E= -3.00
SL/A= -2.46

I guess you're all pretty fascist, compared to me. And yes, I did answer honestly.

Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.15



And even though that would indicate that I dye my hair in all colours of the rainbow and clad myself in red checkerd pants, black leather and lots of rivets I actually lead quite a "conservative" life with a no too badly payd job.

Anyone surprised that it didn't go off the right side of the scale?

Quote from flymike91 :

Anyone surprised that it didn't go off the right side of the scale?

Nope, because the right on the graph isn't an indicator of nationalism, but of free market economics.

Here is my result.

it would be fuuny to compare all LFS results with that example with celebrities on politicalcompass.org
Seems like two different surveys

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

Treatable is no bother, if it is actually treating the cause and not just hiding symptoms, which a lot of medication does, but that is a whole other debate about how pharmaceutical companies are massive dicks. But lets say Canavan's Disease, if you knew you had the genes that give you a high probability of a child being born with it, you're selfish for taking that risk because it isn't just your life you're gambling with.

You were talking about money as being an important factor in deciding who is worthy and who is not:
"When you're unable to take care of a child because your "right" to a child means it is dependent on the state, you become drain on the public purse."

So if money is one of the deciding factors then surely a disease being treatable or not makes a difference? Treatment can be expensive.

With Canavan's disease you need both parents to have the gene in order for there to be a 1/4 chance of Canavan's disease on the child. Also:
"Beyond urine tests, the genetic disorder can be detected through MRI and CT scan, followed by DNA testing."
link
So as it looks like it can be detected before birth. Not 100% but then again healthy parent's can have a child which has some disease.

What are you saying would be the right way for a state to deal with renegade parents who both are canavan carriers and the mother is pregnant? Forced abortion? Leave them outside of the social service? Volantery euthanasia for all 3?

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

Now you're taking what I'm saying out of context. What I said is us as individual humans should widen our search for a partner, rather than sticking to a very narrow search band which means you're more than likely quite closely related to the person you breed with.

So how should the state make this "widening of the search" happen? Because it will not happen just by itself. It needs some form of "encouragement".

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

Now you're being silly. Although there is a point where old people who have no life due to various illnesses, shouldn't be forced to suffer on to their death bed. If your pet dog became a vegetable, you'd put it down in a heart beat because it is the humane thing to do. But with a human you'd just leave them in a nursing home to slowly die.

I'm just taking your ideas to their next level. One "good" reason to sterilize is just as good as another right?

Dogs are different than humans. I've already said I'm pro volantery euthanasia.

come on you're being extreme. The best way to avoid disease would be for potential parents to get affordable genetic testing to know what the risks are. Thats probably the best solution you could realistically expect, because few people, no matter what their convictions, would voluntarily create a child if they knew the chances would be high for genetic disease. Plus, no euthanasia required.

Economics = +7.00
Social = +0.31

Since my university economics book was written by a former member of the Communist Party I guess my score proves that I didn't pay attention in class.

I didn't really understand the Libertarian/Authoritarian thing. Government authority is necessary but only for the purposes of preventing people from doing harm to other people and their property. Otherwise there should be as little of it as possible.

Economic Left/Right: -3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.56

EDIT :
I think this was an United
states test. I found much of the questions very strange.
Beeing a Dane, I should have scored -10 and -10, as I am very left wing oriented.

So beeing an American left wing, is just about conservative in my country.

Yes I see "the daily show" pretty often, and I pitty you americans. YOU WILL NEVER EVER FIND OUT WHAT DEMOCRACY IS !!

Fox Tv is very very baaaaad !

This is just my opinnion and should not be taken to serious

Economic Left/Right: -3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.92

'bout right... I've taken it before and it was around there somewhere.

I cant help but think the options are a little limited. A lot of the questions I answered with "in theory, a good idea. In practice, humans would make it never work" but there wasn't an option for that...

Quote from Jakg :

I cant help but think the options are a little limited. A lot of the questions I answered with "in theory, a good idea. In practice, humans would make it never work" but there wasn't an option for that...

Some of the questions are rubbish, and don't really make any sense.

funny, it seems most of us goes to the left while most of political leaders are to the right

Although I'm generally opposed to embryo selection just for the hell of it, I think that this would really help people who have a serious genetic disorder but want to have children, it should be made available in the same way as IVF currently is.
People (and by this I mean generally in arguments for preventing the seriously disabled from breeding, not just in this thread) seem to be acting as if 'the downses' are uncontrollably breeding like rabbits and must be stopped, and don't seem to have considered that they're also *people* and any couples would also be very worried about passing their condition onto their children.

Quote from Crashgate3 :

People seem to be acting as if 'the downses' are uncontrollably breeding like rabbits and must be stopped

Not only that, but a good percentage of pregnancies in such cases weren't entirely desired - several cases of sexual abuse (usually by their "normal" relatives or "keepers" *), etc. The problem is not their reproductive capabilities therefore their castration cannot be the solution.

* For example, before mental institutions (practically landfills for unwanted relatives) were abolished around here there was a whole torrent of sexual abuse cases perpetrated by institution workers; some of which had lead to pregnancies. In hindsight it was made clear that the problem lied in the way the system of mental institutions worked and how society silently accepted them and turned a blind eye.

Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03

quite right

Quite neutral but slightly down/left, looks right

Quote from majod :

funny, it seems most of us goes to the left while most of political leaders are to the right [/img]

What does the fact that most of LFS players are to the left of center mean, if anything? What is different about them?

I think most people would consider themselves left of centre economically and socially. Nothing unusual there. Younger people tend to be more left-wing in that sense, until they've spent a life paying taxes which don't amount to much, hence why right-wing types are older. Most people pay 50-70% tax when you take into accuont NI,VAT,Stealth taxes, in-direct taxes etc... and it takes years to figure that out.

I'd say I veer towards the more free-market libertarian type, trying to explain that without coming across as a right-wing nut job is rather difficult.

But this right-wing Vs left-wing debate is far too simplistic.

those questions where overly bias to liberilsm imo.

either way alot of the questions i wanted to answer indifferent but i couldn't.

anyway im:
Economic Left/Right: 5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85

So basically a Conservitive libertarian.

Quote from Intrepid :

I'd say I veer towards the more free-market libertarian type, trying to explain that without coming across as a right-wing nut job is rather difficult.

But this right-wing Vs left-wing debate is far too simplistic.

Agreed. Just because someone doesn't identify themselves as right-wing doesn't mean they can't be an unbearable dickhead.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Agreed. Just because someone doesn't identify themselves as right-wing doesn't mean they can't be an unbearable dickhead.

Common sence is hard to dig for some people