to set a precise point when it is and isn't allowed, so it will never be able to capture the nuance of one's own moral compass. Which may lead people to intellectualize this away, ignoring their gut feeling and just referring to the legal system on how to feel.

[Mirror Image]

I took the political quiz that was posted a page or so back and here are my results:

[Fëanor]

That's a line that is difficult to draw, {when does a fetus become a human being?} why everyone is so mixed on the issue.


And if you push this reasoning far enough, yeah, you could probably even justify killing newborns. Or maybe even up to the age of four, since they are practically on autopilot until then. And if you took that one step further with the idea of someone that's not "fully human being" not being able to have the choice, then you could say that since the brain doesn't stop developing until the age of 25-ish, people aren't fully human beings, so their parents still have the right to kill them then. 

It's one of those things where it's difficult to match the logic with the morality, because your moral compass lets you know how bad something is in shades of a color. So I think most people's gut feeling is that aborting at 8 months would be dark, while aborting at 2 months would be much lighter. 5 months a medium tone. But this is not how the legal system works, it has to set a precise point when it is and isn't allowed, so it will never be able to capture the nuance of one's own moral compass. Which may lead people to intellectualize this away, ignoring their gut feeling and just referring to the legal system on how to feel.

For the record "3rd trimester" might be good time as a general rule.  However if severe mental or physical deformity is strongly suspected, then abortion at any point should be permitted, IMHO, and perhaps even infanticide at birth.

[Fëanor]

"Moral Score"?  WTF?

Can't say I was impressed by the quiz but I have nothing to hide.  Yeah, I'm a "caring" guy  ...

[BasilValentine]

"At what point exactly does a human fetus become a human being with a full suite of human rights?"

That's a line that is difficult to draw, why everyone is so mixed on the issue.

That's not why "everyone is mixed on the issue." Some wonder when a pregnant woman ceases to be a human being with a full suite of human rights, because that too is being decided.   

[Fëanor]

"At what point exactly does a human fetus become a human being with a full suite of human rights?"

That's not why "everyone is mixed on the issue." Some wonder when a pregnant woman ceases to be a human being with a full suite of human rights, because that too is being decided.

So this tends to define it as a woman's rights versus a fetus' rights issue.  I was arguing that -- at least up to some point -- a fetus has no rights.

[greg]

For the record "3rd trimester" might be good time as a general rule.  However if severe mental or physical deformity is strongly suspected, then abortion at any point should be permitted, IMHO, and perhaps even infanticide at birth.

I feel pretty similar to this.

"Moral Score"?  WTF?

Can't say I was impressed by the quiz but I have nothing to hide.  Yeah, I'm a "caring" guy  ...

Would you say that very low Liberty score is accurate for you?
If it is, do you like doing what other people tell you to do, and being subordinate? Or would you describe it a different way?
(because not valuing liberty/autonomy is really alien to me, would like to understand)

[Karl Henning]

Trust in the U.S. president fell to historic lows in most countries surveyed during Donald Trump's presidency, according to Pew.

[Karl Henning]

Trust in the U.S. president fell to historic lows in most countries surveyed during Donald Trump's presidency, according to Pew.

When the disgraced former president infested the White House, you could only trust him to be a self-absorbed ass-wipe

[Fëanor]

Would you say that very low Liberty score is accurate for you?
If it is, do you like doing what other people tell you to do, and being subordinate? Or would you describe it a different way?
(because not valuing liberty/autonomy is really alien to me, would like to understand)

Well gosh, let's remember this quiz has only 36 questions;  you'd really need a long questionnaire to get reliable results.



Although my inclination is "Left-liberal" apparently, you'll notice I'm closest to Conservative in the 'Authority' and 'Purity' categories, (whatever purity precisely means).  Isn't authority somewhat the flip of liberty?  In any case I think various countries would be better off if citizens were more "socially compliant" even if the compliance demands so enforcement by Big Brother.

[LKB]

When the disgraced former president infested the White House, you could only trust him to be a self-absorbed ass-wipe

Karl, l suspect that with that post you may have offended ass-wipes of every... stripe.

[greg]

Isn't authority somewhat the flip of liberty?

Yeah, I'd say so.

In any case I think various countries would be better off if citizens were more "socially compliant" even if the compliance demands so enforcement by Big Brother.

Why? That same Big Brother could create hell on earth the second the leader (who may even be a good dude) dies and some asshole psychopath takes charge. Or the current dude who may have seemed good was bad all along. If you don't keep power in check, you will be doomed to live a meaningless life like a cow on a farm ready to be eaten by those in power. A promise of providing safety can be nothing but an excuse to control, manipulate and commit evil acts on large amounts of the population. You need a little of it to maximize freedom, but it should always be kept in mind that freedom is the end goal, not safety. Maslow hierarchy of needs- aim for the top, not the bottom.