The Controversy Poll

[RainbowDashRadical]

So I noticed there some nice polls going on here, I thought I'd add another one. This one covers some of the biggest controversal topics brought up in our society. As a fun idea, I think it would cool if we compared our forum results with those of other countries or even the world as a whole. I'll search for the American cenus and be sure to post it for comparison. Feel free to share your country's statistics too.

 

Let me know if there's any error with my poll or how it can be improved so I can fix it. I usually love to discuss controversal topics (as long as things don't get heated), and keep an open mind. I hope all of you share the same feelings.

 

EDIT: The LGBT question is on the more extreme side of things due to it referring to a class of people. I reworded it to hopefully reduce some offense.

EDIT2: I did a bit more than just reword actually. I actually turned the question around. You may want to recast your vote.

EDIT3: Editted last question. You may want to recast your vote (again).

 

~RainbowDashRadical

[Lilith]

no one should be allowed to bear arms, including the military and police

[Almny]

Hi. Could you explain what the poll means by globalization? Wikipedia defines it as

 

Globalization (or globalisation) is the process of international integration arising from the interchange of world views, products, ideas and other aspects of culture.

[/Quote]

 

but I think most people connote that term free trade and other economic issues.

[RainbowDashRadical]

Here is some info on American statics:

 

Abortion: 47% Pro-choice, 46% Pro-Life

LGBT: 3.5% people identifty as Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual. 0.3% are transgender. 60% believe homosexuality should be accepted.

Aliens: 50% say they believe, 17% do not believe, 33% are unsure.

Globalization: Still trying to find statistics on ths one.

Animal Captivty: Still searching. Though there appearantloy is a huge thing going about preserving Orcas .

Feminism: 20% say they are femenist, 8% say they are anti-femensit, 66% are neither. (I consider neither to be a middle of the lane thing, but that's just me)

Gun Rights: Still searching

Believe in a god:still searching

Extinction of mankind: still searching

 

 

Source:

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf

http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/06/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Homosexuality-Report-FINAL-JUNE-4-2013.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/alien-poll_n_3473852.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html

[RainbowDashRadical]

Hi. Could you explain what the poll means by globalization? Wikipedia defines it as

 

[/font][/color]

 

but I think most people connote that term free trade and other economic issues.

 

The definition of globalization is kinda debatable. My definition of globalization is simply the world and all of its nations, ethnic groups, religions, cultures, ect. coming together as one unit to form this sorta super-culture. Some go as far to believe there'd be one world nation or something like that. Honestly, am quite unsure myself. But in realiity this already happening, as you start to see advances in information technology and easy accessibility to immigration. The whole world really is turning into one huge melting pot, not just America anymore .

 

no one should be allowed to bear arms, including the military and police

 

I liked that comment so much, I added it as a possible option. Though I'm unsure as to how everyone will protect themselves.

[Callie]

Do you enjoy discussing controversial topics? - Yes

 

What is your stance on LGTB?

Why is LGBT a "lifestyle"? Sexual orientation/gender identity isn't any more a lifestyle than race or height is. Discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity is immoral.

 

Do you believe extraterrestrials.

I've never met any extraterrestrials, so I don't know how honest they are. I'm fairly certain that extraterrestrials, if they exist, don't speak my language. I can't really believe something if I don't know what it means.

 

What is your stance on globalization.

The world is developing unequally, but I do hope that globalization will lead to better relations and eventually a united world government. As far as economics are concerned: trade is a good thing; unfortunately, many corporations and governments exploit less developed countries in the process.

 

What is your stance on animal captivity.

That really depends on the animal and how the animal is held captive. Some animals appear to have sentience, self-awareness, and theory of mind (i.e. dolphins). I would not hold such animals captive or even kill such animals. I have no problem with eating common livestock such as cows, but they should at least be treated in a humane manner.

 

What is your stance on femenism.

I am a feminist.

 

What is your stance on gun laws?

What Lilith said.

 

Do you believe in a god.

I neither believe in gods nor any other spiritual or supernatural beings.

 

Do you believe the extinction of mankind will come in the short-term or long-term as compared to the geological timescale.

I am optimistic that humanity will not destroy itself in the future. The sun will eventually die out, and I have no idea how advanced space travel will be by then.

[RainbowDashRadical]

What is your stance on LGTB?

Why is LGBT a "lifestyle"? Sexual orientation/gender identity isn't any more a lifestyle than race or height is. Discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity is immoral.

 

My apologies, that was more a subconsious thing when I was writing. I'm aware the wording could offend some people, I'll go ahead and fix it. Personally, what I believe is being LGBT itself isn't a lifestyle. One can identify as gay or lesbian, or even heterosexual. But they can also commit sexual acts that don't correlate with their sexual orientation. Sexual behavior is a lifestyle. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual is not. I believe I was confusing sexual behavior with sexual identity, which are actually two different things. So to answer you question, Being LGBT is not a lifestyle, therefore I edited the poll.

 

If your interested, this website brings up more information on what sexual orentation is:

 

http://www.yoursexualorientation.info/

 

Nice input btw.

[Slawbug]

Well, there are a lot of things I could nitpick about this poll, choices of phrase and so on... but most of all, I want to give you props for actually citing the source of your statistics! I wish everyone would do that.

 

You should probably be careful about the questions that deal with types of people since that's where you really run the risk of causing offense. "What is your stance on LGBT" is like asking "what is your stance on black people"... there is a big difference between talking about the nuances of civil rights policy, or specific situations... and talking about whether or not a class of person is OK to begin with. It would be hard to argue that the latter is family friendly. This isn't a warning or anything, but just... be real careful.

[Edgwyn]

I tried answering the poll leaving the LGBT question blank as none of the responses really reflect my position and I have the same concerns about appropriateness that Slartibus mentioned, but the system does not let you leave one question blank.

[RainbowDashRadical]

Well, there are a lot of things I could nitpick about this poll, choices of phrase and so on... but most of all, I want to give you props for actually citing the source of your statistics! I wish everyone would do that.

 

You should probably be careful about the questions that deal with types of people since that's where you really run the risk of causing offense. "What is your stance on LGBT" is like asking "what is your stance on black people"... there is a big difference between talking about the nuances of civil rights policy, or specific situations... and talking about whether or not a class of person is OK to begin with. It would be hard to argue that the latter is family friendly. This isn't a warning or anything, but just... be real careful.

 

Thanks for the response. Yeah I am aware that the question was an "iffy" sort of thing. I'm not sure how to really word it to make it any less offensive though. I guess that's the risk I took when I decided to make the poll .

*NOTE: I edited the poll a bit to hopefully reduce "iffyness" it causes. Let me know what you think?

As for my views, and how I answered the poll, here it is:

 

Do you enjoy discussing controversal topics - Yes!

 

What is your stance on LGBT?

I agree with LGBT and believe they deserve just as much rights as the next guy/girl. Discrimination against them is evil in my opinion and should be eliminated.

 

Do you believe in extraterrestials?

Yes. With endless amounts of stars and such a huge universe the probablities are too high to say no. It would be a lonely universe if were the only ones .

 

What is your stance on globalization?

I believe globalization brings good promise to the development of the human race assuming that it carries out properly, and not corruptly.

 

What is your stance on animal captivity?

I believe that in many tourist attractions around the world (not all, of course) many animals are not treated properly and are under very stressful enviorments. Animal captivity, due to few laws regulating it, is corrupt. Hopefully, with better laws animals can be trated fairly, less abused, and have a better standard of living compared to the animals seen in tourist attractions today. Again, not all tourist attractions are corrupt, but there are many countries where the are zero laws that regulate them. Also there are many endangered species that never recieve help, because they are not marketable enough to warrent being placed in a zoo.

 

What is your stance on femenism?

I am a femenist.

 

What is your stance on gun laws?

It is a human right to bare arms.

 

Do you belive in a god?

Not currently, but I am questioning it.

 

Do you believe the extinction of mankind will come in the short-term or long-term as compared to the geological timescale.

 

I believe mankind has the potential to survive almost anything do to our intelligence, but also has the ability to kill itself too. Of course its as impossible to tell when mankind will become extinct as it is our own deaths. I believe since everything lives and dies in the universe, so will we. There will be many things that we cannot avoid at the moment with our current knowledge of physics. Such as the sun blowing up, the milky way colliding with another galaxy, or the universe itself ripping apart. If somehow we discover some miracularous theory (whether it be soon, or eons in future) and prove it, and that said theory enables us to do things that are practially impossible by the current applications of science, then yeah, perhaps we have some small chance to never become extinct. I believe in a slight possibility that we could last forever, abeit super tiny, but I am definitely sure we have many, many years before our existence is destroyed. As for the short-term, well that's possible too, but I have enough confidence in mankind that we won't kill ourselves too early.

 

~RainbowDashRadical

[Almny]

I have a couple of questions about the last question on the quiz:

 

1. What is the distinction between the first and second answers? On a historical time scale "a very long time" could be ten thousand years. On a geological time scale, which the question sets as the reference, that's not long at all. A very long geological time would be an age or era. Maybe coelacanths have survived for hundreds of millions of years relatively unchanged, but most species, even successful ones, don't last more than tens of millions of years. So, what is the meaning of "a very long time" in the second response?

 

2. Is "mankind" the species homo sapiens, is it hominids generally, or our civilization? It's hard to imagine homo sapiens continuing as the same species, essentially unchanged, for a geologically measurable time, but successor species that me might term mankind could evolve.

[adc.]

Do you enjoy discussing controversal topics?

 

No. Because everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but still, we need to hear everyone else's.

 

Supposedly, that's unsure, but I since I don't enjoy discussing, so no.

 

That sums up everything

 

Although, I answered unsure on those I have no opinions about yet, such as LGBT or globalization

[Forget it]

I realize you couldn't just make a poll with hundreds of options per question. That said, most of the questions I wish I had some room for qualification. I suppose instead of arranging these in a way convenient to me, I'll address them in the order given.

 

Abortion:

I am mostly pro-life. But there's got to be more discussion on what pro-life means. Two things we can't try to legislate are religion and morality. I was going to mention the constitution but I have to be less myopic than that and realize that this discussion isn't specific to America - so instead I'll say that ideally, people have not only the freedom to practice religion but also the freedom from religion forced upon them.

 

I don't believe in abortion. So, I won't get one. I'm not the only person in the world though. I am not really religious but I buy the argument that life begins at conception, and the foetus is another human life. However, as a society we have to listen to what science says. I don't know the exact data, and I don't know if science even has it pinned down, but somewhere around 5-6 months or so is when we get basic sentience, so while I would want science to give me a more exact date, I would want the cutoff to be someplace around there. And only allow exceptions under medical advice when the life of the mother is in danger. And I suppose for rape pregnancies but I would think that if a foetus were going to be aborted because of rape, it will have been done already before five months have gone by.

 

Even though I'm tempted to respect a religious organization's right to not pay tax dollars for Plan B, things like this.. we are a society and not a church, and a 10 cent pill will cost society much less than supporting a child that had no support structure. Besides, peace advocates still have to pay for wars. Jews and Muslims still have to pay for farm subsidies to pork ranches. Libertarians still have to pay for highways. I do think most countries have screwed up health system structures, but that's a kind of different argument.

 

LGBT:

For instance I voted that we need all laws protecting LGBT. I wouldn't consider myself a hardcore advocate about it though. I'm more in favor of the government getting out of our lives, but I recognize the need for laws to protect people from discrimination. I would prefer government take its hands out of the marriage business altogether... but, we can't leave people to suffer while we spend 60 years trying to make that happen. So I accept the need for gay marriage legalizations, for anti-discrimination laws, for hospital visit rights, powers of attorney, adoption rights, insurance benefits, and the hundreds of things I'm sure I'm leaving out. As a straight man it's easy to think "okay there are still some assholes out there. but by large I think we're cool with the lgbt community now." It might even be true in numerous communities but even where it is, we have lingering little legal issues that, someone who doesn't have to deal with them wouuld easily take for granted.

 

One place I am on the fence and unsure, is whether taxes and insurance ought to pay for transitional surgeries. But I'm willing to listen and be convinced.

 

Extraterrestrials:

I am sure there is other life out there - at least in some rudimentary archaea form or some such. Sentient life is another story. I'm not for or against, I don't know, but the universe is vast, and the multiverse is vaster. I'm going to have to be on the side of "yep, it's sure possible." But even if intelligent life is out there, what are the chances we'll make contact or be able to reach them anyway? And if we could, is it a good idea? Would they come plunder earth of water and minerals, and be on their merry way? To me it's all speculation, and I believe in the possibility, but I'm more interested in finding exoplanets capable of human habitation. Won't happen in my lifetime but if humanity had the chance to start over, do everything with clean energy, rigid equality laws, etc... I'd almost prefer to live on the new planet.

 

Globalization:

Yes and no. As an American it's a painful topic because we've screwed up so much of the world. While I'm not a strict protectionist, I would prefer tariffs against countries such as China that don't have the same standards of worker rights, living conditions, payscales, monetary policies, etc, as we have. But I would also be in favor of free trade with countries that do - and limited tariff and partnership programs with countries that are trying to get there. "Globalization" as it stands today only means not only exporting jobs... but exporting pollution and then pretending we're doing something good. But I dare you to go outside and take a deep breath in Peking. I believe in environmental controls but they mean very little if there's no pressure on China, Russia, and other places to clean up - instead the jobs just go there, the pollution goes there, and we still suffer the pollution.

 

This is what pisses me off so bad about Nixon. He screwed over basically the entire western world, he and Kissinger, with his trade policies, and the chance to pressure China into worker and environmental standards is pretty much gone. Reagan almost tried to do the right thing with his "free trade among free peoples" -- but you have to ask yourself two things. The first is how much did he really mean that, and the second is, it didn't matter because Nixon already screwed it all up. We even added Mexico and Central America to our screwjob with NAFTA. Canada and Europe are suffering by attrition.

 

So no, right now Globalization means America screwing everyone over. I'd be more in favor of it, almost completely so, if we started building a bloc of nations with similar standards that collectively pressured other nations to get with the program, however.

 

Animal Captivity: Is more or less fine but, just as there are animal abuse laws, we need laws that protect the general wellbeing of the animals. Not like Danish zoos hacking and feeding a giraffe to lions right in front of Children. Or tropical animals in cages in the cold all winter. If we're going to keep animals in captivity, we have to have some standards for how they're treated. I don't have a really large thing to say about this except that, things like zoos are fine, but let's make sure these animals are not abused or neglected either.

 

Feminism:

No idea really. I picked middle-of-the-road in the poll but feminism is not something I've become deeply involved in either. I feel a lot of issues are perhaps overemphasized but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be examined. As long as it's not the extreme-wing super-man-hating type of feminism, which I assume this poll is not referring to, then right on. There's no reason to not support women's rights.

 

It would be very interesting and beneficial to see some deep research about, what kind of jobs are predominately men because women are being held back, vs. jobs that are predominately men because women are simply not applying for. And in the latter case ask, why? I think it will be impossible to completely scrub gender roles from society's conscience, but it's very good to promote the notion that "because you're a boy" and "because you're a girl" are not ideas we want to be pushing, even accidentally. But I don't think it's necessary to buy every boy a barbie, and every girl a a G.I. Joe, just to make a point. Yes, give it to them if they want them, and make sure nobody can tell them they're weird for it. Accepting vs forcing... hmm, something to think about.

 

Gun Laws:

I picked "it is a human right to own and bear arms" but, this is one I would have heavily qualified. In my opinion highschoolers should have in their curriculum a self-defense and gun handling course. There should be registration process and waiting period, as well as required training before purchasing. And, any crime greater than a misdemeanor or traffic violation, the gun privelege should be suspended. Three strikes and you lose it forever. Commit any felonies and there's only one strike... gun rights lost. As unfair as it is, people with bona fide diagnosed and second-opinion confirmed psychiatric disorders, also gun rights suspended.

 

In short, people should have guns, but they should know what they're doing with them, and be accountable for them. I'm in favor of concealed carry. In school zones, students should not be allowed, but faculty and security, definitely should. Why not hire some veterans (ones without ptsd... sorry but can you imagine a war vet hearing a loud bang at school and flipping out...) to stand as security in schools and government buildings. I want more guns out there. But of course I'd like it to be in conjunction with some of the psychiatric homes re-opening again, thorough background and registration process, and the like. Having to register for a gun in my opinion in no way crosses anyone's right to have one.

 

God:

If there is a God, either:

1) He set things in motion, the rest is up to us really; or;

2) He gave us our brains... so we would use them.

 

I say "He" because of English's lack of a proper gender-neutral person pronoun, and I wouldn't call God an "It." But I would assume God to actually be without gender. Now then; I consider myself as agnostic with some Christian tendencies. In some ways, having a Creator makes more sense than all the happy little sequences that would have to line up for life to emerge as a cosmic accident. But I'm not particularly interested in knowing or caring. Religion has produced some beautiful things on this planet... and some pretty terrible ones. If God is out there, I really doubt most of the things that have been done in God's name... are really such.

 

Mankind Ending:

Eventually. All is entropy. We likely have a few billion years as a species before the Sun blows up, so I'm sure we'll be able to build starships before that. We already have some idea how to, if we can't strictly find an exoplanet in a "goldilocks zone", to *nudge* it closer or further in orbit. Requires astronomical energy, but, sooner or later we'll know how to harness it. Even if global warming is completely mankind's fault (but I won't start that argument), and lots of people die, not everyone will... outside of some massive meteor collision. But, we can already detect most of those hundreds of years in advance. It probably won't be like the movie "armageddon." America may or may not be headed for collapse, but Russia, China, and India will have decades to plan and shoot a missile at the thing all the same. And tech will only improve from here. Even if Monsanto kills 90% of world crops by some biotoxic accident. Man as a species will survive. The only thing I could see really wiping us out is some massive supervirus but meh... I'm still not counting on an extinction.

 

But, eventually the universe will entropy to its final breath, alas... and if we expire before that, it's likely to be because we've evolved beyond humanity.

[Alorael at Large]

Controversy

Discussion is not the same as fanning the flames. I like the former.

 

Abortion

I do not like abortion and am not comfortable with abortion. Neither is reason to restrict it. To my mind the ethical arguments fall largely on the side of pro-choice, and the practical arguments, which will get much outcry as though they have no weight in the face of morality, are overwhelmingly in favor of legal and safe and available abortion.

 

LGBT

I support full legal protection and full marriage rights.

 

As an aside, while there's no LGBT lifestyle, there is a gay lifestyle. Stereotypically, at least, but it does come from a real phenomenon. It's just that it's not descriptive of all gays; I have no idea what the stats are, but I think it probably doesn't describe most gays. It's just a kind of lifestyle that doesn't have another word for it.

 

Aliens

They're almost certainly out there somewhere very far from us. Even farther if you want something more exciting than prokaryotes.

 

Globalization

Globalization is very complicated. I'm not for or against it; it's real, I think it's inevitable, and the important thing is to temporize harms and maximize gains.

 

Animal Captivity

This seems to be about zoos. So... I think those are fine. Animal husbandry involves horrific treatment of animals on a vast scale, but well-run zoos aren't part of that and their role as entertainment, outreach, and as an element of conservation efforts is important.

 

Feminism

I am a feminist. I don't agree with all feminists about everything; that's impossible, given the number of disagreements within all the waves of feminism. But the basic tenets (and lots of nitty-gritty specifics) I believe fervently.

 

Gun Laws

A human right? Uh. That's a pretty big coup for the NRA. A guaranteed constitutional right, I'll buy for the USA, but I don't think other countries with more restrictive laws are suffering under some terrible, inhuman burden.

 

Personally, I'd rather be in that situation. Weapons belong in the hands of law enforcement (sparingly) and the military. And, yes, probably hunters, with tight regulation. No one else. They are a public health catastrophe on a grand scale that somehow have become a political sacred cow.

 

God[/i]

The existence of god(s) is fundamentally unknowable. Yes, that means I'm an agnostic by the formal meaning. But I'm inclined to believe there's no supernatural anything out there.

 

Human Timeline

This, too, will pass. Humans will go extinct eventually. Entropy dictates that if all else fails! Will we die soon? I very much doubt it. Even massive nuclear war or horrific ecological catastrophe probably won't kill everyone. Heck, evolution could do us in and replace us with successor species better at being human than we are.

 

—Alorael, who believes that aliens have no right to force all LGBTSQIA individuals worldwide, men and women alike, to have abortions at gunpoint, as that would lead to human extinction.

[RainbowDashRadical]

I have a couple of questions about the last question on the quiz:

 

1. What is the distinction between the first and second answers? On a historical time scale "a very long time" could be ten thousand years. On a geological time scale, which the question sets as the reference, that's not long at all. A very long geological time would be an age or era. Maybe coelacanths have survived for hundreds of millions of years relatively unchanged, but most species, even successful ones, don't last more than tens of millions of years. So, what is the meaning of "a very long time" in the second response?

 

2. Is "mankind" the species homo sapiens, is it hominids generally, or our civilization? It's hard to imagine homo sapiens continuing as the same species, essentially unchanged, for a geologically measurable time, but successor species that me might term mankind could evolve.

 

I suppose that question was also flawed, in fact probably all my questions could use room for improvement. Well anyway, to answer your question:

 

1) By very long time, I mean millions of years. Meaning our civilization becomes advanced enough it has the likelyhood of surviving for this period of time. Assuming that there is a possibility of colonizing worlds beyond our own solar system then I believe there is a possibility. We would be spread out throughout the galaxy, that it would be almost unlikely for us to extinct. Even if we couldn't reach other stars, we'd still (assuming nothing dangerous happens in the next millions of years) be able to survive on this planet for quite some time.

 

2.) Okay, by this I meant civilization, not species. Over the course of millions of years and combined with the fact we;d be dispersed on several worlds, the homosaphien race would I guess you could say become nonexistent. I would be inclined we'd probably be a mixture of species, probably in the same genus of course, due to be dispersed on several worlds. So yeah, I meant civilization itself.

 

I suppose this question is kinda flawed, but to ammend I added another option. That means people may have to recast their vote though...

 

~RainbowDashRadical

[Slawbug]

As an aside, while there's no LGBT lifestyle, there is a gay lifestyle. Stereotypically, at least, but it does come from a real phenomenon. It's just that it's not descriptive of all gays; I have no idea what the stats are, but I think it probably doesn't describe most gays. It's just a kind of lifestyle that doesn't have another word for it.

Um. Citation, please.

 

Alorael, there is no "gay lifestyle." That's a ridiculous as saying there is a "black lifestyle" (or a "straight lifestyle"!) and probably less ridiculous than saying there's a "Catholic lifestyle". Are there cultural elements that some gay people partake in? Sure, just like there are cultural elements that some black Americans partake in... and to a much lesser degree than there are cultural elements that some Catholics partake in.

 

Even in your description above, you suggest that this "lifestyle" applies to a minority of gays: okay, so at the very least your use of the phrase is a huge misnomer. But as far as I can tell, the phrase "gay lifestyle" is mainly used by people attempting to slander the entire LGBT population. It's not a phrase that's used in parallel about any other population, and it's not accurate as labelled, so what in the world are you suggesting here?

[Goldengirl]

Do you enjoy discussing controversial topic?

I debate on a competitive circuit professionally, so you'd think so. Generally not though, as I find most everyday conversations horribly uninformed and prone to ad hominem attacks. Ideally yes, though.

 

What is your stance on LGBT?

I don't like the oppression that I suffer as a result of my queer identity, but that said I have certain theoretical objections to the lumping together of identities that is the alphabet soup acronym (LGBTQQIIAADP2...) in that it groups together forms of oppression that are only tangentially related. The "community" coalition doesn't make sense to me as its political aims are often radically divergent and prone to in-fighting.

 

Do you believe extraterrestrials?

Yes, but more importantly I don't care.

 

What is your stance on globalization?

I answered this in the context of economic free trade; that's a huge issue separate from other issues of "globalization" such as cosmopolitanism, multiculturalism, and pluralism. They are only related in the weakest of senses, and you don't need one to have the other whatsoever.

 

Economically, it works best. The math is there when we look at things like comparative advantages. Therefore, free trade is the most efficient. I don't want to go through the mathematics of it, but it can easily be found and is intuitively obvious.

 

Where it doesn't function is that capitalism in general, and globalized neoliberalism in specific, is unable to create a comprehensive price. There are too many factors that aren't included in the actual final price, externalities such as insufficient labor pay, massive environmental damages, harm to the public political structures, etc. It needs to be changed drastically.

 

What is your stance on animal captivity?

I don't care. And I don't have to be bothered to care, because I'm a vegan.

 

What is your stance on feminism?

If you aren't a feminist, get away from me and my rights.

 

What is your stance on gun laws?

Guns are a privilege that should be regulated. I don't really see a reason why they are needed, so maybe they should be eliminated entirely, though I understand that's difficult and that there are benefits to having them. As such, I'll fall mildly on the left, saying that they should be restricted rather than eliminated.

 

Putting more guns in schools is an awful idea.

 

Do you believe in a god?

No.

 

Do you believe the extinction of mankind will come in the short-term or long-term as compared to the geological timescale.

I think civilization will continue, even if humanity doesn't transition away from global capitalism to something more sustainable before the system comes collapsing down on us. That said, civilization may look a lot more like society in 2000 BC than anything we are familiar with.

 

Hopefully in the reboot we won't reinvent the patriarchy.

[Xaiya]

Do you enjoy discussing controversal topics?

I generally stay quiet during discussions in general, given that I struggle with any form of communication. I'm only even posting this because people are walking around upstairs and I can't focus on a take-home portion of one of my finals.

 

What is your stance on abortion?

Pro choice. It's a person's right to either carry a parasite or get rid of it, regardless of how some random person feels about it before it comes out.

 

Where do you stand concerning the laws centered around LGBT?

Currently, they're in need to protect people so that they aren't discriminated based on such things as sex or gender.

 

Do you believe extraterrestials.

As far as I could throw them. On Saturn.

With regards to their existance, they are almost certainly out there. It is more a matter of finding them.

 

What is your stance on globalization.

Globalization is happening whether people like it or not. Only a catastrophic event sending us into the dark ages would stop it.

 

What is your stance on animal captivity.

Animals, be they cat, cow, human or otherwise should be treated well. Animals posessing a higher form of sentience should not be held captive except in specific circumstances.

 

What is your stance on femenism

Well, at least you're consistent with your misspelling. While I believe the word being misleading mixed with extremists puking everywhere paints a negative image, and that we really need a different word, I'm all for what it actually stands for in reality. More than that, though, I'd like to see gender removed entirely, but that's likely not going to happen.

 

What is your stance on gun laws?

Abolishing them entirely would be ridiculous for a number of reasons, but they should be reasonably restricted. At the very least, have someone take a rigurous exam on gun safety to make sure they know things like trigger disipline or that shooting to not kill is extremely stupid.

 

Do you believe in a god?

I identify as agnostic. I'd get into specifics, but nothing I seem to type fits. I feel the need to at least point out, though, that the word 'god' is thrown around everywhere such that I'm not even sure what it really means anymore in common discussion, though I'm partial to the definition of one posessing both omnipotence and omniscience.

 

Do you believe the extinction of mankind will come in the short-term or long-term as compared to the geological timescale.

It could theoretically happen at any time. It could happen a long time from now. Humans may just evolve to the point to where they would no longer be considered human.

 

I don't care. And I don't have to be bothered to care, because I'm a vegan.

What does that have anything to do with having to care or not?

[RainbowDashRadical]

Hey everyone, I just thought of something pertaining to femenism. You know how it puts a huge emphasis on women and their rights. Well yes, that is a very good thing, but then it hit me in the head. If so much emphasis is being put on women, what will become of men's rights. Will we still preserve the rights of men, or will the emphasis on women take over, and women will become the dominant gender of future society? I hope for a world where both genders are equal, but I'm not so sure that will be the case in the future. Just think, being born a male in the next 50 years might actually be unlucky.

 

Just something to ponder I suppose.

 

P.S. Also know I support femenism whole-heartedly. The concern comes as to whether we can support women's rights, while at the same time preserving the right's of men without creating any unequality between the two gender's

 

~RainbowDashRadical

[Luca]

Firstly, thanks to Slarty for everything I would have said in this thread thusfar.

 

Perhaps, Alo, you're referring to the US gay subculture; that has more to do with a community than a way of life. I'm not sure what a gay lifestyle involves, but I'm pretty sure that's stereotyping a la "you know what those people do all the time".

 

 

I actually didn't have too many issues with the current wording of the questions, spelling maybe, but not the wording. Most people are probably already aware of my positions, but I'll lay them out once again.

 

Do you enjoy discussing controversial topics?

Only if I am interested in them and, often, I am not.

 

What is your stance on abortion?

Abortion exists as the lesser of two evils in a bad situation. It's permissible to be used (obviously in cases of rape, incest, health of the mother, but that should go without saying) in cases where the child would be born into intense suffering by way of extreme poverty, starvation, and violence. In the US, the foster care system is too well known for horror stories of mistreatment, so you'll forgive me if I don't see that as a viable option. Abortion can resolve this suffering before it begins. I don't believe in abortions for more casual reasons, but also don't believe that distinction can (or should) be legislated. As with everything else of this importance, use of abortion should be responsible and wise.

 

Where do you stand concerning the laws centered around LGBT?

Basically, my views are similar to Goldengirl's. Granted the question was different when her response went in, I think it's still valid and I'll get to that in a bit. Hopefully, mid-way through this decade, people are starting to understand that sexual orientation isn't a choice people under the LGBT umbrella seem a whole lot less evil when you actually know one instead of discussing them as demons among equally discriminatory folk. Hopefully, we are making it passed that by now. Fairly obviously, real progress does not come in the form of laws but in public opinion and understanding. Laws exist to say "I can't stop you from wanting to do that, but I can arrest you for it", which is not nearly as effective as people just getting along in the first place. I may not live long enough to see that because discrimination is a beast that does not die easily.

 

As far as laws go, not being fired from a job that you are perfectly competent at simply because of trivia that only matters to people who might date you is an important protection to have nationally and would make people sleep a lot better. Equal marriage rights are also important and are quickly becoming a characteristic of a modern nation.

 

As far as LGBT at large, its days might be numbered at this point. To be perfectly frank the interests of LGBT have been for L and G, which is great for L and G, but everything else has fallen off the map. Bisexuality is still akin to promiscuousness and disease and laws for transgendered people essentially do not exist at all. Bisexuality takes its legal protections from same-sex laws, but efforts to try remove some of the cultural biases have been left behind. The next ten years will likely see more transgender legal battles, but up a much steeper hill.

 

Do you believe extraterrestrials.

I have pretty much use this phrase since I was a freshman in high school: "Of all of the planets, of all of the stars in all of the galaxies in, potentially, all of universes we are too small yet to know about, is it not possible, if not likely that we are not alone? It would be a very dark place if we were."

The possibility is far more likely than not. Whether it has happened already or not is beyond my information and I have no opinion on that possibility, whatsoever, because of that.

 

What is your stance on globalization.

Personally, I don't find it a particularly positive thing. When you had recessions in medieval times, it was because half of your people were dead from plague. These days, it's because ten investors got spooked intergovernmental politics on another continent. At this point, it would be impossible to stop this trend without becoming as isolated as North Korea.

 

What is your stance on animal captivity.

This is not a question I think a lot about and not one I came here to answer, so I'll keep it short. When it comes to large land or sea environments for animals for the common person to see them, assuming the animals are well cared for and have enough space, this is fine. If you want to pick a battle about animal captivity, take a few days to see where your eggs come from before you attack Sea World. The only serious gripe I have with this system relates to animals who have gone extinct in public captivity instead of creating a safe, open, simulated environment to rebuild small numbers of a species. Since this isn't the 1920s, I think we're moving passed this.

 

What is your stance on feminism?

I'm a feminist, if that's what you call someone who supports equal rights and pay for women, but I don't consider myself a feminist. Nalyd and I have discussed this at extreme length. It essentially comes down to that I do not agree with what we have both determined is a very vocal minority of this group that demonizes all men for no other reason than they are men. If 95% of men are CEOs, that's a problem, but the solution to the problem isn't to have 95% of women be CEOs for the next century by punity. The solution is to have everyone, regardless of occupation, arrive to their desired endpoint by their own merits and have equal opportunities along the way.

Honestly, I was much more receptive to feminism as a group before I had a member of the vocal minority as an instructor at my college, who informed me that, after the above and other arguments, my positions were because I viewed all women as sex objects.

Yes, I'm gay.

 

What is your stance on gun laws?

Call me crazy, but weapons are an O.K. thing to have. Gun laws vs. violent crime is probably the best use of the ideology "educate, not regulate". Anything can be weaponized, anything can be made to harm other people, even words. If you're looking to control the number of deaths from guns simply by banning guns, you will simply see an increase in deaths from other weapons. If you ban knives and sharp objects, people will still beat people to death if they really want to (Hi, UK!). If you have a problem with violent crime, you have a problem with your education system (Hi, US!).

Since this was not the answer you wanted to hear, I support background checks for the purchase of firearms, including history of mental illness. I also support and assault weapons ban because, unless you are making your own army/nation, you're not going to need a submachine gun to protect your home. But I'm telling you, those aren't long term (or even short term) solutions.

 

Do you believe in a god?

Yes, but I don't follow a religion or have religious practices or rituals.

 

Do you believe the extinction of mankind will come in the short-term or long-term as compared to the geological timescale.

We are the most technologically advanced species to walk the earth. We can still be taken out by an asteroid at any time with only several hours of warning. However, given that we have made it this far, we will probably continue going until we stop the aging process, inhabit artificial bodies, and our clocks start blinking 36. Your guess is as good as mine, anything can happen...and it will!

[Sudanna]

Do you enjoy discussing controversial topics?

Yup, let's fight.

 

What is your stance on abortion?

If you get knocked up and don't want a kid, blast that thing.

 

Where do you stand concerning the laws centered around LGBT?

Laws are bad.

 

Do you believe extraterrestrials.

Prolly.

 

What is your stance on globalization.

Nope. I like diversification and balkanization.

 

What is your stance on animal captivity.

I don't care about subhumans.

 

What is your stance on feminism?

I like it. I don't do anything, though.

 

What is your stance on gun laws?

Guns are neat. I want some. I'm willing to exchange human suffering for neat things.

 

Do you believe in a god?

Nope.

 

Do you believe the extinction of mankind will come in the short-term or long-term as compared to the geological timescale.

Dunno.

[Xaiya]

Hey everyone, I just thought of something pertaining to femenism. You know how it puts a huge emphasis on women and their rights. Well yes, that is a very good thing, but then it hit me in the head. If so much emphasis is being put on women, what will become of men's rights. Will we still preserve the rights of men, or will the emphasis on women take over, and women will become the dominant gender of future society? I hope for a world where both genders are equal, but I'm not so sure that will be the case in the future. Just think, being born a male in the next 50 years might actually be unlucky.

 

Just something to ponder I suppose.

 

P.S. Also know I support femenism whole-heartedly. The concern comes as to whether we can support women's rights, while at the same time preserving the right's of men without creating any unequality between the two gender's

 

~RainbowDashRadical

I don't think you know what feminism actually is.

[Luca]

Hey everyone, I just thought of something pertaining to femenism. You know how it puts a huge emphasis on women and their rights. Well yes, that is a very good thing, but then it hit me in the head. If so much emphasis is being put on women, what will become of men's rights. Will we still preserve the rights of men, or will the emphasis on women take over, and women will become the dominant gender of future society? I hope for a world where both genders are equal, but I'm not so sure that will be the case in the future. Just think, being born a male in the next 50 years might actually be unlucky.

 

There's a subreddit on this topic called /r/MensRights/

It's as horrible/terrifying as it sounds.

 

I don't want to be the "men's history is called human history" guy, but...yeah.

[Lilith]

abolish gender, problem solved

[RainbowDashRadical]

I don't think you know what feminism actually is.

 

Your probably right, actually. I could use a bit more educating on the topic. I always thought it to be simply promote women's rights and equality of genders sort of thing. Is it something more? Also, I believe just as women deserve rights, I still also believe men have rights too. The key is providing a balance that doesn't belittle one gender or the other.

 

abolish gender, problem solved

 

If only it were that simple...

[darint]

Do you enjoy discussing controversal topics?

 

Despite the fact I am posting here, generally such discussions generate far more heat than light, so no.

Where do you stand concerning the laws centered around LGBT?

 

Full advocate, blah blah. But I wonder, what exactly are LGBT ideals?

Do you believe (in the existence of) extraterrestials (life).

 

As written, probably not, but I haven't actually met any extraterrestrials, so maybe that isn't fair. But with these edits, yes, provided we are talking about the most minimal definition of life. Sentient life, much less likely but possible. If you mean if I think that such extraterrestrial life fly around in spaceships that visit our particular planet frequently, mostly in sparsely populated areas, frequently doing unspeakable things to cattle and humans and usually leaving such humans (but not the cattle) alive enough to be able to describe the experience, then no. (I answered yes to the poll).

[Slawbug]

Your probably right, actually. I could use a bit more educating on the topic. I always thought it to be simply promote women's rights and equality of genders sort of thing. Is it something more? Also, I believe just as women deserve rights, I still also believe men have rights too. The key is providing a balance that doesn't belittle one gender or the other.

Promoting women's rights does not mean eroding men's rights -- unless you count as men's "rights" those privileges they are accorded at the expense of women and their own rights.

 

Feminism is not anti-men any more than abolitionism was anti-white. These are corrective and compensatory movements.

 

These movements sometimes advocate for policies that, viewed in a vacuum, are inequitable towards the more privileged class (men, whites, etc.). Affirmative action is the classic example here. But these are context-dependent measures. They aren't implemented in a vacuum -- only in a situation where there is already a huge gap between the classes (women and men, blacks and whites, whatever) such that the inequitable policy actually results in a more equitable world. Then as the de facto gap in equality dwindles, implementation of the policy is reduced.

 

If you believe people of all genders deserve equal rights, then you agree with the primary ideal of feminism! It really is that simple. You might not agree with all of the tactics and policies that feminists suggest -- indeed, as others have mentioned, not all feminists agree on those. But the ideals? The broad banner of the movement? That's pretty palatable, if you really believe women deserve equal treatment.

[Alorael at Large]

I put my foot in my mouth there, I'll admit. But there is a lifestyle that goes along with gay culture. Kind of artistic, pretty Bohemian, and so on. A stereotype? Sure, but I have friends who proudly lived and lived it, both in its heyday decades ago and now. Active participation in gay culture's probably a much better term and not laden with the slander associations of "gay lifestyle" and all the same caveats apply. Not all or even most gays... (#Notallgays?)

 

The rights of men are not under any threat. They really never have been.

 

—Alorael, who hazards that men will largely be better off with gender equality. It's not zero sum, a rising tide lifts all boats, and so on. Mostly, though, there's an economic analogy: inequality is bad for everyone except for the now-famous 1%; gender inequality is bad for the vast majority of men, probably. No, I don't have a citation, just a hunch that a more equal society is a better-functioning and healthier society for everyone.

[Forget it]

I never quite completely understood how abortion got the incest qualification appended to it. Let's say you're pregnant by your uncle or something. It was either consensual, or rape. In the former, I would hope an abortion decision would be based on choice instead of stigma. In the latter, lock that [censored]er up on death row.

 

I admit I'm probably missing some part of the big picture. But I never really grasped that incest appendage. Is it to protect women who are stuck in some high pressure kinda tribal thing or, what am I missing?

[Slawbug]

I put my foot in my mouth there, I'll admit. But there is a lifestyle that goes along with gay culture. Kind of artistic, pretty Bohemian, and so on. A stereotype? Sure, but I have friends who proudly lived and lived it, both in its heyday decades ago and now. Active participation in gay culture's probably a much better term and not laden with the slander associations of "gay lifestyle" and all the same caveats apply. Not all or even most gays... (#Notallgays?)

Your foot is still in your mouth, Alorael. You have gay friends who lived a certain lifestyle, a certain piece of gay culture, and therefore you think you can declare "there is a lifestyle that goes along with gay culture"? Um, no. The comparisons haven't changed. We still don't say "there is a lifestyle that goes along with black culture" or "there is a lifestyle that goes along with white culture" -- and those groups are likely even less heterogeneous than gay people, since there are gay people in just about every culture.

 

You might suggest that I'm being nitpicky to call out what a few more thoughtful word choices might have fixed: "There is a lifestyle that sometimes goes along with some chunks of mainstream gay culture". I don't think so. Those words change the meaning significantly. And you are continuing to defend a concept that you admit is a stereotype, and that has been deleterious to a suspect class, because... why exactly? (Also, your "artsy and Bohemian" characterization misses the mark of today's mainstream gay culture pretty atrociously.)

 

(And notallgays? Seriously? Did you completely miss the point of what the notallmen meme makes fun of, and how it's structured? I don't think so; I think you're just being uncharacteristically sloppy here, and not realizing how much you've stepped in it.)

[Forget it]

abolish gender, problem solved

In the legal sense, absolutely.

 

But do you think an alternate construct would arise to replace it - and would that be good or bad? In medicine, the distinction between sex and gender is useful in discussing physiological concerns without mischaracterizing anyone's identity. We don't need to have legal genders for someone to identify as a gender, of course, but to what extent do you mean abolishing?

[Sudanna]

Gender, whether it's two boxes, a bipolar scale, or an endless collection of word salads, will always be a limited system of behavioral taxonomy that encourages or discourages certain people to do or be certain things. People should do and be what they want without social coercion. It's bad enough that people are given a sex without their input. That there is an attendant, entirely social structure in gender is just unnecessary.

[Randomizer]

I never quite completely understood how abortion got the incest qualification appended to it. Let's say you're pregnant by your uncle or something. It was either consensual, or rape. In the former, I would hope an abortion decision would be based on choice instead of stigma. In the latter, lock that [censored]er up on death row.

 

I admit I'm probably missing some part of the big picture. But I never really grasped that incest appendage. Is it to protect women who are stuck in some high pressure kinda tribal thing or, what am I missing?

The incest qualification comes because a child born of such a close family relationship may be more likely to have a genetic defect that will hurt the baby's health. It's the same reasoning that makes marriages illegal by close relatives.

[Goldengirl]

What does that have anything to do with having to care or not?

 

Since I'm a vegan, I'm at least not very involved in the market processes that contribute to animal captivity.

[Alorael at Large]

Fair enough, Slarty. When I can't put together what I'm trying to say in a way that's not offensive there's a weighty burden of evidence suggesting that I'm wrong and offensive.

 

—Alorael, who was going to say more, but he's actually better off not. Except that the #notallgays was a throwaway joke with no resemblance at all to #notallmen except for the phrasing he used, and he did not mean to suggest otherwise.

[RainbowDashRadical]

Since I'm a vegan, I'm at least not very involved in the market processes that contribute to animal captivity.

 

That's surprising to me. I've always thought the oppisite, where vegans and vegetarians would like zoos and parks since they're all about protecting and preserving animals. Am I wrong on that assumption?

[keira]

People might go on about how zoos are terrible, but they're a hell of a lot better than, for example, where your store-bought eggs come from.

 

 

[Swimmin' Salmon]

As is obvious from the meta, people love a good controversy. And lacking that, they create one...

 

Also, we now need a poll on whether people like polls.

[Alorael at Large]

I'm a vegetarian because I don't like animals. If we ate fewer of them we'd raise fewer of them and there'd be fewer of them around.

 

—Alorael, whose last store-bought eggs came from the chickens pecking around behind the store. Not all stores are supermarkets.

[RainbowDashRadical]

Guess I assumed wrongly then, lol. It seems not all vegetarians have the same opinion, which I suppose was stupid of me to think in the first place. No ones the same...

 

Also, we now need a poll on whether people like polls.

 

Here you go... http://spiderwebforu...you-like-polls/

[Goldengirl]

There are all sorts of reasons to be vegetarian. I'll summarize a few of them.

 

1. Environmental. The agricultural industry produces more tons of greenhouse gases than all transportation, globally. It takes one gallon of gasoline to produce one pound of beef. Not eating meat for a year saves 300,000 gallons of water. Etc. http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/environment.html

 

2. Calories. Just strictly speaking, we get less calories the further distant our food is from the initial life-giving rays of the sun. Plants photosynthesize and we get energy when we eat them. Cows eat plants, and burn some of that energy by breathing and other wasteful acts like that. Therefore, we are losing energy by eating cows instead of eating the grain that we feed the cows.

 

3. Morals. Lots of people have moral objections to how we treat animals. Generally speaking, I'm not one of them, and there are far too many philosophical objects for me to summarize them.

[Alorael at Large]

Economic concerns also show up; they tend to be variations on the environmental concerns with a different spin.

 

—Alorael, who is the least exciting kind of vegetarian. He doesn't really like meat, so he doesn't eat it as a matter of preference. He gets to feel good about all the side benefits and carefully doesn't think about how eating eggs and dairy products means he's still a part of the Big Ag problem. Except when he can get eggs of known and estimable provenance.

[Lilith]

i enjoy meat but i'm on a $30/week food budget right now and that doesn't buy much of it

[Luca]

I enjoy meat, but if I eat more than an ounce of it, I get quite ill. So, while I'm not a vegetarian by choice, I practically am because I only eat meat once a month or so.