Political Compass

[Natalinasmpf]

Like I said, I don't like religion. I have no problem with you practicing it, except where there are peoples lives and such on the line,

So wait, now what do you mean? If a person believes that Allah would not like him to kill people, while an extremist does, justifying so and so as the enemy, in one post you would say you would have trouble with the religion in general, while in another, you target the individual...so which is it?

If person A is a Muslim extremist, and person B is Muslim but non-extremist, would you proceed to blanket the whole and kill them both?

Freedom to practice religion is not very important to me.

Think of it as freedom of views. Even athiests have different takes on morality and objectivity. If a new form of Nietszche someday ruled as dictator, and decided that all forms of beliefs except nihilism would be illegal, would you ignore it as another right of practicing one's own religion being violated?

But if you didn't, that would be contradictory. Religion is belief beyond the empirical. Currently we have no empirical evidence to establish objectivity or relativism save through rational reasoning, where even then there is disagreement.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf

Like I said, I don't like religion. I have no problem with you practicing it, except where there are peoples lives and such on the line,

So wait, now what do you mean? If a person believes that Allah would not like him to kill people, while an extremist does, justifying so and so as the enemy, in one post you would say you would have trouble with the religion in general, while in another, you target the individual...so which is it?

If person A is a Muslim extremist, and person B is Muslim but non-extremist, would you proceed to blanket the whole and kill them both?

I don't want to kill anyone. I do want to stop the religion. I want you to stop being a muslim, because it is dangerous to me. Some people in your culture want to harm me and my family. I don't think it's too much to ask that you abandon your religion. It's evil.

Freedom to practice religion is not very important to me.

Think of it as freedom of views. Even athiests have different takes on morality and objectivity. If a new form of Nietszche someday ruled as dictator, and decided that all forms of beliefs except nihilism would be illegal, would you ignore it as another right of practicign one's own religion being violated?

But if you didn't, that would be contradictory. Religion is belief beyond the empirical. Currently we have no empirical evidence to establish objectivity or relativism save through rational reasoning, where even then there is disagreement.

I believe in freedom of views, but not in absolute terms. I don't like fascists, or even authoritarians, and I don't think they should have the right to view their opinions or even have meetings and such.

[Ben Kenobi]

Interesting how everyone jumps on ML for being 100% absolutist, and not on me for being more absolutist than 98% of the people.

All that really means is that most people are very relativist. On their scale I only got a score of 65% absolutist, which is much less than my free market score. Only about 2/3rds of the questions I answered as an absolutist would, yet 98% of the people are more relativist than I am.

[Kontiki]

I don't think anyone is jumping on ML for being an absolutist. I think people are jumping on him because he's being a *****.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Interesting how everyone jumps on ML for being 100% absolutist, and not on me for being more absolutist than 98% of the people.

Its because you aren't trolling.

[Arrian]

No, it's that ML is relatively new to the OT. We're used to Ben being a wackjob. ML has that whole novelty thing going on.

It will wear off soon.

-Arrian

[Ecthy]

anyone: is Schröder so right wing?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
anyone: is Schröder so right wing?

I don't think Schröder is racist, so he's not as right-wing as ML, if that's what you meant.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Give me a policy that would give a small benefit to 99% and charge 1% a small amount.

Ok, how about taking away some funding from Aid to Dependant Children or something like that and using that money to fund something else or reduce taxes for everyone else.

The Theory of Justice would definetly reject it, because you are making the least advantage members of society worse off.

You said that the minorities are screwed in a system where the powerfull get to determine which rights people will have, but that the powerfull sometimes feel guilty and grant the minorities rights. When the powerfull do so, aren't they just doing what the Rawlsian model suggests?

Rights in Rawls' work is a totally different inquiry than the maximin. I don't see anything wrong with his ideas on political rights, but then again that isn't something he created (it's more of a Lockian model, if anything). He does say that people don't go into the original position with any rights and rights are formed from the contractual relationship, which is unlike Locke, but not entirely new. His new ideas spring from his maximin which arises from a original position with a veil of ignorance. The ideas on political rights were well developed before him.

And the Rawlsian model proposes the maximin because people fear they'll be the abject poor. The powerful who give rights aren't doing so because one day they fear they'll be poor so they want those rights to protect them! If they ever get overthrown, they'll be dead or will go into exile anyway.

I'm starting to see that Agathon was right. you are really just a conservative.

Aggie called me a classical liberal on the first page.

[Ecthy]

he's right wing authoritarian on that comparison thing

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nietszche

[Gangerolf]

Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67

Me, Gandhi and Mandela

[Gangerolf]

VJ made this one way back in, well I can't remember when it was.

I think it was the same test

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Imran,

You seem to be saying that you don't believe in his theory just because of this extreme case though. Is that it?

If a theory fails in the extreme case, it's wrong.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Monopolies are of course inconsistent with a free market. How could a monopoly be consistent with a free market?

Because it can arise out of a free market without making the market not free?

Only the state, or some element capable of using force, can destroy a free market.