The Political Compass - 2009 Edition

[CptStern]

To which I answered "agree". Which is not specific to the context given, as I don't believe that breaking the law is inherently wrong. Where the law happens to agree with what's right, that's just coincidence.

the problem with that is that the government signed the laws promising to abide by them to do an about face is the height of hypocrisy because they're the ones that wrote the law. so it's not the same as a citizen breaking the law because he doesnt feel like abiding by it

Ultimately, it's a meaningless question. Adherence to the law for the sake of adherence to the law is wrong, especially when a situation of this magnitude is involved.

but ...their reasons were fabricated, their reasons for breaking their own laws were a sham. the law wasnt wrong in this case. they just used PR and spin to make it sound as if it was wrong when it wasnt

To which I answered "disagree".

my point is that it seems to be framed to ferret out the hardliners (or to more accurately score the hardliners by throwing them a curveball that only they would hit). I mean really whop besides the insane and the immature when say they "agreed"

 

[repiV]

the problem with that is that the government signed the laws promising to abide by them to do an about face is the height of hypocrisy because they're the ones that wrote the law. so it's not the same as a citizen breaking the law because he doesnt feel like abiding by it

The government is an ever-changing entity, and situations can and do change.

but ...their reasons were fabricated, their reasons for breaking their own laws were a sham. the law wasnt wrong in this case. they just used PR and spin to make it sound as if it was wrong when it wasnt

It says:

"Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified."

The question does not give a context, there is no specific situation to which it relates.

my point is that it seems to be framed to ferret out the hardliners (or to more accurately score the hardliners by throwing them a curveball that only they would hit). I mean really whop besides the insane and the immature when say they "agreed"

Possibly. Some of the questions are far too specific or situational aswell. Framed in far more general terms, you'd get a much more accurate picture of a person's core values.

 

[CptStern]

The government is an ever-changing entity, and situations can and do change.

yes democracies have things called elections so that the same people wont be in power ...however that's just the figurtehead. ..the real players can be around for decades. even so that doesnt wash their hads of guilt

It says:

"Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified."

The question does not give a context, there is no specific situation to which it relates.

there is no context where it is permissible so that's a moot point. also, the most obvious context is the invasion of iraq and also the most recent example of country breaking international law. laws that they helped write

 

[repiV]

yes democracies have things called elections so that the same people wont be in power ...however that's just the figurtehead. ..the real players can be around for decades. even so that doesnt wash their hads of guilt

Guilt for what? Going back on something that a previous government put in place?

there is no context where it is permissible so that's a moot point.

There is no context where breaking the law is permissible? Well, yes, that's kind of the definition of law. It's not a moot point, because the question is whether it is morally acceptable, under certain circumstances, to break the law.

Anyone with an independent thought in their head would have to conclude that it is.

also, the most obvious context is the invasion of iraq and also the most recent example of country breaking international law. laws that they helped write

It's an open question that has nothing to do with Iraq or any other situation, actual or hypothetical.

 

[swan_song1973]

Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36

 

[CptStern]

Guilt for what? Going back on something that a previous government put in place?

guilt for going against america's principles. and the "previous government" didnt sign the UN charter ..that predated the previous president by quite a bit

There is no context where breaking the law is permissible?

I didnt say that. I said it's hypocritical to break a law you expect everyone else to abide by

Well, yes, that's kind of the definition of law. It's not a moot point, because the question is whether it is morally acceptable, under certain circumstances, to break the law.

no, you made it that question. it's obvious that morals and ethics are on the bottom of the list of things to be worried about

Anyone with an independent thought in their head would have to conclude that it is.

why must you warp my words to mean what you want it to mean? I specifically said government not individuals

It's an open question that has nothing to do with Iraq or any other situation, actual or hypothetical.

there's no other questions that sort of fit into that context?

"Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism."

notice it says "Our"? implying the US

 

[Eejit]

Civil liberties have been curtailed in more countries than just the US, including the UK.

 

[repiV]

guilt for going against america's principles. and the "previous government" didnt sign the UN charter ..that predated the previous president by quite a bit

Like I said, the question offers no context.

I didnt say that. I said it's hypocritical to break a law you expect everyone else to abide by

You said "there is no context under which it is permissible", or words to that effect. Nothing to do with hypocrisy.

no, you made it that question. it's obvious that morals and ethics are on the bottom of the list of things to be worried about

The question asks whether it is "sometimes justified" to break international law...that is in its entirety a question of ethics. It's just another way of saying "do the ends justify the means?" - a purely moral question.

why must you warp my words to mean what you want it to mean? I specifically said government not individuals

It doesn't matter whether it's the government or individuals, the law makes black and white out of greyscale regardless of who or what it applies to. It's a method for the state to exercise its power...inherently, neither right nor wrong. Just the powerful having their way.

there's no other questions that sort of fit into that context?

"Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism."

notice it says "Our"? implying the US

That question has an explicitly stated context. It refers to the here and now. The other question refers to no particular time, place or event - it's a philosophical point of debate.

Apples and oranges.

 

[CptStern]

Like I said, the question offers no context.

it doesnt matter, the context is implied. it's obvious it''s framed in terms of an american pov

You said "there is no context under which it is permissible", or words to that effect. Nothing to do with hypocrisy.

how so? under their rules there is no context where it is permissible? breaking rules that they helped draft yet expecting other nations to abide by those same rules is hypocritical. what are you not understanding here?

The question asks whether it is "sometimes justified" to break international law...that is in its entirety a question of ethics. It's just another way of saying "do the ends justify the means?" - a purely moral question.

of course it's a moral question. Please explain what that has to do with what I said?

It doesn't matter whether it's the government or individuals, the law makes black and white out of greyscale regardless of who or what it applies to. It's a method for the state to exercise its power...inherently, neither right nor wrong. Just the powerful having their way.

you're mincing words and coming to conclusions that have nothing to do with what we are talking about. Individuals do not write/pass laws. this is an apple and orange comparison

That question has an explicitly stated context. It refers to the here and now. The other question refers to no particular time, place or event - it's a philosophical point of debate.

Apples and oranges.

sigh ..debating you is a chore. you twist and warp statements to mean something complete different than what was intended. as I've stated in the past you do this purposefully because through stick-to-it-ive-ness you whittle down the argument to the point where it's nowhere near what was originally discussed or is so convoluted and confusing that nobody knows what they're arguing about any more. I

 

[Eejit]

sigh ..debating you is a chore. you twist and warp statements to mean something complete different than what was intended. as I've stated in the past you do this purposefully because through stick-to-it-ive-ness you whittle down the argument to the point where it's nowhere near what was originally discussed or is so convoluted and confusing that nobody knows what they're arguing about any more. I

You're just saying that because you don't ride a motorcycle.

 

[CptStern]

only because there's no way of carrying my walker and cane on a motorcycle. plus there's no senior discount on insurance ..also motorcycles reek havoc on my stress incontinence, and there's no way i'm wearing adult diapers under a layer of leather, studs and hats that look better on Rob halford than it does on me

 

[Saturos]

Economic Left/Right: -0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.92

I always knew I stood on middle ground. I'm such a square.

EDIT> Does this also mean I'm politically sensible?

 

[Warped]

I wonder if anyone's has changed in a while. I'm going to take this next year and see what happens

 

[13LACKBISHOP]

Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.08

 

[Sparta]

Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05

Me and the Dalai Lama be chilling

 

[Thandurin]

Economic Left/Right: -0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.44