Hello Political Forum posters, this is just a simple update to an earlier post that was for finding others with a similar ideology to my own and that of those I am associated with. Do you support: -Death Penalty -LGBT Rights -Censorship of Hate Speech -Torture of Terrorists , Criminals,Dissidents and Enemy Combatants -Domestic Surveillance -Pro Choice Stance Do you oppose: -"Freedom of Speech" -"Freedom of Religion" -Racism -Communism -Sexism -Open Borders -The concept of more than two Genders Specific points will be discussed based on your answers. Thank you.
Provided nobody interferes with my lifestyle, or attempts to justify their unusual propensities on me but becomes offensive or intolerant if/when I disagree/disapprove, I can be relaxed about most everything.
Do you support: -Death Penalty - Only for serial killers and mass murderers. -LGBT Rights - Yes -Censorship of Hate Speech- No, I oppose hate crimes. -Torture of Terrorists , Criminals,Dissidents and Enemy Combatants - 100% opposed! -Domestic Surveillance - It does have value in certain areas. -Pro Choice Stance - Yes. Do you oppose: -"Freedom of Speech" - No. -"Freedom of Religion" - No. -Racism - Yes -Communism - Not a fan of it myself but if people want to enjoy communal living I don't care. -Sexism - Yes -Open Borders - No, there are better alternatives -The concept of more than two Genders - No.
Thank you everyone for your answers. Your views may not be a match, but I appreciate your feedback so far. I suppose it will be more difficult than I had originally thought. My views are a combination of left and right, and each specific point is followed in a way that would seem highly authoritarian to many of you. Though for me it is simply what is necessary to create what I see as an ideal world.
Do you support: -Death Penalty No, I can't imagine a worse punishment that being imprisoned for life without possibility of parole. -LGBT Rights Explain your views. I feel LGBT folks have the right to do what they do. I'm against gay marriage. I'm against any law that prescribes bathrooms for anybody. -Censorship of Hate Speech Against. The only speech that should be censored is speech advocating the violent overthrow of the government and of killing specific people or groups. -Torture of Terrorists , Criminals,Dissidents and Enemy Combatants Against. First, what we thing of torture they think of as foreplay. It's just not effective. Second, it harms the brave American soldiers/federal agents who have to administer it. I have a friend who has PTSD, and a lot of it is due to his guilt at torturing while in the Marines in Afghanistan. -Domestic Surveillance Against. -Pro Choice Stance Against. Do you oppose: -"Freedom of Speech" No -"Freedom of Religion" No -Racism Yes -Communism Yes -Sexism Yes (after all, I have a wife that works) -Open Borders No. I think the Founding Fathers are turning in their graves at the thought that we aren't welcoming in all who want to become part of this noble experiment. -The concept of more than two Genders There are three genders--male, female, and other. Others are those born with major birth defects (and this group is almost nonexistent statistically, maybe a dozen in the whole U.S.)
Do you support: -Death Penalty- I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I don't support it because I hear too many stories about people being convicted and serving long sentences for crimes they did not commit, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the same thing happens with the death penalty. On the other hand, I have never had a family member murdered, and I don't feel like it is my place to stand between a surviving family member, and their need for justice. I don't know how they feel, and I can't tell them how to feel. I guess if a person is convicted without any prosecutor shenanigans, and victim's family members need it to have peace, then yes, I support it. -LGBT Rights. Sure, as long as those rights to force me to play along with delusions about gender. -Censorship of Hate Speech- I do not support censorship of any kind. -Torture of Terrorists , Criminals,Dissidents and Enemy Combatants- It depends on what can be gained. -Domestic Surveillance- I'm fine with domestic surveillance of suspected terrorists, but I don't trust our government to decide who is a terrorists. I do not support mass surveillance at all. -Pro Choice Stance I support choice without enthusiasm. I understand why people oppose choice. It's not a simple issue. Do you oppose: -"Freedom of Speech" I do not oppose free speech. (Isn't this just another way of asking if one supports censorship of hate speech?) -"Freedom of Religion" No, I don't oppose it, so long as it does not become a nuisance. (I'm looking at you, Islam.) -Racism Define racism first. -Communism Yes, I oppose communism. -Sexism Define sexism. (Sorry, but the left has trashed the meaning of "isms") -Open Borders I oppose open borders, while there are no restrictions on who can claim benefits. -The concept of more than two Genders Yes, I oppose this concept.
WRONG ANSWER. Aside from the fact that America should be the one fighting those who torture, TORTURE DOES NOT WORK. Ask John McCain. If you believe torture works, then that means all the people who confessed to being witches under torture during the Middle Ages were really witches.... Those who favor torture are cowards - like Darth Vader Cheney and Reality Show host Trump.
In more extreme cases Within reason No No Not generally if you are talking about mass surveillance Not a fan of abortion but can tolerate in some circumstances Not generally Not unless it involves some weird weirdness like sacrifices. Indifferent. It is what it is. Not in the abstract Not really Depends on what you mean by open borders. We need a better system than we have that allows more people to enter and leave legally, but I don't support no system at all. No. You can call yourself whatever you want just don't expect others to play your game.
Do you support: -Death Penalty Only when there is no doubt at all. For example, the guy who shot Gabby Gifford and killed several other people - many people were there, there is no doubt who did it. I would kill him for free. Otherwise, there have been too many cases of DNA freeing convicted people. -LGBT Rights sure -Censorship of Hate Speech In some situations, yes. It needs to be banned from broadcast TV, for example. -Torture of Terrorists , Criminals,Dissidents and Enemy Combatants Absolutely NO. We should be on the side that fights against those who torture. -Domestic Surveillance Needs more safeguards. -Pro Choice Stance It is a woman's business - period. A country that tells a woman she MUST have a baby she doesn't want is as wrong as Red China was when they told women they COULD NOT have a second child. A woman's body is not the realm of government. Do you oppose: -"Freedom of Speech" See restriction on hate speech above -"Freedom of Religion" I want more separation between religion and government - churches preaching politics is WRONG. -Racism There is a resurgence after years of progress. I feel the confederate rag should be banned as a symbol of racism the same as Germany has banned the swastika. -Communism No longer a threat. Some countries governments are threats, but China and Russia aren't really communist any longer. They are corrupt dictatorships with billionaires. -Sexism No -Open Borders No -The concept of more than two Genders That is absurd. Biology is not a matter of debate. There is male and female. There are some hermaphrodites whose sex is ill-defined, but that is not a third sex.
Death penalty. A real difficult one. One puts down a dangerous dog to preserve safety for others. Not a difficult concept but what if you put down the wrong dog? My experience with true criminals is that you cannot trust anything they say so it is up to society to determine guilt or innocence. Some crimes are so heinous and the perp so amoral that they can never be let back into society. Do we spend a living wage per year to keep them alive or do we use that resource to help others?
I guess we should begin by defining what it means to each of us. For me Domestic Surveillance is having things like CCTV in public areas. We already have them in malls, banks, airports, etc, etc. So an example would be having them in Times Sq, NYC connected to facial recognition software could be a means of reducing crime. In the UK and other parts of the EU they are effective in catching criminals. So to me it is about crime prevention and limited to areas where crimes are likely to occur. The police cannot be everywhere but if there are CCTV cameras at the local park then it is less likely that there will be criminals hanging around at that location IMO.
Domestic surveillance isn't known to be CCTV cameras, I don't mind what you said above. Domestic surveillance refers to things like this: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-senate-advances-nsa-20150602-story.html
I'm 100% against the NSA having anything to do with our phones, emails, etc. It's been an invasion of privacy from 2001 through the Obama administration
Ah, thanks for the clarification, I misunderstood what was being asked for in the questionaire. In which case my position on that question is similar to yours. I agree that the original Bush/Cheney regime Patriot Act was an egregious violation of our rights to privacy. That was "supposed" to have been rectified by the use of the FISA courts. The current debacle and accusations does appear as though the proper procedures and protocols are not being followed. If that is the case then yes, they need to be stopped immediately.
No worries It's scary how much data is being collected by the NSA. I guarantee our rights are being violated still
That is my overall take. Free to Choose as Milton Friedman stressed.In other words I don't like being governed.I know about being governed.I was taught by the Nuns in grade school. I think Tucker Carlson is a splendid example of how that theory of Man as Rational animal works. In the words of William James : " Pragmatism is uncomfortable away from facts.Rationalism is comfortable only in the presence of abstractions .... Objective truth must be something non-utilitarian,haughty,refined,remote, august,exalted.... Down with psychology,up with logic,in all this question. " -- { Pragmatism } 1907
It depends on what's to be gained. If you're torturing someone for a confession, then I agree, torture is pointless. You would just be torturing someone until they agree with you. You're leading someone to a destination that you already know. If you capture a terrorists that you know has intel on a bomb location or something, then torture can be useful. You're trying to get someone to take you to a destination that you don't know. John McCain's opinions mean very little to me.
John McCain related how he was asked for the names of other members of his squadron - he gave the names of a baseball team. If you just make up names, you might not remember the next time they ask ( and they will ) so a creative person can appear to be giving information under torture but it is bogus. If a person is committed, torture will not work.
