Some simple logic for you okie.
Jimmy and Johnny each got $20 in allowance.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
The allowance money was primarily given to Jimmy rather than Johnny.
A hint. - Based on the first statement the last statement is false.
Your question is not properly framed. You continue to illustrate your lack of logical thinking. Let us look at the poll question again:
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Here is a question that would reflect a little more accurate parallel. Mr. Smith works and raises food in his garden, some of which he sells to Mr. Brown for money to buy more seeds to plant in the garden and to buy equipment to plow the garden, etc. Mr. Brown does not have a garden. If the practice of trade between Mr. Smith and Mr. Brown is inevitable, it should primarily serve Mr. Brown rather than the interests of Mr. Smith?
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
By choosing any one of the above options, Parados, you are implying that one of the people, Mr. Smith or Mr. Brown, should be primarily served in the trade. Not to get too complicated here for you, but a trade in a free market benefits both of the participants in a fairly equal fashion, so both are primarily served at the very same time. Your question does not allow that answer, and is therefore illogical.
As far as your question, your question should be more like one traded the other a pocket knife for $20.00. Which one was served primarily vs the other? If one needed the pocket knife more than the money and the other one needed the money more than the pocket knife, then both were primarily served by the trade, so your question is again fallacious.
Keep going, Parados, and you will continue to illustrate your own naivity.
Some time back when I was doing some serious consulting work, I trained in a process of temperament typing loosely based on Jungian philosophy as adapted by Myers Briggs, Kiersey/Bates and others. These tests are used mostly to help employees, managers, and team workers understand and appreciate different ways each other reason, process information, do problem solving, etc.
Depending on what process was used, you give test takers a series of 70 to 200 questions. In each the test taker selects one of two statements based on which is more true to him/her. The statements have been tested sufficiently to determine that approximately 50% of the population will choose one answer; and 50% the other. It is the combination of many answers that are scored to achieve approximate results.
We were also taught how to avoid pitfalls that can completely skew and invalidate the results and how to recognize testing mechanisms or leading testing techniques designed to encourage a specific result.
Most of these on line quizzes to determine your love quotient, IQ, aptitude, political affiliation etc. don't come close to achieving balanced results.
A phrase such as 'economic globalization' for instance may be useless in determining a person's political ideology unless it is clearly defined. Otherwise there are likely to be too many different interpretations to produce a definitively accurate either/or result.
Likewise how individuals interpret 'serving humanity' could be be far too broad to produce an either/or conclusion. What does it mean to serve humanity?
A good test utilizes questions with the least likelihood of personal prejudice, bias, and/or conviction factoring into them. Most of the political/ideological tests miss that mark.
Agreed Foxfyre, but I think Parados has reasoned himself into a corner he can't escape from. I think it is hilarious, because his Jimmy and Johnny question has them getting $20. From who may I ask. Liberal thought process here, that humanity and multi-national corporations all get an allowance from Daddy, which is probably government of course.
The proper question is as follows, which I repeat from my previous post: If Jimmy traded Johnny a pocket knife for $20.00. Which one was served primarily vs the other? If one needed the pocket knife more than the money and the other one needed the money more than the pocket knife, then both were primarily served by the trade, so the poll question is pointless and unanswerable with the multiple choices provided.
Keep trying to explain your logic, Parados, this is entertaining and enlightening.
If it serves both equally then the statement is FALSE since the statement says one gets more. Pretty simple logic there okie.
If A = B then is the following statement true?
A is greater than B
I would disagree with a false statement
Okay, but very poor question because disagreeing implies the other one is served primarily. It is a loaded, trick, ambiguous question, thus rendering it useless and prone to getting the wrong answers.
Trick? Not a trick at all. It's based on logic.
Logic requires that each is given the same amount by the same source for the same purpose for the same reason and that each has the same degree of need and responds to the gift in the same way. When you do not define the parameters, it can be logical to assume a degree of probability, but it is illogical to assume a degree of certainty when there can be variables.
parados wrote:Trick? Not a trick at all. It's based on logic.
Must be liberal logic. Hey Parados, you still haven't answered the question, "Have you stopped beating your spouse?" Yes or No. This is a perfectly logical liberal question because if you never started beating your spouse, then you probably never stopped, so the answer probably should be "No" if that gives you a tip. If you don't have a spouse, the answer even should be easier and more obviously "No."
I did not like the wording of the test either. There were too many "nots' or the use of a negative followed by a positive then another negative, or double negatives to make the sentence flow nicely and understandable.
It was not a balanced test.
okie wrote:parados wrote:Trick? Not a trick at all. It's based on logic.
Must be liberal logic. Hey Parados, you still haven't answered the question, "Have you stopped beating your spouse?" Yes or No. This is a perfectly logical liberal question because if you never started beating your spouse, then you probably never stopped, so the answer probably should be "No" if that gives you a tip. If you don't have a spouse, the answer even should be easier and more obviously "No."
There is no such thing as liberal logic. There is only logic. Are you now saying that my logic was false? If so then tell us where it was.
Are you saying your "okay" wasn't an agreement with this?
Quote:If it serves both equally then the statement is FALSE since the statement says one gets more. Pretty simple logic there okie.
If A = B then is the following statement true?
A is greater than B
I would disagree with a false statement
Are you now claiming that there is no logic in the statement that you just agreed with?
This is from the FAQs on political compass...
Quote:1. Some of the questions are slanted
Most of them are slanted ! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to realise that this isn't a survey, and these aren't questions. They're propositions - an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass.
Some of the propositions are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger buzzwords in the mind of the user, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.
parados wrote: ....There is no such thing as liberal logic. ....
CASE CLOSED!!! 
P.S. Its been fun Parados. If I get time, I'll do more research on the original subject of this thread, including Hubert Humphrey.
The case is closed okie. You don't have a leg to stand on. Your arguments, your attacks on me have been shown to be outlandish partisanship. You are the only one claiming I was using "liberal logic." I used logic.
The statement you claimed couldn't logically be answered was shown to be the opposite. This statement can be logically agreed or disagreed with under all circumstances.
Quote:If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
.
You might want to apologize for some of your comments now.
Foxfyre, you are wasting your time trying to reason with Parados. I've spent many, many hours going back and forth, and finally after realizing we could never agree on any answers, or even partially agree, we then began arguing about if a question was logical, let alone the answer. Parados cannot even reason out a logical question. I even asked him if we could agree on the name of this site, and I offered my answer of Able2Know.com, but I don't recall that he would even acknowledge that. I would recommend you not waste your time. The man is obviously a liberal, and he acknowledged that there is no such thing as "liberal logic." He said that in one of his last posts, and I quoted him, but he can't even see the humor. Now, he wants me to apologize to him. Go figure. Can't agree on any answers, can't even agree on any questions, and no sense of humor.
Fox,
By saying many people have experienced God you are introducing MORE variables. Each of those experiences would be a different variable. Since there are MORE variables it is ILLOGICAL to assume a degree of certainty using your argument.
By thw way, you violate the objectivity principle when you claim people have experienced God
http://changingminds.org/principles/objectivity.htm
You might want to view the objectivity principle as well okie.
I once went to a seminar called "Problem Solving and Decision Making." The primary thing drummed into us there was you must first understand the problem, or question, before it can be solved, or answered. It is one of the main reasons that answers or solutions do not answer the questions properly or solve the problems.
okie wrote:Foxfyre, you are wasting your time trying to reason with Parados. I've spent many, many hours going back and forth, and finally after realizing we could never agree on any answers, or even partially agree, we then began arguing about if a question was logical, let alone the answer. Parados cannot even reason out a logical question. I even asked him if we could agree on the name of this site, and I offered my answer of Able2Know.com, but I don't recall that he would even acknowledge that. I would recommend you not waste your time. The man is obviously a liberal, and he acknowledged that there is no such thing as "liberal logic." He said that in one of his last posts, and I quoted him, but he can't even see the humor. Now, he wants me to apologize to him. Go figure. Can't agree on any answers, can't even agree on any questions, and no sense of humor.
More personal attacks okie? Maybe you should address this statement by you and how we have now agreed the statement is not what you claimed.
Quote:If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations? The question is stupid on its face because maybe, just maybe has it ever occurred to you that the correct answer may not be an "either - or" answer, that serving the interests of trans-national corporations might possibly be a way of serving "humanity?"
What you said had not only occurred to me I wrote about it BEFORE you made this statement. Since that statement I have made it quite clear that it is NOT a stupid question based on your either/or nonsense. The definition of the word "primarily' means both are served. The statement is one is served more and logically allows you to agree or disagree. If they are served equally then a statement claiming one is served more would be disagreed with. All your arguments have fallen by the wayside when examined under the cold hard light of logic. You continue to attack me but you have not told me logically how "primarily" has no meaning or how there is no way to answer the question if the benefits are equal.
Your response has not been to provide logic but rather you only belittle my logic. Your silly attempts to ask me if I beat my wife are not germaine. Your accusations of logic being "liberal logic" are only an attempt to hide your lack of logic. The problem for you okie is your argument is there for everyone to read at this point. It is completely unsupported.
