ICMI

Thanks to StudioBrule for the shoutout* at the International Conference on Men’s Issues last year in London. Most of my more recent pieces have been hubbed for free on my Patreon page:

https://www.patreon.com/MnemoniXs

but having only this week changed jobs expect to see more content over the mext month.

Thanks for everyone’s support and encouragement. I’ll see you all soon 😉 

*https://youtu.be/3WuQSjAiurk

Posted in Feminism, MRA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

I accidentally a video

Quick link as I’m starting to do these things now. This one is based of an earlier piece as I don’t have the confidence to use new material until I know it’s worth the extra time.

Enjoy

Posted in Feminism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Why I Fell Out With The Dictionary – a guest piece by @TekThatEnglish

by https://www.twitter.com/TekThatEnglish

“He insisted upon the precision of words, and I have kept faith with him.”

I used to love the dictionary. Whenever there was a disagreement about meaning, it could be whipped out and used authoritatively, even in the midst of conversations where I would proudly dismiss arguments from authority.

It seemed to be infallible. Who could argue with what words mean when we have a book, revised and updated, to inform precisely and without error.

I had a small inkling something was wrong when the word “atheist” came up. Normally this would come around because my understanding was that the ‘a’ prefix negated the ‘theism’ suffix, simply denoting that I or whomever was decidedly not  a  theist.

Examples from dictionaries would be presented, some with the inappropriate “belief there is no god” definition which I so vehemently reject. Where the dictionary properly denoted “a lack of or disbelief in a God or gods” we’d go down a sinkhole of discussing that “to lack” something implies there is something to lack, etc etc..

Now these issues stem not so much from atheism in particular, but more from trying to define ideological standpoints using the common corpus. Dictionaries,  if you don’t know, take their definitions from common usage. Which seems logical, but when people define their ideologies they tend to oversimplify. 

Take Feminism as an example as it’s the one which tipped me off that the corpus isn’t sufficient. Feminism in practice is the active pursuit of rights and privileges for women, based on the belief that women have fewer or lesser rights compared to that of men. A common refrain being “but men already have all the rights”.

Now this is often written in softer language when people say what they mean by “I’m a feminist”, consequently the dictionary definition (and I will rarely use anything other than the British Oxford as a standard) is given as “The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.”. In less rigid dictionaries, ones with a wider corpus, this becomes the oversimplified “Equal rights for men and women” which I’m sure you can agree has lost many of the implicit nuance of the original.

Under this lax definition one could argue that wanting equal rights for men is “feminism” but that is quite counter to the spirit of feminism in its proper usage.

One needs to look further than the dictionary for these types of words, yet the dictionary itself will not tell you this. Whilst dictionary makers are quick to note that they produce the books for descriptive rather than prescriptive reasons, they stop short of implying that the common usage may differ from the meaning in any particular circumstances.

You may have seen simpler examples of words not being made definite and distinct (i.e. being defined) but quite the contrary. “Literally” is the most obvious one. Language often changes over time, which is natural, yet some changes are a hard u-turn. When common usage is uniformed or uneducated as to the proper meaning,  we can end up in a world where the second definition for “Literally” can be “Not literally” and this way.. madness lies.

Other examples have probably slipped you by. “Ironically” used to require the ironic saying or situation to be performed on purpose. That the irony stemmed from the willful inversion of expectations. Now it is more commonly used to describe situations of chance where items of context are coincidentally related. A rather unironic state to be describing. Which itself would be ironic if “irony” here were being used ironically, which sadly isn’t the case.

Anothet pitfall of dictionary worship is to take what someone says and to argue a strawman because you think what they mean is what the dictionary tells you they mean.

To pull back towards our starting point, when someone refers to themselves as “agnostic” arguments abound as to the difference between belief and knowledge and that the speaker should properly call themselves an “atheist”. Whilst true, the conversation has been derailed by a misapplied label, and the point the speaker was trying to convey is lost amid the shouting match which ensues.

In this day and age, where labels are now thrown at people to silence them, it becomes necessary for me to stop many a conversation in order to either inform people that I mean precisely what I say and not the baggage you have attached to a label, and conversely for dictionary addicts to ask the important questions as to why people associate with the labels they have applied *before* attacking the strawman in their minds and wondering why the conversion doesn’t go anywhere.

With this in mind, please go forth and use words as properly as you can. If you’re a feminist because you want equal rights, please consider using the more appropriate “Egalitarian”, and if I tell you that because I’m an Egalitarian, and that, because men have fewer rights than women in my country, I am “an advocate of men’s rights”, please don’t assume that by some sinkhole wordplay, I am somehow a misogynist.

Thank you.

(and for God’s sake OED, don’t one day define Islam as “the religion of peace”)

Posted in Atheism, Feminism, MRA, politics, society, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Reasoning Reason

by https://www.twitter.com/MnemoniXs

When I asked* for validation of claims regarding Geocentric** models, I was given this image along with the question “Does this help?”***

C5v8htLWQAEioAx.jpg

..which is obviously doesn’t. But let’s dissect it anyway as he wants me to see where God can end this circle.

“I know my reasoning is valid because I checked the validity of my reasoning using my reasoning therefore..” ..God? – No that doesn’t follow.

“I know my reasoning is valid because [God] checked the validity of my reasoning using [His] reasoning therefore..”? – Hmm that wouldn’t be any more valid.

“I know [God’s] reasoning is valid because I checked the validity of [God’s] reasoning using my reasoning therefore..”? – Nope, same problem. One last try.

“I know my [God] is valid because I checked the validity of my [God] using my [God] therefore..” – That must be what he means. Still circular but given the lack of evidence in favour of whatever passes for a god these days, I suppose that’s how theism works.

As for reasoning, it is a cognitive process that is contingent upon the learned responses to our interaction with the world around us. The simplest “action and reaction” observation, repeatedly instigated and encountered, informs our actions. More complex observations of the world lead to more complex reasoning. Even hypotheticals are based in examples we draw from the real world. Logical statements are routinely rendered in mathematic form, something which is based on very primitive but concrete observances that when you put two rocks together, the result is two rocks, not three, or one.

Reasoning isn’t based on reasoning. It’s based on evidence. Something that theists endeavour to discredit because it doesn’t support their beliefs.

Now Matty, where’s that validation for Geocentrism?

 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Update: no answers to questions, just further non-sequiturial claims

“Spiritual things are undetectable by Science. Science has failed”****

– – – – – – – – – – – – –
*https://twitter.com/MnemoniXs/status/836504696902795264

**https://twitter.com/matty_lawrence/status/836499021363556352

***https://twitter.com/matty_lawrence/status/836539817370480644

****https://twitter.com/matty_lawrence/status/836860952725360640

Posted in Atheism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Milo and The Correct Application Of Words

I’m sick and tired of seeing people labelled incorrectly and seeing them suffer as a result.

Spencer called a Nazi for wanting what Jews have, Trump called a Fascist for winning an election, Gay people called Homophobic, Anti-Muslim speakers called Xenophobic which is ridiculous because Islam isn’t a race, and Islamophobic applied to people who have a perfectly rational fear of islam.

Now Milo is having to defend accusations of endorsing paedophilia..

I won’t bother with direct quotations as the videos are everywhere, go and listen then come back.

Now.. Paedophilia describes a preference for, rather than attraction to someone who happens to be prepubescent, which either way is irrelevant as we’re dealing about the illegal act rather than the diagnosis, but would still not be paedophilia as in UK where Milo is from, that applies to those victims under the age of 11.

He says that the Age of Consent (16 in UK) is about right but also described it as arbitrary, talking about sexual maturity (citing people younger who are sexually mature whereas I would be more worried about people older who aren’t sexually mature). I see no problem with this as a factual observation, I would say informed consent requires mental maturity as well as sexual maturity, but I understand what he means.
The ability to make decisions with regards to long term consequences is severely impacted by mental immaturity, hence it is the adult’s responsibility in these scenarios. (Even with sexually maturity taken into account, neurologically speaking I’d have the age of consent at 18, which would be hypocritical but then every adolescent thinks they know everything).

So there’s no case here for saying he endorses Paedophilia. One could point to his question to the radio host regarding finding someone sexually mature “hot” even if they were 15 (i.e. slightly under legal age) but that would instead be an example of ephebophilia, and only then if that were a preference rather than a singular case, and everyone (I don’t care who they are) has seen some overly sexualised model and thought they looked hot, only to discover later that that person wasn’t of legal age. It happens, and it’s not your fault.

Now we do have a bit towards the end where he won’t name the guy in question despite implication that there were incidents with other boys of an age which Milo found concerning. I agree with Jeff holliday, that is a problem. The only problem in this whole mess. But I will not denounce Milo for not giving the guy up to Social Justice when it’s a matter for the police, the courts, and for due process. I didn’t hear that it hasn’t be reported but I will urge Milo on behalf of the safety of others to report if he hasn’t already done so.

Given that he wasn’t endorsing paedophilia, I find it sickening that the label is being applied to him to the point now where his book has been cancelled by the publisher. This is now a case of monetary loss due to defamation of character.

As someone who keeps seeing derogatory labels used to shut down people for having the “wrong” political opinions I find myself terrified that this can easily happen to anyone including myself. But rather than be quiet, I see the positive in being open, saying what you think, and voting how you believe, because if you shut up before they shut you up, they’ve already won.


Addendum:

Milo has made a Facebook Live style apology, and a researched Press Conference apology, for the wording he used and the flippant tone which may have made other victims feel lessened. He reached out to say that life gets better and that one shouldn’t let abuse dictate their lives. What he didn’t apologise for was his views because as he says, what he said and what CNN etc are saying about him are two different things entirely.

One conflation which people are *still* making are where he talks about long supportive relationships that young gay men get involved as a sad factor of being shunned at home. With this he cites his own long term relationship with a 29 year old whilst he was 17 (legal age in UK is 16, in Germany is 14). This is being lumped in with his comments about how he lost his virginity at 13 which he recognises as abuse, but feels like he was a willing partner in. Despite which he reiterated that the legal age is about right and that older men taking sexual advantage of 13 year olds *is* *wrong*.

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

“Hey Moron! Fucking Moron!” – an open letter to pro-islam Women’s Marchers

“..greater than fear”?

Really niqa’? 

Allahu Akbar indeed, God is greatest, no?

وَأَمَّا مَنْ خَافَ مَقَامَ رَبِّهِ وَنَهَى النَّفْسَ عَنِ الْهَوَىٰ

“But as for him who feared (khawf) standing before his Lord, and restrained himself from impure evil desires and lusts.” (79:40)

لَّا يَخَافُونَ الْآخِرَةَ 

“They do not fear (khawf) the hereafter.” (74:53)

الَّذِي أَطْعَمَهُم مِّن جُوعٍ وَآمَنَهُم مِّنْخَوْفٍ 

“(He) Who has fed them against hunger, and has made them safe from fear (khawf).” (106:4)

إِنَّمَا تُنذِرُ مَنِ اتَّبَعَ الذِّكْرَ وَخَشِيَ الرَّحْمَـٰنَ بِالْغَيْبِ

You can only warn him who follows the Reminder, and fears (khashyah) the Most Merciful unseen.(36:11)

إِنَّمَا يَخْشَى اللَّهَ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ الْعُلَمَاءُ

“It is only those who have knowledge among His slaves that fear Allah.” (35:28)

قَدْ أَفْلَحَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ

“Successful indeed are the believers,” (23:1)

الَّذِينَ هُمْ فِي صَلَاتِهِمْ خَاشِعُونَ

“Those who offer their Salat (prayers) with all solemnity and full submissiveness.” (23:2)

أَبْصَارُهَا خَاشِعَةٌ 

“Their eyes will be downcast.” (79:9)

وَتَزَوَّدُوا فَإِنَّ خَيْرَ الزَّادِ التَّقْوَىٰ

“And take a provision (with you) for the journey, but the best provision is At-Taqwa” (2:197)

يَحْذَرُ الْمُنَافِقُونَ أَن تُنَزَّلَ عَلَيْهِمْ سُورَةٌ تُنَبِّئُهُم بِمَا فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ

“The hypocrites fear (hadthr) lest a Surah should be revealed about them, showing them what is in their hearts.” (9:64)

فَلَمَّا ذَهَبَ عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الرَّوْعُ وَجَاءَتْهُ الْبُشْرَىٰ يُجَادِلُنَا فِي قَوْمِ لُوطٍ

Then when the fear (rau’) had gone away from Ibrahim, and the glad tidings had reached him, he began to plead with Us (Our messengers) for the people of Lut.” (11:74)

فَلَمَّا رَأَىٰ أَيْدِيَهُمْ لَا تَصِلُ إِلَيْهِ نَكِرَهُمْ وَأَوْجَسَ مِنْهُمْ خِيفَةً

“But when he saw their hands went not towards it (the meal), he mistrusted them, and conceived a fear (wajas) of them.” (11:70)

فَأَوْجَسَ فِي نَفْسِهِ خِيفَةً مُّوسَىٰ

So Musa conceived fear (wajas) in himself. (20:67)

إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الَّذِينَ إِذَا ذُكِرَ اللَّهُ وَجِلَتْقُلُوبُهُمْ

“The believers are only those who, when Allah is mentioned, feel a fear (wajl) in their hearts.” (8:2) 

إِنَّمَا هُوَ إِلَـٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ ۖ فَإِيَّايَ فَارْهَبُونِ

Verily, He is (the) only One Deity. Then, fear Me much. (16:51)

لَأَنتُمْ أَشَدُّ رَهْبَةً فِي صُدُورِهِم مِّنَ اللَّهِ ۚذَ‌ٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لَّا يَفْقَهُونَ 

“Verily, you are more fearful (rahbah) in their breasts than Allah. That is because they are a people who comprehend not.” (59:13)

إِذْ يُوحِي رَبُّكَ إِلَى الْمَلَائِكَةِ أَنِّي مَعَكُمْ فَثَبِّتُوا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ۚ سَأُلْقِي فِي قُلُوبِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا الرُّعْبَ

“(Remember) when your Lord revealed to the angels, “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror (ru’b) into the hearts of those who have disbelieved.” (8:12)

لَوِ اطَّلَعْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ لَوَلَّيْتَ مِنْهُمْ فِرَارًا وَلَمُلِئْتَ مِنْهُمْ رُعْبًا 

Had you looked at them, you would certainly have turned back from them in flight, and would certainly have been filled with awe (ru’b) of them. (18:18)

قَالُوا إِنَّا كُنَّا قَبْلُ فِي أَهْلِنَا مُشْفِقِينَ 

“Saying: “Aforetime, we were afraid (shafaq) in the midst of our families.” (52:26)

تَرَى الظَّالِمِينَ مُشْفِقِينَ مِمَّا كَسَبُوا وَهُوَ وَاقِعٌ بِهِمْ

“You will see thewrong-doers fearful (shafaq) of that which they have earned, and it (the punishment) will surely befall them.” (42:22)

قُلُوبٌ يَوْمَئِذٍ وَاجِفَةٌ

“hearts that day will be full of terror.” (79:8)

وَمَن يُطِعِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَخْشَ اللَّهَ وَيَتَّقْهِ فَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَائِزُونَ

And whosoever obeys Allah and His Messenger, fears Allah, and keeps his duty (to Him), such are the successful.(24:52)

—————-

Sources used; Islamic scripture and translations from

https://tayyibaat.wordpress.com/

Posted in Atheism, Feminism, politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Political Spectrums are too vague

This will likely be boring af to read through, but if I’m going to avoid being sucker punched because people are being labelled Nazis, White Supremacists, and “woman hating misogynists” then I should probably have my views listed somewhere so that I don’t have to spend more time rebutting than AntiFa take to think about their baseless accusals.

 

These questions are taken from https://www.politicalcompass.org/test which is considered a good test by many. However with the complexity of the questions and their ramifications, comes an over-simplification from the answer format. Furthermore placing oneself into a category/party/ideology/community based on some but not all of that group’s stated beliefs, will inherently cause both internal conflict and the result of giving that group the negative external appearance of the worst elements.

(Addendums will be added after the end if necessary as and when my views change with evidence.)

 

1

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. An “if” question supposing a future hypothetical outside my control. Good start. If it’s economic then it will serve corporations by it’s nature. I wouldn’t be in favour of forcing economics to serve humanity further than maybe regulating the monopolisation of resources.
I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong. No. Would anyone answer “yes”? How would that be justified? (please comment)
No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it’s foolish to be proud of it. Nationalism for the sake of nationalism isn’t useful, but citizens contribute to the nation so there’s no reason here against being proud if one’s nation is worthy.
Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races. All races have statistical variances in “qualities” but the ranges overlap such that I wouldn’t promote or disparage based on race rather than merit.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. For the purposes of overthrowing the enemy this can be a useful short term solution, but society often conflates association with overall shared views. Hence this post.
Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified. Yes, by that if a nation justifies an action then they don’t agree with the international law. How can law be truly international in such circumstances?
There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment. The worry for me comes more from the public acceptance of each as the other. Whilst it is preferable that each media outlet stick to the field to which it advertises itself, I feel that consumers should research what they find before allowing it to instruct their behaviour. That would solve a lot more problems.

2

People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality. Neither. We’re physically divided by nationality but the internet has helped in that regard. No-one knows what class you are when you post anonymously, and that’s wonderful.
Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. I don’t know enough about economics to have much of an opinion on this, but I feel that it’s easier to control inflation directly. Employment is largely at the whim of the free market.
Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation. I agree. Governments primary function should ideally be to grant and protect rights in accordance with the will of the people, those rights extend to others, animals, and the environment, if the people will it. If the people demand that nature has the right not to be unduly damaged by our presence (and thus possibly damage us in return) then I see no issue with the government granting and enforcing that right according to the researched effects of the actions of corporations.
“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a fundamentally good idea. Only if you want to deny personal  freedoms, in which case what’s the point of existing? To continue to exist? It’s circular, what’s the *point*?
It’s a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product. It’s amazing that we’re capable of such. In principle the demand and supply of portable clean water isn’t bad. The willingness of people to buy it at ludicrous prices because of some perception of quality beyond reason is the sad part.
Land shouldn’t be a commodity to be bought and sold. A strange idea, nonetheless necessary in a population where nomadic lifestyle isn’t tenable.
It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society. If they contribute nothing to society then what’s the harm? It’s regrettable when that fortune isn’t wielded for the betterment of the species.
Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade. Anti-protectionism would only work if all nations did it.
The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders. If a company has no other social responsibilities then a rival would be more agreeable to consumers and the demand would surely force the hand of the greedy company. The only other necessary responsibility for a fair free market would be a level of transparency.
The rich are too highly taxed. “The rich” is too vague, and countries differ in their taxation. Disincentivising the accumulation of wealth removes the impetus for improvement in a capitalist society.
Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care . I don’t see why not. If they can pay more then the right is also applicable for someone else to provide whatever a “higher standard”.
Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public. If the public demand that detrimental action should be met with punitive measures, then this follows logically.
A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies. Monopolies restrict opportunities of others so; yes.

(Why is there only one Monopolies Commission?)

The freer the market, the freer the people. Only in terms of freedoms relating to the market. Capitalism has a track record of being in line with general higher standards of living, although when people are starving because they don’t have enough little green pieces of paper the whole thing looks a little silly.

3

Abortion, when the woman’s life is not threatened, should always be illegal. “always”? Only a sith deals in absolutes..

Abortion is not a simple topic.

Only women give birth, but the right to choose to be a parent is inherently enmeshed in the debate, so as a man I’m anti-abortion until there’s a legal equivalent for me.

As a scientist I’m fine with abortion before 24 weeks from a neurological POV, but damage to the mother in terms of ability to carry in future etc should be considered too.

Philosophically the consequences of  sex should be part of the decision to have sex. Abortion past maybe 4 weeks(?) shouldn’t be taken lightly.

Economically the right to abortion shouldn’t mean the right to free abortion (i.e: at the tax payer’s expense) except in the case of  medical concerns.

All authority should be questioned. Nothing should be exempt from being questioned.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Seems fair. Intent should modify the punishment somewhat though.

Also if someone is repentant then punishment often has a negative psychological effect (i.e: If they’re going to get punished even if they feel genuinely remorseful then what’s the incentive for remorse and the behavioural change that follows?)

Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis. Taxes are spent as per the will of those we elect to serve our best interests. It’s much cheaper to keep these institutions going than to build and destroy them as the cycle of whim rolls forward. However, we are now in the position to make our own choices from a vast array of entertainment choices and the government supplying such art opportunities for the public is fast becoming outdated.
Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory. Education is integral to the betterment of society and the economy. Classroom attendance should be compulsory in order to give each child the full range of opportunities arising from a basic education.
All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind. “kind”?

If this means race then no, if this means class then no, if this means sex then no, if this means age then no, if this means ideology then no, if this means keeping dangerous mentally unstable criminals in unsafe circulation then yes.

Good parents sometimes have to spank their children. Pain is a quick was for the brain to associate behaviour with action, but I’ve never had to spank my children so I don’t think it necessary in such a safe society when our biological development takes such a relatively long time as this gives greater opportunity for slower, more conscious methods of learning.
It’s natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents. Yes, it develops specific areas of the mind.

Also as parents we don’t own our children. We are their wards and thus don’t necessarily have the right to know everything they think.

Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence. If it were legal I wouldn’t have to buy it from a guy who also sells heroin, so it would be safer for society not to criminalise such a drug, especially when compared with the effects of alcohol and tobacco etc..
The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs. *to have the opportunity (in terms of knowledge) to follow any career/artistic endeavour/interest they enjoy and are suitable for, whilst entering society with as few incorrect beliefs as possible.
People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce. Given advances in genetics this won’t be an issue. Restricting something we can work on limits our advances in those fields.
(Take pesticides for example, sure we made mistakes, but if all farms were forced to be organic, we couldn’t learn from the mistakes we’re not making and couldn’t get any better.)
The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline. That would lay the groundwork for an authoritarian society. Who do you trust to decide what your child should be disciplined for?
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures. There’s no sense in labelling a culture “savage” unless the people within that culture display savage behaviour.

People can learn however, and given the opportunity, shouldn’t then be forgiven for continued savagery because of the culture they came from.

Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society’s support. Without merit, why reward?
When you are troubled, it’s better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things. If the source of the trouble is ignored then it can have potential to get worse. Troubles should be analysed and addressed if necessary.
First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country. “never”? These absolutes are silly. Of course they potentially can. Factors like individual capacity and culture of origin massively affect the outcome. It may be much more difficult to acclimate an 80 year old fundamental muslim into a secular humanist society than a 5 year old atheist, but that doesn’t mean “never”,
What’s good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us. “always”? The wording of these questions inherently ensure my disagreement and skew the result, despite for example the consequence of growing companies employing more people and stimulating the economy etc etc
No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding. Public can fund whatever broadcasting they want. On what grounds would anyone even argue the restrict that? (comments welcome)

4

Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism. If we’re not free to potentially revolt then what protection do we have against the misuse of our governments?
A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system. That advantage comes at the heavy cost of removing the influence of the people and their differing ideologies. Not worth it.
Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried. Privacy doesn’t imply wrongdoing.  Surveilling those who do no wrong can only be the result of the public becoming a product. Who finds our personal information so valuable as to expend the resources necessary to gather it?
The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes. Death denies the opportunity for remorse. I don’t consider the taking of life to be suitable as a punishment.
In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded. In the governance of a free society those positions should always be reversed.
Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything shouldn’t be considered art at all. Abstraction isn’t the same as meaninglessness. This question however seems less to do with politics and more to do with personal aesthetical considerations. What bearing does it have?
In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation. Punishment implies rehabilitation (in the same way that consent must be informed).
It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals. Definitely. But until we try, until we give the opportunity, how could you possibly make any determination as to who should be denied?
The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist. Production could survive without art, but art could not survive without production.
Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers. Not unless they choose that duty.
Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries. Some of them, more than likely yes. What does this have to do with my politics? You want me to be against people having the opportunity to earn more in a sweatshop than they would in the field due to the governance of other countries? I don’t have the right to directly intervene in the policies of other sovereign nations, all I can do is appeal to the people to better inform their government as to what they want and need.
Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity. The two aren’t mutually inclusive.

5

Astrology accurately explains many things. Astrology is evidentially inaccurate.
You cannot be moral without being religious. Morality is subjective, but as religion is evidentially inaccurate I can’t find cause to find it would be morally worth while.
Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged. Without a low level of social security not everyone could have the same opportunities. I would say that basic human rights should be afforded to those without the means to self supply but beyond that I leave it to an informed democracy to decide which causes warrant charity.
Some people are naturally unlucky. Luck is a description that which happens despite influence or lack thereof. It is not something people *have*.
It is important that my child’s school instills religious values. *It is important that my child’s school DOES NOT instil religious values, but seeks to rid the child of a many false beliefs as possible.

6

Sex outside marriage is usually immoral. As marriage isn’t the only standard of consent; I disagree.
A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption. I see no reason the should be excluded. If there is an overabundance of people seeking adoption, all other things being equal then statistical likelihood of abuse should inform as to which combination of sexes should be preferred.
Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population. There is no obvious reason for this not to be the case.
What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state. Agreed. Consent being the key word there in regards to sexual activity.
No one can feel naturally homosexual. If sheep and deer can I see no reason that humans cannot.
These days openness about sex has gone too far. Openness as in; freedom of access to information about? When has that ever been a bad thing?

Thus ends the quiz.

Out of curiosity whilst collecting these questions I arbitrarily clicked “agree” to all, the result would seem to imply a slight bias on behalf of the questions. Thoughts and comments welcome 🙂

chart

Posted in politics, society | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment