[xasop]

PolSpectrum is a quiz that places you on the original left-right spectrum, rather than the modernised version.

http://www.politicallyincorrect.work/extras/polspectrum/

Here's my result:

[Fortuna]

[Rushy]

[garygreen]

i dunno how i got any points in 'spiritual.'

[Rushy]

The statements are too vague. If you're getting 100% on any subject then you're probably just flying past them without thinking about alternate situations or the overall implication of the statement.


Also, I hope no one answered "disagree" to this: "Sexuality and marriage should be controlled through social convention and law in order to ensure the best for future generations."

[garygreen]

The statements are too vague. If you're getting 100% on any subject then you're probably just flying past them without thinking about alternate situations or the overall implication of the statement.

i paid careful attention to the questions.  although i'm too pragmatic to actually be 100% on anything, i get why i'd get 100% on the two that i did.  i don't believe that humans have a fundamental nature, and because of that i believe 'kinship' is ultimately a counterproductive contrivance.  those are oversimplifications, sure, but close enough.

and i don't believe in anything supernatural or spiritual, so i probably should be 100% on 'material.'

Also, I hope no one answered "disagree" to this: "Sexuality and marriage should be controlled through social convention and law in order to ensure the best for future generations."

i answered "strongly disagree."  i don't believe (consensual) sexuality or marriage should be controlled by anyone, and i don't believe that non-existent future humans are entitled to anything.

[Crudblud]

I did three runs of this test at different times and each time I found myself clicking "I don't know" more than anything else. I don't think that's an accurate representation of my position on the political spectrum, only of my response to a bunch of statements which seem to suggest that race and religion are inseparable, or that in order to be for one thing I must also be for another largely unrelated thing. It's entirely possible that I'm just being dumb about this, but most of the statements seem to defy agreement or disagreement by dint of their conflation of things that have not all that much to do with each other.

[Rushy]

i paid careful attention to the questions.  although i'm too pragmatic to actually be 100% on anything, i get why i'd get 100% on the two that i did.  i don't believe that humans have a fundamental nature, and because of that i believe 'kinship' is ultimately a counterproductive contrivance.  those are oversimplifications, sure, but close enough.

and i don't believe in anything supernatural or spiritual, so i probably should be 100% on 'material.'

Apparently you're not too pragmatic to be 100% on anything, considering you managed to be 100% on things. Multiple things.

i answered "strongly disagree."  i don't believe (consensual) sexuality or marriage should be controlled by anyone, and i don't believe that non-existent future humans are entitled to anything.

Uhh, so you agree that pedophilia and child marriage should be legal? The banning of child marriage and sex is literally the state controlling who you can marry and/or have sex with through force of law and culture. It's exactly these kind of scenarios that leads me to believe you didn't think the quiz through. That, or your beliefs about the world are more extreme than I anticipated.

[garygreen]

Apparently you're not too pragmatic to be 100% on anything, considering you managed to be 100% on things. Multiple things.

if one takes the results of this oversimplified and incomplete questionnaire very literally, then sure, i guess.

Uhh, so you agree that pedophilia and child marriage should be legal? The banning of child marriage and sex is literally the state controlling who you can marry and/or have sex with through force of law and culture. It's exactly these kind of scenarios that leads me to believe you didn't think the quiz through. That, or your beliefs about the world are more extreme than I anticipated.

i used the word "consensual" precisely to exclude this possibility.  but you knew that already.  good 1 tho.

also, the prompt, "Sexuality and marriage should be controlled through social convention and law in order to ensure the best for future generations," is clearly not asking if i think that fucking children is morally permissible.  the key phrase is italicized.

[Rushy]

if one takes the results of this oversimplified and incomplete questionnaire very literally, then sure, i guess.

Why should it not be taken literally? Is it only a figurative quiz? It doesn't mention that anywhere...

i used the word "consensual" precisely to exclude this possibility.  but you knew that already.  good 1 tho.

also, the prompt, "Sexuality and marriage should be controlled through social convention and law in order to ensure the best for future generations," is clearly not asking if i think that fucking children is morally permissible.  the key phrase is italicized.

The word "consensual" is just as vague as the rest of the sentence even if included. It doesn't de facto exclude children because everyone defines it differently.

Also, that's a prepositional phrase you italicized. It's not a 'key phrase'. The base sentence is "Sexuality and marriage should be controlled" and you disagreed. Bravo.

[garygreen]

Why should it not be taken literally?

because it probably isn't a perfect quantification of a person's political beliefs.  i'm telling you irl that the results of this questionnaire do not fully capture my pragmatism.  if you want to keep insisting that i must be wrong about what my own beliefs are because i took an internet test that told me otherwise, then fair enough, i guess.

The word "consensual" is just as vague as the rest of the sentence even if included. It doesn't de facto exclude children because everyone defines it differently.

cool.  i'm telling you irl that i do not think it's morally permissible to fuck children.  i think cruelty is wrong.

Also, that's a prepositional phrase you italicized. It's not a 'key phrase'. The base sentence main clause is "Sexuality and marriage should be controlled" and you disagreed. Bravo.

lol.  prepositional phrases are modifiers.  in this case, "in order to ensure the best for future generations" is an adverb phrase that modifies "should be controlled."  it articulates the rationale for the main clause.  so it is "of paramount or crucial importance," or "key."

in other words, i strongly agree with the statement: "Sexuality and marriage should be controlled through social convention and law in order to ensure the safety and well-being of children."  i strongly disagree with the statement: "Sexuality and marriage should be controlled through social convention and law in order to ensure the best for future generations."

[George]

I have grave doubts about the reliability of this quiz, given the, uh, worldview expressed by its creator here.  For example, the number of questions relating to how you feel about other races or cultures is most likely a reflection of his own beliefs, rather than being that important in the original left-right spectrum.

[Rushy]

because it probably isn't a perfect quantification of a person's political beliefs.  i'm telling you irl that the results of this questionnaire do not fully capture my pragmatism.  if you want to keep insisting that i must be wrong about what my own beliefs are because i took an internet test that told me otherwise, then fair enough, i guess.

You managed to give black-and-white answers all the same. Sounds like your pragmatism is an ideal you use to ironically hide your idealism.

cool.  i'm telling you irl that i do not think it's morally permissible to fuck children.  i think cruelty is wrong.

Then your answer makes no sense at all.

lol.  prepositional phrases are modifiers.  in this case, "in order to ensure the best for future generations" is an adverb phrase that modifies "should be controlled."  it articulates the rationale for the main clause.  so it is "of paramount or crucial importance," or "key."

in other words, i strongly agree with the statement: "Sexuality and marriage should be controlled through social convention and law in order to ensure the safety and well-being of children."  i strongly disagree with the statement: "Sexuality and marriage should be controlled through social convention and law in order to ensure the best for future generations."

Are children not future generations?...

[garygreen]

You managed to give black-and-white answers all the same. Sounds like your pragmatism is an ideal you use to ironically hide your idealism.

my pragmatism is an ideal i set somewhat aside when i took this one internet quiz.  the results are an accurate reflection of the fact that i do not value 'kinship' very highly, and that i do not think humans have a fundamental nature, but not much else.

cool.  i'm telling you irl that i do not think it's morally permissible to fuck children.  i think cruelty is wrong.

Then your answer makes no sense at all.

i strongly agree with laws prohibiting adults from fucking or marrying children (not the point of the statement).  i strongly disagree with laws prohibiting two adults from fucking or marrying one another (the point of the statement).  what part of that doesn't make sense?

tbh i highly doubt that this quiz is attempting to assess if child molestation is part of the quiz-taker's political beliefs.

Are children not future generations?...

not by definition, no. 

[Pete Svarrior]

turns out I'm a raving leftie ;_;

[Rushy]

my pragmatism is an ideal i set somewhat aside when i took this one internet quiz.  the results are an accurate reflection of the fact that i do not value 'kinship' very highly, and that i do not think humans have a fundamental nature, but not much else.

What kind of ideals are ideals that you just set aside? not very good ones, I imagine.

i strongly agree with laws prohibiting adults from fucking or marrying children (not the point of the statement).

Apparently not!

Are children not future generations?...

not by definition, no.

You really think the question was asking about you protecting people that literally don't exist?

[garygreen]

my pragmatism is an ideal i set somewhat aside when i took this one internet quiz.  the results are an accurate reflection of the fact that i do not value 'kinship' very highly, and that i do not think humans have a fundamental nature, but not much else.

What kind of ideals are ideals that you just set aside? not very good ones, I imagine.

the ones where i'm taking a shitty internet quiz and not laboring over sophie's choice.  as i've said at least twice now, "the results are an accurate reflection of the fact that i do not value 'kinship' very highly, and that i do not think humans have a fundamental nature, but not much else."

i strongly agree with laws prohibiting adults from fucking or marrying children (not the point of the statement).

Apparently not!

lol if you're actually arguing that the results of a shitty internet quiz i took are a better representation of what i believe than the words i am using to tell you what i believe, then let's not have this conversation anymore.  you're either too stupid, or too stubborn.  i'm happy to entertain an interrogation of my political beliefs, but if your only interest in keeping up this conversation is to be king of the obtuse pedants, then fuck off.

You really think the question was asking about you protecting people that literally don't exist?

yes.  that's what "ensuring the best for future generations" means to me.  do you really think the question was asking if child molestation is a part of of the quiz-takers political beliefs? 

[Rushy]

the ones where i'm taking a shitty internet quiz and not laboring over sophie's choice.  as i've said at least twice now, "the results are an accurate reflection of the fact that i do not value 'kinship' very highly, and that i do not think humans have a fundamental nature, but not much else."

Regardless of your value of kinship, the idea that humans don't have a fundamental nature is the lolziest thing I've ever seen. No biologist or psychologist agrees with you. "hello, I am garygreen, and today I would like to tell you about my inherent science denial." Next you're going to tell me climate change is a Chinese hoax! Just google "longitudinal identical twin study" and be amazed at how much of your psyche was determined before you were even born!

lol if you're actually arguing that the results of a shitty internet quiz i took are a better representation of what i believe than the words i am using to tell you what i believe, then let's not have this conversation anymore.  you're either too stupid, or too stubborn.  i'm happy to entertain an interrogation of my political beliefs, but if your only interest in keeping up this conversation is to be king of the obtuse pedants, then fuck off.

Seems you're the only one being stubborn here, bucko, but hey, I'm not the one that managed to get a 100% on a spectrum quiz.

yes.  that's what "ensuring the best for future generations" means to me.  do you really think the question was asking if child molestation is a part of of the quiz-takers political beliefs?

...yes. The entire idea of controlling people's sexuality includes the idea of preventing pedophilia. It's a type of sexuality, and generally we like to make sure it's controlled. Of course, with liberals like you running around, it's only a matter of time before pedos are parading in the streets asking for their rights and their motto will be "love at any age!" Give it twenty years. Absolute degeneracy knows no bounds.

[garygreen]

Regardless of your value of kinship, the idea that humans don't have a fundamental nature is the lolziest thing I've ever seen. No biologist or psychologist agrees with you.

and if one twin is raised as a 12th century mongol horse lord, and the other as a 19th century dutch peasant, do you think those twins are going behave the same and have identical values/politics?  i don't.  since that's not the sort of question the twins studies are meant to answer, i'm unsure why you brought them up.

hey btw maybe actually read about this shit before making a bunch of asinine assertions: http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr04/second.aspx

But despite the popularity of twin studies, some psychologists have long questioned assumptions that underlie them--like the supposition that fraternal and identical twins share equal environments or that people choose mates with traits unlike their own...

Overall, twin studies assumptions remain controversial, says psychologist James Jaccard, PhD, a psychologist who studies statistical methods at the University at Albany of the State University of New York...

The classical twin study design relies on studying twins raised in the same family environments...

Twin researchers acknowledge that these and other limitations exist. But, they say, the limitations don't negate the usefulness of twin studies...

please cite the twins study that says humans have a fundamental nature.  whether or not you're predisposed to alcoholism or whatever isn't a fundamental nature.

Seems you're the only one being stubborn here, bucko, but hey, I'm not the one that managed to get a 100% on a spectrum quiz.

i also took an online quiz that said i was a giraffe.  and i guess you're dumb enough to believe that i must be because the internet said so.

with liberals like you running around, it's only a matter of time before pedos are parading in the streets asking for their rights and their motto will be "love at any age!" Give it twenty years. Absolute degeneracy knows no bounds.

how pathetic.

[Ghost Spaghetti]

with liberals like you running around, it's only a matter of time before pedos are parading in the streets asking for their rights and their motto will be "love at any age!" Give it twenty years. Absolute degeneracy knows no bounds.

Actually, there were already a number of groups who already did this before they were disowned by Gay Rights organisations in the 70s and 80s.