/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3131428]

I'M SORRY if this is the wrong section to post this (moderators, please remove this thread if it's the case), but it seems like it might be the right place, as political science is still considered as being science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science


According to you, where am I on the left-right political spectrum?
Here's the list of my beliefs:
-I believe that people aren't equal, and treating them as equals more often than not harms the society. I think that everyone shouldn't be able to participate in the political decisions, but only those who are fit for performing them - the opinion of the majority is inferior to that of a genius.

-I support a heavy progressive tax, and want the government money to be allocated on some public goods, such as the space program, transportation, welfare,

-I'm against excessive consumerism - it wastes labor and harms the environment. The only point of soft consumerism is to motivate people to work. When the society adapts to non-consumerism, the tax rate should become higher, leaving mostly the money needed to buy the goods which are actually needed. The government money would be spent on better things than pointless consumerism.

-I think the government should stop the support to the people born mentally retarded if the mother of the child knew that the child would be retarded and was suggested to abort the child, and if the child could be aborted of course. This would prevent the money waste on the mental retards, as most of them would be aborted.

-I think the democratic voting system is nonsense - granting people equal voting rights is pointless and stupid. People with the best abilities should be appointed for the government, but there needs to only be a vote to remove the abusive members of the government (which will be ran if more than ~75% of the people would vote to abolish the present government)

[Anonymous No.3131430]

-I think all forms of religion should be expunged.

-I'm against homophobia - it's unneeded and is a belief which derives from many religions. It prevents people from working together and leads to conflicts.

-I'm against forced death penalty - I think people who would otherwise be executed should be sent off to the labor camps and work there. This would actually produce more benefit than pointlessly killing people.

-I think the ethics should be based on a rational and thought-out framework which would produce the most benefit possible.

-I think propaganda and psychological manipulation techniques should be used on the people as they would be a big source of motivation, and reduce the need of consumerism.

-I think the environmental issues should be payed a lot of attention at.

-I'm against nationalism, no matter in what form it's presented, be it fighting for national independence or simple patriotism.

-I'm against racism - yes, some racial stereotypes might be true for the rage average, but they're not true for the race extremes. Therefore, implying that these stereotypes are true for the whole race is irrational and stupid. This is the nature of the bell-curve.

[Anonymous No.3131440]

Wow, that's a pretty cool list of your beliefs.
How about the list of why people should give a fuck about your beliefs?

[Anonymous No.3131441]

>>3131430
OP here.
race average *

[Anonymous No.3131444]

[Anonymous No.3131446]

National Free Market Communism

[Anonymous No.3131461]

cool story bro

[Cave Johnson !grGMmpsPac No.3131462]

[Anonymous No.3131478]

>I think the government should stop the support to the people born mentally retarded if the mother of the child knew that the child would be retarded and was suggested to abort the child, and if the child could be aborted of course. This would prevent the money waste on the mental retards, as most of them would be aborted.
That's pretty fucked up bro I must say.

[Anonymous No.3131483]

>>3131478
Why? This would motivate mothers to abort retards, and this is a good reason for the government not to pay for some retards. The government will pay for the retards who couldn't be aborted, but won't for the ones who could, simply put.

[Anonymous No.3131485]

Try this one
>>>/b/
or if you like to troll then
>>>/int/

[Anonymous No.3131502]

>>3131428
>political science is still considered as being science
No. No its not. Its a social "science" ie not a science at all. Protip for the future OP, if it doesn't make use of the scientific method its not science.

[Anonymous No.3131508]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GklCBvS-eI

welfare just subsidizes failure.

You people constantly call the rich greedy and then use the government to steal money form these people and give it to yourself.

[Anonymous No.3131509]

>>3131508
Hitler supported welfare.

[Anonymous No.3131533]

>>3131502
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/bridgman.htm

Quit it with the scientific method crap. What are you, 14?

[Anonymous No.3131560]

>>3131508

even if you don't accept the idea that many rich people got rich by ripping off the people that contributed to their wealth, you should at least consider that a poor man with filled stomach is less likely to resort to violence when facing a closed elite with opulent lifestyles.

Although it's fine enough if poor can actually become rich. Sadly, this is opportunity is not guaranteed even in societies where liberty is seen as a central value, and in some cases it's even worse, since the more you have, the more leverage you can put behind getting even richer.

[Anonymous No.3131567]

>>3131533
This. The kid is just probably a bit insecure.

[Anonymous No.3131577]

>>3131428
>as political science is still considered as being science
>links Wikipedia article
>Wikipedia makes it right

[Anonymous No.3131581]

>>3131577
>says political science isn't science
>he says this
>makes it right
>fullretard.jpg

[Anonymous No.3131607]

I support enviromental destruction.

If the Earth turned into an inhospitable hellhole, we'd be a lot more motivated as a species to get off this goddamn rock. As it is, space colonization is progressing at too slow a pace; we NEED to spread to more than one world to survive. And our survival is the most important thing in the universe as far as we know. If we found proof of non-human intelligence, then our survival would be less important. But as far as we know, WE'RE IT. AND WE'RE WASTING OUR CHANCE OF LONG-TERM SURVIVAL BY STAYING HERE LIKE SITTING GODDAMN DUCKS. I'd be willing to sacrifice EVERY life form on Earth for even a SLIGHT improvement of our survival odds.

[Anonymous No.3131634]

>>3131607
try starting a new thread. this one is dumb.

[Anonymous No.3131642]

>>3131502 Here

>>3131577 this is not me.

I don't understand why everyone is getting mad all I said is that political science is not a science because it is not based on the principles of science, ie the basic observation theory testing loop.

So stop with your ad hominem and your appeals to authority unless you can show me a specific examples of how political science in general applies the basic principles of science then simply put. It. Is. Not. Science.

[Anonymous No.3131655]

>>3131607
Don't be retarded we are very very far from interstellar travel even if progress on space travel accelerated 1000 fold we would still die before reaching another hospitable planet. Also something people seem to not know is that even an environmentally devastated earth is much more hospitable than anything else we've found in the universe.

[Anonymous No.3131667]

>>3131428
Equality of opportunity is left. You sound right.
Progressive taxation is center left.
Anti-consumerism is faddish left, not really politics.
I don't think your position on retards has a polite name.
Anti-democracy is right.

You sound like a fascist. Too bad that word is so loaded.

[Anonymous No.3131689]

>>3131655
>another hospitable planet
not needed. we could spread to other world within our own solar system. we'd just have to build self supporting colonies with life support.

[Anonymous No.3131737]

>>3131689
Then why the fuck would we move to another planet at all. It would be infinitely easier to build "self supporting colonies with life support" on Earth than any other planet.

[Anonymous No.3131756]

>>3131737
You're missing the point entirely. The reason to spread out is that it vastly improves our survival odds. Right now, we have "all of our eggs in one basket". All it would take is a gamma ray burst, a meteor or something equally gruesome, to completely annihilate us. If we had other colonies, losing one would not kill us as a species. They'd serve as failsafes or backups.

[Anonymous No.3131763]

>>3131478

You know, I agree with the OP on that point.

But I have a slight phobia of retarded people, if that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.3131779]

>>3131763
More like a normal and natural instinct.

[Anonymous No.3131780]

>>3131763
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mClfU2NStY

DON'T THROW US AWAY!

[Anonymous No.3131796]

>>3131756
Having colonies mars or even a moon of Jupiter/Saturn would not guarantee our survival. Also these things can be accomplished without destroying the Earth.

[Anonymous No.3131821]

>>3131780
One problem is, the retards tend to waste far more money than they produce.

[Anonymous No.3131842]

>>3131796
>Having colonies mars or even a moon of Jupiter/Saturn would not guarantee our survival.

No but it'd improve our odds a hell of a lot.

>Also these things can be accomplished without destroying the Earth.

Yes, but it's not happening fast enough. If humanity had it's priorities straight, we'd have cities on Mars by now. Instead we get fucking hippies scrapping the Orion project.

[Anonymous No.3131838]

Some of you points are left wing, some are right wing extremist,...

What I do know is that you are not in favor of democracy, so being left or right wing doesn't matter since you won't be allowed to vote in your ideal world.

[Anonymous No.3131887]

>>3131842
exterminating, or nearly exterminating our race to move it somewhere where it's really not equipped well for living really sounds like a good idea to you? does phrase "defeats the purpose" mean anything to you?

[Anonymous No.3131890]

>>3131838
>What I do know is that you are not in favor of democracy, so being left or right wing doesn't matter since you won't be allowed to vote in your ideal world.

Learn to make sense next time you speak.

[Anonymous No.3131956]

>>3131887
>not equipped well for living
two ways to solve this:

1. badass engineering. subterranean cities built inside giant centrifuges. protection from radiation + pleasant 1g gravity. you could in theory build these on any rocky world.

2. genetic engineering. make humans that can tolerate lot's of radiation, low gravity, varying pressure, varying temperatures, low sustenance etc. these fat leather-skinned midgets with lungs of steel could conquer the solar system. They wouldn't even need a planet, just a big metal sphere in solar orbit would do.

[Anonymous No.3131985]

Wow, a full communist oligarchy. This can't not be a troll.

[Anonymous No.3132017]

>>3131956
I hope you will forgive me, though, if I still think your premise of making mommy Terra inhospitable is retarded. Designing and building an actual starship, and one capable of setting up a colony on a world that is not hospitable itself, requires enormous industrial base. There's a reason why only USA and Soviets went to the moon (well soviets only by robots but meh). Awful lot of resources to spend to make a living far away after a risky voyage. When they might just as well spend these resources to improve their lot here on Earth.

[Anonymous No.3132026]

>>3131667
>equality of opportunity is left

wrong its right, equality of results is left.

>the right is anti democracy

simply because the majority can dissolve the right of the minority, in the case of the south the democrats kept the blacks in enslavement and under jim crow, or use the government to fleece the rich, and today things like affirmative action and welfare. The right believe everyone should have equal rights under something like the constitution.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3132050]

>>3131428
You are a simple national socialist.

[Anonymous No.3132066]

>>3132017
>spend these resources to improve their lot here on Earth.
Let's say they do, and the Earth is hit by a gamma ray burst. Now everyone is dead, and their resources are meaningless. If they had instead focused on spreading humanity, Earth would have been lost, but HUMANITY would've survived. We invested the puny resources on Earth in ventures that lead nowhere, when we could've invested in our survival, which would allow us to inherit the ENDLESS resources of the entire universe, given time.

Would you rather have humanity live happily for 1000 years and die, or struggle for 1000 years and survive for eternity?

[Anonymous No.3132125]

>>3132066
Privatize space travel.