Poll: Think you think straight? Think again...

[Beryl77]

I got 20% but I think that the test is a bit flawed. One contradiction was that I think that art is subjective but I said that Michaelangelo is one of the greatest artists in history but I didn't mean that he IS the best artist but that I THINK he is the best artist, I know that others might think differently about that. The problem with this test is that the only two possible answers are yes or no but there are often many more possible answers to those questions, people can't really say how they think about something in this test.

 

[SkyeNeko]

33%, but i soundly rationalize my choices. Some statements also implied that i agreed only with that single thought, and not with an alternate one.

 

[chibivash]

20%, only 3 in conflict. the Michelangelo one was bs. if i think he is a good artist, isn't that my subjective point of view? and the atheist one was bs too. if jedi can be a religion, so can atheism.

 

[Soviet Steve]

I voted 'none', though I got 7%. I feel I have a rational approach to this though:

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

I don't see how these conflict. It is rational to say that we cannot yet determine if there is a God, so stating that we can determine that there is not a God is just as irrational.

I count myself an atheist in that I don't believe that there is a God as described by world religions. I am open to the existance of powerfull beings that we have not yet discovered.

So in summary it is irrational both to say "There is" and "There is not" when the real answer is "We don't know yet."

 

[slightly evil]

7% - for one question.
I agreed that people should be allowed to do what they like if they dont hurt anyone
but disagreed that drugs should be decriminalized. my reasoning in a nutshell is thus: addiction really screws people up. They might well hurt people if they follow that addiction.
No problem with most drugs, but stuff like heroin is pretty destructive.
Failure on the part of the question. I'm counting that as a win *hoppip face*
And not to start an argument or anything but art comes in two categories: 1) Subjective, and 2) crap. Unless you can actually convey whatever meaning you were going for with your use of shape, colour etc. it's crap. - this question was a not-quite-agree
EDIT: took a few moments to get my head straight (thanks for the excersise) yeah, in general I believe people should be able to do what they want, but there should be *some* restrictions. I dont trust people not to take things too far or in the wrong direction.
The same reason I'm against highly addictive/destructive drugs is the same reason i'm against having guns, it's just more risk factors to deal with. Make things as open minded as possible, just not anarchy

 

[Raven's Nest]

"Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists" Agree or Disagree.You just asked me if "Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste". Thanks for dealing with absolutes so that no matter what I answer you can say I contradict myself. If I agree that all judgements about works of art are a matter of taste then agree or disagree in that michaelangelo is one of history's finest artist no matter what I say it goes against what I had already said.

The key word is purely, If you believe that judgement of art is purely subjective you are not leaving room for any objectivity. If you state that "Michaelangelo's work is one of history's finest artists" you are also suggesting that someone else's negative opinion doesn't count.

The question didn't say "In my opinion, Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists"...

A cheap shot perhaps, but the questions are designed to test the strength of your convictions. You need to be able to account for all possible meanings of a phrase.

 

[CG]

7%.

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

I'm a bit miffed. The first one said 'quite reasonable', not, say, 'remotely reasonable'. There's plenty of reasons for such a belief, just not exceptionally good ones. And religions -have- evidence for their claims, even if it's not scientifically rigorous.

So, in conclusion, 0%.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

*snicket
Your first question, the one about the second world war. It's meant to oppose the "life is intrinsically important" question, so if it was a just war for ANYONE it would disagree with that.

Your second question: History books which could be confirmed with investigation into the places and archives relevant to those occurrences today. There were and are plenty of anthropologists digging up mass graves from genocides, and as far as I know, those death camps still exist. And it is in opposition to the statement "There is no intrinsic truth, because what it true changes depending on the culture you live in (some countries or people insist the Holocaust didn't happen)

About the first question, I figured it was implying Just War Theory, considering that WW2 is frequently the biggest discussion point because of our vast knowledge of it. Just War Theory is also a huge portion of modern philosophy. Considering that, it's easy to see that the question could be easily thought of in a "Just War Theory" context.

And as for the second, I'm well aware of that, but it didn't say anything about the truth of the holocausts existence. It asked about the validity of history books. Truth and history books don't always like to agree, and that was the point I was making. I'm not a holocaust denier, I'm just against the idea of leaving questions so open ended.

It's not actually asking about the history books, it's asking if it happened (like the verifiable ones say it did.)

You've fallen into the trap that I stated was the problem. You're assuming that the stated history books are "verifiable." The question never asked anything of the sort. It just asked about some esoteric history books, regardless of the verifiability of the information within. You read it like a student trying to get an answer right, I read it like a lawyer, and find the question lacking.

 

[Dexiro]

Do you believe that people should be free to make their own decisions and live out their lives doing what they want so long as they don't hurt anyone else?

Do you believe a person should be arrested if they sat next to you on a park bench and injected themselves with heroin in front of you and your kids?

Well, you can't actually have one without the other.

You're not taking into account psychological damage. If someone injected themselves with heroin infront of my kids the concern would be the affect this would have on my kids.

 

[Jegsimmons]

what if i only agree to an extent?
what if my views arent so black and white like this test seems to think i am?

 

[Jackpot524]

0% Yay!

That was a cool excercise... I really had to think about some of my responses and I feel like I actually learned something.

 

[Andrew_Mac]

we have alot of vulcans using the escapist by the looks of it...

incidently i got 13%

 

[Hairetos]

I got 7%, but the artist one is bullshit. I mean, come on, Agree or Disagree, agree and you suck? Even if I disagree I'm making a judgment call on the artist.

They need a better answer than "agree or disagree".

 

[conflictofinterests]

Thank you, Spot1990 ^^

 

[martin's a madman]

0%...

Is that good?

That's fantastic. It means all your philosophies work harmoniously.

0% here too.

I'm not a philosophical hypocrite it seems.

I didn't even have to think at all really, just answered with what was natural.

 

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

I think some of the wording is a bit sticky, or down to interpretation.

Regardless, it was fun and made me think.

 

[tthor]

kinda poor quiz. I feel some of its choices aren't truely pure black/white or not true opposites. also, i very much dislike how many people like to always talk in absolutes; every moral decision should be judged on its own merit, not judged from a distance based upon some possibly unrelated moral code. Morals are not black and white. They're not even shades of grey. they are all the colors of the rainbow, and none of those colors is 'good' nor 'evil'.
oh, I scored a 13% on the test

 

[NeuroticDogDad]

Answered all questions and

0%

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

 

[HotPocket]

After taking the test, I have to say that some of the questions are worded poorly. One of them I got wrong was the one about "Art being subjective" and "Michelangelo being a great artist." It asked for my opinion on them so I said that of course art is subjective, but I also agree that (from my perspective) Michelangelo was a great artist. I think that question should be changed to, "Every student should have to learn about one of history's finest artists, Michelangelo." Because that means that you will force your opinion of great art on others so it is not, in fact, subjective.

I got 7%, but the artist one is bullshit. I mean, come on, Agree or Disagree, agree and you suck? Even if I disagree I'm making a judgment call on the artist.

They need a better answer than "agree or disagree".

Pretty much this.

 

[tthor]

After taking the test, I have to say that some of the questions are worded poorly. One of them I got wrong was the one about "Art being subjective" and "Michelangelo being a great artist." It asked for my opinion on them so I said that of course art is subjective, but I also agree that (from my perspective) Michelangelo was a great artist. I think that question should be changed to, "Every student should have to learn about one of history's finest artists, Michelangelo." Because that means that you will force your opinion of great art on others so it is not, in fact, subjective.

this