is there a good quiz out there that can help me?

I honestly have no idea which side of the political party I fall on, I don't really care about politics enough to register to any party, and I don't vote because I feel that the votes are either rigged or they don't count, but I at least want to be able to identify with a political group of some sort.

does anyone know of where there is maybe a test of some sort that can determine where I belong?, whenever anyone asks me what party I identify with, I always end up with this confused look on my face because I seem to be very "chaotic neutral" in my views.

 

Why not work out what you think by discussing politics here?

I mean in what way (politically) do you think your views are "chaotic neutral"? In gaming isn’t that the term for an anarchistic character?

 

Here is just what you need:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/








and mine:


.

 

what I mean by that is I hold views that are either very conservative or very liberal, my views are mostly at opposite ends of the spectrum.

like say for instance, I believe in capitol punishment and the death penalty, those are very conservative and radical views, but at the same time I believe in pro choice when it comes to abortion, equal rights for everyone, save the environment, etc

so I'm kinda stuck in the middle you know?...

 

oh thanks jackflash!, that is just what I needed

 

I took the quiz. It was rather long, but here's my results


I thought I was gonna be further up on the authouratarian side and further left on theleft side. I think its because of my hesitation to use the "strongly" button rather than the regular button

 

Shadowfang


Your politics is not so much about a list of what you support or don’t support but a matter of why you support or don’t support those ideas.

For example I’ve had people argue that they have nothing against abortion because it is better if unwanted children were aborted before they became a burden on the state. And it is possible for a right wing libertarian or conservative to talk of supporting ‘equal rights’ because that has nothing to do with reducing inequality.

Anyway a good indication of a persons stance is the kind of economic views they hold because that can so often colour in other parts of their thinking, can you tell us anything about those?

 

I've pretty much given up discussing views with people because people are pretty grounded in their beliefs, unless you are a fence sitter who has a passion for hearing different opinions, that and the fact that people don't take you seriously on anything you say because you are a minority within a minority within a minority of different subcultures that get allot of negative flack, people start to think you are crazy for having such controversial/radical views, and who listens to a crazy person?..plus I don't like arguing with people who act like children and resort to name calling and accusations.

I've hung up my debating flag for now until I can run into someone who can agree to disagree without insulting each other.

btw, here is my chart thingy

 

Shadowfang

But how did they get their views, they were not born with them?

Thing is are they rational can they be defended from criticism do they stand up to scrutiny, it would seem to me that only people that already know their ideas would stand would want to discuss them.

I’m happy to present my view to see if they fly and I’ve had (and have) friends that are good at finding the faults in some of them, forcing me to adapt of change them.

No ideas should be carved in stone, immutable.

Think of what was thought of as ‘common knowledge’ two hundred, a hundred years ago and compare them with today. For example it was once a widely held belief among white people that black people were just not as intelligent or ‘morally’ upstanding as them. Now someone with black skin is the US President. If people had not debated, argued and changed the views of those ‘grounded in their beliefs’ that could never of happened.

 

I can do that.

Many people here can do that.

Personally I think sometimes it doesn't matter where you think you are, politically speaking, because other people pigeon-hole you, anyway.
Imho, the views on this forum are predominantly "left-wing" so most people, I believe, pigeon-hole you if you deviate from so-called "lef-wing" views.
I hope that isn't me pigeon-holing people? I think it's more a generalisation...a fair one, I think.

I would say I too am "chaotic-neutral" because I don't have many political prejudices against individuals or governments etc. Many people here do.

So I would say if you want to discuss politics then try to, if this place doesn't suite you you will find out fairly quickly.

 

Odon

The problem here is that I’ve tried to debate with you several times and you definitely do have political prejudices, to the point that if something runs counter to your view and you have no counter argument you just pronounce you don’t see it and if asked why not you reply is only that you don’t. Its frustrating and to me rather dishonest.

In other words I think you prejudices dictates your views rather than rational argument.

Now that is fine but I don’t think that it allows you to claim you haven’t got prejudices.

Also I’m still not sure what "chaotic-neutral" means in a political sense?

 

I might be wrong, but you seem too certain you are right.
So, if I don't agree with you or can't fathom where you are coming from I say that...but in your eyes I'm not seeing the truth.
If a political prejudice is not agreeing who the "bad guys" are, such as Bush/Blair/Israel, then ok, I have political prejudices.
But that prejudice is a fair one, imho...because I hope I'm deceiding on the merits of the particular argument at hand.
Saying that, It might be a good idea to give an e.g of one or more of the times my so-called prejudices have come out.
I'm obviously not seeing it within myself.

I have that feeling about you and others.
That is what I was trying to say in my OP.

To me it means being somewhere close to the middle of the polical spectrum, which if you look at my politicalcompass results is where I am (ok, with a little bit of a prejudice to the left).
I sometimes swing to the so-called left and sometimes swing to the so-called right...but it is not always apparent which way I will go.
I think you define yourself as being left-leaning.
I think you sometimes say: "Those on the right say...", which seems to suggest you will not ever agree with what the so-called right believe to be true.
You seem to pretty much always agree with the "lefts" argument, but to befair to you, you always seem to not be too polemical about it...you don't want to be considered one of the loony left.

 

I think you've described everybody who has an opinion.

Again, everybody who has an opinion.

.

 

JackFlash, has Bush/Blair/Israel ever been right about anything?

 

Odon

It’s the lack of substance, of any real actual counter argument or reply to criticism that is frustrating when trying to debate with you. What you have is a very good stalling technique which is built on the implication that an alternative view hasn’t made a good enough point/argument while seldom (if ever) putting up any counter argument or addressing the points that are made.

It basically comes down to saying – your argument isn’t convincing so I don’t believe it’ - but if asked why you’re not convinced or what your counter argument it is clear you don’t have one.
You seem to have decided before hand that no argument will be good enough to shake your belief, rather than deciding on the merits of any particular argument being presented.
To me that is a classic case of you going with prejudice over rational argument, unable to defend you own views you stall by just repeating ‘i’m not convinced’ when a more honest reply might be – I’m never going to be convinced of any view that runs counter to my own.

It doesn’t matter if the person doing this is of the right, left or middle my view would be the same. And I’ve said the same to communists and anarchists and lefties that have done something similar.

To me it is dishonest, it’s loudly proclaiming you are not prejudiced and are willing to engage in open and honest debate when the reality is very different.

 

I admit I’m left leaning and will put forward left leaning arguments and I do criticise many of the arguments and views of the right, because they don’t seem that good.

And they can put up counter arguments to mine and so debate can be about the merits of the arguments.

The problem often seems to be that people with right wing views know their arguments aren’t that good so are reluctant to debate honestly.

As I’ve pointed out elsewhere there can be a great divide between what people might believe is true and how others might see things. Once many white people though it ‘true’ that black people were inferior to whites.

So it’s not what people ‘believe’ but if their arguments stand up to scrutiny that matters to me.

The thing is that there are still people today that believe black people are inferior, does that mean its true?

Maybe that is the problem you believe an argument that cannot be defended has as much validity as one that can be.

To me many of the arguments of the right don’t seem that defendable and many right-wingers don’t seem able to defend them, which is the reason a lean to the left.

 

If you're asking my [prejudiced] opinion, it's just as difficult for someone to always be wrong as it is to always be right.

I think you know my very low opinion of Bush, he was/is a scoundrel, yet he did make some good decisions. I don't really have much of an opinion of Blair, except I think he was dragged kicking and screaming by the Bush administration into the Iraq war. You and your fellow Brits are free to judge him as you see fit, I have no dog in that race.

As for Israel, I really wish them the best and have sympathy for their situation, but, it's their situation, not mine. I'm not against selling them the weapons needed to defend themselves, but not American blood. And, I think America should remain neutral in any given individual dispute they have with their Arab neighbors, they have to work out their differences for themselves.

.

 

That seems kinda unfair.
So, you are saying nothing I say has any merit?
Ok, I generally disagree with you, so that means I have no counter argument or my counter argument has no substance?
I would still suggest you find an e.g of this.
I would say find an e.g of my prejudice.

I sometimes disagree with you.
Get over it.

This is not true.
Infact I do my best to not do this.
You have me so wrong.

 

I will answer your points when you have answered mine.