Politics

[zelezo vlk]

I got Solid Liberal. Maybe I should retake the test when I'm not imbibing.

 

[connor_in]

Political silliness of the day #2:

A ‘first’: Could Jeb Bush’s voter form revelation lead to this historic presidential matchup? | Twitchy

 

[connor_in]

If you've got a couple minutes, take this Political Typology Quiz from Pew. Gives you a pretty accurate idea how the national pollsters would pigeon-hole your beliefs (regardless of how inaccurate that might be). They pegged me as belonging to the "Faith and Family Left". Never thought of myself like that before, but it makes sense for an American Catholic.

started to take it...then gave up...the two statements given are not mutually exclusive...like the govt intervention question...it is designed to protect the public and does....sometimes, but it often does seem to cause more harm than good because many times they go too far

 

[Whiskeyjack]

started to take it...then gave up...the two statements given are not mutually exclusive...like the govt intervention question...it is designed to protect the public and does....sometimes, but it often does seem to cause more harm than good because many times they go too far

I was frustrated by all the false dichotomies myself, but the point isn't to give you an accurate description of your political leanings; it's to show you how the major pollsters would pigeon-hole you. Still useful information to have.

 

[Emcee77]

I got "Next Generation Left." That puts me to the right of Whiskey, who frequently posts articles from the American Conservative and the National Review, whereas I'm more of a New Yorker sharer. So, hmm...

 

[connor_in]

I was frustrated by all the false dichotomies myself, but the point isn't to give you an accurate description of your political leanings; it's to show you how the major pollsters would pigeon-hole you. Still useful information to have.

The thing is based off the questions i saw before I gave up, I wouldn't know where to pigeon hole myself to give them answers. If they asked me that govt intervention question on the phone, I would've said yes instead of 1 or 2.

Probably pegs me as RWNJ to do that tho, eh?

 

[Emcee77]

The thing is based off the questions i saw before I gave up, I wouldn't know where to pigeon hole myself to give them answers. If they asked me that govt intervention question on the phone, I would've said yes instead of 1 or 2.

Probably pegs me as RWNJ to do that tho, eh?

Some of them are hard to answer ... all you can do is just do your best to pick the one that comes CLOSEST to your view.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I got "Next Generation Left." That puts me to the right of Whiskey, who frequently posts articles from the American Conservative and the National Review, whereas I'm more of a New Yorker sharer. So, hmm...

Take it with a large grain of salt. I'm certain very few here would consider me a "Man of the Left".

 

[connor_in]

Some of them are hard to answer ... all you can do is just do your best to pick the one that comes CLOSEST to your view.

The Sun is yellowish-orange
The Sun is Orangish-yellow

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

If you've got a couple minutes, take this Political Typology Quiz from Pew. Gives you a pretty accurate idea how the national pollsters would pigeon-hole your beliefs (regardless of how inaccurate that might be). They pegged me as belonging to the "Faith and Family Left". Never thought of myself like that before, but it makes sense for an American Catholic.

I received the "Faith and Family Left" moniker as well.

 

[connor_in]

The thing is based off the questions i saw before I gave up, I wouldn't know where to pigeon hole myself to give them answers. If they asked me that govt intervention question on the phone, I would've said yes instead of 1 or 2.

Probably pegs me as RWNJ to do that tho, eh?

"Business Conservative"...told ya

But they might as well use this:

Tony the Tiger is usually on a Frosted Flakes box.
Peanut butter can come in a jar.

Smurfs are almost always male
Smurfette is a female Smurf

 

[GoIrish41]

Take it with a large grain of salt. I'm certain very few here would consider me a "Man of the Left".

Socialist

I got Solid Liberal -- I know, surprising.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Socialist

At least we're on the same side here, comrade!

 

[pkt77242]

I got Solid Liberal.

Don't be shocked.

 

[pkt77242]

At least we're on the same side here, comrade!

About time you came over to our side.

 

[GoIrish41]

At least we're on the same side here, comrade!

 

[EddytoNow]

Dude, eugenics does not equate to "Hitler" in-and-of-itself... come on...

Definition of Eugenics: The study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)

I would suggest that what has been proposed by a poster to this discussion is what I have highlighted in bold print above. In essence, he is saying the LGBT community has undesirable traits that should be prevented prior to birth while the non-LGBT community has desirable traits that should be encouraged. It may not equate to all that Hitler stood for, but it certainly has parallels to his plan for eliminating all those he viewed as inferior.

 

[IrishLax]

Definition of Eugenics: The study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)

I would suggest that what has been proposed by a poster to this discussion is what I have highlighted in bold print above. In essence, he is saying the LGBT community has undesirable traits that should be prevented prior to birth while the non-LGBT community has desirable traits that should be encouraged. It may not equate to all that Hitler stood for, but it certainly has parallels to his plan for eliminating all those he viewed as inferior.

My point is rather straightforward:

1. Eugenics is a debatable topic. There is a lot of merit to hypothetical genetic manipulation to eliminate maladies (down syndrome, heart defects, etc.) from the human race... and there is also a lot of merit to the argument that eugenics is a terrible idea. Those arguments should be made with regard to a specific application of eugenics... if you don't like the idea of people being able to genetically eliminate homosexuality from their hypothetical children, you should make an argument as to why you believe that application of eugenics is a bad idea without invoking a dictator from 70 years ago to blanket-shame the idea by association.

2. Just because Hitler or Genghis Khan or Stalin or whoever believed something is completely irrelevant to the value of that belief. Hitler believed in Darwinism* and evolution... does that necessarily make those theories invalid, wrong, or bad?

3. The longstanding joke that the first one to invoke Hitler in a debate loses exists for a reason.

 

[Ndaccountant]

business conservative. I was on the more social side of that moniker, which put me almost directly in-between mixed and conservative.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

My point is rather straightforward:

1. Eugenics is a debatable topic. There is a lot of merit to hypothetical genetic manipulation to eliminate maladies (down syndrome, heart defects, etc.) from the human race... and there is also a lot of merit to the argument that eugenics is a terrible idea. Those arguments should be made with regard to a specific application of eugenics... if you don't like the idea of people being able to genetically eliminate homosexuality from their hypothetical children, you should make an argument as to why you believe that application of eugenics is a bad idea without invoking a dictator from 70 years ago to blanket-shame the idea by association.

2. Just because Hitler or Genghis Khan or Stalin or whoever believed something is completely irrelevant to the value of that belief. Hitler believed in Darwinism* and evolution... does that necessarily make those theories invalid, wrong, or bad?

3. The longstanding joke that the first one to invoke Hitler in a debate loses exists for a reason.

Or racism

 

[connor_in]

My point is rather straightforward:

1. Eugenics is a debatable topic. There is a lot of merit to hypothetical genetic manipulation to eliminate maladies (down syndrome, heart defects, etc.) from the human race... and there is also a lot of merit to the argument that eugenics is a terrible idea. Those arguments should be made with regard to a specific application of eugenics... if you don't like the idea of people being able to genetically eliminate homosexuality from their hypothetical children, you should make an argument as to why you believe that application of eugenics is a bad idea without invoking a dictator from 70 years ago to blanket-shame the idea by association.

2. Just because Hitler or Genghis Khan or Stalin or whoever believed something is completely irrelevant to the value of that belief. Hitler believed in Darwinism* and evolution... does that necessarily make those theories invalid, wrong, or bad?

3. The longstanding joke that the first one to invoke Hitler in a debate loses exists for a reason.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Right, and this is basically the "benefit of the doubt" version. But you also said things like

"In 20 years there will probably be an in utero treatment to prevent homosexuality, "gender identity disorder," etc., so most of this will be moot. It should be obvious that even the most "liberal" and "tolerant" parents will use it."

strongly implying that everyone agrees with a) the Catholic belief that homosexuality is a "disorder" and that b) it "obviously" should be "treated" if possible.

For people who don't see homosexuality as a disorder but as a trait no different than eye or skin color, this comes across as *really* offensive. I can promise you that even if I could, I would never test my unborn children for gayness and I would never try to "fix" it if it were present. What seems obvious to you, honestly, seems repulsive to me.

I was not trying to guess what you will do if such a drug is developed; I am guessing what most people, including most liberals, will do. I am making a prediction based on revealed preferences (looking at how people actually behave, rather than looking at what they say). Looking at revealed preferences is especially important in the U.S., where there is tremendous social pressure for people to claim to believe certain things but also counter-pressure from reality forcing them to do other contradictory things. For example, liberals love to condemn middle-class and rural whites for all the supposedly racist things they do (read the NYT's coverage of the Ferguson episode for a taste of this). Meanwhile, these same liberals institute housing schemes meant to protect informal segregation in their communities (the most remarkable case of this that I am aware of is the "black-a-block" program in fashionably left-wing Oak Park, IL).

The same thing is at work here, in my estimation. No liberal would propose, for example, that people with down syndrome be denied their civil rights, but they abort (and approve of abortions of) down syndrome fetuses at an appalling rate. Nor are they willing to forbid sex-selection abortions, despite their belief in the absolute equality of the sexes. I oppose all abortion, for any reason, including if the child is gay, or of the wrong sex, or has down syndrome. Liberals do not oppose abortion, nor do they oppose genetic therapies for things we all agree are not disorders, such as eye color, hair color, sex, etc. So it is hard for me to see why most liberals would oppose using the hypothetical drug at issue.

 

[BGIF]

Take it with a large grain of salt. I'm certain very few here would consider me a "Man of the Left".

In your heart you know he's right.






(Extreme Right.)

1964

 

[pumpdog20]

Young Outsider, which is weird because I'm nowhere near young.

 

[ACamp1900]

Young Outsider, which is weird because I'm nowhere near young.

I got the same,... Young Outsider

 

[kmoose]

Actually in an at-will state, you can not be fired for being Irish. The CRA still applies in at-will employment states. If a person was fired for being Irish they could sue the owner and would likely win in court (if they can prove it). The same is generally not true for gay people (except in states and municipalities that have them as a protected class).

No. In an at-will state you cannot SAY that you fired someone for being Irish. But, since you aren't required to have a reason for firing them, you CAN fire them for being Irish, but pass it off as "we just didn't need him anymore".

 

[GowerND11]

I got Young Outsider as well.

 

[Emcee77]

What everybody missed during the fight over religious freedom laws this year - The Washington Post

Cool article/series of articles about the RFRA battles of 2015, if anybody is looking for some more in-depth treatment.

 

[condoms SUCk]

If you've got a couple minutes, take this Political Typology Quiz from Pew. Gives you a pretty accurate idea how the national pollsters would pigeon-hole your beliefs (regardless of how inaccurate that might be). They pegged me as belonging to the "Faith and Family Left". Never thought of myself like that before, but it makes sense for an American Catholic.

I got Steadfast Republica. Meh, I guess that would be accurate to an extent.
I'm a big fiscal conservative but pretty moderate on socal issues.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned, and I only thought about it today. Can a minister, priest or rabbi refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple in states where gay marriage is legal without running into the same legal problems a florist, photographer, etc. would for refusing to provide their services?