| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/21/2008 06:10:16 PM · #1326 |
Here's mine. Woot!
Message edited by author 2008-11-21 18:10:48.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2008 06:24:11 PM · #1327 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I thought the test was amusing.....especially since my Authority scale was what it was......I soooooooo have issues with authority, and I have at least five schools I was thrown out of to vouch for that. |
Mine is low as well but I've never had a problem with authority. The problem with tests like this is it treats everything as black and white. You won't get my respect or my loyalty just because of who you are. It has to be earned.
Message edited by author 2008-11-21 18:37:21.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2008 06:37:28 PM · #1328 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I have no need to bait you, I'm not trying to jam my thinking down your throat, and if you are really intent on being decent and kind, loving and accepting, and treating people as you would be treated, why is it that you seem to take such a hostile attitude towards me? What have I said that elicits such anger towards me?
It's truly befuddling. I seriously think that you would benefit from anger management therapy. |
Ron, I'm not angry with you; I'm completely amazed, and somewhat exasperated that you contradict yourself CONSTANTLY the way you do.
You JUST said you don't try to jam your thinking down my throat, then you tell me I should go to anger management therapy.
So what would you call that?
I do try to be decent and kind, loving and accepting, but I am human, do NOT remotely profess to be anything near perfect, or even mostly good, I TRY, and you do irritate the snot out of me pretty much by the way you are.
You're pushy and self-righteous, and since I am pretty much opposed to the way you think and the way you use your knowledge of scripture in what I feel to be a typical elitist style, I willingly succumb to being snarky with you when you start getting pompous.
That's why I know that I'm not perfect and that I need work yet. You very definitely come across to me like you think you're pretty much right about everything.
That's fine, go for it, it's your right to be as self-indulgent as you want, I just don't buy into it and I get annoyed when you do stupid shit like tell me I need therapy just because I don't agree with your somewhat small view of things.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2008 06:39:32 PM · #1329 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I thought the test was amusing.....especially since my Authority scale was what it was......I soooooooo have issues with authority, and I have at least five schools I was thrown out of to vouch for that. |
Originally posted by yanko:
Mine is low as well but I've never had a problem with authority. The problem with tests like this is it treats everything as black and white. You won't get my respect or my loyalty just because of who you are. It has to be earned. |
Yeah, that's kind of where the loyalty thing really missed the mark for me. It's exactly like respect for me.....you earn it, and it doesn't matter if you're blood or elected, that doesn't gain anything in my book for either.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2008 08:58:09 PM · #1330 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Flash:
I am curious if there are any practicing gay fundemantalist christians on this thread. If so, how do you reconcile the difference between teaching and behavior (I already know how I reconcile the difference but how do you)? |
Originally posted by Louis:
Am I crazy, or did Flash just out himself? |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I assume you are crazy, but it certainly read that way to me, too. |
Ditto.....8>) |
yup... looked like an outing to me. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 09:14:41 AM · #1331 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Hetero/homo/bi-sexual
I am curious if there are any practicing gay fundemantalist christians on this thread. If so, how do you reconcile the difference between teaching and behavior (I already know how I reconcile the difference but how do you)? Obviously some denominations accept same sex sexual engagement as they preform gay marriages and even annoint gay clergy/bishops. I would not consider those groups fundamentalists and am wondering if any practicing gay fundementalists exist and if so, how do they explain their sexual engagements? Is is simply a sin of weakness which we all commit in some form? Is it not a sin as the scripture is in error on this matter? Obviously the easiest thing is to deny scripture, then the associated rules/laws are also irrelevant - but that would not qualify as a fundementalist christian. The denial position is abundantly clear to me - via countless pages of postings from those who refute/ignore scripture. My querry is specifically addressed to any practicing gay fundementalist christian posting here. I think they are incompatible positions - but I might be missing something. |
This is quite an enlightening movie, I highly recommend it to anyone open-minded enough to question all the fear and hate put forth by those who would damn gays through the use and abuse of scripture.
For the Bible Tells Me So...
I saw the film locally here in Carlisle, Pa, had the honor and pleasure of meeting the filmmaker's parents, who are from the central Penssylvania area, and enjoyed a round table discussion after the showing.
There was, to nobody's surprise, two rather pathetic fear filled fundamentalists who stood up during the discussion who shouted at us and told us we were all going to Hell, and made various remarks to us that really did not do much other than evoke pity for them as they came across as basically slightly deranged.
Otherwise, it was an emotional and informative evening, and it induced compassionm among those of us who who listened as the kids on the college campus where the film was shown talked about their hopes and dreams while we all listened and thought that perhaps gay rights have a chance.
There are many sources through this site if you are really interested in following through with some genuine interest in the other side of the issue.
If you really want to explore this....here's a 77 page PDF document.
For the Bible Tells Me So Curriculum
This is authored by a man of God.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2008 12:13:48 PM · #1332 |
This test is very poorly constructed. First of all, many of the questions left me saying, "well, it depends on the circumstance, for some situations I would strongly agree and for others I would strongly disagree" and it is highly problematic to to use absolutes like "Never", "worst", "always" and follow that with a strong-moderate-slight agreement scale.
My favorite example: "If I were a soldier and disagreed with my commanding officer's orders, I would obey anyway because that is my duty." Well, it TOTALLY depends on the situation. If I disagree with my CO's orders on strategic grounds or based on a situation where I may not have all the facts, then I am 100% in agreement. If I disagree with my CO's orders because he is trying to violate the Geneva convention or other higher moral rule, then I disagree 100%. There need to be options like "Sometimes Agree".
Very poor questionnaire. I haven't submitted it yet, but just wanted to post my rant about it while I have the questions to refer to. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 12:21:08 PM · #1333 |
I am clearly an outlier.
It's interesting that over 21,000 liberals have taken the test and only 4100+ conservatives. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 12:24:37 PM · #1334 |
Originally posted by JMart:
This test is very poorly constructed. First of all, many of the questions left me saying, "well, it depends on the circumstance, for some situations I would strongly agree and for others I would strongly disagree" and it is highly problematic to to use absolutes like "Never", "worst", "always" and follow that with a strong-moderate-slight agreement scale.
My favorite example: "If I were a soldier and disagreed with my commanding officer's orders, I would obey anyway because that is my duty." Well, it TOTALLY depends on the situation. If I disagree with my CO's orders on strategic grounds or based on a situation where I may not have all the facts, then I am 100% in agreement. If I disagree with my CO's orders because he is trying to violate the Geneva convention or other higher moral rule, then I disagree 100%. There need to be options like "Sometimes Agree".
Very poor questionnaire. I haven't submitted it yet, but just wanted to post my rant about it while I have the questions to refer to. |
I totally agree, there were many questions that I felt it depended on the situation whether I agreed or disagreed. The questions were way to vague, imo. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 12:28:23 PM · #1335 |
Originally posted by JMart:
This test is very poorly constructed. First of all, many of the questions left me saying, "well, it depends on the circumstance, for some situations I would strongly agree and for others I would strongly disagree" and it is highly problematic to to use absolutes like "Never", "worst", "always" and follow that with a strong-moderate-slight agreement scale.
My favorite example: "If I were a soldier and disagreed with my commanding officer's orders, I would obey anyway because that is my duty." Well, it TOTALLY depends on the situation. If I disagree with my CO's orders on strategic grounds or based on a situation where I may not have all the facts, then I am 100% in agreement. If I disagree with my CO's orders because he is trying to violate the Geneva convention or other higher moral rule, then I disagree 100%. There need to be options like "Sometimes Agree".
Very poor questionnaire. I haven't submitted it yet, but just wanted to post my rant about it while I have the questions to refer to. |
Well, isn't that where the shades of gray come in? How can you make a test that addresses all specifics? You sound like a "somewhat agree" person on this issue; it depends on the situation. On the other hand, a hard-core, uber-conservative military type might very well "agree 100%", because the culture in which he is steeped says that obeying orders is the prime virtue and questioning them is anathema.
R. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 03:28:28 PM · #1336 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by JMart:
This test is very poorly constructed. First of all, many of the questions left me saying, "well, it depends on the circumstance, for some situations I would strongly agree and for others I would strongly disagree" and it is highly problematic to to use absolutes like "Never", "worst", "always" and follow that with a strong-moderate-slight agreement scale.
My favorite example: "If I were a soldier and disagreed with my commanding officer's orders, I would obey anyway because that is my duty." Well, it TOTALLY depends on the situation. If I disagree with my CO's orders on strategic grounds or based on a situation where I may not have all the facts, then I am 100% in agreement. If I disagree with my CO's orders because he is trying to violate the Geneva convention or other higher moral rule, then I disagree 100%. There need to be options like "Sometimes Agree".
Very poor questionnaire. I haven't submitted it yet, but just wanted to post my rant about it while I have the questions to refer to. |
Well, isn't that where the shades of gray come in? How can you make a test that addresses all specifics? You sound like a "somewhat agree" person on this issue; it depends on the situation. On the other hand, a hard-core, uber-conservative military type might very well "agree 100%", because the culture in which he is steeped says that obeying orders is the prime virtue and questioning them is anathema.
R. |
Yes, it is where the shades of grey come in, but when the verbage for answers does not accurately reflect those shades then the results of the survey are suspect. The military question would be more appropriate and would indeed address situational differences if available responses had included a range like this "never/almost never/sometimes/almost always/always.
You can say that I should just make that translation as an assumption, but that type of assumption breeds poor results since "Moderately Agree" means something different to me than "Almost Always". I strongly disagree with the principle that a soldier should obey anyway because it is their duty, they should only obey when their reason for disagreement is not as strong as the importance for following orders (roughly speaking). Still, I would almost always follow a CO's order since problematic orders that morally require rebellion are rare circumstances (I hope :).
Then there were questions like these:
Originally posted by Survey:
Justice is the most important requirement for a society.
|
Well, Justice is close to the top imho, but when you throw in MOST I have to strongly disagree with calling it the MOST important requirement for a society (even if it's #2).
Originally posted by Survey:
When the government makes laws, the number one principle should be ensuring that everyone is treated fairly.
|
Here again, being treated fairly is at the top of my list, but I'd rather the government have principles about liberty before 'being treated fairly'. So, again, I have to strongly disagree despite strongly agreeing about fairness in general.
Originally posted by Survey:
Compassion for those who are suffering is the most crucial virtue.
|
Again, sorry to be a stickler for words, but even though compassion for the suffering is among the top of the list for me, I strongly disagree with calling it the most crucial virtue. And most crucial to who or for what? Most crucial for the needy perhaps, but most crucial for the progress of humanity, well perhaps that too, but less clearly so.
Originally posted by Survey:
It can never be right to kill a human being.
|
Come on! This is ridiculous. With an absolute like "can never be right" then anyone who believes in killing in self defense should strongly disagree even if you don't believe capital punishment is moral.
Originally posted by Survey:
It is better to do good than to do bad.
|
What does this even mean? Better/good/bad as defined by who? All three terms are nebulous and I need more information before I can agree or disagree. Is it better for me as an individual to do good than bad? No, when I do something altruistically it is not necessarily "better" for me as a human individual, but it is better for humanity. And if I can switch a train to hit one helpless bystander (bad) but save five others in the process (good), was it better that I did the one bad act to result in an 'overall' good outcome? That survey question just sucks.
Perhaps most respondents get what the questions are going after, but I think they require some assumptions that may not be consistent from person to person. Also, it feels like the questions are designed to put people into the false dichotomy of liberal/conservative columns without consideration for libertarian or populist type of positions. Words matter, especially with polling/surveys, and the wording in this one is terrible.
-sorry for the hijack, back to original programming- |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 04:25:20 PM · #1337 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Perhaps most respondents get what the questions are going after, but I think they require some assumptions that may not be consistent from person to person. Also, it feels like the questions are designed to put people into the false dichotomy of liberal/conservative columns without consideration for libertarian or populist type of positions. Words matter, especially with polling/surveys, and the wording in this one is terrible.
-sorry for the hijack, back to original programming- |
It seems to me the "assumptions" are a big part of what's being measured here, actually....
R.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2008 04:33:12 PM · #1338 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by JMart:
Perhaps most respondents get what the questions are going after, but I think they require some assumptions that may not be consistent from person to person. Also, it feels like the questions are designed to put people into the false dichotomy of liberal/conservative columns without consideration for libertarian or populist type of positions. Words matter, especially with polling/surveys, and the wording in this one is terrible.
-sorry for the hijack, back to original programming- |
It seems to me the "assumptions" are a big part of what's being measured here, actually....
R. |
So where does that leave people like me who are less assuming than others ;) |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 05:18:51 PM · #1339 |
Originally posted by JMart:
So where does that leave people like me who are less assuming than others ;) |
Up the proverbial creek, I assume :-)
Incidentally, don't get me wrong; from an academic point of view I don't think it's a particularly illuminating test, but I'm not sure what test of "morality" (or attitudes towards same) COULD be within the constraints of an online environment. Even so, bearing the test's limitations in mind, it's "interesting", and it makes good conversational fodder :-)
R.
Message edited by author 2008-11-22 17:19:32.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2008 06:34:36 PM · #1340 |
No, no, no, this will NOT do. I rely on Bear and a few others to be the voice of reason here, but it is not enough to say the survey is lacking from an "academic point of view."  JMart and others have pointed out the real flaws from an entirely human man in the street perspective. If anything, the academic world is as responsible for a complacent reliance on social statistics for accessing the truth as is a literal interpretation of the Bible for complacent moral judgment.
Is it enough that the survey is "interesting?" Is "conversational fodder" what we are after here? Quite frankly I don't care where you or I fall on the scales of whatever vague moral spectrum. I do care if you can say something that challenges me to see what I have not seen before.  Mousie, BeeCee, and sfalice have done that by sharing their experience and passion. Others, like NikonJeb, have bravely tried to show the basis for their moral judgment. Not an easy thing, when everyone is ready to jump in with their favourite philosopher or text, or even authority, and hardly a conversational topic except perhaps in the albeit contrived dialogues of Plato.
Message edited by author 2008-11-22 19:02:41. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 07:27:29 PM · #1341 |
Originally posted by tnun:
No, no, no, this will NOT do. I rely on Bear and a few others to be the voice of reason here, but it is not enough to say the survey is lacking from an "academic point of view." |
Ah, tnun, the voice of reason, and the bringer-down-to-earth voice as well.
I took the test as if it was on a par with the 'feel good' tests provided by oh, say, Reader's Digest. (In the old days when I happened on that magazine, they once had an IQ test in perhaps ten easy questions, which I took and (ahem) scored quite high on. I knew all the while it was 'feel good' stuff and by no means a creditable yardstick that I'd want to put on a resume.)
Yes, it's been an fun digression, but yes, it is a digression. One of these moments we really should get back to the basic discussion.
But it's been fun and I'm enjoying the wordplay. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 08:00:15 PM · #1342 |
This test is immoral:
 |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 08:07:08 PM · #1343 |
| Alas, pomposity as well as sanctimony prevent me. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 09:04:58 PM · #1344 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Alas, pomposity as well as sanctimony prevent me. |
:-)) |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 10:20:24 PM · #1345 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Yes, it's been an fun digression, but yes, it is a digression. One of these moments we really should get back to the basic discussion.
|
Back to the basic discussion? You mean the question of whether or not gay rights just devolved in CA? |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 10:22:48 PM · #1346 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Alas, pomposity as well as sanctimony prevent me. |
Well, good grief, that's never slowed up most of us!.....8>)
|
|
|
|
11/22/2008 10:25:12 PM · #1347 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Yes, it's been an fun digression, but yes, it is a digression. One of these moments we really should get back to the basic discussion.
|
Originally posted by JMart:
Back to the basic discussion? You mean the question of whether or not gay rights just devolved in CA? |
Well, that's pretty obvious.
I think in the long run, once it's overturned and shown that it cannot fly on so many levels, i.e. you cannot vote to discriminate against a whole segment of society, this setback may actually be a cornerstone for overturning a lot of legal unpleasantness.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2008 10:44:04 PM · #1348 |
Originally posted by tnun:
No, no, no, this will NOT do. I rely on Bear and a few others to be the voice of reason here |
Heck, I thought that WAS a pretty reasonable statement I made :-(
R.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2008 11:23:35 PM · #1349 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I think in the long run, once it's overturned and shown that it cannot fly on so many levels, i.e. you cannot vote to discriminate against a whole segment of society, this setback may actually be a cornerstone for overturning a lot of legal unpleasantness. |
In my little San Franciscan cocoon I really thought Prop 8 was going to be close but be defeated.
It wasn't but still, I remembered a bit of history. Stonewall. When a group of people decide that they are not going to take injustice anymore, things do happen.
In the few weeks following this election, I have seen people concentrate their energy on this issue. It's been a peaceful, but firm determination on the part of many. I look forward to the day this energy and purpose comes to fruition. |
|
|
|
11/23/2008 02:00:45 AM · #1350 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
I took the test as if it was on a par with the 'feel good' tests provided by oh, say, Reader's Digest. |
Wow. That's pretty brutal to take a guys career and equate him with Reader's Digest. I'm not saying the test is the be-all of social morality, but I'm guessing some work has gone into it through validation techniques and the like.
I'm also interested in why tnun is so completely negative to the thing. Again, we don't have to put the test on a pedestal, but I think his reaction is interesting in itself. Sanctimonious axis. Heh. I like that. |
|
