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

[RevRaptor]

at conflictofinterests

Did you even read what I said regarding money is irrelevant in health care. you should never turn away people from a hospital because they are poor, that said hospitals and governments have only a set amount of money. It is wrong to spend millions to save one person if hey only have a very slim chance of making it. the question the site asks is fundamentally flawed, If you had even half a brain you would see that.
you can either agree that the statement is true or you can disagree which means you think it is ok to let people die because they do not have medical insurance.

so your choices are:
1)agree - which doesn't work, government's and hospitals have to work within budget constraints and medical research costs money in the real world.
2)disagree - Which means you think that is ok to refuse to treat people based on their finical health, refusing treatment to the poor and letting them die.

the question is flawed.

 

[conflictofinterests]

These two beliefs supposedly contradict one another (paraphrased):
"Judge people only by their merits".
"Positive discrimination is desirable in some circumstances".
But they don't contradict!!! Just because I think that a program to, for example, encourage women to participate in the workforce would be a good thing doesn't mean that I judge them as being more deserving than men. It just means that I take the view that, in the circumstances, the social benefit of the program outweighs the fact that it does not consider the merits of the individual.

It is not me saying that I judge this woman or that as being more deserving of the program; it means that I judge the social benefit as being worth ignoring such judgments.

It's basically saying that you judge the woman not only by her merits, but also by the fact that she was discriminated against in the past. It's not a bad thing to add things other than merit to the equation, it's just a different thing than judging solely based on merit.

I am not judging her on something other than her merits. I am, in fact, not judging her at all (or, if I am, I am not factoring that judgment into my decision making). I am making a decision regarding the institution of the program based not on who is worthy to receive its benefits but on the social utitlity of the program.

Continuing with this analogy, I could judge Jim next door as being a far better scholar than Jane but decide to award a scholarship to Jane because I feel that women have been typically disadvantaged in terms of access to education. That decision does not alter into my initial judgment of Jim or Jane.

I therefore am, both concurrently and legitimately, judging people solely on their merits, whilst viewing positive discrimination as desirable in the circumstances. There is no contradiction.

You are rewarding her, which involves judging how much she is deserving of a reward, not based on her merits, but based on the fact that women have been disadvantaged.

 

[beyondbrainmatter]

The way these questions are set up isn't entirely valid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

 

[Shadowtek]

13% interesting

 

[conflictofinterests]

at conflictofinterests

Did you even read what I said, money is irrelevant in health care. you should never turn away people from a hospital because they are poor, that said hospitals and governments have only a set amount of money. It is wrong to spend millions to save one person if hey only have a very slim chance of making it. the question the site asks is fundamentally flawed, If you had even half a brain you would see that.
you can either agree that the statement is true or you can disagree which means you think it is ok to let people die because they do not have medical insurance.

so your choices are:
1)agree - which doesn't work, government's and hospitals have to work within budget constraints and medical research costs money in the real world.
2)disagree - Which means you think that is ok to refuse to treat people based on their finical health, refusing treatment to the poor and letting them die.

the question is flawed.

Did you read my edit? Negating a statement does not always imply its inverse. You can say that financial concerns are an issue without saying that you should bar people from getting medical care because they don't have money. YOU are the one making this a false dichotomy.

 

[conflictofinterests]

The way these questions are set up isn't entirely valid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

No, you're reading too much into them. Negating a statement does not imply its inverse. Suzy is not tall. This implies that she is short, but it could mean that she is of average height, or that she is a giant. Disagreeing is basically saying this statement is false. !=

1 is false for the evaluation numbers greater than 2. 3 is true. 4 is true as well.

 

[Meanmoose]

Well in viking culture genocide and slaughter of settlements in other places in europe was not considered evil. So that is one culture that did not condone murder. (after all, christians they where week cowards with a very silly Religion.) (Also Astecs)

 

[minarri]

33% for me.

I don't like how that test only let you pick "Agree" or "Disagree" instead of making room for the inevitable intermediate areas of agreement. I'm pretty ambivalent about some of that stuff and I'm not sure it accurately represented my opinions. Oh well.

 

[RevRaptor]

at conflictofinterests

I don't think you quite get what we are saying. you can't judge a persons position with such simple questions. There are too many shades of grey in each question that the answers you get to pick from don't address.

 

[scyther250]

Bah, I got 13%, but I don't agree that the two "tensions" it cited are really contradictory at all. Got me on the Michelangelo and environment questions. The first was a poorly phrased statement, and I'm more semantically correct than they are on the second. Disregarding those problems with the test, that's 0% tension.

 

[Halceon]

I'm ticked off by the amount of compound questions - ones where one part is agreeable, but the other one is bollocks.

13% with one of the conflicts explaining a less common position I should adapt to make it work. Guess what, it already is my position.

 

[Yopaz]

7% here too.

You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead

In retrospect, my agreement with the first one was kind of silly.

I answered the same thing. I don't think the envirnoment should be damaged if it can be avoided, but really, the train system here is awful.

I got 20%, but that's mostly because I diagree with some of the points the test is trying to make.

 

[Mrglass08]

I was at 40%, mostly because I would agree with parts of the statements but not others and this put me in conflict with other statements.

 

[Conza]

Aw man! The most common one again? 400+ others and I both selected Low (I'm assuming 27% is low, not none).

Q5 and Q29 are in conflict (right to life vs. higher taxes)

Q24 and Q3 (cars are good, but don't damage the environment)

key word was 'unnecesssarily', so I think driving can be necessary for some, so I don't see that as a real conflict

Q22 and Q15 (brain death vs. afterlife)

and the common art one, Q14 and Q25, which is a bad question as has been pointed out, everyone regards mickey as a fine artist, while most would agree art is generally a subjective matter, which I think shouldn't be conflicted either.

Interestingly, including rounding, the conflicts seem to be worth 6.67% each (100/15 possible conflicts).

 

[DRobert]

These two beliefs supposedly contradict one another (paraphrased):
"Judge people only by their merits".
"Positive discrimination is desirable in some circumstances".
But they don't contradict!!! Just because I think that a program to, for example, encourage women to participate in the workforce would be a good thing doesn't mean that I judge them as being more deserving than men. It just means that I take the view that, in the circumstances, the social benefit of the program outweighs the fact that it does not consider the merits of the individual.

It is not me saying that I judge this woman or that as being more deserving of the program; it means that I judge the social benefit as being worth ignoring such judgments.

It's basically saying that you judge the woman not only by her merits, but also by the fact that she was discriminated against in the past. It's not a bad thing to add things other than merit to the equation, it's just a different thing than judging solely based on merit.

I am not judging her on something other than her merits. I am, in fact, not judging her at all (or, if I am, I am not factoring that judgment into my decision making). I am making a decision regarding the institution of the program based not on who is worthy to receive its benefits but on the social utitlity of the program.

Continuing with this analogy, I could judge Jim next door as being a far better scholar than Jane but decide to award a scholarship to Jane because I feel that women have been typically disadvantaged in terms of access to education. That decision does not alter into my initial judgment of Jim or Jane.

I therefore am, both concurrently and legitimately, judging people solely on their merits, whilst viewing positive discrimination as desirable in the circumstances. There is no contradiction.

You are rewarding her, which involves judging how much she is deserving of a reward, not based on her merits, but based on the fact that women have been disadvantaged.

You are using loaded language to imply motives that I have explicitly denied. I have explicitly stated that I am not 'rewarding' her because she is deserving of the scholarship; I am giving her the scholarship because I take the view that this will result in a social gain. I am not looking to the past to determine whose past actions merit them the scholarship; I am looking to the future to determine what course of action will have the greatest outcome for society. In looking to the future, I have determined that giving Jane the scholarship will result in a more equitable tomorrow. I have taken the view that the social gain is more important than who deserves the scholarship. This decision does not alter my judgment of the people involved.

It's called utilitarianism; making a decision based not on who deserves what but on what decision will result in greater happiness.

 

[Denamic]

Ah, but there's the rub--if no one but you thought he was one of history's finest artists, would he still be one of history's finest artists?

Well, yes.
That's my point.
It's perspective.
One man's art is just shit on a canvas for someone else.

Then all art is subjective and Michelangelo cannot BE, without qualifiers, one of the world's finest artists, because "fine art" is not an objectively definable thing.

I think this is an impasse of language.
I'm not talking about it being objectively true.
What I'm saying is that if someone thinks X is pretty, then X is pretty to that person.
'Pretty', like 'art', cannot possibly be objective to begin with, since the very meanings of the words are inherently subjective.
They depend wholly on the viewer.

Besides, "Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists" is such a loaded statement anyway.
It could mean any number of things.
The immediately recognizable meaning is that he makes the prettiest pictures.
It could also mean he's the most skilled artist. (which is more quantifiable)
Or it could simply mean he dressed really nicely and was really polite.

I think I'm done with this thread.
Philosophy and semantics are tiresome.

 

[Jadak]

Tension Quotient = 0%

Yay me?

 

[Horben]

13%, two statements contradicted, and both seem reasonable. Good link man.

You agreed that:
So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends
But disagreed that:
The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised

I know that drug consumption creates a variety of social problems, but I'm not entirely comfortable with being the one to decriminalize it. Maybe I'm just a coward.

and

You agreed that:
In certain circumstances, it might be desirable to discriminate positively in favour of a person as recompense for harms done to him/her in the past
And disagreed that:
It is not always right to judge individuals solely on their merits

Sometimes redress can be valid but I didn't make the connection between remuneration and being paid for someone's nature.

 

[Seriin]

I got 0%, though as the report page suggests I do not intend to take this too seriously.

 

[PurePareidolia]

27%
The relative morality vs genocide one is not necessarily a contradiction - my definition of 'evil' is as subjective as any other's - from the point of genociders it probably isn't considered 'evil', but based on my value system, yeah, it is.
Protect the environment vs take cars if unnecessary - the problem here is I'm unwilling to make such a sweeping generalization. There are social reasons you'd drive someone instead of taking them on a subway, but under more general circumstances there's no reason to insist on personal transport if a public option is equally viable.
Personal freedom vs drug decriminalization is also not very contradictory as drug use can cause others to suffer quite easily.
Art is subjective vs Michaelangelo was great. I'm not familiar with him, but his contributions were undeniable, whether they're positive of negative, he was still influential and successful in his field, hence 'great'.