EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 1462
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On November 12 2012 15:43 Shiragaku wrote: I hope the creators of the quiz knows that there are more ideologies than liberal, conservative, and libertarian. Well they did identify 8 different ones, so probably  Now obviously there are more than 8 ideological groups in the US as well. There's a balance between what's commonly presented as Right vs Left (simple to grasp, but missed too much variance) versus what's probably true that there are thousands of ideological groups (less error, but an overwhelming amount of information). We want a number that captures the ideological diversity within the country, but still simplifies things enough that we can see the forest emerge from the trees. From what I can tell, they're doing a statistical clustering analysis, and if that's the case there are logical rules for determining the optimal number of clusters. (Hartigan's for example) Previous versions of the survey, which goes back to the 80s, have had 9 groups, which hints that they're not just forcing people into an arbitrarily determined, pre-set number. On November 12 2012 15:47 oneofthem wrote: that quiz is annoyingly american It's supposed to be a map of Americans' ideologies, not all countries' ideologies. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On November 12 2012 16:34 Signet wrote: Well they did identify 8 different ones, so probably I mean, try not to analyze ideologies by putting so much emphasis on liberal and conservative as a measuring tool. And for the love of God, do not give only have two answers to a question. It makes everything so black and white. Most of these questions put me in an unbelievably awkward situation. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On November 12 2012 16:43 Shiragaku wrote: I mean, try not to analyze ideologies by putting so much emphasis on liberal and conservative as a measuring tool. And for the love of God, do not give only have two answers to a question. It makes everything so black and white. Most of these questions put me in an unbelievably awkward situation. That's a fair criticism. Personally I don't like a lot of the political quizzes that have the strongly agree/agree/neutral/disagree/strongly disagree answers. Too subjective what the difference between "strongly" and regular is. But if an issue has more than two fundamentally different possible solutions, or perspectives, then that could be incorporated. Then again, this is just an internet survey, not rigorous research... and having 20 questions with 2 answers each still gives over a million possible outcomes, so there's a high amount of resolution in aggregate even if the individual responses are coarse. | ||
|
Tal
United Kingdom1018 Posts
Particularly on something like the environment, I think some well-targeted regulations are better than ignoring it (stupid), or pouring money into unsustainable industries (stupid). | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
| ||
|
ControlMonkey
Australia3109 Posts
A. Saviour of our nations, will make gas prices drop in half. B. Evil nefarious plot to steal all our women. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On November 12 2012 16:34 Signet wrote: It's supposed to be a map of Americans' ideologies, not all countries' ideologies. Ideologies are universal, what this quiz does is simply exclude or ignore many (that are present in America as well). When you can only choose between "Religion is very important to me" and "Religion is not that important to me" (but still is to an extent?), then it doesn't even cover the full spectrum of American ideologies. There are many other choices like that as well, quite skewed, loaded, or both. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On November 12 2012 14:50 aksfjh wrote: Ok, can somebody please tell me how a business denying contraceptive coverage is somehow exercising a business's freedom of religion? Last time I checked, Hobby Lobby wasn't going to get into heaven any more than my computer would. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/01/obama-admin-tells-court-hobby-lobby-must-obey-hhs-mandate/ Hey, if corporations have the right to speech via donations to political candidates, then why not freedom of religion too? I'm opposed to them having either of these. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
On November 12 2012 21:04 NicolBolas wrote: Hey, if corporations have the right to speech via donations to political candidates, then why not freedom of religion too? I'm opposed to them having either of these. This idea that a religious institution should be able to decide what it can cover is ridiculous and only is gaining attention because it is about birthcontrol/morning after pill. If there was a religion that believed cancer was gods will and was against treating it do you think that would actually fly? How about if a religion decided its insurance wouldn't cover blood transfusions? No one would think that was sane correct? But because this involves Christianity and sex they get a pass from quite a bit of the public. Its a joke. | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
On November 12 2012 21:14 Sadist wrote: This idea that a religious institution should be able to decide what it can cover is ridiculous and only is gaining attention because it is about birthcontrol/morning after pill. If there was a religion that believed cancer was gods will and was against treating it do you think that would actually fly? How about if a religion decided its insurance wouldn't cover blood transfusions? No one would think that was sane correct? But because this involves Christianity and sex they get a pass from quite a bit of the public. Its a joke. I would concur, this is an extreme double standard. You'll be hard pressed to show how it's a joke since most devot Christians have trouble witih the idea of double standards. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On November 12 2012 21:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I would concur, this is an extreme double standard. You'll be hard pressed to show how it's a joke since most devot Christians have trouble witih the idea of double standards. I didn't realize that the miracle of life is comparable to cancer... I do agree that saying something is "God's will" is not justification for morality though | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
On November 12 2012 21:59 kmillz wrote: I didn't realize that the miracle of life is comparable to cancer... I do agree that saying something is "God's will" is not justification for morality though I didn't realize your interpretation of a miracle is life nor did I realize your interpretation should mandate my belief structure. His analogy holds, if I believed cancer is good and we shouldn't treat cancer because of my religion and I owned a company then that would be laughed off, is the idea of controlling the ability for women to control their bodies different? The only difference I've seen is the argument "Didn't know life equivalent to cancer" Although it seems you agree that "God's will" isn't justification such that your first facetious comment seems entirely unneeded. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On November 12 2012 22:07 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I didn't realize your interpretation of a miracle is life nor did I realize your interpretation should mandate my belief structure. His analogy holds, if I believed cancer is good and we shouldn't treat cancer because of my religion and I owned a company then that would be laughed off, is the idea of controlling the ability for women to control their bodies different? The only difference I've seen is the argument "Didn't know life equivalent to cancer" Although it seems you agree that "God's will" isn't justification such that your first facetious comment seems entirely unneeded. It isn't just a difference, it is false to call it a double standard because the 2 two things have to be similar in nature. Basically anything can be deemed "good in someones opinion" and therefore anything can be "Gods will" to someone. I think your choice of wording on it being a double standard is poor, but I agree with the notion that any man making laws should never do it based on what he thinks "Gods will" is. My first comment was to point out I don't think you know what double standard means. Unless I am wrong, and if I am please explain how I am. Maybe my definition is wrong | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
On November 12 2012 22:14 kmillz wrote: It isn't just a difference, it is false to call it a double standard because the 2 two things have to be similar in nature. Basically anything can be deemed "good in someones opinion" and therefore anything can be "Gods will" to someone. I think your choice of wording on it being a double standard is poor, but I agree with the notion that any man making laws should never do it based on what he thinks "Gods will" is. My first comment was to point out I don't think you know what double standard means. Unless I am wrong, and if I am please explain how I am. Maybe my definition is wrong It's a double standard to allow belief like "pro life" mandating a womens body but not allow the same mandate to disallow cancer treatment under a plan because I'm "pro death" or something similar. The double stands in the morale belief being proposed over another person, if my belief is everyone should die as quickly as possible then should my company not allow ANYONE to get health treatment? It'd be fair since we can disallow treatment on belief for women. Talk about a money saver. And they are similar in nature. The analogy is about belief > rights. My belief is everyone dies, no healthcare and the belief of the religious folk is no abortions, no contraceptions covered. Belief over > rights is the argument. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On November 12 2012 22:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote: It's a double standard to allow belief like "pro life" mandating a womens body but not allow the same mandate to disallow cancer treatment under a plan because I'm "pro death" or something similar. The double stands in the morale belief being proposed over another person, if my belief is everyone should die as quickly as possible then should my company not allow ANYONE to get health treatment? It'd be fair since we can disallow treatment on belief for women. Talk about a money saver. And they are similar in nature. The analogy is about belief > rights. My belief is everyone dies, no healthcare and the belief of the religious folk is no abortions, no contraceptions covered. Belief over > rights is the argument. Well I'm against abortion from a personal moral standpoint, not to do with religion. I think its rights versus rights, not belief > rights. You might believe that an unborn baby is not deserving of rights and i might believe the opposite, but neither of these beliefs have to be because of a religion. I think the double standard lies in our legal system where a pregnant woman who is murdered and the baby dies is considered a double murder, but it isn't murder if she chose to abort the baby herself. | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
If it's true though, wouldn't that company have the right to not cover any of its employee's medical costs? | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 12 2012 21:59 kmillz wrote: I didn't realize that the miracle of life is comparable to cancer... I do agree that saying something is "God's will" is not justification for morality though Well, if you deny someone medical coverage for cancer you are pretty darn likely to take away their ability to live the miracle of life. Medical coverage shouldn't really be based on religion-except the individual's OWN religion. Thankfully having the insurers cover everything circumvents this. | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
On November 12 2012 22:35 Zergneedsfood wrote: Uh, isn't there a religion that rejects medical treatment of any kind? I don't remember what it was, but I swear there's a rather well known one....or I could just be completely wrong here. If it's true though, wouldn't that company have the right to not cover any of its employee's medical costs? If I recall Ghandi rejected the treatment of tuberculosis to his wife because of beliefs but then took the treatment when he came down with it. Not confirmed, I remember it being brought up in a debate | ||
| ||
