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

[Dys]

I got 20%, but on some points even having seen the 'contradiction' pointed out I maintain both points and deny that a contradiction exists, for example

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

In order not to be in contradiction here, you must be able to make a convincing case that the personal use of drugs harms people other than the drug user. More than this - you must also show that prohibited drug use harms others more than other legal activities such as smoking, drinking and driving cars, unless you want to argue that these should also be made criminal offences. As alcohol, tobacco and car accidents are among the leading killers in western society, this case may be hard to make. You also have to make the case for each drug you think should not be decriminalised. The set of drugs which are currently illegal is not a natural one, so there is no reason to treat all currently illegal drugs the same.

One could very easily point out how heavy drug users negatively effect unrelated people, not only by citing things such as erratic behavior causing, at times causing violent, criminal behavior of the user, but also the added drain on society. As their physical addiction can take over their life, lowering competency in the work place that then needs to be picked up by other workers, treatment for such drugs also tends to take up resources that could otherwise be allocated to other people. It is true that all drugs can not be treated the same, but the general comment "should illicit drugs be decriminalized?" is question directed at all currently illegal drugs, and it is simply unreasonable to decriminalize all drugs.

 

[jonnosferatu]

I got a result I expected and like.

However, I consider the test extremely flawed and oversimplified, and think whoever decided that painting the setup in such black and white terms needs to be slapped.

EDIT: In particular, I disagree with the 8 and 18 take.

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

It is not reasonable to assume the existence of something without evidence, but if you can't prove its nonexistence, it's still an act of faith to state its nonexistence. You can't prove either way, so any opinion on the matter is by definition a matter of faith (and consequently irrelevant for immediate purposes).

I also mildly disagree with the extent of conflict it reads into my responses to 24 and 3.

 

[Rainforce]

0%...

Is that good?

You're a threat to society and must be terminated ASAP.

 

[Jonabob87]

27%

It isn't the most perfect test in the world, it claims I'm hypocritical for both believing in God and believing that children shouldn't be allowed to suffer. If there was a chance to elaborate somewhat it would possibly be more accurate because those are both blanket statements that cover an immense amount of possibilities and situations.

Also for thinking that medecine and sanitation are good, while thinking homosexuality is wrong. It then builds a tenuous link between the two to claim that they don't jibe well...

 

[Xpwn3ntial]

0%

As I suspected.

 

[otterhead]

47%. I have a lot of rationalizing to do...

 

[Sgt. Dante]

0%, Does that make me a bad guy? I certainly hope not, just means I''m consistant in my beliefs.

 

[rutger5000]

I found the test rather lacking because it only allows two answers, and is clearly designed for an American audience, I fail to see why it couldn't be more international. There were many questions I wanted to answer differently but couldn't.

 

[Aisyah Fatihah]

I got 60%. Seems unusually high to me. I answered as honest as I could...

 

[TheKwertyeweyoppe]

I got 7%.

Only conflict, apparently, was this:

Spoiler

I can kind of understand, but I don't think I know anyone nor know of anyone who believes genocide isn't a bad thing.

Well Hitler didn't think it was a bad idea :/

yeah, i answered the genocide bit from my opinion but the test thought i meant the 'FACT thats TRUE to EVERYONE with NO EXCEPTIONS!!'

 

[Serenegoose]

7%, I said 'killing is always wrong' and 'the second world war was just'.

This is not incoherent, however. The killing done during the second world war was wrong - but it was the lesser wrong. To pretend there is always a right way out doesn't attend to reality.

 

[CactiComplex]

27%

I'm actually surprised I got such a low percentage, my beliefs contradict one another left, right, and centre and some things I'm completely unsure about.

Interesting...

 

[Lucifron]

20% tension, 3 conflicting pairs of questions, and I can explain all of them.

./booya

 

[Gigano]

7 %

So a largely coherent ethical system, with just a bit of imperfection to showcase one's humanity.

Spoiler: Though my misstep might be attributed to understanding judge only as condemn

Questions 20 and 13: Is positive discrimination justified?

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

Positive discrimination means that factors other than the actual abilities of a person are taken into account when deciding how to treat them. This means that, under positive discrimination measures, people are not judged solely on their merits. So in order to support positive discrimination, you have to accept that it is sometimes right not to judge individuals on their merits. Alternatively, if you want to maintain that individuals must always be judged on their merits, you must give up your belief in positive discrimination. More sophisticated responses to this tension might include the idea that people should be judged, not according to their actual merits, but according to the merits they would have if everyone had been given the same opportunities. One problem with this is that it is very difficult to judge what these merits would have been.

In that understanding, there should be no conflict, as it's harmful to condemn others for traits they lack, and AA can in rare instances be less harmful than the alternative of letting inequalities build up along racial lines, with the polarizing group mentality effects that tend to have.

 

[eytrvnbmgkhjiuty]

.

 

[Vetala]

53%

heh not bad, i always argue with my other self

 

[Bugerion]

OUCH! They got me good. 33%! Im a raging hyppocrite aint i?

Same here but I didn't read one thing correctly

 

[Raven's Nest]

I found the test rather lacking because it only allows two answers, and is clearly designed for an American audience, I fail to see why it couldn't be more international. There were many questions I wanted to answer differently but couldn't.

What makes you say it's designed for an American audience?

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

I got 7%.

Only conflict, apparently, was this:

Spoiler

I can kind of understand, but I don't think I know anyone nor know of anyone who believes genocide isn't a bad thing.

I got that one as well, it leads me to think that this thing is trying too hard to be clever.

There isn't a culture on the planet that wouldn't agree with a huge majority that wiping out an entire race for your own ideals is wrong.

 

[Speakercone]

13%. the discrepancies it said I have are:

You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil

I'm gonna have to give this some careful thought. It's a big question. I'm erring to the side of saying that there might exist some objective moral standards.

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

This one I'm just flat wrong. People should indeed find the most emission-efficient method of transportation for their needs.

Interesting test. I quite like being demonstrably wrong from time to time