Scrotie's single-question political compass test

didnt read any of the 10 pages,

lets deconstruct this without any political context, because I dont believe this to be a 'political' question aside from maybe some subtle baiting

first, whether or not a child is able to play a flute is relatively irrelevant, because ability to play flute is routinely taught and is taught in finite polynomial time (we will assume that all children have the same mental capability, because otherwise the question is pointless baiting drivel)

as such, a flute is a poor choice of object in this exercise, as it tends to somehow imply skill and exclusiveness, when it really shouldn't. an object such as a bicycle or car or computer (nowadays) or a pen would be far less biased.

second, we shall determine intrinsic average value of a flute in the world and in each socioeconomic group in question.

third, we will determine the value of flute to each individual in question.
given that they come from a different economic background, we have to pick a 'sacrifice' reference that cannot be bought with money. such as, death of a loved relative, full castration, etc. ie, find the most non-monetary value each person is willing to sacrifice in a some kind of 'auction'. kind of a solomon decision, but not quite.


finally, we will compare the intrinsic value of flute in step #2 with the one in step #3, normalize it according to averages (because we cannot do it on case-by-case basis, causes precedent) and whoever has the highest difference gets to have the flute.

I will say that the second child kinda makes this a weird question, because my assumption was that you just have the flute. if the second child made the flute, you kinda need to provide the story of how you got the right to give flute to anyone in the first place.
"
鬼殺し wrote:
There is no right answer here, and that was obvious from the start. Sen is, like all good academic writers, provocative without being judgmental or declarative. So while libertarians might favour one child and utilitarians might favour another, to use the parable as anything but an example of how there are different ways of being 'right' (and that it so often comes down to perspective) is a little disingenuous to Sen's message.
On this point I wholeheartedly disagree. Saying the answers to these questions don't matter is a bit like saying one's vote doesn't matter in an election -- yeah, I get that a single instance of feeling charitable towards Child C won't have any devastating effect, but once enough people do it that giving to C becomes the predictable response, it changes incentive patterns on a large enough scale that it creates major social problems. Our society depends more than you appreciate on enough answers being B such that any deviation from it is literally surprising, as in defying expectations. If not, then our expectation shifts to something other than work being the basis of property rights, unraveling the individualist premises behind our democracies.

That said, I don't mean to imply I was being true to Sen's message, only to Sen's question. Perhaps you have a point that I may not have communicated that distinction well enough -- or, for that matter, even bothered to determine what Sen's message was.
"
鬼殺し wrote:
What Scrotie's done here is sort of reverse-engineer that to push an agenda to the original, although to be fair it's clear he just copied that reverse-engineering from elsewhere. This is why it's so important to use primary sources.
While you're correct that I'm not that good of an artist, my scoring system is, as far as I know, original content. I actually stole this from my ex, who passionately believed the correct answer was C; we had a nice little text chat about it. Since I consider myself center and her left, I then did my little test on [self-censor: an internet home for the lunatic, white-supremacist far right] to see if they'd mostly pick A, confirming my hypothesis. I didn't post the scoring rubric there, as I prefer not to arm them with memes any more than they already are.

Maybe she's read Sen, but I kinda doubt it. It often seems I know more about what Crowley wrote than her, and I'm not even practicing.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
I waited for a few weeks, but didn't get the answer where am I on political compass. My answer was, nobody gets the flute, and that I won't pick anything of suggested answers, because in real world there are always more ways/answers than given ones.

(btw i despise politics, the currently existing one in the world, not the ideal concept of politics)
Spreading salt since 2006
Last edited by Necromael on Jul 18, 2018, 2:30:42 AM
"
鬼殺し wrote:
"
Necromael wrote:
I waited for a few weeks, but didn't get the answer where am I on political compass. My answer was, nobody gets the flute, and that I won't pick anything of suggested answers, because in real world there are always more ways/answers than given ones.

(btw i despise politics, the currently existing one in the world, not the ideal concept of politics)
You get what Sen is driving by reserving the right not to choose.
How cowardly. No matter; if you won't choose, others will.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
I would incentivize Child B to create two additional flutes through a business arrangement with Child A and Child C where a percent of modified gross margin future earnings resulting from the use of the flute by A and C are shared with Child B.

I would have Child A put on a benefit concert to support the flute needs of Child C and to market the flutes produced by Child B.

Since Child C is neither a user or producer of the product, Child C will be recruited to sell the flutes that are marketed by A and produced by B.



Limited choices are the blinders to good government.

I have given this another 30 seconds of thought and have come to this conclusion:

What gives me the right to decide the fate of the flute?
I don't believe that there should be someone outside of the children that makes that decision.
"
This thread really hasn't gone where I'd hoped it would go

Nature of the beast, you put it out explicitly to see where it fails.


@MBata
but but butt,
You can´t use Child C as a seller, the questionary explicitly states that Child C isn´t capable of anything, got locked up in a celler shortly after birth, didn´t receive any mothermilk and is only capable of speaking two words, "Fluuuute" and "Braaainz".
You can´t possibly consider unleashing that onto mankind ?

Could we develop an economy if we assume that C got atleast one random trait ?
Yes.
That wasn´t the question.

Can we come to conclusions regarding the political directions based on the way one voted ?
No, because a single individual cannot control the political weather of a country.
If the opposition of a democracy (forcefully) collapses, it doesn´t matter where you are on this 2D grid of political orientation if the grid collapses into for ex.: national social "1inch by 1inch"-grid with hardly space to move around, you´re pretty much in the dead right center. Or left.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcKqhDFhNHI
Last edited by Lachdanan on Jul 18, 2018, 1:34:44 PM
"
Lachdanan wrote:
"
This thread really hasn't gone where I'd hoped it would go

Nature of the beast, you put it out explicitly to see where it fails.


@MBata
but but butt,
You can´t use Child C as a seller, the questionary explicitly states that Child C isn´t capable of anything, got locked up in a celler shortly after birth, didn´t receive any mothermilk and is only capable of speaking two words, "Fluuuute" and "Braaainz".
You can´t possibly consider unleashing that onto mankind ?

Could we develop an economy if we assume that C got atleast one random trait ?
Yes.
That wasn´t the question.

Can we come to conclusions regarding the political directions based on the way one voted ?
No, because a single individual cannot control the political weather of a country.
If the opposition of a democracy (forcefully) collapses, it doesn´t matter where you are on this 2D grid of political orientation if the grid collapses into for ex.: national social "1inch by 1inch"-grid with hardly space to move around, you´re pretty much in the dead right center. Or left.


Three points:
1) It is established that flutes are desirable and possess value, therefore there should be a market for them
2) You severely over-estimate the need for skills in sales. I would consider unleashing Child C onto mankind - his limited abilities and all
3) I have revised my political opinion from the initial post, I don't believe that we have the authority to make the decision regarding the flute. We can't play them, build them, or see them as valuable; therefore we have no right to get involved in the matter. If we did, then we would appropriate it, tax it, and redestribute it...
"
MBata wrote:
If we did, then we would appropriate it, tax it, and redestribute it...

Well then, there’s your answer.
Devolving Wilds
Land
“T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.”
"
CanHasPants wrote:
"
MBata wrote:
If we did, then we would appropriate it, tax it, and redestribute it...

Well then, there’s your answer.


What I meant to say was: If this kids are dumb enough to empower us with the decision about their property, then they shouldn't be surprised if their flute is appropriated, regulated, legislated and taxed.

They're better off sorting the problem out amongst themselves than involving an absolute authority...

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info