And you'll only continue it there becaus eyou know most of the site has muted that thread and you feel all warm and fuzzy. Arguinbg it on a less friendly thread that shows the failings of your arguments just sacres the ever loving fuck out of you, doesn't it?

I have to say something here. As Draugnar himself knows, I disagree with him on many issues. But goodness me, Draugnar, I cannot agree with you more on this point. You've got Sybil bang to rights, and since I have also muted the absurd "Sybvlnomics" thread, I would like to see you get a response here.

I happen to have my own perspective on this. I don't care all that much, personally, for the institution of marriage. I was in a relationship with a lovely woman for just under nine years, and at no point did we consider marriage, neither of us being religious. Our relationship ended last year, and we remain close friends. I think that a great deal of trouble is created as a result of marriage simultaneously existing as a religious institution *and* a legal status.

Separate the two and you solve a whole load of problems, if you ask me. Let people who have a religious belief in particular kinds of marriage engage in whatever marriage rituals they like. Let two consenting adults enter into whatever legal contracts with each other they wish. But let the two be *completely* separate. Marriage as a religious concept should have no legal status. Marriage as a contract should have whatever status in law that contract confers upon it.

Until that is the case in either the UK (where I live) or the US (where the debate in this thread has its focus) it is right, proper, and important that heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual people have the same rights concerning marriage.

Draugnar, speaking as someone who is more conservative than I, has presented the case for marriage equality, irrespective of sexual orientation, superbly well. If marriage is to remain a religious institution bound up in law, we must at least ensure that those religious groups that do not object to gay marriage have the right to confer legal marital status on gay people who wish to marry under the auspices of their church. And for what it's worth I couldn't care less for the US Constitution but I do view Draugnar's interpretation of the Constitution, on this point, as valid.

Well done Draugnar and much kudos to you.

Woo-hoo! At -7.50, -6.77, I'm left of Gandhi, and more Libertarian, too! I'm a fairly staunch Collectivist Anarchist!

http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&Sbyvl36=7.9%2C3.9&Krellin=1.8%2C-3.0&Bo+Sox+48=-7.0%2C-7.1&Yellow+Jacket=-5.9%2C-5.5&Abgemacht=-4.8%2C-3.2&Krellys+Wife=1.0%2C-0.5&Philcore=0.6%2C-2.4&Fasces349=8.1%2C-1.5&Dipplayer=2.9%2C-1.1&Invictus=1.8%2C0.4&Goldfinger=-2.0%2C3.0&Nigeebaby=-8.3%2C-6.4&Sunra=-8.3%2C-6.6&Jacobcfries=-6.1%2C-5.4&President+Eden=7.5%2C-5.2&Redhouse=0.8%2C-0.8&Semck83=5.5%2C-2.3&Orathaic=-6.1%2C-6.8&Nudge=-2.9%2C-0.6&Hereward=0.9%2C1.2&Thucydides=-4.9%2C-5.7&Damian+=4.3%2C-5.5&Mujus=-5.4%2C-3.0&Octavious=-1.3%2C0.2&Mendax=-8.1%2C-7.2&Benjormungand=9.0%2C-6.1&Slyster=-3.5%2C-5.3&Kingrishard=-2.5%2C-0.8&Obiwanobiwan=-5.5%2C-4.8&Ulytau=0.9%2C-5.8&Socrates+Dissatisfied=-9.9%2C-6.5&Jack+Klein=-4.1%2C-6.3&newname=Hecks&newec=-7.5&newsoc=-6.77

How can you be both collectivist and anarchist? Isn't that just pro-chaos?

The little chart defines the lower-left as "voluntary regional collectivism," which sounds pretty hippy-dippy to me.

friend just sent me this, i liked it http://slackhalla.org/~demise/test/socialattitude.php
and anarchist collectivists are common, you actually get more left wing anarchists than right wing historically.

Me:
Radicalism - 94
Socialism - 87.5
Tenderness - 43.75

"These scores indicate that you are a progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a university professor. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear communist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as left-wing.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an egalitarian with several strong opinions."

Radicalism 52.75
Socialism 0
Tenderness 56.25

These scores indicate that you are a moderate; this is the political profile one might associate with a regular person. It appears that you are moderate towards religion, and have a balanced attitude towards humanity in general.

Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.

To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a pragmatist with several strong opinions.



Pretty accurate assessment.

What a colossal waste of time

Political Values

Radicalism 36.25
Socialism 18.75
Tenderness 46.875

These scores indicate that you are a moderate conservative; this is the political profile one might associate with a police officer. It appears that you are accepting of religion, and have a generally optimistic attitude towards humanity in general.

Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as right-wing.

To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a centrist with several strong opinions.

This concludes our analysis; we hope you found your results accurate, useful, and interesting.

Unlike many other political tests found on the Internet which base themselves on untested (and usually ideologically motivated) ideas, this inventory is adapted from Hans Eysenck's own political inventory which was developed after extensive empirical investigations in the 20th Century.

Radicalism 99.5
Socialism 75
Tenderness 56.25

These scores indicate that you are a progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a university professor. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.

Your attitudes towards economics appear socialist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as left-wing.

To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an idealist with several strong opinions.

Can I call you a radical Socialist yet?

Interesting site, apart from the 1999 web design

Radicalism 77.5
Socialism 0
Tenderness 62.5

These scores indicate that you are a tender-minded moderate progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with an animal rights activist. It appears that you are moderate towards religion, and have a balanced attitude towards humanity in general.

Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.

To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an idealist with many strong opinions.

Mine:

Radicalism 91.25
Socialism 93.75
Tenderness 56.25

No surprises there. The only thing I found odd about this test was how many of the questions seemed to be about genetics.

Radicalism 85.75
Socialism 81.25
Tenderness 50

No surprise here either. Apparently I have the profile of a college professor. Potentially right, who knows? I know Draug would just love me as an instructor.

This test was by far the worst in my mind in swaying of questions based on wording. Some just sounded outrageous.

Radicalism 99.5
Socialism 100
Tenderness 53.125

These scores indicate that you are a progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a university professor. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.

Your attitudes towards economics appear communist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as left-wing.

To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an egalitarian with many strong opinions.

That doesn't really surprise me.

Radicalism 58.25
Socialism 31.25
Tenderness 62.5

These scores indicate that you are a tender-minded moderate; this is the political profile one might associate with a protective parent. It appears that you are accepting of religion, and have a generally optimistic attitude towards humanity in general.

Your attitudes towards economics appear capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.

To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an idealist with few strong opinions.

Haha... ain't I sympathetic... protective parent... Come to Papa...
These were quite fun questions... But as with other tests of the kind most of them can really be answered in any way depending on how you interpret.

Gosh... I'm a capitalist... OK... I'll have to swallow that... What are the alternatives..? "Idealist" - I don't like that... That I consider as a term of abuse... Am I such a bad Diplomacy player? As if I make my decisions based rather upon what the other players say than on what I see on the board..?

Radicalism 91.25
Socialism 56.25
Tenderness 40.625

These scores indicate that you are a progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a liberated atheist. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.

Your attitudes towards economics appear neither committedly capitalist nor socialist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as a political centrist.

To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an idealist with few strong opinions.

This concludes our analysis; we hope you found your results accurate, useful, and interesting.


------------

Haha liberated atheist. That describes me pretty damn well. Good test overall, but I felt the way the capitalist/socialist questions were asked perhaps skewed me a bit more centrist than I truly am.

Damn this site has a shit load of lefties.

Plenty of righties too. What of it?

Radicalism 91.25
Socialism 56.25
Tenderness 53.125

These scores indicate that you are a progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a university professor. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.

Your attitudes towards economics appear neither committedly capitalist nor socialist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as a political centrist.

To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an egalitarian with several strong opinions.

What of it?? Its a fact, like 2 + 2 = 4. no conclusions this time, libie.

A lot of tthe people on the right haven't taken the test yet. Probably will later tonight.

Political Values

Radicalism 69.25
Socialism 0
Tenderness 40.625

These scores indicate that you are a moderate progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a liberated atheist. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.

Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.

To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a centrist with several strong opinions.

This concludes our analysis; we hope you found your results accurate, useful, and interesting.

Unlike many other political tests found on the Internet which base themselves on untested (and usually ideologically motivated) ideas, this inventory is adapted from Hans Eysenck's own political inventory which was developed after extensive empirical investigations in the 20th Century.

lol

Oh and I do want to point out that this test did say I could be described as a political centrist. So we probably have a few of those running about here.

My biggest problem with this test is that it asked too many questions about my beliefs and not enough about their implications:
For example, I strongly disagreed with any question asking about the importance of faith, and strongly agreed with any question asking about the importance of logic.

However overall I am not atheist and am mostly against the atheist movement:
1. I am agnostic and think Atheists are worse then the fundamentalist Christians, because both of them place most of their decisions in the blind faith of their leaders (be it the bible for Christianity or Richard Dawkins and co. for atheism), however Christians, unlike Atheists at least acknowledge their beliefs are faith based.
2. I think religious people are more moral then atheists/agnostics and that faith has a huge importance on morality, but the one question on that issue was outweighed by the several (at least 5) questions about faith and emotion vs scepticism and logic.
3. I am against any pro-atheist government movement, and normally in the areas of politics, economics and morality I will side with Christians over atheists.

Despite this I am placed as a progressive simply because of my views on Marijuana, and the fact that I am an not religious. I also hate the word liberated in this context and think its insulting to those who are not atheists. Also the assumption that the highly educated are progressive and that cops are normally conservatives also makes me dislike the wording of the first paragraph.

I am ok with being called a libertarian.

I am also definetly not a centrist with several strong opinions. I am highly opinionated on most issues, however because I identify with both sides a lot: being heavily conservative on morality and economic issues (understand there is a role for government in the economy, but it should be smaller then it is right now); being heavily left-wing on drugs and prostitution (not being ok with them, but understanding their better off regulated and legal); being progressive on science issues (pro-stem cell research, belief in evolution etc,) being libertarian on foreign policy (being anti-foriegn aid, pro-open borders immigration and anti-war in almost every circumstance)

I am not a centrist on any issue, however because I acknowledge that every single political belief has some legitimacy (otherwise they wouldn't be so widely followed), and so side with each view on a number of occasions.

Just pulling this out: "Richard Dawkins and co. for atheism". Do you have a clue? Richard Dawkins is an asshole, and whilst he's influential that's not the same thing as saying that atheists blindly follow him. I mean, I don't even follow him on twitter, let alone with my actual beliefs.

"Richard Dawkins is an asshole, and whilst he's influential that's not the same thing as saying that atheists blindly follow him. I mean, I don't even follow him on twitter, let alone with my actual beliefs."
You'd be surprised how many atheists I have talked to do.