Where in the Political Spectrum do you stand ?

Yep. If you have any questions on my views shoot away

Also, viva

ffs

What classifies as unnatural and natural futbol?

You're thinking surface level ideologies. We've been told all our lives that being "gay" isn't natural. Well then, what is?

Driving a car to work isn't natural.
Wearing clothes isn't natural.

And I have plenty of friends who have been risen by gay parents, and they turned out just fine. You'd be surprised in today's age how little a parent actually has influence over their kid. It's the experiences they grew up in that truly influence them.

For example, the single mom who raises three kids is strapped on money most likely and is in a bad neighborhood. there are more factors then just homosexuality in the household.

Other kids make fun of them.. cool, so that means that they should never be accepted as equals? Progress is made by constantly challenging the status quo. I go to festivals all the time and i see plenty of LGBT people. not a problem, I get along with them just as well as anyone.

You are one excellent dude.

The test was nice and interesting but I would much prefer if you guys and rwo simply described your views and opinions. Having said that, I'm positively intrigued by futbol. He seems to have so many conflicting emotions. Mind it, I'm not judging or criticizing him. I mean, I always thought someone supporting gay liberty would also be supportive of gay couples adopting a child. But mind it I have very vague idea about this issue and my perception could be entirely wrong.

On my personal standing, I'm positively surprised that I have such strong leaning towards the left even in my 40s .

Ifti uses Win Xp still

ffs I miss my XP so much

From a certain age on, sri, it's becoming increasingly hard to get used to new things.
You'll see.

Hapless_Hans wrote:ffs I miss my XP so much

From a certain age on, sri, it's becoming increasingly hard to get used to new things.
You'll see.

Already hit that inertia to change a few years back. Don't be deceived by the number shown as 'Age' on my profile. *sigh*

srigooner wrote:Ifti uses Win Xp still

This laptop is going on and on and on. I can never dump it as long as it's running .

Didn't like how the test was worded - some of the questions were begging for a typically left-wing response. Anyway, my position probably wouldn't have changed much - maybe mirrored about the y-axis but that's still almost as centrist as could be.

IMO issue-based politics - which has been on the rise for the past decade or so - is definitely the future. Our world right now I think is too complex for positions to be based out of semiholistic ideologies.

One of my pet peeves, which the European members here might shed some light on, is why environmental issues are so dominated by far-left parties. There is nothing intrinsincally left wing about the environment, if anything it better fits the true definition of a conservative - the idea of wanting to keep things as they were and wanting to leave the Earth in as good a fashion as we received it.

The only left-wing talking point is increased regulation, but this is not enough in and of itself. For instance, absolutely nobody opposes stringent safety regulations - so why not environmental regulations too? Conservatives are for less regulations - not no regulations at all. The addition of environmental protections would be akin to the addition of safety regulations IMO.

I'm quite frustrated by the inability of conservative or centrist to centre-right parties to adopt a pro-environment stance, because I don't identify with the rest of left-wing politics at all. It is an issue that transcends (or should transcend) politics.

Hapless_Hans wrote:
For example, if you say you don't want 'special treatment' of women in the workplace in form of quotas, my position would be this:
I'm not comfortable with the notion of quotas either, but I think it would be important to understand and realize that the call for quota by feminists is not simply asking for special treatment, but a tool to curb the 'normality' and effortless omnipresence of special treatment for men.
We may think the effort of a push for quota is a violation of principles, but principles never apply to everyone unless efforts are made.
Or to put that in generally terms, I think libertarian instincts are good and I share them, but an actual look at history often makes libertarian proclamations naive and ignorant.

I have the same opinion as futbol and my opposition to quotas is two-fold -

(1) It's effectiveness as a tool to bring about change is sketchy at best (see this for an on-topic examination -> http://www.economist.com/news/business/21632512-worlds-most-female-friendly-workplaces-executive-suites-are-still-male-dominated). It has nothing to do with me being a guy - I'm a visible minority in Canada in terms of race but I'm still opposed to quotas that would favour me.

(2) It is a violation of individual principles of fairness - just like you had recognized. I think in individual terms of right and wrong - while (I think) you are willing to forego fairness in certain situations. Our fundamental difference here is basically that our stances about the following statement differ - "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". In addition, I'm content with understanding my decisions within the context of my personal life and sphere of influence, whereas you are interested in global results.

I don't want to seem like I'm over-simplifying - but women have made incredible gains over the past few decades without the help of quotas. The idea that no further progress is possible without them seems a little hasty. The glass ceiling that people discuss is generally about C-suite level positions. But the CEOs of today started their careers in an entirely different generation with an entirely different mindset. Given some time, the upper echelons of companies will be filled with far more gender-aware and race-aware individuals and there will be no need for quotas. After all, the majority of college graduates are now women.

Even then, I think somewhat like a second-generation feminist. The goal should be liberation, not 50-50 equality. I'm OK with inequality in any walk of life, as long as people are not denied opportunities for their gender or race or appearance etc.

According to this chart, I match almost exactly with the NDP. IRL that is not even close to my actual position. This is why I don't put much stock in these online questionnaires. Also, the idea that the Greens are more right-wing than NDP is lol-worthy.

I didn't vote in the election (I wasn't present in my home riding) + my home riding literally is Stephen Harper's riding so my vote wouldn't have mattered. I would have voted Liberal given the choice, I wasn't happy with a few of Harper's decisions over the past year. Found them unnecessary and needlessly divisive.

My riding for the past 5 years in downtown Toronto also went Liberal but I'm sure that was strategic voting. Given that its a campus riding, it is obviously NDP-biased.

I'm satisfied with the outcome of the election, I really didn't want the NDP to get even a minority.

No shock here.