Incidentally, as I request in my OP in bright red, I’d be grateful if criticisms of the test itself be limited to the [url=]dedicated thread. For what it’s worth, I wholeheartedly agree with the absence of a neutral option for the reasons I give there. In fact, that absence is, I think, why the test is so successful in numerically differentiating, say, me (-5, -7) from, say, Brutus (+8, +8) or Martin (who says he acheived an economic +10, although I’m not sure this is possible)?
Sorry, dedicated thread.
Oh, it happened.
My score changes depending on how I take the test.
The first time I took it I voted purely based on how I thought the test would try to analyze my response.
For example on the question about how globalisation should serve the interests of corporations or whatever. I voted that it SHOULD serve corporations. Eventhough the way it was phrased I probably shouldn’t have voted that way. I clicked the way I did because I wanted tomake sure the test got down that I’m not anti-corporation, eventhough I don’t necessarily think we should the primary benefits of globalisation should go to corporations.
That’s why unfortunately the test is worthless on people like me, who see both the questions on their own merits and the questions as they would project to analyzing someone’s ratings.
I think if you want to get the viewpoints of myself you’d be best to just give me a straightforward test. For your average Joe that wouldn’t think about things much, give them the political compass.
Eh, this part of the above:
Should read: I clicked the way I did because I wanted to make sure the test got down that I’m not anti-corporation, eventhough I don’t necessarily think the primary benefits of globalisation should go to corporations.
Of course I’m not going to take your word for it. I have already provided a cite showing that your word is wrong.
This assertion has already been disproven.
Sorry, but you are a very poor Greek scholar on any topic on which you have an ax to grind.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ve already explained my point about this and it has not been disproven, it’s only been misunderstood.
You haven’t explained it; you’ve repeated it, and it is still wrong.
As I mentioned, your inability to abandon your prejudices makes your opinions on Koine Greek valueless.
Many other topics as well, but that is another thread.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, Muslims believe that drinking alcohol is immoral, and the Amish believe that riding a motorbike is immoral. Being strict pacifists, the Amish probably also think that watching simulated voilence is immoral.
That’s quite possibly true, but not neccesarily true. A person may say, “While I think that sex outside of marriage is immoral, there’s nothing that government can, or should, be done to stop it, and given that people will do it, I therefore support widespread condom distribution, or increased subsidies to unwed mothers, or whatever.”
I don’t think you understood my explanation.
Feel free to correct me on any other subject in which you find my contributions wanting. You have not come out well in previous exchanges. Perhaps your luck will change in the future.
Shodan and Dio, I politely repeat my request. Indeed, as always, I would be interested in a detailed OP of yours, Dio.
(Of course, the whole point is that even if the Bible did expressly forbid it, there are a whole raft of distinctly immoral examples and commands in that particular book, necessitating an exasperated “So what?”)
And are the Agree-ers here Muslim or Amish? If not, I ask why they apply the term.
Of course, which is why there are 60 other propositions. This one is still a valuable tool in finding those with an attitude towards unmarried sex which would allow more authoritarian policies than, say, I would.
I’ll just reiterate my earlier assertion that it is not possible to raise an ethical objection to unmarried sex between consenting adults (as long as their is no deception, exploitation, infidelity, etc.) without resorting to an appeal to supernatural authority (“cuz God says so”). I think that makes it an authoritarian position of a sort, even though it does not necessarily involve the government. It still represents a ceding of thought to a higher authority.
Well, which would allow more authoritarian policies on sexual issues. But there are other questions in the quiz, for example, that also bring up attitudes that might allow authoritarian policies, that aren’t coded on the liberarian/authoritarian scale, like
“Many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.”
Well, if I’ve got the time. Deliberate, persistent ignorance like your posts demonstrate take a lot of time, especially when the subject of the refutation simply ignores the instances where his scholarship is shown to be lacking.
I doubt it. I usually come out of these exchanges berating myself for arguing with someone who will lie, blandly and persistently, and responds to clear evidence by posting “Nope, I’m right”.
No wonder it’s “taking longer than we thought”.
My score: -3.0, -2.7 (I know!!)
My answer to this question - Strongly Agree. Pretty much for the reasons Shodan has enumerated.
[quote=SentientMeat]
And are the Agree-ers here Muslim or Amish? If not, I ask why they apply the term.
[quote]
Because they’re basing their judgements on ancient tradition and superstition rather than logic.
It’s easy to accuse people of being ignorant without actually citing example or backing anything up. I do know that you haven’t been able to prove any such charges against me in past debates.
If you’re going to call me a liar, do it in the Pit and be specific as to what I’m “lying” about.
Shodan, Dio, I repeat my polite request for a third time.
These of course being horizontal, economic scalars. A person on the east would equate authoritarianism with state intervention in the economy. A person on the west would associate it with capitalistic tyranny.
I have already cited the examples, as has Maeglin. I’ve done it in the past. Your usual respons is to do exactly what I’ve described.
Nope, you’re a liar. You don’t like it? Try the “report this post” button. Or stop lying.
SentientMeat, my apologies for the hijack.
Regards,
Shodan
I think you meant left and right there, unless you believe, like Kipling, “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” 
Ultimately, the question that the authoritarian debates with the libertarian is, “How free should an individual be, and to what degree does that freedom have to be curtailed by the state or the society for the common good?” (What the common good is, is, of course, a different question.)
So when somebody says, “I think that dirty pictures shouldn’t be shown” or “Books should be censored”, he’s saying “Your freedom to see a dirty picture or read a book with dangerous ideas needs to be limited for the good of society.”
And it’s important to keep in mind that right isn’t all on the libertarian’s side on this. In spite of what Margaret Thatcher may think, there is such a thing as society, and human freedom shouldn’t neccesarily be absolute, if those freedoms are detrimental to the society as a whole.
But the thing to keep in mind is that, when someone says, “There should be publicly financed health care”, or “There should be government funding to help the disadvantaged” or “We need to make sure taxation is progressive.”, you’re still saying, “Your freedom to spend your money as you like needs to be limited for the good of society.” Society benefits when we help the poor and disadvantaged, even though your pocketbook has to pay for it. And, again, that’s not neccesarily a bad thing.
And historically, we’ve seen outright authoritarian, even totalitarian, governmental economic action, like the Stalinist purging of the kulaks and forced colectivization of agriculture, or Hitlerian laws saying that Jews may not own property, or the forced nationalization of property without compensation that’s happened many times in the past hundred years.
I have a few other problems with the methodology of the test, but as you’ve said, there is another thread for that, and I apologize for the hijack I’ve already made.
And through this all I believe that the choice of obeying a supernatural higher authority is just that, my choice. I would never want to live in a theocracy, (except the real one I expect when Christ returns), you want to have sex outside of marriage, I won’t work to pass laws against it. I will speak out against it, with, I hope, love and concern and grace, but it’s not my place to try and force anyone to follow my example, God knows I have a hard enough time as it is.
Diogenes the Cynic, your exegesis of the Greek is not quite ringing true, I’m only in my first semester of Biblical Greek but I strongly urge you to not put your own meaning on the words based on a pre-concieved notion. Remember “Application follows hermeneutics.”