8values thread

8values thread

8values.github.io/

here's mine

Other urls found in this thread:

8values.github.io/results.html?e=85.4&d=68.6&g=70.4&s=87.2
8values.github.io/results.html?e=59.1&d=71.3&g=67.7&s=82.7
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

you're garbage

>you're garbage

post you're own then

r8 no h8

man of culture detected

...

...

...

first time doing this
rate me

...

...

...

Hit me with that commie shit

...

guess im a centrist

Sup Forums here.

rate

...

Pretty boring. Needs more extremism and naivete.

> 75%
> centrist

lol extremists are stupid

I'd like 80% of my industry to be controlled by government, but I don't want to hurt people's feelings so I'm not going to enforce authoritarianism. Typically anarcho communism.

Then practice being stupid. Stand in front of the mirror, and tell yourself you're fighting for Social Justice! Or that you're fighting against Globalism! Or that you're fighting for limited and government and free speech... nah, nobody believes in that last one anymore.

Everything was great in my country until the government decided to outsource or outright sell off utilities and providers to private companies......
Then services went to shit. Staff were cut to reduce costs, products (like electricity, gas, internet, mobile towers etc) were cheapened with a longer lifespans rather than pushing newer technologies (cheaper), costs went up over time (to cover 'rising costs' while CEO's still got their bonus') and customer service went down the shitter since they knew we didn't have a choice.

The private sector is fantastic for many industries..... but utilities, education and medical providers consecutively fail the public when given to the highest bidder with profit surpassing the needs of the user.

Nationalsozialismus here

i don't get what you're saying lol. i support free speech like most people on here do..?

...

...

So I'm a meme. Neato.

There's a strong push back from the progressive left against free speech, and the right has never been comfortable with it. And they're all violently opposed to reducing the government in any way, they just argue about whether the money should to social programs or the military.

Markets are great, they make the tides rise and everyone's financially better off than they were 100 years ago. But I still think we need some oversight for the free market; you could argue that government meddling caused the housing market crash in 2008, but still I think the market was under-regulated rather than over-regulated.

If I can sell you securities with a bunch of loans tied up in them, and nobody checks to see if these people are good credit risks, then I've done an irresponsible job selling you that security. Especially if I know the underwriting is bad, it should be a crime, tantamount to fraud. There should be no situation where the government has to bail out banks and subsidize losses, when they don't share in gains.

>There should be no situation where the government has to bail out banks and subsidize losses, when they don't share in gains.
The government made money on TARP, they got their gains.

Good guy master race

...

...

Liberal faggot like you are what’s wrong with the world

OH HELLO THERE TRADITIONIOLIST HERE

Vote with your fucking wallet and let people do what they want so long as it doesn't endanger you or your property

Fucking commie go to Poland and jump off Stalin's penis

...

looks like we have a nazi fag here

...

couldn't agree more

I feel like I'm rational above all else, come at me with evidence and I'll change my opinions

...

>1929 never happened

Because I'm bored. Up to here, the median is:

Economic 53.4% (Centrist)
Diplomatic 56.7% (Balanced)
Civil 59.6% (Moderate/Liberal)
Social 37.5% (Progressive)

Mmmmm yes

Not sure how I got like any tradition, since I place zero value on the notion that "we dun it this way befur so it's better than the superior choices"

...

>being a capitalistic, nationalistic, authoritarian traditionalist

Die already grandpa.

In Spain we called ETA and Venezuela for our values.

Rate Me.

*we are

I don't think this is really accurate. The first two values seem right to me but the last two don't. The developers seem to think that promoting family values is opposed to liberty when really having strong family values increases financial mobility and by extension liberty.

How shit am I?

And how do you promote family values? By either incentivising them somehow or by restricting alternative social structures, both of which require some amount of government authority to enact.

Also having more money doesn't increase liberty. If you're free to do something but can't afford it that's not a lack of freedom, and being able to afford it doesn't make you somehow freer than your poorer neighbor. You're conflating freedom to act as you choose with the capacity to do so.

8values.github.io/results.html?e=85.4&d=68.6&g=70.4&s=87.2

Have fun being raped by brown people and having price controls drive up the price of food to the point you can't afford to feed your family

>hurrrr tradition is important

said he, shitposter on Sup Forums, to millions and millions at the touch of a few buttons.

>diplomatic axis: chauvinist

you're so fucking stupid even the poll is calling you a moron

>having strong family values increases financial mobility and by extension liberty

I don't follow this logic at all. You have much more financial mobility with no familial responsibilities.

Here's mine. Nothing special

Eh, most people are alright if you give them the chance. And if they don't grow up in a shithole

Isnt the point of price control to keep some necessities as close to production cost as possible?

Having no family responsibilites and having no family values are not the same thing. If I have no family responsibilities would mean that I don't have a family. Having strong family values like waiting until marriage before having children not only statistically reduces poverty not only for the parents but also for the child.

...

>Having strong family values like waiting until marriage before having children

That's a "family value"? Not having kids before being able to afford to take care of them is just plain fucking logic.

Datamining thread

anarchism will set you free

And those that aren't will squandering whatever welfare you give them and pillaging whatever else you don't

Sure that's the point. And there are examples of that failing over
and over
and over again.

Huh. Neat.

will enjoy*

You'd think that but single parenthood is on the rise. This is leading increased reliance on social programs.

Hello there.

bumpe

You can start by not incentivising single parenthood. If a person wants to hurt themselves and their children in that way they have every right but why should we reward them for it?

...

Mkay, no clue what your point is, but not incentivising single parenthood isn't tantamount to incentivising traditional family values.

If creating a better life for your children is a family value and being a single parent has a negative effect on your child psychologically, socially, and financially. Then not incentivising single parenthood is tantamount to incentivising family values.

Sidenote : voted France Insoumise

Neo-Liberal here

...

...

Not incentivising farmers to plant potatoes is not the same as incentivising them to plant corn.

...

...

Yes

...

Post urs fgt

If corn was objectively better for the farm and the only reason you planted potatoes was because of an outside incentive. Without the incentive you would naturally move to corn.

If you wanted people to start planting corn instead of potatoes wouldn't you start by stopping the incentive you made to plant potatoes?

8values.github.io/results.html?e=59.1&d=71.3&g=67.7&s=82.7

Mkay, but that's still not promoting corn. What is your point?

Again, if you want to promote family values, you have to incentivise people to maintain them or punish them for not. Otherwise you're just letting be what may, not promoting anything.

Regardless, single parenthood isn't something people do because of incentives; it's not a financial decision, it's a decision made when one parent is better off, or feels they'd be better of, without the other. I have no idea what country you live in that you believe actually incentivises people enough to be single parents that people actually view that as preferable to a traditional family under normal circumstances.

The fuck is wrong with all the liberalism, Sup Forums has certainly changed

ok thats me aparrently

disgusting cuck

Here are the averages up to this post:

50.3 |------+------| 49.7
54.9 |-----+-------| 45.1
56.7 |-----+-------| 43.3
37.1 |---------+---| 62.9

I excluded this one as an outlier

You might not become a single parent because of financial reasons but you have no reason to find a suitable partner when the state pays for your food and rent.

And who cares if I'm talking about incentivising one thing or simply not incentivising the opposite in what I clearly stated from the start was simply the first step.
>You can start by not incentivising single parenthood. If a person wants to hurt themselves and their children in that way they have every right but why should we reward them for it?
Your entire argument was a essentially word play until now when you actually attack my argument and your attack falls on it's face.

you're fucking stupid and a newfig if you think Sup Forums was ever more "right" than it is now.

Sup Forums is always right.