| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Political Labels | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 3 2009, 03:08 PM (783 Views) | |
| Tristan da Cunha | May 3 2009, 03:08 PM Post #1 |
|
Science and Industry
|
A lot of people profess to dislike "political labels" but I love labels. Yes, labels cause confusion and consternation but isn't that just amusing, thus making labels even better? This is a discussion and listing of the labels - political, national, ethnic, religious whatever - that you believe apply to you. Justifications, explanations, definitions, or clarifications for your labels welcome but not required. I'll start. Labels that apply to me conservative paleo-conservative Labels that I reject but are often applied to me by other people agnostic |
![]() |
|
| Ulgania | May 3 2009, 03:29 PM Post #2 |
|
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
|
Political: Moderate Philosophical: Stoic, with a touch of nihilism, but in a atheistic-Socratic tone. Religion: Atheist, however I'm often labeled a good Christian because I know the Bible somewhat decently... Societal: Cynic. Other people with misconceived ideas on me: Hippie. Edited by Ulgania, May 3 2009, 03:30 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | May 3 2009, 04:44 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Other people think: Political: conservative Ethical: None Religious: Fundamental Christian Philosophical: Humanist Sexual: Straight Moral: Too much What I think of myself: Political: Financially conservative, Socially liberal Ethical: Logic-based Religious: Non-evangelical Lutheran Philosophical: Romanticist Sexual: very gay Moral: slippery Other labels applied to me, true or not: pedophile (no) smart-ass (yes) sarcastic (yes) non-serious (no) child (yeah) asshole (no, well . . . . ) arrogant (no) misoganist (no) Reactionary (no) Anti-hippie (no) Anti-drugs (no) |
![]() |
|
| lebowski2123 | May 3 2009, 06:21 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Resident?
|
Other people think: Political: Republican (ugh) Ethical: Yes Religious: No Philosophical: Nice guy Sexual: Straight Moral: Yes What I think of myself: Political: Conservative/Libertarian Ethical: I hope Religious: Deist Philosophical: Get money Sexual: straight Moral: When appropriate Other labels applied to me, true or not: Sarcastic (yes) Funny (I'd like to think so) Heartless (so say the liberals) |
![]() |
|
| Quaon | May 3 2009, 06:43 PM Post #5 |
![]()
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
|
Other people: Political: Most people who know me in real life would probably assume I support the Democratic Party, as would I think most people here. Most of my family would assume I'm a Zionist, and at least one person I know would probably think I'm sympathetic to libertarians. People who know me well but don't really Ethical/Philosophical System: I assume most people in real life don't think that deep. Religious: Most of my friends probably assume I'm an atheist, and my extended family probably assumes I'm Christian, and perhaps some of them assume I'm Catholic, despite only ever being in a Catholic Church three times in my life. I wouldn't be surprised if a few assume I'm a Jew too. Sexuality: Straight. Moral: I do not make a distinction between ethics and morality, as I consider the common usage of morality to mean arbitrary rules that are derived from religion. Using that definition, I think half the people I know think I'm a prude, and the other half a rainbow flag waving gay rights supporter. Surprisingly, those people probably think of that as a good thing. What I think of myself: Political: Radical centrism (my political views are based on philosophy and are relatively extreme, especially in regards to education, which I think is the basis of any modern society. However, economically, I'm left more or less in the center. I don't consider myself a moderate, just a centrist). Ethical/Philosophical: Heavily modified Kantianism with a realist spin, which is indeed an oxymoron. Also, pretentious intellectualism. Religious: Deist, though I'd never actually say the word deist in real life to describe myself as I think it's a pretentious intellectual thing (which is not to say that I'm not a pretentious intellectual). I don't know if I still could really be considered a Christian, though I want to still be to some degree. Sexual: Straight. Morality: See above. |
![]() |
|
| lebowski2123 | May 3 2009, 07:04 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Resident?
|
So true, same here :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | May 3 2009, 08:39 PM Post #7 |
|
Science and Industry
|
I've been called a peaedophile. But I'm more vexed at being known as agnostic than being known as a pedophile. I believe (with utmost solemnity) that the age of consent should be lowered to something like 11. I'm a firm believer in teenage pregnancy. The rest of me: Political: Paleo-conservative, Old Right Ethical/Philosophical: Hare Krishna minus the vegetarianism Religious: Unknown/Taoistic. But NOT agnostic. Sexuality: Straight; monogamous; prudish. I admire celibacy -when I was a kid in school some people thought my conversating about celibacy was very strange or "gay" - however in reality I'm one of the nastiest, most perverted heterosexuals :lol: j/k I'm well adjusted to all my thoughts pure and impure :hypocrite: Moral: I have a strong affinity for prudish moral codes. I tend to be pretty explicit about my political philosophies, so how others view me often converges with how I view myself, and I'm usually the most conservative person in the room. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, May 3 2009, 08:59 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| A.Q. | May 3 2009, 09:16 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Beautiful Snowflake
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What I think of myself: Political: Moderate Liberal Ethical: I try so hard. Religious: Quaker Philosophical: Avant-garde Sexual: straight Moral: I try so hard. |
![]() |
|
| Ulgania | May 3 2009, 10:01 PM Post #9 |
|
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
|
Right... since this got a little lengthy Other people think: Political: radical Ethical: None Religious: Catholic Philosophical: No one's dared Sexual: Straight Moral: Nope What I think of myself: Political: Selective socialism with intrastate regionalism. Also moderate Ethical: Logic-based Religious: Atheist, but informed Philosophical: Stoic with nihilistic tendencies, and I also believe that Rousseau would be most useful in the modern day Sexual: Bi Moral: Cynical, but considerate Other labels applied to me, true or not: pedophile (no) smart-ass (yes) sarcastic (yes) non-serious (depends) child (yeah) asshole (No) arrogant (Narcissistic as per the situation) misoganist (hell no) Reactionary (I take everything case by case, so in some ways yes) Anti-hippie (sadly I can't bring myself to be anti-hippie) Anti-drugs (Generally yes. I am a teetotaler afterall) |
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | May 3 2009, 11:11 PM Post #10 |
|
Field Marshal
|
Other people think: Political: varies from person to person: the whole spectrum Ethical: mostly strong ethics, though some think none Religious: Christian Philosophical: inspired or insane Sexual: straight Moral: mostly strong morals, though some think none What I think of myself: Political: In practice: a common sense centrist; in person: a socialist and imperialist Ethical: strong ethics Religious: Eastern Orthodox Christian (unofficially) Philosophical: intuition Sexual: straight with very high standards Moral: strong morals (code of chivalry), though I'm only human Other labels applied to me, true or not: Madman (possible, but not proven, though there is evidence) Holy Man (possible, but not proven, though there is evidence) scum (no) good man (yes) arrogant (at times) communist (not anymore) asshole (at times) mean (at times) depressed (not anymore) childish (not anymore) weird (yes) crazy (possible) funny (yes) power hungry (not anymore) drunk (to a degree) immortal (yes, as far as the soul goes) |
![]() |
|
| Porcu | May 4 2009, 05:27 PM Post #11 |
|
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes."
![]()
|
Other people think: Political: Republican Ethical: Dunno actually (Never really asked) Religious: Catholic Philosophical: Unfortunately people get intimidated...Or bored, I can't tell which :lol: Sexual: Straight Moral: Dunno actually (Never really asked) What I think of myself: Political: Economically conservative, socially liberal Ethical: Logic-based (Behavior is designed to fulfill evolutionary needs - "selfish") Religious: Agnostic but I lean Atheist (I can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of a God) Philosophical: Athestic existentialism and Evolutionary philosophy Sexual: Straight Moral: Cynical as well (See ethical) Other labels applied to me, true or not: insane (yes, probably) smart-ass (yes) sarcastic (yes) non-serious (sometimes) child (yes) asshole (yes) arrogant (sometimes) Anti-drugs (no, let's legalize them all!) weird (oh yes) Edited by Porcu, May 4 2009, 05:30 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Allesandra | May 4 2009, 05:47 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Only Girl Actively Participating in Threads
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Other people think: Political: Inept. Ethical: Misinformed. Religious: Pastor's daughter. Philosophical: No one really asks. Sexual: Straight Moral: No one really asks. What I think of myself: Political: Moderate. Ethical: Depends on the issue. I'm a human rights advocate in most situations. Religious: Agnostic Philosophical: Causalism Sexual: Straight Moral: I act morally, but I question some morals. Other labels applied to me: silly adorable ignorant/naive motherly crazy (in a fun sort of way, not the psychological) anti-drugs and alcohol to a maximum judgmental loner devil's advocate |
![]() |
|
| Eleytheria-Duo | May 4 2009, 08:04 PM Post #13 |
|
Resident Bystander
|
Other people think: Political: Stalwart member of the Republican party / Right winger Ethics & Philosophy: Most people at a glance would probably categorize me as a deontologist thinker. Religion: I've been identified as everything from Christian, to Baha'i, to Atheist to a "lost" Agnostic. A few reasons for such categorizations comes from my strong desire of Knowledge, Understanding, and Reasoning. But also from my (not always obvious) unwavering belief in a higher power. Though I publicly concede that my views of what such a "higher power" is, is extremely lax. Some may range me anywhere from Deist, Monotheist, Polytheist, to Pantheistic perspectives. Sexual Orientation: Straight as a Steel-forged Bodkin arrow. Moral: My code of what is "Moral" is an extremely complex web of interconnected factors to consider, and as such, extremely few have tried to categorize my Morality. Though most agree I do have a concept of morality. What I think of myself: Political: Conservative / Right-wing politics Ethics & Philosophy: Consequentialist Religion: Protestant Christian. Sexual Orientation: Most definitely, absolutely straight as a Steel-forged Long-point Bodkin arrow. Moral: Strong Utilitarian Leanings, the end justifies the means, without any regard whatsoever given to those means. Though behind all my "brutish" bluster, in practice I can be incredibly, sometimes pathetically, softhearted and indecisive; If people cozy up to my better half. Other labels applied to me, true or not: Crazy (Probably) Sarcastic (No, not in the slightest... :rolleyes: ) Not Normal (This I agree with) Arrogant (Often) Anti-drugs (Vehemently, Completely, Absolutely) Anti-alcohol (Not entirely, though I believe there should be punitive restrictions) Belligerent (Well ... I am a bit hot headed... :shy: ) Asshole (I've been called this many times) Heartless (Been called this too) Caring (Also been called this) Intelligent (I like to think so) Immature (Damn, this list is growing!) Serious (When I want or otherwise need to be) |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | May 5 2009, 04:49 AM Post #14 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
I don't know whether you're just saying that to spark debate or if it's something that you actually believe. I believe, from a purely objective (medico-scientifically based) standpoint that the age of consent should be lowered to 14. And I've suffered more than a few paedophile jibes. But eleven? That's ridiculous! (We have so much power now.) Eleven?! That's not even funny. **** The two most recent labels applied to me (courtesy of a quiz E linked us too) are: Libertarian (yes) Totalitarian (yes) I'm a big fan of labels. Applied correctly (like any stereotype) they're incredibly handy. It's because they're so damn handy that we have stereotypes. Applied incorrectly they're a source of great amusement. Label me as you will. I like to label myself as the pretty standard P.G.L.S. on the standard SMB Scale. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | May 5 2009, 11:57 AM Post #15 |
|
Science and Industry
|
I'm serious about 11 (from a medico-scientific-religious standpoint). But I won't belabor the point any more, to avoid appearing any more unusual or perverted. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | May 5 2009, 12:59 PM Post #16 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
11 is just too young, dude. I know, it is possible for an 11 yr old to get preggers, and in a few cases is is possible for an 11 yr old to get a girl preggers, but sexual maturity does not equal mental maturity. Having sex with an 11 year old is just not right, in my opinion. 14 or 15, I would not object too much, but 11?? That's just nasty. Also, there is nothing visually or intellectually stimulating about an 11 year old. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | May 5 2009, 01:14 PM Post #17 |
|
Science and Industry
|
It works out, somehow. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | May 6 2009, 10:20 AM Post #18 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Really! |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | May 6 2009, 01:16 PM Post #19 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
On average, at eleven a girl isn't physically mature enough for sex and pregnancy. Certainly it's possible, but reproductive and mammary organs have yet to reach the intended level of growth yet. You can ram it in a baby if you try hard enough. Doesn't mean you should. Now hormonally and in terms of physical maturity then 14 to 19 is your optimal breeding window for males and females. Yes, both mature at different rates and stages but that's your sweet spot for overlap. Religiously, well that's your bag. You tend to believe intelligent things for odd reasons. Mohammad's famous for thinking 6 was too young but 9 was just fine. I'd have to look over the OT, but I have a feeling that 12 is Judau-Christian. I'm almost certain that Krishna would advocate individual maturity over an arbitrary age limit. The point I'm laboriously making is that while I can think of religious numbers around the 11 ball park, I can't think of any religious doctrine that supports your belief (not that you need doctrine to have a valid belief). If you don't want to respond to this, then I understand. Nothing like the unenlightened criticizing you for your beliefs. But I really want to hear your rationalisation (by PM or in another thread if you like). |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | May 6 2009, 01:53 PM Post #20 |
|
Science and Industry
|
My rationale is anecdotal and slightly mystical so take it for what it's worth. I base my rationale on a person I once knew who I believe to be a genuinely "holy man", which was my roommate in college. He was ethnically Sikh (but thoroughly non-religious) and had very much the disposition of the traditional Indian ascetic or mystic. He always showed signs of dispassion and claimed to have voluntarily embraced lifelong celibacy before he was even age 10. I felt this was in accord with the traditional history of dharmic religions which records that many wise and enlightened people had embraced the life of renunciation even at extremely young ages. (And I should note he wasn't a person who had a biologically hard-wired revulsion against sexual activity; I'm truly convinced he mastered his innate strong sexual impulse.) Using a sort of "negative reasoning" I concluded that if a person could be wise enough to consciously reject all sex at such an early age, then surely there are people who could be wise enough to enter sex even at an early age. That said, I don't believe many individuals of either of these two categories exist. Most certainly, the overwhelming majority of people are not capable, at age 11, of making an enlightened decision, either about having sex or about being life-long celibates, and I think there are legions of people even at age 20 or 30 or even older who aren't capable of making an enlightened decision. So, even though I support a revision of the statutory age of consent, I still agree with you- individual maturity would have to be the prerequisite and only the soul is capable of realizing where one stands in that regard. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, May 6 2009, 10:03 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | May 6 2009, 02:12 PM Post #21 |
|
Field Marshal
|
I would say sixteen myself. People usually have matured enough by that age to make logical decisions. By fourteen or fifteen, some people have matured enough, but surely not the majority of the population. Perhaps one hundred years ago the majority of the population was ready at those ages, but then again things were much harder one hundred years ago, thus people had to mature faster in order to compete or even survive. A thousand years ago you had boy kings and people marrying eleven year olds. Take into account how hard life was back then and it might make a bit more sense. A younger wife is more likely to produce a healthy child. Eleven probably isn't the best age for that, but I'm betting some of those lords cultivated their young wives into something they wanted, and then say when they were thirteen or fourteen made a child. It's an odd system to speculate on in the modern day, but it did work. The Middle East isn't too different. I think the usual age for marriage in Syria is fourteen for females, twenty-five for males, though some men there prefer an older, more educated woman. The reason for males marrying at twenty-five is that they have obligatory military service (usually taking place after high school and many times college education) until that age, and they aren't allowed to marry while in that service time. The reason for the female age is families want as few dependents as possible, and a female is dependent so long as she doesn't marry. Edited by Sedulius, May 6 2009, 03:03 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | May 6 2009, 02:47 PM Post #22 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Interesting historical context, Siad. I approve of 11 as a marriageable age. |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | May 11 2009, 09:28 AM Post #23 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
Then your reasoning is purely sociological. I would argue that if someone isn't mature enough to make an informed choice to have (or, more importantly, mature enough to choose not to have) sex at fourteen then we have a failing as a society. In Britain, the age of consent is 16. A third of children in the UK have had sex by the time they're 15. Physically, they're mature enough to have sex. Mentally, they are (on average) not. As you have pointed out, historically people were mature enough to make good decisions about sex from the time where they were physically mature enough. Mankind hasn't lost its ability to reason in a hundred years: we've just lost our sense of responsibility. Repressing the problem hasn't helped - young people want to have sex, are biologically programed to have sex and will have sex. We need to recognize this. Recognising doesn't mean handing out condoms and giving money to teenagers stupid enough to get knocked up: it means promoting sexual education and responsibility so young people are ready to have sex or to say no to sex from the age that their biological urges are kicking in. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | May 11 2009, 10:49 AM Post #24 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
I would have to say I agree with this. Responsibility used to be taught by the community-at-large, for better or worse, with lots of reprocussions for wayward women and libertine men. Now, anything goes, and this is not good. Sexual experimentation will always happen by young people, and without being taught some sense of responsibility and consequences, we are doomed to generation after generation of single-parent children and children having children. This is a very rough way to start in life and not very good for the child either. Either parents have to take up the task of educating their children about the consequences of sex, or the community must, either in the form of formal sex education in schools, or through other methods. Ideally, parents, with the help of educators and the church (small "c") should be the primary source, but with so many adults abdicating responsibility for their children, and so many churches letting their leaders exploit children, well, we are in trouble, IMHO. Peer help would be great, but with modern culture being allowed to bombard children with sex in advertising, movies and music, that ain't gonna happen either. One Jonas Bros. Group is NOT going to reverse the effects of the cultural shifts of the last 60 years. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | May 11 2009, 12:00 PM Post #25 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Nag, what is your definition of "responsible sex"? Do you simply mean "avoiding diseases and unwanted pregnancies"? If your definition of "responsible sex" is simply to avoid diseases and unwanted pregnancies, then Western Europe has already resoundingly achieved the goal of responsible sex. Due to the multifold direct and indirect effects of 60 years of vigorous social engineering, there are now historic low rates of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and other such things in Western Europe. Since we're already in the sexual promised land, why complain? On the other hand the mortal consequences of social engineering include the fact that Western Europeans are not producing enough children, and according to the laws of thermodynamics there is no way for Western Europe's shrinking productive population to be able to sustain its current economy or current living standards in the upcoming decades. The crisis therefore isn't a crisis of "wanton sex" but a crisis of the marriage and family institutions. The debate over particular policy points is therefore beside the point. The key is to abolish policy. Abolish state-sponsored sex education programs, and abolish the national health services and health departments, so that society may be allowed to spontaneously and naturally achieve "sexual equilibrium". Even programs like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, NHS - whatever you want to call it - reduce personal responsibility and help juvenilize society. National health insurance directly attacks the family institution by decreasing the economic incentive for people to produce more children, or band into families. A couple hundred years ago people didn't know all the scientific principles behind STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and all those topics covered in modern-day junior high sex ed. Yet here we rightfully consider our scientifically ignorant ancestors to be more mature and responsible about sex than are today's people! 200 years ago, all people knew was the Biblical injunction to "be fruitful and multiply" and its corollaries - family economics, monogamy, commitment, familial piety, loyalty, etc. Unfortunately, these simple truths are not "scientific enough" for the latter-day bureaucratic social engineers, and even rejected in practice by most of the people who pay lip-service to them. The only way remaining to teach discipline and maturity to our people today, and any day of history, is to do it the hard way and the honest way - let them learn on their own and with their own people. Abolish public healthcare, abolish bureaucratic sex ed. Abolish socialism. Don't let the government take care of everything in life. People will then finally be able to rediscover how to be responsible and mature. My point is, the society matrix is unfathomably complex and everything is interrelated in this "social calculus". Even seemingly unrelated things are in fact massively related. That state-subsidized ambulance trip to the ER, or that state-sponsored welfare check, or any such act of government paternalism, is a distinct direct attack on the notion of responsible living and responsible sex. Regardless of whether one believes the past 60 years of cultural shifts is morally sound, what's unmistakable is that these 60 years of government-sponsored social engineering are not economically feasible or sustainable. When we reach some fiscal and economic breaking point, there's no alternative but for society to revert to "sexual equilibrium" like a sort of irresistable sociological avalanche racing down to the "extremum" in a calculus equation. My bet is that a long-term, peaceful, and sustainable society would in some way involve some of the lessons in the Good Book, even if not in that rigorous fundamentalist or puritanical way of past centuries. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, May 11 2009, 12:29 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2















11:34 AM Jul 13