More RWE survey questions
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Thursday, August 24, 2006 17:30
VIEWED: 2847
PAGE 2 of 3
Read a study once and the Slavs have the biggest balls.
Or at least the heaviest.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Additionally, Hero, how do you know that it is the Anglo-Saxon portion of their heritage that contributes to Britain's great big bollocks? It could just as easily be the Norman (read: French), Gaelic, or even Roman blood coursing through the veins of many of the United Kingdom's inhabitants.
As a point of interest, do you know who else has insanely large testicles? Male cattle. Bulls. Of course, cattle are not burdened with an overabundance of schooling, and I certainly wouldn't want one running my country, no matter how big his balls.
So on two levels at least, your lauding of British government, based upon "big Anglo-Saxon balls," is completely fallacious and unsupported (which incidentally, I don't recommend for those with ponderously big balls, especially when engaging in vigourous activity).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ooh, another survey!
The future is safer in the hands of (government, corporations): Compassionate people who don't want to go around killing anyone; but, if I had to choose... government
Which ideal is more important (Universal Equality, Preservation of a way of life)? Universal equality
Society is best run by a set of rules which are a (rigidly enforced, guiding hand)? Both, depending on the rule/law
To each according to his needs, or Let them eat cake? i.e. Benefits in a society should be based mainly on (need, merit)? Both, in that order
Should society have (one way of doing things, or are there many equally valid ways,) i.e. Variety is (spice of bad, spice of life)? Most spices are good
Positions of employment (supplied by the system, available to skilled workers)? Available to any willing to work
Which is more important (security, freedom)? Freedom
The world is better as (A global one world govt., a collection of smaller nations)? Collection… that way someone has a chance to get it right.
The best long-term effective way to settle disagreements is (military conflict, diplomacy)? Diplomacy.
It's more important that we (protect the people, conserve the environment)? We can do both. I don’t see that as particularly difficult.
The economy is better served by (Large all-purpose institutions, a large number of smaller ones)? Smaller ones… because Wal-Mart scares me (assuming I interpreted the question correctly, that is).
Western Democracy is the (best system possible, there are probably better ones)? Are you kidding me? There has to be something better.
Land should belong to (the people who were there first, the people who there are more of)? How about land shouldn’t belong to anyone, it should belong to everyone?
The world needs bigger weapons, or should we try to cut back? Eliminate them all together, and let people who want to argue hurl stones at each other or get in a fistfight.
Negotiation should be settled by compromise, or my way or the highway? Compromise.
My ideas are internally consistent, or I have some issues to work out? There are definitely still a few issues.
---
Go to http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/ and vote Firefly!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTTS,
Actually, spin was not the goal. I've divided the world into two basic camps on what I see as the core philosophical differences. People will probably fall on one side, not necessarily all the way at the end, of each issue, if they think about it enough, I suspect.
Other standard issues like the Death Penalty don't define a philosophical position. You heard likely one side of the argument, and so were convinced, often at the age of ten or something. But it's not a deep felt belief.
The whole question set was meant as, when it comes to a breaking point between these two ideas, I fall on the side of...
So my pro-PWL statement was not an opposition to equality, it was simply saying, I'm not sacraficing my way of life to make sure society is egalitarian.
Maybe this was to abstruse for most people
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The future is safer in the hands of (goverment, corporations)?
Between these two, I would say the government. Preferably, a small government with minimal interference.
Which ideal is more important (Universal Equality, Preservation of a way of life)?
Universal Equality would be the ideal. Preservation of life is usually attained by exploiting those who are weaker, whether it is done intentionally or unintentionally.
Society is best run by a set of rules which are a (rigidly enforced, guiding hand)?
Both, I think. You're not going to have a sustainable society without some law.
To each according to his needs, or Let them eat cake? ie. Benefits in a society should be based mainly on (need, merit)?
It's always important to help those in need, but if you expect a society to function properly, then merit is an absolutely essenital component.
Should society have (one way of doing things, or are there many equally valid ways,) ie. Variety is (spice of bad,spice of life)?
Depends on the thing in question, but generally there are many ways. In my opinion, variety enhances a society.
Positions of employment (supplied by the system, available to skilled workers)?
The job needs to go to the person who's most qualified regardless of ethnicity, nationality, religion etc.
Which is more important (security, freedom)?
Freedom. I'm sure a police state would be secure, but I don't want to live in one.
The world is better as (A global one world govt., a collection of smaller nations)?
The best one is the one that governs least. Both systems have the potential to raise humanity up, or grind it into the ground.
The best long term effective way to settle disagreements is (military conflict, diplomacy)?
Diplomacy. Military conflict should only be a last resort option.
It's more important that we (protect the people, conserve the environment)?
I don't think these are mutually exclusive of one another. You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger tree-hugger than me. I think most people's attitude towards the environment is shameful, but there needs to be balance. The relationship between people and the environment is symbiotic, it's give and take. The problem right now is that people are mostly taking, and far to few are giving anything back.
The economy is better served by (Large all-purpose institutions, a large number of smaller ones)?
Small businesses are the key to the economy, and freedom of choice. I don't want one phone company, one cable company, one food corporation etc. I prefer to go to the farmer's market and other local businesses, not a Wal-Mart superstore.
Western Democracy is the (best system possible, there are probably better ones)?
There's probably a better system, but I haven't seen one. The problem is that any form of government is susceptible to corruption.
Land should belong to (the people who were there first, the people who there are more of)?
Ideally, the people who were there first, but we all know how that works out.
The world needs more bigger weapons, or should we try to cut back?
I'm for mutual disarmament, but it'll never happen. War is big business.
Negotiation should be settled by compromise, or my way or the highway?
Compromise would be best, but some people are simply unwilling to compromise at all.
My ideas are internally consistant, or I have some issues to work out?
They vary. Some of my ideas are consistent, and others are open to different possibilites.
"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Maybe you can just elaborate on what you see as the core philosophical differences? And then I can tell you what side I fall on.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I've divided the world into two basic camps on what I see as the core philosophical differences. People will probably fall on one side, not necessarily all the way at the end, of each issue, if they think about it enough, I suspect.
Forced choice questions are always tricky to pull off. The wording of the questions is critical--people have to understand very clearly what the 2 forced choices mean. Most of the time, I just didn't understand your choices.
For example, people or the environment. I would have probably worded it like this. "If one had to be sacrificed for the other to survive, which would you choose to sacrifice: humans or the environment?" Then I would understand first of all, that it WAS a forced choice question, and secondly, what my 2 choices were. Even then it would be hard, no painful, to answer.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTTS
Okay, you got more or less what I was trying to do.
people vs the environment, I think there's a trend here. If you have to choose complete the loss of one, it's harder, but then consider the half loss. The world loses 1/2 its people, or half the earth/life/species. It's like pakistan, or reptiles?
The curious thing was that most people didn't fall on one side, maybe nobody fell on one side.
AgentRouka gave what I thought was the most solidly one-sided stance, which was all left wing except for "people who were there first."
Logically, if you think about it, people who were there first is a conservative preservation of a way of life position, ireland for the irish, etc. The counter position would be, overpopulated nations should export their people to less populated ones, which is actually not as far out as it sounds, it's a base principle operating the mainstream left of the US and EU.
Some of the questions weren't meant to be left-right, but authoritarian-libertarian, and not surprisingly, a bunch of firefly fans tended libertarian.
I thought the fact that people weren't solidly on one side was the most interesting thing to come out of it. In both surveys, no one is party line.
It opens up political possibilities. It's entirely possible, under our political system, that a politician, who matches the majority of positions with the majority of one side, who is in the majority, that the elected platform would include positions that are not supported by a majority of the people, or even close.
Perhaps the system would work better if all issues were put to a referendum.
Ben franklin said "democracy is a a lamb and two wolves deciding what to have for dinner."
I think that actually, ours may be more like the team of wolf-lamb is a majority, and so beats out other-lamb, and then decisions are made within wolf lamb, and a compromise is reached in the party whereby platforms are passed, inspite of vehement objections of half the party, and so wolf-lamb's platform decides on daisies *and* lamb as fair game for dinner. Wolf then leads wolf-lamb to a stunning victory over other-lamb, and lambs eat daisies and wolf eats lambs.
The trick here is that the formula has changed, wolf and two lambs sit down and decide to have lamb for dinner.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I find it very interesting that you seem to equate democracy with military power. (Or, hey, the concept of will with military power. Very rational.) I thought we were talking political system?
One measure of the viability of a particular system of government must be its ability of sustain itself in the face of foriegn aggression. You can have the best form of government the world has ever known, but if it lacks the power to withstand an assault by a foriegn power, then its all meaningless.
Quote:
Not to mention, you conveniently seem to forget that the history of democracy in Europe is a very different one to the U.S. and its stability, yes, was fragile for a good long time. But things particular in Western Europe have been fairly stable for a good while now.
I agree. Since World War II European democracy has been very stable. Why? The United States. Our money reconstructed Europe's economic and social infrastructure. Our leadership gave Europe direction. Our military power was a shield against Communist aggression. Likewise it was the absense of the United States that many rightfully blame for the failure of the League of Nations after WW1 and was a major contributing factor to WW2.
Quote:
Again I ask: How does this define the entirety of European democracy as non-functional without the aid of the US?
Europe has in recent years taken a much more active role in world affairs and has decided in many cases to forgo American advise and leadership. Economically they formed the EU whose goals I agree with, but whose member states are suffering very poor economic growth compared to the United States. Old Europe has a great deal of social and political instability beneath a brave facade, instability that periodically manifests itself with examples such as the riots in Paris last year or Spain's overnight capitulation to terrorists. Militarily they took the lead in Bosnia and nothing was accomplished till US forces began to arrive years later. The French have traditionally stood by while people are slaughtered on their doorstep in places like Rwanda and it was a largely European contingent that waved at passing Hezbollah forces as they entered Isreal to kidnap Isreali soldiers on July 12, starting the recent war and now it is Europe which promises 15,000 troops to end the fighting and sends a couple guys and a dingy.
In short all of Europe's efforts, promises, and pretense at world leadership have amounted to little or nothing unless and until the United States steps in to make it all better.
Quote:
If we're counting world peace as the one deciding factor, then I do raise my eyebrows at why you're considering the U.S. the cream of the crop.
US policy kept the peace for fifty years. And we stand ready for peace today. If all the terrorists laid down their arms today then the war on terror would be over. If Saddam had surrendered peacefully, there would not be a US presense in Iraq. If North Korea would quite being a hostile and aggressive nation determined to build and use a capacity to deliver WMDs to American, Korean, and Japanese cities, Korea would have peace. Peace with the US is easy, its peace with the terrorists and hostile powers that seems to be hard.
Quote:
Oh. Forgive me. I was going to take you seriously, but apparently I missed all the obvious signs that this was a locker room contest between thirteen-year-olds.
Don't hang around here much, do ya?
My eloquently stated point is that England is not a traditional part of Europe. They have always sought to stand apart from the continental types. One way they have distinguished themselves is by having balls...another way is by having shows like Doctor Who.
Likewise I find myself with great admiration for the French people. France however is a piece of shit pansy nation that hasn't the balls to play a decent game of tennis much less stand up and be a world leader. Its kind of a French tra
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Read a study once and the Slavs have the biggest balls.
So thats why they walk so funny...
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TwilightJack:
Additionally, Hero, how do you know that it is the Anglo-Saxon portion of their heritage that contributes to Britain's great big bollocks? It could just as easily be the Norman (read: French), Gaelic, or even Roman blood coursing through the veins of many of the United Kingdom's inhabitants.
Point taken. Saw Braveheart and King Arthur so you could be right.
I note that Golf is a Scottish game that involves hitting little white balls, much like they did when the Anglish invaded...
Quote:
As a point of interest, do you know who else has insanely large testicles? Male cattle. Bulls. Of course, cattle are not burdened with an overabundance of schooling, and I certainly wouldn't want one running my country, no matter how big his balls.
Have you ever driven by a dairy farm and noticed all the cows standing together and having some kind of meeting. Perhaps they are discussing public policy much like one of those round tables that they show on CSPAN3 at 2am.
Cattle can provide many useful things:
Milk, good.
Leather, good.
Beef, good.
Plan to revitalize American domestic rail transportation infrastructure by utilizing a hybrid program of deregulation and tax incentives, good.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME