|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is a Liberal, and What is a Conservative? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
duplicate post *deleted*
This message has been edited by Darwin Storm, 08-30-2004 07:44 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Totally agree.
quote: What about employees? Where do they fit in? Should companies be allowed to cut jobs without warning in order to increase their profits? Should companies ruin retirement funds knowingly (Enron) in order to give CEO's the golden parachutes they require? Should safety and fair pay be considered a universal (world wide) right? I think this is also what the original question was trying to portray.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
I am saying that the questions inherantly are baised. That is, most of the questions, in the manner they are asked, provide a postive or negative bias to the questions. Of course, the easiest way to coax certain results out of a survey is the generate either unclear questions, or to provide questions with contextual or semantic bias.
As for my results, I feel intoeconomic right: 4.00 Libertarian -4.41 BTW why the should I care what some 2000 year old corpse thinks when the obvious answer is nothing, the dude is dead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That is, most of the questions, in the manner they are asked, provide a postive or negative bias to the questions. Isn't that the point? Wouldn't the questions have to be biased in order for the survey to detect your bias?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
What about employees? Where do they fit in? Should companies be allowed to cut jobs without warning in order to increase their profits? Should companies ruin retirement funds knowingly (Enron) in order to give CEO's the golden parachutes they require? Should safety and fair pay be considered a universal (world wide) right? I think this is also what the original question was trying to portray.
Employees, in operating in their jobs, are producers. However, you are no longer addressing the issue of the importance of consumer/producer. You are now asking if the current coroporate structures are ethically and effeciently run. That is a whole seperate conversational debate. There are numerous laws that regulate corporations that vary from country to country. A debate along these lines would be long, but an excellent topic. However, hardly relates to the question of where the goal/emphesis should be placed as we continue to ingrate teh world economically.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
Obviously I wasn't clear in explaining the bias. I am not talking about differenting the opinion of the person taking the survey, I am talking about the bias introduced by the manner in which the questions are asked. I already pointed out the faults with the first question:
"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."
Or how about:
The growing fusion between information and entertainment is a worrying contribution to the public's shrinking attention span. First off, what the hell are they talking about a fusion of information and entertainment? Are they talking about the new media in which entertainment is dissemenated? ie television, radio ect.Or are they commenting on traditionaly news and information sources are being alterted to become more entertaining. Hell, all enteraintment involves information (visual, audio, tacticle, ect). So , the first part of the question is non-sensical. Also, the question clearly implies, regardless of the first part, that people's attention span is decreasing. Huh? There may be anecdotal evidence, but please show me a scientific study. The question makes an assumption here, which if inccorect, completely invalidates teh entire question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
Also, the question clearly implies, regardless of the first part, that people's attention span is decreasing. Huh? There may be anecdotal evidence, but please show me a scientific study. The question makes an assumption here, which if inccorect, completely invalidates teh entire question While I'm not disagreeing with your take on the questions, if you don't think peoples' attention span is decreasing wouldn't that mean that you disagree or strongly disagree with the proposition as stated? Asgara "Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it" http://asgarasworld.bravepages.comhttp://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
What they are trying to do is get you to ask those very questions, as well as others.
To think. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I am talking about the bias introduced by the manner in which the questions are asked. Yeah, I just don't see the bias in either of those questions - to me, they ask very factual questions and describe very real scenarios.
The question makes an assumption here, which if inccorect, completely invalidates teh entire question. Well, if you don't believe that the public's attention span is decreasing, why not just put "strongly disagree"? Wouldn't that constitute disagreement with the question? I don't see the bias. I see the asking of questions from different positions on the ideological scale; which is exactly the point of the quiz.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
"Well, if you don't believe that the public's attention span is decreasing, why not just put "strongly disagree"?"
Yeah, and..... LOOK! A BUNNY RABBIT!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
Well, crash, surveys are hardly scientific (though some of the statistical methodoly can be). If the questions aren't clear and nuetral as possible, than the writers inherinatly influence the survey results. Its a fairly common trend, and is often why different survey by various newspapers can generate disparate results, especially the more biased the questions wording is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If the questions aren't clear and nuetral as possible, than the writers inherinatly influence the survey results. But what they're measuring is your response to political ideology. I don't see how you could measure that with neutral questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
quote: This reminds me of the relationship in the show "third rock from the sun" between the lady Mary and the guy who does the Family Guy voice for the baby. LOL You seem to be doing exactly what you are condemning buzsaw about... whining Yeah I dunno, Dishonest? OR Loser? Hmmm
quote: What is this ? Don't persecute buzsaw for not taking a biased test, I'm pretty sure he has a good idea of where he stands. "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." Ephesians 5:14
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
please read my post 75 and please tell me where I am wrong in my critque of that that question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
please read my post 75 and please tell me where I am wrong in my critque of that that question. Ok, well, your objection to the term "globalization" doesn't seem to have a great deal of merit; that word has a very real economic meaning and refers, as far as I'm aware, to the trends that lead to reduction in barriers to trade; not just simply global trade. Moreover the question is correct in that it draws a distinction between corporate motivations and the good of humanity; the purpose of a corporation is to maximise shareholder profit, not improve conditions for humanity. In fact in so much as profit requires the accumulation of resources, and resources are not infinite, maximising shareholder profit means convincing people to give you resources. That's the essence of trade, of course. In short I find it a fair question; the interests of enormous multi-national corporations are not generally aligned with truly positive outcomes for all humans.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024