Holy...Political Compass in Chinese!!!

Dann, the real request I have for you is to check my translation. :evil:

Actually in your OP you have "Human rights above souvreignty" as the third questions, but in my test it's the second.

Edit to avoid doublepost:
(Editet my translation becasue it was rubbish, I nitially confused a character)

Third question is for me 西方的多党制不适合中国国情 : Western multi-party system doesn't fit the circumstaces in China. In your list it's question 8. Looks like the order of the questions is random.
 
Hmm, to avoid the potential Randomness aspect, I'll just answer them verbally.


1. If the mass are not educated with democratic ideas/doctrines, universal suffrage should not be given.
Agree, as if they don't understand it, they can be taken advantage of and basically bullied to vote in the interests of their employers or whoever understands it, rather than their own.

However, caution needs to be taken in this route.


2. It is disappointing that economists in China are now a bunch of spokespersons of the rich elites.
Agree, though barely.

Some aren't.

3. Human rights above sovereignty.
Disagree. Sometimes things just have to get done. However, that in no way means they can go and shoot you at random because they feel like it.

It just means that the individual's wants should not be the one to screw over the state.

4. No blame laid on consensual adult pre-marriage sex.
Strongly Agree.

5. The elites take away much of the economic growth these years, the majority don't enjoy much of the benefits.
Agree. Shanghai, one of the most developed cities in China still has people sleeping out in the streets as an example.

6. The government should not block information flows of a large-scale event such as earthquake, famine or epidemics, even some of the information may causes riots and mass disorder.(ie.SARS)
Agree, but withholding information until a clear picture is developed is good, otherwise you get plain wrong information believed to be facts because it was the first thing that people heard, but fundamentally it should be released.

7. Social interest comes before individual interest in large projects. (ie.Three Gorges Dam)
While I myself am against the Three Gorges Dam, Agree fundamentally.

8. Western style multi-party/bi-party system doesn't apply in China.
Disagree.

9. No criticism should be laid publicly (via talks, blogs, etc.) against one's own elder relatives.
Disagree. I don't like my parents, and I want to be able to express that. Doesn't mean I will refuse to obey them, but if the reason is stupid, I won't.

10. It is individual liberty to waste food (and consumer goods).
Strongly disagree. Those people piss me off, and I wish terrible things upon them whenever I see them.

Working in a cafeteria, I die every time they make me throw out food because no one bought it. :(

11. Social disorder would happen if Western style freedom of speech is applied in China.


12. Confucianism is needed in a modernized China.
Agree, but be selective of it. Don't adopt the stupid out of date ones, but a lot are very useful at keeping order.

13. Higher tax rate for riches (grader system) should be implanted in order to improve social justice.
Strongly Agree. They tend to use the government's services (roads, infrastructure, etc) more, so they should pay more by percentage.

14. Colleges and universities would better pick applicants with university-specific examinations, rather than a homogeneous nation/province wide examination.
Disagree. It encourages diversity to have people from different parts of the nation be ranked with their peers, as opposed to with everyone in the nation has a grade and colleges and universities pick and choose based on the grade.

15. Higher tariff should be applied in order to protect domestic industries.
Disagree. If you are just bad at making product X, don't make product X, and make something you're good at.

However, using Tariffs for income is perfectly acceptable.

16. Religious priests, monks, etc. should be allowed to preach freely outside temples, churches, mosques etc. in the public.
Agree, but define in public. If it's in like a public space that's everyone's ownership (like a park), fine. If it's asking for use of a government building, not so much. And they cannot force other religious denominations away because they got there first. (Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Shinto/Taoist/etc. priest/appropriate-term has no right forcing someone away because they got to the public space first. In their own temple/church/mosque is fine, but not in a public space.)

17. Works of art aren't worthless when there're people enjoying it and buying it.
Strongly Agree. If someone is willing to pay for it, of course they're not worthless. I might not like it (I don't like most modern art), but I'm not going to declare it to be worthless when people obviously assign it value.

18. Foreign investment must be limited, and it's growth should be monitored. No laissez-faire for foreign capitals.
Strongly Agree. Last time that happened, they kinda started to cordon off their own spheres of influence in China where pretty much turned into their land. Of course foreign investment has to be watched, for every country.

19. Nation wide military training should be mandatory for primary, secondary and college students.
Strongly disagree. While I understand why it would be necessary, but it does heavily disrupt your learning process if you take a few years off of education to go serve in the military.


20. State-owned and collective property (village's public property etc.) should be protected prior to individual property.
Strongly agree. Why should the state go save the individual before the people when a disaster strikes?

21. Government intervention of the price of real estate is dangerous economically and socially.
Strongly agree. Price setting doesn't work at all.

22. Sovereignty and territorial integrity have the first priority to be protected, since it is the ultimate interest of the whole society.
Strongly Agree. There are exceptions though, but those are rare.

23. In order to improve life standard of the poor, state welfare (money assistantships, discount of taxes and such) is the best tool.
Agree. I don't think trickle down works so well.

24. The western world led by US view China as their ultimate enemy, they wouldn't allow or tolerate China to grow up to a super-power.
Agree. Yes, they detest China immensely. However, they might not want to allow China to do so, but they won't do something stupid and self destructive to remove them. They would very grudgingly tolerate China as a superpower, much like they grudgingly tolerated the Soviet Union.

Even if China were to turn Democratic, and started to respect human rights far more would they keep up this attitude.

25. It is individual liberty to decide his/her family size.
Strongly Agree.

However, it is the government's choice on how much free services they would give out to them. (if they have more than the suggested amount, the government need not give the others free or greatly discounted primary/secondary education)


26. Although competitions may reduce the value of the state-owned industries, they should not be specially protected. (No privilege to state-owned property)
Strongly Agree.

Monopolies suck, and if the state protects an industry, they will have monopolistic tenancies.

27. An official news agency should be set up to represent people's interests, and such role should be guaranteed. (Xinhua News Agency)

Strongly Agree. However, this by no means precludes other sources from being illegal or discouraged.

28. People with high income should publish sources of their income regularly.
Agree.

29. Leaders of China could appear on the comics.
Strongly Agree. Criticism is good. So long as they are constructive criticism.

30. Zhou-yi (A famous ancient book of China, which is about fortune-telling and predictions, similar to astrology) is an digest of Chinese ancestor's wisdom, which can effectively explains and predicts many events.
Strongly (strongly strongly strongly) disagree. Screw you astrology, you stupid version of Astronomy. I really hate it when people mix up the two. One is stupid, and the other is awesome.

31. Robin Hood style is justified.
Strongly disagree. Vigilantes are never justified. Sure, they may be right on some things, but taking the law into your own hands is just plain wrong.

32. When laws fail to deliver enough punishment to deter/stop crimes, extreme methods against crimes should be tolerated. (Lynching)
Disagree. Lynching is similar to Vigilantism. However, making legal punishments for crimes more severe is acceptable.
33. Chinese traditional/herbal medicine has some advantages that modern medicine couldn't possibly match.
Disagree. "couldn't possibly" is the problem. Some traditional medicine works better because they got the right chemicals by chance, and the medicines didn't kill anyone or debilitate them, and have been perfected over hundreds to thousands of years.

However, it is possible for western medicine to get the right combination of chemicals to reproduce the same results if enough time and effort were put into it.

That being said, western medicine is overall better than traditional medicine still.

34. Instead of letting state-owned or collectively owned installment go bankruptcy, selling them to private owners would be better. (Privatizing)
Agree.

35. The state doesn't have obligation of international aid.
Disagree. It's good for your image. However, you have no need to aid enemies, unless if you want to improve relations.

36. Key industries should be state controlled. (Petroleum, Telecommunication, Aviation, Military industries etc.)
Disagree. Monopolies are intrinsic in this system. However, completely no regulation is bad also; possibly worse.

37. If the state power allowed, China should use any means possible to protect her interests.
Agree. Though, within reason. Carpet bombing a riot is unacceptable. Firing tear gas at them is.

Invading another country to protect your interests... Depends on if it is worth the cost and the reputation hit.

38. TV stations should make high-standard programs instead of pursuing rates.
Disagree. However, some high standard programs have their merits, even if they are unpopular.

39. The accumulation of capital is deprivation of average people.
Disagree. While it may lead to it, the accumulation of it is not in itself deprivation of average people.

40. We should attack Taiwan when military strength allows, no mercy for Taiwanese.
Disagree. Having parents from Taiwan, I don't particularly like the "attack" part. However, I do believe Taiwan is part of China, but protesting the government because of the policies. Change some of the authoritarian policies, and they should integrate with China fine.

It's sort of like Texas, but different policies. :p

41. Using classical (Confucius, Lao Tse etc.) materials as children's books is plausible.
Strongly Agree. They have stuff like the Iliad and the Odyssey as childrens books, or at least child friendly. I've listened to a childrens version of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms as a child. I don't see why not.

42. Even when crisis or depression happened, there should be no way back to the pre-Deng era.
Strongly Agree. Societies change. You can't regress society, because it doesn't work that way.

43. Nationalized the military.
Strongly Agree. Privately owned military is a horrible idea. Horrible, horrible, horrible...

44. Government should buy foods from peasant with a higher price to protect agriculture.
Agree. This I agree with because agriculture should be protected. It's not wise relying on other countries for food, and you should always grow your own. Not necessary to produce your own industry for every food, but just to make sure you won't starve if they stop selling you food.

Though, I disagree with excessive protectionism to the point that you regress into an agricultural state.

45. Allow dual-citizenship for those oversea Chinese who obtain a foreign citizenship.
Agree.

46. Homosexuals should not be discriminated or marginalized.
Strongly Agree. There's nothing wrong with them. Why would they need to be discriminated or marginalized? All the homosexuals I know are very nice people.

47. No need to develop equivalents of products which are available in the world market.
Agree. No need to re-invent the wheel, but if you have an idea how to make it better, or make it more cheaply without significant loss of quality, go ahead.

48. Even if the trials and evidences are flawed, severe criminals should still receive capital punishment when the crime itself should be dealt with death penalty according to the law.
Strongly disagree. "Even if the trials and evidences are flawed" doesn't sound like they are sure they are even guilty based on this. However, I do support the death penalty for the most severe of crimes. Mass/serial whatever for example. Just the proof needs to be beyond all reasonable doubt.

49. Government should not intervene the price of agricultural products (reducing it).
Agree. Price setting again.

50. the state should use more fund on athletic projects, to produce more medals in international competitions.
Disagree. Funding athletic projects, yes, much like a grant. To produce more medals in international competitions? Well, not for that explicit purpose... And they should be more focused on education, rather than athleticism. Athleticism may do good for a country's image in the short term, but education has more rewards.
 
Actually in your OP you have "Human rights above souvreignty" as the third questions, but in my test it's the second.

Edit to avoid doublepost:
(Editet my translation becasue it was rubbish, I nitially confused a character)

Third question is for me 西方的多党制不适合中国国情 : Western multi-party system doesn't fit the circumstaces in China. In your list it's question 8. Looks like the order of the questions is random.

Sorry, the original page was updated...
 
I find it amusing that a country in which the people have no democratic participation has a survey on democratic participation. Maybe there's one in Iran too.
 
I find it amusing that a country in which the people have no democratic participation has a survey on democratic participation. Maybe there's one in Iran too.

You're always free to join the communist party :mischief:
 
您的结果

政治立场坐标
-0.4

文化立场坐标
-0.6

经济立场坐标
-0.2

Hope your translations were good,;) sometimes I felt like they connotated different meanings than I was answering.
 
If it is anything like the Soviet Union, they have free elections, its just there is only one party on the ballot.

What happens when a ton of people write in another party. Fudge the results?

Also, for question 48, how "Flawed" are the trials? I mean, they will always be flawed of course. But, if its "Beyond reasonable doubt" like the US, that's different then it being "Because the Communist Party said so."
 
What happens when a ton of people write in another party. Fudge the results?
Write-ins aren't allowed in a legitimate election.

Also, for question 48, how "Flawed" are the trials? I mean, they will always be flawed of course. But, if its "Beyond reasonable doubt" like the US, that's different then it being "Because the Communist Party said so."
I'm assuming that either there was improper procedure in gathering the evidence of the prosecution felt that there was not proof beyond reasonable doubt,
 
Write-ins aren't allowed in a legitimate election.

Yes they are.
I'm assuming that either there was improper procedure in gathering the evidence of the prosecution felt that there was not proof beyond reasonable doubt,

Giving ANY Punishment without proof beyond reasonable doubt is wrong, let alone capital.

Beg Pardon? Do you have a problem with our Presidential elections?

Actually, I personally sort of like the idea of ALL write ins, with the state not bothering to endorse ANY Candidates by placing them on the ballot.

Then, people would actually have to educate themselves a bit.

But, write-ins are COMPLETELY legitimate.
 
Giving ANY Punishment without proof beyond reasonable doubt is wrong, let alone capital.
Yet it happens. Look up the Sacco and Vanzeti case.

Actually, I personally sort of like the idea of ALL write ins, with the state not bothering to endorse ANY Candidates by placing them on the ballot.

Then, people would actually have to educate themselves a bit.

But, write-ins are COMPLETELY legitimate.
[/QUOTE]
I've never liked the idea of write-ins. It splits the political parties to the point where we would regularly get plurality elections which just tends to lead to disaster.
But apparently they are legit. I stand corrected.
 
Yet it happens. Look up the Sacco and Vanzeti case.

I looked it up, but to me its irrelevant since I already acknowledge this.

[/QUOTE]
I've never liked the idea of write-ins. It splits the political parties to the point where we would regularly get plurality elections which just tends to lead to disaster.
But apparently they are legit. I stand corrected.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but no. If the two major parties are both stupid, you should be able to vote for someone else.
 
Sorry, but no. If the two major parties are both stupid, you should be able to vote for someone else.
Then you should have gotten involved in the primaries so the smarter canidate could have been nominated. If your views are so smart, then there has to be someone else out there who you could support in an election bid.
 
Then you should have gotten involved in the primaries so the smarter canidate could have been nominated. If your views are so smart, then there has to be someone else out there who you could support in an election bid.

Well, what if you were, but they still weren't nominated?

You have the right to vote for whoever the heck you want!
 
Well, what if you were, but they still weren't nominated?
Then accept it and work for the new canidate. Just because you don't get your way in a democracy is no cause for a hissy fit.
 
Giving ANY Punishment without proof beyond reasonable doubt is wrong, let alone capital.
I find it ironic you're saying this when you justify individuals giving capital punishment for theft before the situation is understood. :p

Sorry, but no. If the two major parties are both stupid, you should be able to vote for someone else.

Not likely to happen in America for many people to utilize it effectively because of the traditional two party system. Tradition generates tradition (much like a bunch of other inefficient things in the world)...

But there do exist third (or even fourth) party candidates on ballots, so it's not limited to two parties, but those rarely ever get a significant portion of the vote.

Also, write-ins cause problems in large scale voting, especially with illegible handwriting. And it complicates things because you have to have other people double check to avoid people saying they're "illegible" and throwing out votes.
 
How does that work then? What are their laws about internet usage and freedom to speak against the government?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_law

No idea about Chinese Law, so I tried to find a wiki page. Surprise!

Speaking against the government in large crowds/rallies (think Tianamen shootings) I believe are allowed "officially". But most everyone is very patriotic to the government from what I found, so if you are known to be a demonstrator from Tiananen, you wouldn't exactly be hired normally. So you don't do it. And of course the Chinese government is very hush hush about these things. Their public law is pretty good, but if somebody is taken out of their home, esp. in a near 100% Chinese citizens(think backwater areas), I doubt the media will find it and report it.

Internet usage is not restricted to a sense, as China operates on an open market, therefore you can buy and sell all the stuff you want. Websites(Youtube coming foremost) are blocked. But then again, when California is putting bans on M-rated video games, and free music is rare, what is the problem?

@Plarq or anyone else in China- How does the Communist Party stay in power all the time? Do they use sham elections? Do they just forget elections and remain dictators forever?

One party system and people are loyal.

Disclaimer: I am an American citizen, always have been. Born in the States, however parents immigrated here, so I am a first generation immigrant. What I post above probably isn't all true, and is based off what I see and hear.

Feel free to rip me apart, plarq and others!
 
I find it ironic you're saying this when you justify individuals giving capital punishment for theft before the situation is understood. :p

WHILE they are robbing you and fleeing with your stuff or stealing from you, unless you are on drugs, there is nothing to misunderstand, unless you are taking a hallucinogen, you see someone robbing you, you kill them. I wouldn't necessarily morally support this kind of justice, but felons should not have the freedom of legal protection while committing a crime.

Not likely to happen in America for many people to utilize it effectively because of the traditional two party system. Tradition generates tradition (much like a bunch of other inefficient things in the world)...

True.

But there do exist third (or even fourth) party candidates on ballots, so it's not limited to two parties, but those rarely ever get a significant portion of the vote.

Unfortunately, but since everyone does it that way, there's not much one can do.

Also, write-ins cause problems in large scale voting, especially with illegible handwriting. And it complicates things because you have to have other people double check to avoid people saying they're "illegible" and throwing out votes.

Do it via machine and have the voters type in the candidate they want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_law

No idea about Chinese Law, so I tried to find a wiki page. Surprise!

Speaking against the government in large crowds/rallies (think Tianamen shootings) I believe are allowed "officially". But most everyone is very patriotic to the government from what I found, so if you are known to be a demonstrator from Tiananen, you wouldn't exactly be hired normally. So you don't do it. And of course the Chinese government is very hush hush about these things. Their public law is pretty good, but if somebody is taken out of their home, esp. in a near 100% Chinese citizens(think backwater areas), I doubt the media will find it and report it.

Internet usage is not restricted to a sense, as China operates on an open market, therefore you can buy and sell all the stuff you want. Websites(Youtube coming foremost) are blocked. But then again, when California is putting bans on M-rated video games, and free music is rare, what is the problem?



One party system and people are loyal.

Disclaimer: I am an American citizen, always have been. Born in the States, however parents immigrated here, so I am a first generation immigrant. What I post above probably isn't all true, and is based off what I see and hear.

Feel free to rip me apart, plarq and others!

Well, thanks for the Wiki Page.

As for "What's the problem?" I answer, everything, and California is being dumb too, that said, I never said California was a very pro-freedom kind of place:mischief:
 
Dom said:
Do it via machine and have the voters type in the candidate they want.
That would require basicaly re-doing all the voting machines so they include a keyboard. That will cost a ****load of money.

Unfortunately, but since everyone does it that way, there's not much one can do.
Break the mold! Don't be a sheeple!

but felons should not have the freedom of legal protection while committing a crime.
Wait, what? Innocent until proven guilty through due process and if applicable, a trial by jury.
 
That would require basicaly re-doing all the voting machines so they include a keyboard. That will cost a ****load of money.

You are probably right in the practical sense. I was talking ideals. Ideally I would support such a move. I'm well aware of why it wouldn't work easily practically. I believe it could and should be done in some form eventually, but I'm aware of the problems and would support slow change.

Wait, what? Innocent until proven guilty through due process and if applicable, a trial by jury.

Of course, AFTER THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED. While the crime is being committed, all witnesses are aware of the guilty parties' guilt. Unless you are saying "Well its OK to break into someone's house and steal if you are starving" which is obviously nuts.

Also, its why, in other countries, you have the freedom to be a criminal or fodder for one, which is part of the reason I call them totalitarian.
 
Top Bottom