Mine is pretty close to yours: https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-5.63&soc=-4.92
Though I'm a little uncomfortable with reducing and summing my answers to a lot of unique questions to 2 variables, so I kinda want to list my answer to every question on the questionnaire..
"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."
Strongly agree
"I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong."
Strongly disagree
"No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it."
Agree
I put "Agree" rather than "Strongly agree" because feeling pride for one's family, city, state, country, species or whatever isn't *necessarily* a bad thing.. the bad thing is feeling that it's superior to others just because it's yours.
"Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races."
Disagree
I'm not PC Principal enough to believe that all races are created equal in every respect, but I'm not a white supremacist either.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Strongly disagree
https://retrospring.net/ColorStorm/a/754081?hl=de
"Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified."
Disagree
I don't actually know enough about international law to answer this, but I picked "Disagree" because the purpose of international war is to mitigate unjustified war and war crimes, and the existence of war and the atrocious things that go on as a part of it need to be mitigated as much as possible (and because I had to pick *something*).
"There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment."
Strongly agree
Fox News was actually taken to court for lying, and they won on the basis that a news organization is under no obligation to tell the truth..
Also, http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
"People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality."
Agree
I din't really know whether to put Agree or Disagree for this one, but class inequality is something that needs to be worked on, while the existence of nationality is just a part of life.. well, unless we somehow effect a One World Government.. if I were to answer this again I'm not sure if I'd put Agree or Disagree.
"Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."
Agree
I didn't know what to put for this one either. But I figured if inflation goes through the roof, everybody suffers, whereas with unemployment only a few people suffer. And wih inflation through the roof one way in which everybody suffers may be increased unemployment anyway.
"Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation."
Strongly agree
I don't even understand how someone could disagree with this.. so I have no elaboration for this answer.
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea."
Agree
I think the idea is commonly associated with communism, and I'm not a communist, but it was asking whether it's a fundamentally good idea in itself without any reference to communism, and I think it is.
"It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product."
Disagree
Clean drinking water isn't really an easy thing to come by or create without some kind of effort (in some areas it's probably as valuable as gold), so it makes sense that you'd be charged for it. We're lucky to have a relatively clean municipal water supply, but that didn't *have* to be the case, and bottled water is probably more healthy anyway.
"Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold."
Agree
That land was there way before humans ever arrived or governments, law enforcement or property rights, and people should have a right to simply live without having to pay money for it anyway (and you can't live if there isn't a place you're allowed to live in). We shouldn't be forced to participate in society's economic machine just to live. Nor should we be restricted in where we're allowed to walk on, sleep, pitch a tent, etc. on the earth. That's just way too restrictive--suffocatingly so--and unnatural.
I put "Agree" instead of "Strongly agree" because, all that having been said, civilization probably couldn't really exist as it does without property rights. And also because those people who want to live off the grid can go live out in the wilderness..
"It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society."
Strongly agree
"Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade."
Disagree
The only purpose for protectionism (I had to look that one up) is for a country to protect their superior economy and standard of living from "leaking out" into the rest of the world (or at least that's how it seems to me, I'm not educated in economics). I am not a nationalist and I don't think that one country's economic power or quality of living, even that of my own, is more important than any other's.. I'm 100% globalist.
I guess I put "Disagree" instead of "Strongly disagree" because I don't really
know that much about the issue. Economics is something that's never been easy for me to wrap my head around, it just doesn't agree with my way of thinking.. everything in it seems somehow paradoxical.
"The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders."
Strongly disagree
I can't believe that people actually accept and excuse companies/execs for being sociopathic/greedy/evil just because it's supposedly a company's only function or job to make as much money as possible. As if defining it in that way makes it okay.. you might as well sanction cancer on the same basis.
"The rich are too highly taxed."
Strongly disagree
I'm actually for a universal wage cap--all earnings above that value (say, $300,000 per year, perhaps) should be taxed.
A universal wage cap would allow us to keep the benefits of motivating people to participate in the free market while disincentivizing *profiteering* per se.
It would also make the economy more efficient by directing less labor toward the crafting and providing of frivolous luxury items and services, where the amount of benefit reaped is not even close to the amount of labor required.
Studies show that money doesn't even make people happier in general anyway, except for when it comes to the difference between living in poverty and not.
I wrote up my justification for this idea a few years ago, at http://inhahe.dynu.net:8080/book/capitalism.rtf
"Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care ."
Disagree
Maybe there are many things you should be able to acquire with a higher paycheck, but I'm not sure medical care is one of them. That's too close to putting a value on rich people's lives that's above that of other lives, and being rich doesn't actually make you any more valuable as a person.
I put "Disagree" instead of "Strongly disagree" because it seems like it may be too invasive/authoritarian to enforce that no amount of money can buy better medical care than what anybody else gets. I mean, in a capitalistic society, it's just natural that having more money will allow you to get more things done in just about any area.. so trying to enforce such a rule could go against the "natural" grain to such a degree that it could be considered fascist.
"Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public."
Strongly agree
If I had my own country, companies that (deliberately) mislead the public would be not just fined, but immediately put out of business. To mislead seems like a minor offense, but it indicates a fundamental disposition: that of being for oneself even at the expense of others' well-being (to mislead someone is to undermine their ability to make the best decision for them, and there would be no point in misleading them if the decision they would have made without being misled would have benefited you, so it's fundamentally against that person's well-being), and therefore it's evil.
"A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies."
Strongly agree
When there is only one choice of company to go to, that opens all sorts of doors for them to take advantage of the consumer. Let alone that it's just one step closer to a corporatocracy.
"The freer the market, the freer the people."
Disagree
It just sounds like some sort of libertarian rhetoric.
The freer the market, the more ability corporations have to oppress, take advantage of and exploit the consumer as well as the employee. (This is not a symmetrical relationship; the corporation naturally has more power than the individual consumer/employee.) And let alone to perpetuate unsustainable pillaging and pollution of the earth.. nobody wins in that scenario, in the long run.
"Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal."
Agree
I only put "Agree" because there was no choice for "Undecided."
Regardless of the sophistry people use to justify abortion (such as 'a woman should have the right to do what she wants with her own body'), abortion is murder. It's not *just* her own body; there's a body in and of itself in there, with its own life and mind. A fetus doesn't suddenly, *magically* become a person unto itself when it exits the womb; it's pretty much the same thing 1 second before it exits as 1 second after. Yet pro-choicer would say it's okay to kill it in the first case and not the second.. yes, how late in the term abortion is legal depends on the area, but how can we possibly know where the line is between it being murder and not murder, or if there even is a clear line?
Some people may argue that the line is drawn at the point at which the fetus could survive on its own outside the womb, but I think that's just a clever, but not particularly pertinent, delineation.. it could easily have a life of its own and *still* be dependent on its mother, and not to mention that how early on a fetus can be ejected and still survive depends heavily or what medical sorcery we happen to have on hand at our current level of technology. *Nobody* really survives independently; we all depend intimately on our environment; the fetus inside the womb is just living in a different mode of dependency than someone outside..
Also, it's just really gross and pathological for a mother, *the archetype of caring, nurturing and life-giving* to end her own son's or daughter's life violently *within her own womb*, the place that's supposed to be safest and is probably is the most sacred of anywhere on Earth..
The reason I didn't put "Strongly agree" and would have put "Undecided" if it were available, is that life on this planet sucks anyway, and would probably suck even more, stastically, for a person whose mother would have *wanted* to abort him or her, so maybe those who are aborted are actually the lucky ones. I know *I* would rather have been aborted. And having these extra, miserable people hanging around just contributes to overpopulation and the decimation of the earth anyway.
"All authority should be questioned."
Agree
Authority isn't *right* just because it's authority, and it can actually be quite dangerous and damaging. It's not necessarily merit that puts someone in a position of authority or that engenders some edict that authority must enforce, it's subject to the same social forces--including corruption and stupidity--as anything else.
I think I put "Agree" and not "Strongly agree" because it's possible that some level of implicitly accepting authority is necessary for society as we know it to function.
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."
Strongly disagree
"An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind"
I believe people should be penalized only for the purpose of deterring others and for direct protection of society from the perpetrators, not for retribution.
Like I said to someone on Twitter the other day, 'maybe there is a reason for everything, including bad actions or why people are bad, so it's not 'their fault' in an ultimate sense. And not to mention that evil may serve a purpose, such as providing a context for beings everywhere to know that they are experiencing goodness or that they are good, or, the purpose could be to explore or try to explore all possible modes of being and experiences. Doing the bad or evil thing is a result of lack of awareness. Everyone's innocent in God's eyes, or so i'm told. In any case, punishing evil doesn't help the evil person or make them not evil. It just makes the punisher feel better, so it's tantamount to schadenfreude, which is sick and vile. The closest thing that exists to what a person 'deserves' is what is best for them on an ultimate level; that's what's best for the universe as a whole.. anything else is just acting on a grudge.'
"Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis."
Disagree
There's no reason to think there's a one-to-one correspondance between what the market favors and what's really best for everyone on the whole. To think that would just be idealistic.
That kind of thinking would also rule out libraries, firefighters, paramedics, public schools, etc. etc. (I know some crazy people actually think *all* those things should be privatized, which is the ultimate in idealism thinking that would actually work out and that Adam Smith's invisible hand is actually all-encompassing, but in my second sentence I'm appealing to those who aren't libertarians/anarcho-capitalists..)
People could easily generally underestimate the value of (certain kinds of) theaters and museums.
I put "Disagree" instead of "Strongly disagree" because the type of people who would go to those types of theatres and museums are probably the rich who don't need us to fund their hobbies anyway.
"Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory."
I don't remember whether I put Agree or Strongly agree.
School is an absolute crushing evil for its attendees. It's funny, we even overtly reflect/symbolize the burden we put on them by making them carry around 20 pounds of books on their backs, even *young* children, so that they crouch over and their bodies develop incorrectly..
We make them memorize thousands and thousands of useless facts that they'll never need nor even remember after the test is passed, we subvert independent thinking, we force them to (try to) understand math, which is just completely outside the natural abilities or predilections of many students and is pretty much mental torture for those people, etc.
Children are taught conditional love by their parents, who come down on them like acid rain if they don't do the work they're expected to do in school, and even worse, they're punished either by physical abuse or by preventing them from socializing with their friends and the outside world, which is the same as preventing them from living and stealing their precious time to enjoy and develop.
The best learning a student could engage in would be learning that's born of an actual innate curiosity, and the best teaching a student could receive would be teaching that a student finds agreeable enough to choose to attend at their own will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N3N1MlvVc4 (Gary Jules - Mad World)
"All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind."
Disagree
You have to be a really backward hick/KKK member/whatever to support that kind of statement. I mean, even if it is better in general for different sorts of people to keep to their own kind (which I'm not saying it is), the statement is just mild/weasely way of justifying all sorts of racism, segregation, etc.
"Good parents sometimes have to spank their children."
Disagree
Spanking is physical abuse.. you'd go to jail if you spanked some random person on the street, or even if you spanked some adult you know against his/her will, and children shouldn't be given any less fundamental rights just because they're children. We don't *own* them.
Even if we should punish children in some way, and even if that does imply that they have fewer legal rights than a grown-up in some way, spanking is violent, traumatic abuse. It's backward and harsh, and we only do it because our parents perpertated it on us so we believe it's the right thing to do.. In some countries (such as Norway), spanking children is definitely *not* considered socially acceptable and is actually illegal. And yet, they somehow manage to raise their children just fine..
I put "Disagree" instead of "Strongly disagree" because it seems that the popular alternative to spanking children is to steal their time, which goes back to some things I said to the question of whether classroom attendance should be compulsory..
"It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents."
I don't remember whether I put Agree or Strongly agree.
Children need to be able to keep secrets from their parents because, basically, the average parent doesn't know how to parent. They have their arbitrary, fucktarded, overly conservative ideas about what children should and shouldn't be doing that they inherited from their culture, so if the child has no secrets they're not free to develop in their own self-directed and natural way; they're being overbeared upon and suffocated.
"Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence."
Strongly agree
It's a harmless drug that was made illegal for illegitimate reasons to begin with, and our prison system is already overburdened enough (we have, what, ten times as many people per capita in prison as the next highest country?), not to mention the unfairness to those who are in prison for such a victimless crime.
My nieces' father can't even *vote* because he was caught with too much marijuana, which is ridiculous. Everyone should have the right to vote, and preventing crimitals from voting only serves to reinforce legislation that unnecessarily criminalizes certain types of people..
"The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs."
I don't remember whether I put Disagree or Agree
The thing is, schooling should be about so much more and better things than what it's currently about. But, it probably won't ever be the things it *should* be, and relative to what it is *now*, making it only serve the purpose of preparing people to work would be better.
This goes along with comments I made earlier to the question of whether school attendance should be compulsory. So it's really hard to choose "Agree" or "Disagree"; either answer would be misleading without an explanation.
According to Conversations with God, some good ideas for courses that schools should teach are:
- Understanding Power
- Peaceful Conflict Resolution
- Elements of Loving Relationships
- Personhood and Self Creation
- Body, Mind and Spirit: How They Function
- Engaging Creativity
- Celebrating Self, Valuing Others
- Joyous Sexual Expression
- Fairness
- Tolerance
- Diversities and Similarities
- Ethical Economics
- Creative Consciousness and Mind Power
- Awareness and Wakefulness
- Honesty and Responsibility
- Visibility and Transparency
- Science and Spirituality
Here's a very good 3-minute video on the subject of how they're teaching the wrong things in school:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xe6nLVXEC0
Its title is 'Don't Stay in school', but its content is better than you might think based on the title.
"People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce."
Agree
We have the medicinal technology to keep almost everyone, or at least a lot more people, alive, regardless of
whatever genetic problems they may have, and we generally that technology. Eventually, due to genetic drift (as we partially remove natural selection from the equation), these problems will become more and more commonplace as people with these genetic defects are able to reproduce more and more; we as a species will eventually become *wholly dependent* on technology and probably sick and weak too. Our catering to people with genetic disorders is eventually going to bite us in the ass, in a big way. It's going to be hell.
I said "Agree" instead of "Strongly agree" because it's almost fascist to prevent some people from reproducing--though it may be the best thing anyway. I'm sure a heck of a lot of people would go ape-shit over such a law, though, which isn't a good thing, and probably even makes it impractical ever to pass such a law, at least in my country.
"The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline."
Strongly disagree
Making children "accept discipline" is euphemism for beating them senseless until they conform to being exactly what you expect of them, those expectations in themselves probably being ill-founded and simply learned from the parents' own parents and culture. (This goes back to some things I said to the question, "It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their paretns.)
Life's true expression isn't about discipline, though some level of discipline may be a necessary evil.. even that, though, may best be left to the children to discover for themselves, or if not that then explained to them, rather than authoritarianly imposed upon them.
The child raised by the kind of person who would agree to the above question is a clockwork orange.
"There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures."
Agree
I don't think that's entirely true, but it's better to agree than to disagree.
Of what we call uncivilized peoples, some are more savage than others (though there may be a general correlation between being uncivilized and being "savage"); and some of the things we do as a "civilization" are way more "savage" than anything a some "non-civilized" populations would even consider thinkable.
"Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support."
Disagree
It's impossible to diagnose and legislate welfare for every possible condition that would make work impractical for some; this means that, unless we provide a unversal social safety net, homelessnes will always be a problem. It's unbelievably harsh and indicative of a society where everyone is isolated from each other that some people are allowed to beg on the streets without basic necessities, while others live normal lives, relatively rich lives compared to those on the streets, while remaining blissfully unaware (or willfully ignorant, on an emoional level) of the deplorable conditions some people live in.
"Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest."
Conformance to the particular demands of the workfore is actually highly unnatural and, for some--perhaps even to some of the most virtuous--is like fitting a round peg into a square hole. Perhaps society wouldn't collapse if we only provided for *basic* needs for those who choose not to (or can't) work; the possibility of having a lot more buying power and living a less limited lifestyle may be incentive enough for the majority of people to work. A universal safety net would be even more affordable if we were to impose a universal wage cap as mentioned in my answer to the question, "The rich are too highly taxed."
"When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things."
Disagree
I could probably actually go either way on this, depending on the actual situation and the person involved. Sometimes worrying about something doesn't help and just makes one feel worse; sometimes something that's troubling a person should actually be paid attention to and emotionally worked through and/or acted or decided upon. Especially the way the question is worded, it makes it sound like an act of blatant denialism.
"First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country."
Disagree
I don't know to what degree this is true or not true, but I'm sure it's used as a justification for anti-immigration conservatives. And I'm sure it's not *entirely* true in any case. It says *never*, not "usually not", and it seems ridiculously unlikely that it's *never* the case.
"What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us."
Strongly disagree
I said more about this in my response to "The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders." and in my response to "The freer the market, the freer the people."
"No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding."
Strongly disagree or Disagree, I don't remember which.
This goes back to my answer to
"Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis."
"Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism."
Strongly agree
see http://picpaste.com/pics/actual_hazard_vs_public_outrage.1450176906.jpg
The threat of terrorism is actually minimal compared to all the things we *should* be focusing on, such as health problems and death due to poor diet, smoking, and various cancer-causing agents, or even the ridiculously unsafe practice of *driving*. In the biggest terrorist attack ever in the US, 4000 people died. *40,000* people die *every year* in this country alone due to car crashes.. but nobody cares about that.
Regarding government surveillance, Some argue that "If you're not doing anything wrong" or "you don't have anything to hide", then "you have nothing to worry about." But we *need* some level of privacy from the government for the same reason kids need to be able to keep secrets from their parents: the government is not a perfect authority; it can have unjust laws, and to be *absolutely* subject to those laws, with eyes everywhere, is suffocating.
Let alone the inconvenience of being incorrectly identified as or associated with terrorists. You can have your right to fly *anywhere* revoked for no good reason, you can be held in jail indefinitely without a trial merely for being suspected to be a terrorist (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_detention_without_trial#United_States ), etc.
"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."
Disagree
I could just as easily agree with this or disagree with this--it all depends on *which* party would the party in power if there were only one. I said "Disagree" because just picking one at random wouldn't be worth the risk of it being the republicans.
"Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried."
I don't remember whether I put Disagree or Strongly disagree
I don't even remember this question, oddly. But my answer would be along the same lines as my answer above to "Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism."
"The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes."
I think I put Disagree
I'm kind of conflicted on this, on one hand I don't believe in punishment for the purpose of retribution (and the death penalty is certainly about retribution--it actually costs more to put someone to death than a life imprisonment, and statistics shows almost no correlation--i think a slight positive correlation if anything--between crime rates and executions), I elaborated more on this belief in my earlier response to "An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind"
And even if I did believe in retribution to *smaller* degrees, it's just not right to play God and issue the cessation of life to someone whe we don't really understand people, the reasons they are what they are, or life itself or death itself in the first place.
On the other hand, I'm somewhat conflicted in this point because my stances against retribution and specifacally against issuing death are largely *philosophical*, while *emotionally* I may *hate the guts* of some people (but not some others) who commit heinois crimes and may *feel* like they should *die*. That's why I put "Disagree" instead of "Strongly disagree".
"In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded."
I think I put Disagree
I think truly egalitarian societies are possible and exist or have existed, though I'm not certain of that. Also, depending on how one defines "civilized", it may be completely impossible--I don't think it's possible not to have a chain of command in a civilization of 300,000,000 people or one with a well-developed infrastructure, laws, taxes, technology, a workforce, an economy, etc.
Or at least, it's not possible at this time.. human culture may well evolve at some point in the (probably distant) future not to be violent, evil or selfish and to naturally cooperate and to have the capacity to cooperate on a large scale without coercion.
"Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all."
Disagree
I said some things about the definition of "art" in my comments with lllllllll at https://retrospring.net/ColorStorm/a/716572
I think art doesn't have to "represent" anything else, because its message could be unique and not meant to reflect anything already existing or already pointed to by someone else.. but it should have a "meaning." In other words, art doesn't have to be e.g. a painting of a rock, but it does have to convey some sort of message.
Art should make you think or feel something deeply, or consider something in a new way, or point to some aspect of the world or the emotional landscape or the mind.. and there should be at least a *vague* correspondance between what the viewer gets out of it and what the artist intended. If the artist just puts up *anything* and says "get out of it whatever you want" then it might as well be a random pattern of pond scum..
There is plenty of pretentious non-art out there that conveys nothing and is only displayed in a museum because pretentious art critics want to believe, or want others to believe, that they're sophisticated enough to infer some deep meaning in a circle painted on a canvas, or random brush strokes or splashes that a monkey could make.
So whether I agree or disagree really has to do with how one interprets the word "represent" in the question.
"In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation."
I don't remember whether I put Disagree or Strongly disagree
"It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals."
I think I put Agree
If they hadn't included the word "some", I would have put "Disagree" or "Strongly disagree". But I have the feeling that *some* people are just beyond rehabilitation.
"The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist."
I either put Strongly disagree or Disagree
Business and manufacturing is just about consumption. I mean, some of it makes life more convenient and may even increase the quality of life, but for the most part it's just wasting one's life away working in order to buy shiny things that are supposed to fill the void inside, and it's a fast and endless cycle of turning resources into waste, pollution and carcinogens.
I think art and writing are largely underrated, they tend to bring perspective to life and perspective is badly needed in these times/in the "civilized" world..
Even the idea that *some* business and manufacturing increases the quality of life is debatable - according to http://www.cracked.com/article_19864_6-ridiculous-lies-you-believe-about-founding-america_p2.html , 'Settlers defecting to join native society was so common that it became a major issue for colonial leaders -- think the modern immigration debate, except with all the white people risking their lives to get out of American society. According to Loewen, "Europeans were always trying to stop the outflow. Hernando De Soto had to post guards to keep his men and women from defecting to Native societies." Pilgrims were so scared of Indian influence that they outlawed the wearing of long hair. Ben Franklin noted that, "No European who has tasted Savage Life can afterwards bear to live in our societies."'
"Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers."
Agree
I know it sounds conservative and sexist, but I just think that it's important in homes with *children* that someone stay home with the children. It could be the father, of course, but if the mother works then likely both spouses work. And mothers are probably better equipped to take care of children anyway. They're more nurturing and sensitive, they give milk out of their breasts, and it's what they *evolved* to do; for a long, long time women would stay home and take care of the children while the men were out hunting and gathering, so that's kind of the roles we're biologically and psychologically designed to fulfill.
"Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries."
I put Agree or Strongly agree
"Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity."
I think I put Disagree (rather than Strongly disagree)
There's probably some truth to it, but it could also be an old fogie ideology. Not making peace with the establishment could easily be a sign of being an usually real, deep, or independently-thinking person, and the establishment is not always right.
"Astrology accurately explains many things."
I put Agree, although if there were an Undecided I would have put that
I don't know if astrology is *actually* true (or, to put it better, *how* true it is), but I don't have any reason to believe it couldn't be true by principle. I wrote about the subject here https://retrospring.net/Wasserpistole/a/725925 and here https://retrospring.net/ColorStorm/a/616117
"You cannot be moral without being religious."
Strongly disagree
Being moral out of fear of divine punishment is actually *less* moral than being moral out of one's inner sense of goodness. Let alone that religion is retarded bullshit so it wouldn't make sense to give it a monopoly on any human virtue..
"Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged."
I think I put Disagree, but I probably should have put Strongly disagree.
Charity just isn't enough; there's no guarantee that enough people will want to give charity, and besides, it just wouldn't be right for the weight of caring for those who need it to rest solely on the most compassionate people, while the more apathetic and selfish people enjoy the rewards of a thicker wallet.
"Some people are naturally unlucky."
Agree
I know it seems like "superstition" to think this way, but some "superstitions" happen to be true; the academic, scientistic, materialist view of reality where nothing mystical, spiritual or magical is legitimate is wrong.
A person is naturally unlucky if they expect only the worst to happen. In the words of Frank Herbert, "Belief structure creates a filter through which chaos is sifted into order."
Emotionally resonating with the energy of tragedy or loss on a consistent basis may also cause the phenomenon of being "naturally unlucky."
Nothing in science actually disproves such things; they are simply against the *air* of modern scientific thought. It takes a rare person to be able to appreciate both scientific principles and mystical truths. Most people are either too hard-headed and dismissive of anything extraordinary or amazing, or not analytical or skeptical *enough* and tend to be open-minded to the point of letting their brains fall out. Of course, the scientistic camp exists in deathly fear of succumbing to the latter possibility.
"It is important that my child's school instills religious values."
Strongly disagree, obviously
Religioun is a brain-washing meme complex, a congenitally spread social disease.
"Sex outside marriage is usually immoral."
Strongly disagree
This notion just goes back to religion and puratanism. Sex is actually one of the most natural things in the world.. marriage, on the other hand, is *not*.
Would a person having sex is a tribal society that has no formal notion of marriage be committing an immoral act? Were cavemen who had sex committing an immoral act?
Let alone that not allowing people to release that sexual energy or to share with others on that level of intimacy or to feel that level of joy until *years later* when, and if, they happen to get married is cruel and unnatural and probably stunts their psychological development. And sex is actually good for your health, according to science.
Humans are (aside from those tribal societies with little connection to the outer world) really screwed up and inhibited when it comes to sexuality. They fear it and think it's somehow wrong or dirty except in certain contexts. I'm sure things are this way because that's the worst possible way things could be. Societies that are more sexually open tend to have less crime, less teen pregnancy, and a host of other attributes that indicate better social health and general well-being that I can't remember now.
"A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption"
Agree
Children aren't going to be confused or grow up gay because they're raised by same-sex parents. Those ideas are just homophobic FUD. I'm sure there are studies on this but I'm not going to look them up because anybody interested can do it just as easily.
"Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population."
Agree or Strongly agree, I forget
This goes back to me comments on sexual openness above in response to "Sex outside marriage is usually immoral."
Also censorship in general isn't a good idea.
"What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state."
Strongly agree
Caring what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms (consentingly and not hurting anybody), even to the point of loathing and illegalization, is extremely immature. And legally preventing people from doing certain kind of sexual acts (consensually) is so audacious and authoritarian that I can hardly even believe it's allowed in this country. That's like middle-Eastern level backwards.
"No one can feel naturally homosexual."
Strongly disagree
That belief is only held by people who haven't lifted a single finger to actually talk to homosexuals and see how they feel; they just believe what serves their irrational homophobia and condemnation.
"These days openness about sex has gone too far."
Strongly disagree (I think that's what I put)
Again, I said all I need to about this in my answer "Sex outside marriage is usually immoral."