FA+
Shop
The Controversial Survey
17 years ago
General
This is a “meme” stolen from Emerald_Sage (http://www.furaffinity.net/user/emeraldsage)
[01] Do you have the guts to answer these questions and re-post as The Controversial Survey?
Uh...considering that it’s here, in a written form, and posted on a world-wide-accessible forum, I’d say the answer to that would be obvious.
[02] Would you do meth if it was legalized, and become a strung-out, whithered husk of a man/woman you are now?
No. I did all the drugs that looked interesting to me in my younger, crazier, more-foolish years, so I’ve gotten it all out of my system (no pun intended). Now that I am a little older and wiser (perhaps arguably in both cases), I have very little use for drugs, short of the fact that I’ve gained some valuable experience on what they are like, which can be useful when trying to counsel others about them.
[03] Abortion: for or against it?
Being that I am male, this really has limited liability or applicability to me; however, I believe that a woman has a fundamental right of choice. There are plenty of arguments for or against that approach things in every facet from biology to ethics to religion. As I counselor, I could argue from the psychological perspectives, citing such cases as rape for pro-choice. However, I look at this issue from the bigger perspective: when the government can take one of the most basic rights away from a woman, which is to say, deprive her of her right to make choices about her own body, then what right will they attempt to take next? Government has no right or jurisdiction, in my opinion, to deprive anyone of such a choice. If you are religious, then you know in your own studies about God, that the most precious gift given to us /by/ God, is the Power of Choice. I feel strongly that “man” (mankind, government, mortals, etc) does not possess the authority to remove or limit what God has granted.
[04] Do you think the world would fail with a female president?
No. I do not feel that “good leader” has anything to do with “gender”. If a woman has the credentials to be President, then I don’t think her gender has anything to do with anything. But I must point out, this is a horribly and irresponsibly slanted question. The words “...world would fail..” seems to imply that the US - I am assuming the original author of this was talking about the US President - has so much influence around the world that its collapse would cause the implosion of the universe; sorry to burst the bubble, but the world WOULD most certainly carry on.
[05] Do you believe in the death penalty?
Belief? Yes. Death Penalties DO exist. However, I think the original author of this meme might have meant: “Do you agree or disagree with the Death Penalty?” Given THAT question, I am “agree”. I am a firm believer in “a punishment to fit the crime”. If there is murder, then death is fitting justice. If there is dismemberment or maiming in the course of a crime, then equal dismemberment would be fitting justice. Of course, I have been accused of being very black-and-white. Rules are in place for a reason, as they keep the world from being a hell-hole of anarchy. “Justice” is very often a deterrent to “crime”, so I most certainly believe in “justice being served”. If people followed the rules, there would be no need for justice. In the world I live in, the vast majority of people are shitheads, so yes, I “believe” in the Death Penalty where applicable. If the crime is a speeding violation, then the Death penalty might be a bit too severe.
[06] Do you wish marijuana would be legalized already?
My response for #02 above is also applicable here. Having said that, however, there does appear to be some useful, medicinal purposes for the drug, so I am not opposed to that aspect of legalization, but I would also argue, there are plenty of other, just as effective, pain relief meds out there, that I don’t think one more is going to be the be-all-end-all of pain meds.
[07] Are you for or against premarital sex?
“Premarital” is very definitively a religious assertion. I firmly believe in the separation of church and state. Sex, or having sex, should be about love, and the desires and affections of consenting “adults”, not religious rhetoric, fire, and brimstone. I think that sex can be a very healthy and nurturing intimacy shared between two people. All moral and ethical considerations aside, sex inside, or outside, of marriage should be participated in maturely and responsibly. Sex for pleasure is fine and dandy, as long as the participants are both willing, and understand that aside from said pleasure, it’s about biological function and reproduction, and bringing unwanted offspring into the word is just stupid and irresponsible, so be safe not imbecilic. Secondly, /if/ the only reason for marriage or a “relationship” is for sex, then statistically speaking, it’s destined for failure.
[08] Do you believe in God?
Absolutely. I have studied science and physics all of my life, and there are just too many bizarre happenstances that would have to have happened for everything in the universe to have come about by “chance”. The mathematical probabilities are astronomical at best. Plus, there are many “unexplainable” things that happen. Some call it “paranormal”. Some call it “spirits”. Some call it “God”. Pick your word. My point is, SOMETHING out there MAKES things happen. Of course, there are a gazillion arguments for and against the existence of a God or the Evolutionary Theory. In the end, there isn’t enough empirical data to draw an unequivocal conclusion for /either/ one, so in the end, you must simply pick one or the other, take that leap of pure and unadulterated faith, and push the big, red, “I Believe” button in the center of your forehead. In my case, I look at a cat, or a wolf, and I simply refuse to believe that such a beautiful and magnificent creature could have happened by chance; I believe in God.
[09] Do you think same sex marriage should be legalized?
“Marriage” is a biblically defined word. I do not believe that anyone alive today has the right to either dispute or change that definition; it seems to have worked as-is for the last 2000 or so years, so it should probably still be good-to-go for another couple millennia. So if it’s about terminology and the definition of a word or the /changing/ of a definition of a word, then “no”; I am opposed to the definition change. If it’s about two people that love each other and nurture each other, having the legal rights to be with each other, and are guaranteed the SAME rights, freedoms, responsibilities, and privileges, as opposite-gender couples, then “yes” absolutely I am for it.
[10] Do you think it's wrong that so many Hispanics are illegally moving to the USA?
By the use of the term “Hispanic”, I would place this question into the firmly “racially motivated” realm. From my perspective, the US has very definitive and arguably strict rules for entry and naturalization, as do many other countries. Those rules should be followed. For those that you don’t follow the rules, there are penalties, which I feel should be enforced unilaterally, and without bias or prejudice. It is not hard to get into this country LEGALLY. It is not that hard to become a citizen LEGALLY. Yes, it requires patience and commitment, and like so many other things in life, a perhaps grand tolerance for a bit of lunacy. If any immigrant of ANY nationality, is not willing to do what it takes to “follow the rules” then my personal opinion is that they are NOT welcome here. It has nothing to do with race or with nationality. I think this same principle applies to any race and any nation. In my opinion, if someone is not willing to follow the rules with something so basic as entering a country legally, then it says something about their basic nature and in my view, represents a lack of integrity, and they should be kindly but firmly sent back to their country of origin.
[11] A twelve year old girl has a baby, should she keep it?
This question simply cannot be real. Legally, that is not an option, at least in the US, so my opinion matters very little. However, I do not feel that there is any good that comes from children having children. There are “adults” that have children, who should NOT have had children! So my answer to this question is “No; absolutely not!” Statistically speaking, a 12-year-old does not have the maturity, nor the means, to keep and raise a child of their own. Can 12-year-olds even legally get a job? What’s their resume say?
[12] Should the alcohol age be lowered to eighteen?
Yes. If someone can die in the service of their fellow citizens and country, then they should be able to have a very stiff drink first. I feel that the “drinking age” is not about “age” but “maturity”. People of EVERY age get drunk and do stupid things. If you can drink, and act responsibly, then I don’t see why an established “drinking age” is necessary. I know some 40-year-olds that are not “old enough” to drink responsibly.
[13] Should the war in Iraq be called off?
Not instantly, no, but I am a firm believer that the Iraqi people should VERY quickly step up and take charge of their country and their own people and affairs. But, for good or ill, all the allies (including the US) stepped up to the proverbial plate to topple the tyrannical dictatorship that was once in place in that country, and, by good or ill, I feel strongly that we - those same allied nations - have a duty and responsibility to the Iraqi people to safeguard their freedoms and privileges until they can safeguard and tend to their own. In the simplest of terms, any nation on this earth, that has gained the monumental privilege of Freedom, has very definitively paid for it with blood! The US was no different, although people so very much like to forget that fact. In this case, the Iraqi people also, are paying for Freedom with blood, both their own, and those of the allies that are fighting with them. Is it worth the cost? Yes! Freedom is most certainly worth the cost! I morn for my brothers- and sisters-in-arms. I abhor the loss of life and the reckless bloodshed that goes with any war, but I believe strongly and profoundly in the Ideals of Freedom, and I believe that such ideals are absolutely and without question worth fighting for. I once volunteered my /own/ blood to maintain the fight for Freedom; I came through unscathed, but so many of my brothers and sisters have not. They have paid the supreme and noble price for an ideal which they held dear enough to grant to someone /else/! How noble indeed! To honor /them/, those felled in battle, whether those battles might be arguably “foolish” or otherwise, requires us to carry on the fight until those we fight /with/ can fight on their own. I pray in earnest for a quick “withdrawl”, but I prey even /more/ earnestly, that the Ideal of Freedom, shall never pass away from this earth, and shall be available to all those people, of every nation on earth, that desire it, and are willing to fight for it.
[14] Assisted suicide is illegal: do you agree?
This is a topic very similar to #03 above. I feel that nothing of this nature can be defined in “absolute” terms. If there is, medically speaking, the possibility for the continuation of life, and significant probability of return to a reasonable quality-of-life, then I am opposed to euthanasia (aka “assisted suicide”). If someone is terminally ill, with /no/ hope of recovery, and is destined to a diminishing quality-of-life, with eventaully rapid descent into pain an agony, then I am all /for/ euthanasia. In the most basic terms, it /should/ be legal, but decided with the utmost care and judgement, on a case-by-case basis. If we have the legal right to be protected from “cruel and unusual punishment”, then shouldn’t we /also/ have the right to be exempted from the pain and agony of a terminal and debilitating illness? In my mind, /both/ have “humane treatment” at their hearts and souls. I cannot philosophically differentiate between them.
[15] Do you believe in spanking your children?
Kind of a trick question. I firmly believe in “accountability” and “responsibility”. Children should be taught that there ARE rules, and that there ARE consequences for not following them, and yet others FOR following them. The “method of enforcement” for those consequences should both “fit the crime” and “fit the child”. Some children respond well to verbal reinforcement of rules. If they break a rule, the consequence can be something simple like taking away phone privileges, or something else of that nature. Other children need a much firmer approach, such as getting spanked. I believe that child-rearing is not a cut-and-dried or black-and-white topic. There is a LOT of psychology that goes into raising a child. One thing is very certain; children do not come with an “owners manual”. So, I’ll answer this one a little differently than a “black-and-white” response. I believe in punishment appropriate for the offense and for the mental function. And what I mean by “mental function”, is that one size does NOT fit all. Use the right tool for the job. A phillips screwdriver doesn’t work well with slotted screws. Likewise, “spanking” won’t be effective - have the desired results - for all children. “Spanking” CAN be effective. It was for me, and many people that I know. But for my brother, not so much. For others that I know, not so much. So my point here is that “discipline”, as a methodology for teaching responsibility and accountability, is an integral part of child rearing. Statistically speaking, spanking as a black-and-white, blanket policy for discipline is not going to be very effective.
[16] Would you burn an American flag for a million dollars?
It depends entirely on the context of the action. There is nothing inherently wrong with burning a flag. It is, in fact, the only way to properly dispose of a flag. So if the act is JUST and ONLY about lighting a flag on fire, making it burn to ash, and then picking up my cold, hard, unsequential, unmarked greenbacks, then sign me up! If it’s about some form of political statement, intended to disgrace the symbology or meaning of the flag, then I just don’t need $1-mil that badly. I see the flag of my country as the Symbol of the Ideal of Freedom. In that light, perhaps it’s cliche’ish to say, but what is the price of Freedom? A bit more than $1-mil bucks, in my humble opinion.
[17] Who do you think would make a better president? McCain or Obama?
The word “better” is entirely subjective. Given any specific set of criteria, either one could be considered “better” than the other. McCain has talents, and Obama has talents. Both have arguably done well for their constituents. Both, I believe, would be effective leaders of the United States, but obviously for different reasons, and in different ways. Unfortunately, because the very nature of this question is subjective to individual opinion, I do not have an answer in this venue. I look at things a little differently. Specifically, I feel that the best measure of a person as a leader should be based on their actions in leadership roles, and whether the decisions they make demonstrate adherence to the principle of “of the people, for the people, and by the people”, or if there are “special interests” that trump the “for the people” part. The “bail-out” bill was my deciding factor. I feel this bill was essentially a bandaid on a bandaid on a bandaid, and I agree with the gazillion economists and business people that stood up as said “this won’t work”. The very businesses that are being “bailed out” had /already/ demonstrated [in my opinion, in some cases /criminal/] irresponsibility, and yet, the government leaders in the house and senate, felt like it was a good Idea to give them even /more/ money, paid for by you and I this time, to try is all again. Some of those business have already demonstrated a /second/ time, that they’re just as imbecilic the second time around. (For proof of this assertion, check out some recent news regarding the “retreats” for AIG and Lehman Brothers executives). In my opinion - and the opinions of millions of Americans, including economists and business people - this bill was not a wise proposal, and voting for it was not a sound decision. The records show that both McCain and Obama voted “yes” on the bill. I do not feel that anyone that truly has the best interests of this nation and its people could, in good conscience, vote /for/ this bill, especially given the absurd amount of “pork bellies” that it contained. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: I submit to you, that the votes in Washington DC ARE absolutely For Sale to the highest bidder! Name your pork belly, and you too can have that vote! In summary, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for either of the two, major-party candidates. I respect McCain for his candor and as a fellow naval service member. I respect Obama because of his ideas and his refreshing charisma. I respect them both as elected and dedicated leaders for their constituents and our country. But “better” is relative.
[18] Are you afraid others will judge you from reading some of your answers?
Afraid? Not at all. I am an anonymous, digital personification of a long-dead exotic feline, posting comments on a site that display mostly anthropomorphic artworks. Are ANY of us firmly rooted in reality? Given that truth, I’m not sure that anyone here has the /right/ to judge anyone else, and even if they /did/, I’m not sure I’d put much value or weight in their judgement. If the question is really to ask: “Are you afraid of offending someone else with your answers?” then the answer is also “No; not at all.” Everyone has the right to their own opinion. Freedom guarantees that right. Of course, by the same token, it also guarantees that NO ONE has the right to subject anyone else to that opinion. These responses here are /my/ opinions, and mine alone. If someone out there is offended by my opinions, then that is their problem and not mine. They were not forced at gunpoint or with threat of bodily harm to read my opinions; they did so of their own free will, and have no one but themselves to blame for their feelings of offence. With that fact having been stated, any flames or attempted challenges or arguments to these opinions will be most cheerily ignored. If you wish to express your own opinions, then feel free to comment to your heart’s content! I most certainly encourage it. Or even better yet, steal the meme and fill it all out, and post it as your own journal. I’ll even read it if you want me to. :)
[01] Do you have the guts to answer these questions and re-post as The Controversial Survey?
Uh...considering that it’s here, in a written form, and posted on a world-wide-accessible forum, I’d say the answer to that would be obvious.
[02] Would you do meth if it was legalized, and become a strung-out, whithered husk of a man/woman you are now?
No. I did all the drugs that looked interesting to me in my younger, crazier, more-foolish years, so I’ve gotten it all out of my system (no pun intended). Now that I am a little older and wiser (perhaps arguably in both cases), I have very little use for drugs, short of the fact that I’ve gained some valuable experience on what they are like, which can be useful when trying to counsel others about them.
[03] Abortion: for or against it?
Being that I am male, this really has limited liability or applicability to me; however, I believe that a woman has a fundamental right of choice. There are plenty of arguments for or against that approach things in every facet from biology to ethics to religion. As I counselor, I could argue from the psychological perspectives, citing such cases as rape for pro-choice. However, I look at this issue from the bigger perspective: when the government can take one of the most basic rights away from a woman, which is to say, deprive her of her right to make choices about her own body, then what right will they attempt to take next? Government has no right or jurisdiction, in my opinion, to deprive anyone of such a choice. If you are religious, then you know in your own studies about God, that the most precious gift given to us /by/ God, is the Power of Choice. I feel strongly that “man” (mankind, government, mortals, etc) does not possess the authority to remove or limit what God has granted.
[04] Do you think the world would fail with a female president?
No. I do not feel that “good leader” has anything to do with “gender”. If a woman has the credentials to be President, then I don’t think her gender has anything to do with anything. But I must point out, this is a horribly and irresponsibly slanted question. The words “...world would fail..” seems to imply that the US - I am assuming the original author of this was talking about the US President - has so much influence around the world that its collapse would cause the implosion of the universe; sorry to burst the bubble, but the world WOULD most certainly carry on.
[05] Do you believe in the death penalty?
Belief? Yes. Death Penalties DO exist. However, I think the original author of this meme might have meant: “Do you agree or disagree with the Death Penalty?” Given THAT question, I am “agree”. I am a firm believer in “a punishment to fit the crime”. If there is murder, then death is fitting justice. If there is dismemberment or maiming in the course of a crime, then equal dismemberment would be fitting justice. Of course, I have been accused of being very black-and-white. Rules are in place for a reason, as they keep the world from being a hell-hole of anarchy. “Justice” is very often a deterrent to “crime”, so I most certainly believe in “justice being served”. If people followed the rules, there would be no need for justice. In the world I live in, the vast majority of people are shitheads, so yes, I “believe” in the Death Penalty where applicable. If the crime is a speeding violation, then the Death penalty might be a bit too severe.
[06] Do you wish marijuana would be legalized already?
My response for #02 above is also applicable here. Having said that, however, there does appear to be some useful, medicinal purposes for the drug, so I am not opposed to that aspect of legalization, but I would also argue, there are plenty of other, just as effective, pain relief meds out there, that I don’t think one more is going to be the be-all-end-all of pain meds.
[07] Are you for or against premarital sex?
“Premarital” is very definitively a religious assertion. I firmly believe in the separation of church and state. Sex, or having sex, should be about love, and the desires and affections of consenting “adults”, not religious rhetoric, fire, and brimstone. I think that sex can be a very healthy and nurturing intimacy shared between two people. All moral and ethical considerations aside, sex inside, or outside, of marriage should be participated in maturely and responsibly. Sex for pleasure is fine and dandy, as long as the participants are both willing, and understand that aside from said pleasure, it’s about biological function and reproduction, and bringing unwanted offspring into the word is just stupid and irresponsible, so be safe not imbecilic. Secondly, /if/ the only reason for marriage or a “relationship” is for sex, then statistically speaking, it’s destined for failure.
[08] Do you believe in God?
Absolutely. I have studied science and physics all of my life, and there are just too many bizarre happenstances that would have to have happened for everything in the universe to have come about by “chance”. The mathematical probabilities are astronomical at best. Plus, there are many “unexplainable” things that happen. Some call it “paranormal”. Some call it “spirits”. Some call it “God”. Pick your word. My point is, SOMETHING out there MAKES things happen. Of course, there are a gazillion arguments for and against the existence of a God or the Evolutionary Theory. In the end, there isn’t enough empirical data to draw an unequivocal conclusion for /either/ one, so in the end, you must simply pick one or the other, take that leap of pure and unadulterated faith, and push the big, red, “I Believe” button in the center of your forehead. In my case, I look at a cat, or a wolf, and I simply refuse to believe that such a beautiful and magnificent creature could have happened by chance; I believe in God.
[09] Do you think same sex marriage should be legalized?
“Marriage” is a biblically defined word. I do not believe that anyone alive today has the right to either dispute or change that definition; it seems to have worked as-is for the last 2000 or so years, so it should probably still be good-to-go for another couple millennia. So if it’s about terminology and the definition of a word or the /changing/ of a definition of a word, then “no”; I am opposed to the definition change. If it’s about two people that love each other and nurture each other, having the legal rights to be with each other, and are guaranteed the SAME rights, freedoms, responsibilities, and privileges, as opposite-gender couples, then “yes” absolutely I am for it.
[10] Do you think it's wrong that so many Hispanics are illegally moving to the USA?
By the use of the term “Hispanic”, I would place this question into the firmly “racially motivated” realm. From my perspective, the US has very definitive and arguably strict rules for entry and naturalization, as do many other countries. Those rules should be followed. For those that you don’t follow the rules, there are penalties, which I feel should be enforced unilaterally, and without bias or prejudice. It is not hard to get into this country LEGALLY. It is not that hard to become a citizen LEGALLY. Yes, it requires patience and commitment, and like so many other things in life, a perhaps grand tolerance for a bit of lunacy. If any immigrant of ANY nationality, is not willing to do what it takes to “follow the rules” then my personal opinion is that they are NOT welcome here. It has nothing to do with race or with nationality. I think this same principle applies to any race and any nation. In my opinion, if someone is not willing to follow the rules with something so basic as entering a country legally, then it says something about their basic nature and in my view, represents a lack of integrity, and they should be kindly but firmly sent back to their country of origin.
[11] A twelve year old girl has a baby, should she keep it?
This question simply cannot be real. Legally, that is not an option, at least in the US, so my opinion matters very little. However, I do not feel that there is any good that comes from children having children. There are “adults” that have children, who should NOT have had children! So my answer to this question is “No; absolutely not!” Statistically speaking, a 12-year-old does not have the maturity, nor the means, to keep and raise a child of their own. Can 12-year-olds even legally get a job? What’s their resume say?
[12] Should the alcohol age be lowered to eighteen?
Yes. If someone can die in the service of their fellow citizens and country, then they should be able to have a very stiff drink first. I feel that the “drinking age” is not about “age” but “maturity”. People of EVERY age get drunk and do stupid things. If you can drink, and act responsibly, then I don’t see why an established “drinking age” is necessary. I know some 40-year-olds that are not “old enough” to drink responsibly.
[13] Should the war in Iraq be called off?
Not instantly, no, but I am a firm believer that the Iraqi people should VERY quickly step up and take charge of their country and their own people and affairs. But, for good or ill, all the allies (including the US) stepped up to the proverbial plate to topple the tyrannical dictatorship that was once in place in that country, and, by good or ill, I feel strongly that we - those same allied nations - have a duty and responsibility to the Iraqi people to safeguard their freedoms and privileges until they can safeguard and tend to their own. In the simplest of terms, any nation on this earth, that has gained the monumental privilege of Freedom, has very definitively paid for it with blood! The US was no different, although people so very much like to forget that fact. In this case, the Iraqi people also, are paying for Freedom with blood, both their own, and those of the allies that are fighting with them. Is it worth the cost? Yes! Freedom is most certainly worth the cost! I morn for my brothers- and sisters-in-arms. I abhor the loss of life and the reckless bloodshed that goes with any war, but I believe strongly and profoundly in the Ideals of Freedom, and I believe that such ideals are absolutely and without question worth fighting for. I once volunteered my /own/ blood to maintain the fight for Freedom; I came through unscathed, but so many of my brothers and sisters have not. They have paid the supreme and noble price for an ideal which they held dear enough to grant to someone /else/! How noble indeed! To honor /them/, those felled in battle, whether those battles might be arguably “foolish” or otherwise, requires us to carry on the fight until those we fight /with/ can fight on their own. I pray in earnest for a quick “withdrawl”, but I prey even /more/ earnestly, that the Ideal of Freedom, shall never pass away from this earth, and shall be available to all those people, of every nation on earth, that desire it, and are willing to fight for it.
[14] Assisted suicide is illegal: do you agree?
This is a topic very similar to #03 above. I feel that nothing of this nature can be defined in “absolute” terms. If there is, medically speaking, the possibility for the continuation of life, and significant probability of return to a reasonable quality-of-life, then I am opposed to euthanasia (aka “assisted suicide”). If someone is terminally ill, with /no/ hope of recovery, and is destined to a diminishing quality-of-life, with eventaully rapid descent into pain an agony, then I am all /for/ euthanasia. In the most basic terms, it /should/ be legal, but decided with the utmost care and judgement, on a case-by-case basis. If we have the legal right to be protected from “cruel and unusual punishment”, then shouldn’t we /also/ have the right to be exempted from the pain and agony of a terminal and debilitating illness? In my mind, /both/ have “humane treatment” at their hearts and souls. I cannot philosophically differentiate between them.
[15] Do you believe in spanking your children?
Kind of a trick question. I firmly believe in “accountability” and “responsibility”. Children should be taught that there ARE rules, and that there ARE consequences for not following them, and yet others FOR following them. The “method of enforcement” for those consequences should both “fit the crime” and “fit the child”. Some children respond well to verbal reinforcement of rules. If they break a rule, the consequence can be something simple like taking away phone privileges, or something else of that nature. Other children need a much firmer approach, such as getting spanked. I believe that child-rearing is not a cut-and-dried or black-and-white topic. There is a LOT of psychology that goes into raising a child. One thing is very certain; children do not come with an “owners manual”. So, I’ll answer this one a little differently than a “black-and-white” response. I believe in punishment appropriate for the offense and for the mental function. And what I mean by “mental function”, is that one size does NOT fit all. Use the right tool for the job. A phillips screwdriver doesn’t work well with slotted screws. Likewise, “spanking” won’t be effective - have the desired results - for all children. “Spanking” CAN be effective. It was for me, and many people that I know. But for my brother, not so much. For others that I know, not so much. So my point here is that “discipline”, as a methodology for teaching responsibility and accountability, is an integral part of child rearing. Statistically speaking, spanking as a black-and-white, blanket policy for discipline is not going to be very effective.
[16] Would you burn an American flag for a million dollars?
It depends entirely on the context of the action. There is nothing inherently wrong with burning a flag. It is, in fact, the only way to properly dispose of a flag. So if the act is JUST and ONLY about lighting a flag on fire, making it burn to ash, and then picking up my cold, hard, unsequential, unmarked greenbacks, then sign me up! If it’s about some form of political statement, intended to disgrace the symbology or meaning of the flag, then I just don’t need $1-mil that badly. I see the flag of my country as the Symbol of the Ideal of Freedom. In that light, perhaps it’s cliche’ish to say, but what is the price of Freedom? A bit more than $1-mil bucks, in my humble opinion.
[17] Who do you think would make a better president? McCain or Obama?
The word “better” is entirely subjective. Given any specific set of criteria, either one could be considered “better” than the other. McCain has talents, and Obama has talents. Both have arguably done well for their constituents. Both, I believe, would be effective leaders of the United States, but obviously for different reasons, and in different ways. Unfortunately, because the very nature of this question is subjective to individual opinion, I do not have an answer in this venue. I look at things a little differently. Specifically, I feel that the best measure of a person as a leader should be based on their actions in leadership roles, and whether the decisions they make demonstrate adherence to the principle of “of the people, for the people, and by the people”, or if there are “special interests” that trump the “for the people” part. The “bail-out” bill was my deciding factor. I feel this bill was essentially a bandaid on a bandaid on a bandaid, and I agree with the gazillion economists and business people that stood up as said “this won’t work”. The very businesses that are being “bailed out” had /already/ demonstrated [in my opinion, in some cases /criminal/] irresponsibility, and yet, the government leaders in the house and senate, felt like it was a good Idea to give them even /more/ money, paid for by you and I this time, to try is all again. Some of those business have already demonstrated a /second/ time, that they’re just as imbecilic the second time around. (For proof of this assertion, check out some recent news regarding the “retreats” for AIG and Lehman Brothers executives). In my opinion - and the opinions of millions of Americans, including economists and business people - this bill was not a wise proposal, and voting for it was not a sound decision. The records show that both McCain and Obama voted “yes” on the bill. I do not feel that anyone that truly has the best interests of this nation and its people could, in good conscience, vote /for/ this bill, especially given the absurd amount of “pork bellies” that it contained. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: I submit to you, that the votes in Washington DC ARE absolutely For Sale to the highest bidder! Name your pork belly, and you too can have that vote! In summary, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for either of the two, major-party candidates. I respect McCain for his candor and as a fellow naval service member. I respect Obama because of his ideas and his refreshing charisma. I respect them both as elected and dedicated leaders for their constituents and our country. But “better” is relative.
[18] Are you afraid others will judge you from reading some of your answers?
Afraid? Not at all. I am an anonymous, digital personification of a long-dead exotic feline, posting comments on a site that display mostly anthropomorphic artworks. Are ANY of us firmly rooted in reality? Given that truth, I’m not sure that anyone here has the /right/ to judge anyone else, and even if they /did/, I’m not sure I’d put much value or weight in their judgement. If the question is really to ask: “Are you afraid of offending someone else with your answers?” then the answer is also “No; not at all.” Everyone has the right to their own opinion. Freedom guarantees that right. Of course, by the same token, it also guarantees that NO ONE has the right to subject anyone else to that opinion. These responses here are /my/ opinions, and mine alone. If someone out there is offended by my opinions, then that is their problem and not mine. They were not forced at gunpoint or with threat of bodily harm to read my opinions; they did so of their own free will, and have no one but themselves to blame for their feelings of offence. With that fact having been stated, any flames or attempted challenges or arguments to these opinions will be most cheerily ignored. If you wish to express your own opinions, then feel free to comment to your heart’s content! I most certainly encourage it. Or even better yet, steal the meme and fill it all out, and post it as your own journal. I’ll even read it if you want me to. :)
Glad to see you are still around. I was actually thinking about you the other day, wondering where you went off to.