I always remember the question "Trying to rehabilitate some criminals is a waste of time" from the original political compass test. My answer was always agree or strongly agree.

I think some subset of people, unfortunately, whether it is nature or nurture, are going to be criminals.

Like I would be fine appointing warrior monks to weigh the souls of the accused and decide if it's quarantine or guidance.

lol

That would be amazing

Maybe we could castrate the really bad criminals and just make the servants of the monks

At least that way you can get something out of them

That sounds like a reasonable option for some.

As long as their quarantine isn't a social drain or danger all options are on the table for the corrupted and damned.

Yeah. That's the problem with prisons. Keeping prisoners alive costs a lot. So you want some kind of payoff

@McFansy Did you take this compass? I'm curious.

Tag me if you post it sometime.

I hate these kind of tests.

Don't be a faggot.

^

take the test, you nerd!

Ha

Honestly I could live in a communist society as long as my group is being taken care of.

Honestly, I hate these kinds of tests too, but this one's not as bad. The questions are pretty straight forward and to the point. There's not a lot of, " well depends and what they mean by that and the situation"

The first item I got in it was: Hacking has a legitimate place in political struggle.

legitimacy is defined by the winners

So agree or neutral. Easy.

like principles

principles tend to just lock in the current system as it is

hmm, principals are an instrument to enforce the status quo. Interesting, but I'll have to think on that.

Principals are self-enforced

Think of the principles our current system suggests that you adopt. Do the opposite

You are correct that principals are handed down, from authority.

I suppose you could even say from the Principal.

I'm going to have to think about the relationship between principals and integrity. That's interesting, there's something to this that I haven't considered before.

I always thought that someone who embodied integrity was someone who held to their principals. But, if the principals are bestowed from authority, then they didn't originate from the individual.

I don't accept moral relativism, so the authority that bestowed the principals is either moral and just, or not.

If the moral authority is corrupt, and the principals are held, then the individual has integrity.

..but is corrupt.

Mind blown

Then you have to bring in the realist point of view. The Melian Dialogue is one of my favorites.

Wait is that true what I was thinking out loud there? Does that check out? An individual with integrity only means that they are intact with the principals that were bestowed on them from the authority and has no bearing on morality?

not all principles come from authority

like in most of life, it depends

the most principled communist might have integrity with how he defines it, but he can still do evil to others

Most of my life I've held Integrity as my highest value, but I haven't revisited it in awhile.