Housepig

"Strongly disagree"--most big corporations are greedy, exploitive parasites. I reckon it is a little biased. I also think some of the questions are poorly thought through. Take the one about abortion, for example: saying "disagree" would imply that you're pro-abortion when you may not be. The should have mentioned the child; just because I wouldn't want to bring a baby into the world to suffer terribly or die doesn't mean I approve of abortions.

That's disgusting. The worst part is how she was surprised that what she had done was worthy of being arrested. Just shows where feminism's gotten us. Imagine if he had even punched her--let alone biten off her tung--for failing to satisfy his sexual desires: would there even be a question of the verdict? Go men's rights!

Its due to the nature of this test, its solely trying to check how much you believe in personal liberty and how much you believe in government regulation of the economy. I believe in social darwinism(just that most things are partly genetic) and think that eugenics in its proper form(just sterilizing not killing) could be very beneifical to humanity. However, since I dont believe in controlling peoples personal lives this test will still say im fairly libertarian. I see your point, but I still think I have some very right-wing and authoritarian beliefs (no benefits, smoking to be illegalised); I suppose it balances out in other areas. It's certainly an interesting test at any rate.

If I were to answer your first question, it would have to be the time when I punched my brother in the face and gave him a nosebleed. I felt bad about it afterwards, but I would never even consider doing that to a friend unless it was in self-defence. It's funny how it's easier to hurt those we love; I imagine it's because we take them for granted. In terms of emotional pain...can't say I've been through much there either. I think the worst occasion was when one of my aqaintences (I'd say friend, but...yeah) got his gang to start tormenting me by calling me "monobrow" continiously. Pretty stupid thing to get upset about, but it reduced me to tears (in the toilets; I assume the school survielance people had enough tact not to ask why had been in there for 20 consecutive minutes.) He said he felt bad about it afterwards, but I still consider him and his gang to be verging on moral bankruptcy.

Economic Left/Right: -0.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62 Almost dead centre: surprising, considering I believe in Social Darwinism. EDIT: Got the image up. This is from when I took the test a while ago, but I think it's more-or-less the same as the numbers above.

Having lived a soft, sheltered, and unadventurous life thus far, the worst pain I can recall was when my sister accidentaly slammed by finger in the hinges of her bedroom door. It bled slightly, but it wasn't even bad enough to split the nail. I'm somewhat inexperienced when it comes to pain.

It's probably not the nicest thing I've ever done, but it's the only notably nice think that I can think of off the top of my head. One of my freinds had been filmed -- it was a game, but he went to far to get attention -- kissing another boy. Everyone (well, almost everyone) was making fun of him about it, but I told them that he wasn't [blocked?], and that even if he was, I wouldn't care. It's funny how I'm actualy more inclined to be kind to people when a whole crowd of people are sadistically persecuting them, since for most people, it's the other way round. If I was the only one who knew, I would probably have teased him about it, though not to the extent that they were doing.

Have you been living under a rock or something? Our own governments(yes, of democratic countries) do the same thing. The websites you visit, the phone calls you make are stored in a large database for years. Apparently it helps fighting against terrorism :| Yes, we are monitored to a certain extent, but we still have the freedom to (theoretically) do what we want -- within reason. I'm not saying this is necesarily a good thing, but comparing how we are monitored to Communist oppresion is spurius. Personally, I think that Communism is entirely unfair; people are not inherantly equal, and should not be treated as such. People should have equal oppurtunities, but not equal status, and that is essentialy what democratic capitalism tries to acheive. It dosen't, in many circumstances, work, of course, but it's still alot more "fair" than Communism.

I severely doubt that I'll ever get myself into that sort of situation, but anything is possible. Even in a life or death situation, I'd look for any alternative to killing, partly because I doubt I could bring myself to, and partly because I doubt that I'd be physically capable of it. I haven't even hit anyone (besides my brother, but that's kind of different) since year 7.

That's essentialy true, but I personally think that when you take it to a deep enough level, any action, no matter what the motive, is, fundamentaly, for the sake of your own feelings. For example, if you give to charity to support village in the Third World, you are not doing so for any reason other than you're own reasons: you may feel happy that you have helped someone; you may feel guilty otherwise; you may feel afraid of some form of divine retribution if you do not help others. For that reason, when you hurt the girl's feelings despite being persecuted (slightly, in most circumstances) for it, you are doing so because you feel happy that you may have helped her lose weight -- of course, it could be for a near-infinite array of other reasons. Personally, I think that lying can prevent suffering, like in the above example. I myself, however, never tell outright lies. I genuinely feel slightly sick when I tell blatant lies, but I have no trouble deceiving people by bending the truth or saying something in a certain way. Another reason why I never (well, I probably have done at some point) lie is because it feels like an easy way out. This may merely be spurious rubish, but I feel that anyone can just make up untruths, but that it takes skill to twist the truth to suit your own -- or others, but always your own fundamentaly -- your own needs.

In terms of personal, not absolute, morals -- i.e illogicaly seeking the survival of life simply because it is a human instinct -- I would do the following... 1: I would change tracks; killing one person to save three is "right" based on my personal morals. 2: I would probably not kill the baby, since I could not force myself to; however, even if I did leave the baby alive, the Germans would probably kill it anyway, so I would merely be doing so out of irational instinct. 2A: As above.

When I was about 11, nearly all my freinds played, so I tried it out then. I remember that everyone was in awe of one guy who was level 48 and had been playing for months. They all quit after a while, but I still know one of them, and he's now about level 75.

People should be tolerant, as names don't mean anything. On the other hand, it's cruel to give your child a name that will get him persecuted just to make a statement; if the father thought there was generally nothing wrong with it, he could have changed his name.

I assume that people see me as antisocial and honest to my self -- in that I don't do things because others do them. Actualy, I despise that behaviour so much that I am less inclined to do something if others are doing it. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I don't think anyone who I regularly hang around with realy sees me as anything, since they don't ever seem to think about anything. Hanging around with people like that depresses me, but trying to break out of it is immensley difficult.

I'm 14 now, and I'll be 15 next August.

I don't play much at the moment, but I would never sell it, unless it was for several thousand pounds or I was living in a toilet above a kebab shop. I've become very attached to it.

I rarely play at the moment, but when I did play regularly, I would pretty much never have a mature conversation with someone I didn't know outside of RuneScape. I actualy have the same problem in real life, since all of my aquantances (I would say freinds, but I wouldn't trust any of them with a ham sandwich) worship this guy with AD/HD who acts as though he's about 8. When I do have a mature conversation at school, it feels almost as though something's wrong, and I expect the person I'm talking to to just shout "waayy!" or spit on the ground and saunter off at any moment.

I might actualy start a new account, since I actualy enjoyed playing as a low level more than I do now. I'd probably soon get bored though, as part of the fun was not knowing every building in Varrock back-to-front.

I'm realy not bothered about respect, at least not in-game, since to acheive anything notable, you have to sacrofice an insane amount of time. Of course, it's possible to get several skillcapes while still playing in relative moderation, but I don't have that commitment, largely because I just don't like the RuneScape community much at the moment. For me, it's definately about having fun; at the moment, however, having fun generaly involves not even playing RuneScape.

While it would be beneficial for rich people to give away their money to poorer people--to a certain extent--, it would not be effective without making it fully widespread, and would not be feasable without being made compulsory. To implement such a system would not be "morally" right; since as people who are rich have, generally, earnt it, it would not be at all "fair" to redistribute wealth. I belive that all people shold have equal oppurtunity, but not equal status. Of course, there are cases when wealthy people are not "deserving", but it would be so difficult to sort out who is deserving of keeping their wealth that it would cause a great deal of suffering--weighting the moral concept towards not doing so.

Yeah, people would NEVER find a cause for war outside of religion. All us stupid religious folks are just too busy killing each other to learn like you edumacated folk. We'll just go marry our cousins now. I guess we'll also play with our Vatican, Temple of Solomon, Jerusalem, Mecca, and Vashnir in the corner. You have drasticaly misunderstood me. I was not saying that all rerligous activities is bad, or that all religious people are violent war-mongers--infact, the majority are not. I was only saying that while religion helped us in primitive times, it is no longer needed, and--while it may provide moral values--it causes ignorance and prejudice.

I'll be celebrating Christmas, though we don't observe any of the religous aspects of it.

Personally, I think the article has got the wrong end of the stick: the fact that children have this "defect"--the article seems to be emplying that it's commonplace; perhaps it should be refered to as a difference? -- just postulating--is why they end up poor. Even if this indicates they can't do much about their situation, that's only because Western governments are so pitifully innefectual that they can'y do anything major to help them for fear of upsetting their popularity. That's where democracy gets us. I'm sorry, blaming groups that collect money and use it to feed/shelter/provide for those in poverty? Actualy, though religious groups do that, without religion, we would have had no Crusades, no "9/11" bombings, and no Holocaust. Religion does far more harm than good.

I would impose much harsher sentances on criminals, and give prison governers the power to extend an offending convict's sentance by up to 150% of the maximum sentance he/she could recieve if they had commited the offence outside of prison. I would--gradualy; the Government's power is pathetically limited--completely illegalise tobacco smoking. I would also employ forces of police to wander city centers on Friday and Saturday nights, and break into teen parties and arrest anyone smoking or drinking--what's the point in having laws that no-one enforces? I would remove PE from the National Curriculum and replace it with thirty minutes compulsory excercise (in groups of physical ability) before lessons every day; overweight or unfit people generaly get away with slacking anyway, and learning sport on th curriculum is outrageously frivolous. I would also reduce the time spent learning art and music in schools, and replace it with Maths and English. In English lessons, using incorrect gramma to frequently, even in casual work, should earn you a detention; it's shocking how many fifteen year olds can't use commas correctly.

So...you're saying it's bad because it patronizes users and makes them think they're great?