Re: Are you really a liberal?
Quietcat & jtexas: Yes, my alternatives to questions 3 and 17 are VERY leading, just as I believe the original questions to be in their original form. I phrased them that way as a counter example to the biased nature of the originial questions. <br /><br />How many people (left or right) do you really think would agree that "No abortions can be labeled immoral"? What proportion of people do you think would agree that an elective abortion at just shy of 9 months, and with no life threatening health risks to the mother involved, is moral? I suspect you'll agree that it's pretty darn small. And yet the questionnaire implies that if one answers the original question "Disagree" (which would be the truth for most people), that they agree with the conservative position, which is that almost ALL abortions should be banned, with almost no choice left to the potential mother, regardless of the stage or circumstances of the pregnancy.<br /><br />In the counter example, it's biased the opposite way. How many people would agree that "There are NO situations under which a woman should be allowed to have an abortion"? Think of a case where, say, a woman whose health would result in her death if she were to carry a child to full term got pregnant as a result of being raped by her father, and wanted to terminate the pregnancy within two weeks of conception. I bet that even many 'conservatives' would have to honestly admit that they wouldn't view that as 'immoral', therefore if they were honest they would have to disagree with the question as stated, and one could then imply (falsely) that the responder approved of abortion in general.<br /><br />w.r.t. the capitol punishment question, again it's so generalized as to make it meaningless. I'm not thinking from either a literal or legal interpretation of the question, rather a practical one, which is how I believe most responders would interpret it. I bet you'd find many people labeled as 'liberals' who would agree with the death penalty in certain circumstances but believe the way it's currently administered in our system to be flawed to the point of needing revision to avoid executing innocent people. Yet the question doesn't allow for this caveate, and therefore has little meaning. <br /><br />And as for the Israeli/Palestinian question, I attempted to present an alternative question that was neutral and positive, rather than leading. If my alternative question is true (which I firmly believe), then how does it help to aportion 'blame' between two parties who have both done wrong? What couod the possible intention of the original question be? To assign one side a higher degeree of 'blame' and thereby support the other side 100%, regardless of their contribution to the problem? What is the cut off point to make that a valid approach, and how does one determine it? Say it's 51% wrong vs. 49% wrong. What about 70% vs. 30%? Does anyone really believe that a solution could be reached by addresing only the 70% of the injustice on the one side?<br /><br />All this is somewhat related to JB (and pw2's) criticism of labels. Like most things, the degree of liberalism or conservatism across the two groups almost assuredly follows something like a normal curve (obviously with a different center point for the two, respectively). That is, the majority of each group falls under the 'middle' of the range of liberalism or conservatisim, respectively. There are far fewer at the extreme ends of either spectrum. But this quiz, and labeling in general, tends to paint the groups as a whole as if they represent the extreme ends, not the middle where most people reside. <br /><br />Add to that the people who agree strongly with the position of liberals w.r.t. some issues, and with conservatives with respect to others, and the limitations of labels become even more apparent.
