Government Survey discussion

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Okay, I want to know how anyone could have answered D ("An ordinary person... should obey all laws") for the first question. I'm looking at you, guys - Daniel, KKK, Van Siclen, and Vern Gagne, and anyone else I missed.

 

Maybe I read too much into the question, but the way I see it, you have to assess every law for yourself, and you should obey it if and only if it sits well with your conscience. I'd much rather have citizens question legislature intelligently than blindly "obey all laws" just because they're laws.

[Guest Slapnuts00]

Marney, I didn't answer my own survey, but I'd probably lean towards D. As I interpret it, it means that as a citizen you have freedoms to live how you wish, which means you shouldn't be forced into being interested in community affairs, after all it's not a socialist country. But to prevent anarchy, there still needs to be respect for the laws and your fellow citizens. But I can see how Obey ALL laws can be viewed as extreme. I gave it to my statistics teacher and she thought it was a horrible survey. She said most questions were too biased, and there was no real middle ground ("Very Little" vs. "Not Much"). I didn't make it, I just give it out.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

As I interpret it, it means that as a citizen you have freedoms to live how you wish, which means you shouldn't be forced into being interested in community affairs, after all it's not a socialist country.

True, but the first question was couched in the word "should," which to me implied moral obligation, not legal. I do feel it's everyone's moral obligation to improve the nation and the world, and the only way to do that is by getting involved in the community.

"Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity."

- Horace Mann, 1859

 

But to prevent anarchy, there still needs to be respect for the laws and your fellow citizens.

I believe that unjust laws can be disobeyed without disrespect for the institution of law.

 

But I can see how Obey ALL laws can be viewed as extreme.

Yeah, it's a matter of emphasis, I guess. I saw "obey all laws" and immediately thought of the countless atrocities that have been perpetrated in the name of obedience to authority rather than conscience.

 

my statistics teacher... thought it was a horrible survey. She said most questions were too biased, and there was no real middle ground

I don't think it was a horrible survey, in fact I think it was quite good. And I don't think the questions were biased. They weren't leading in any way, as far as I could tell. As for the difference between "very little" and "not much," I suppose I can see where she's coming from, but the ABCDE structure makes it perfectly clear that "C. Not Much" is a middle ground. She can quarrel with the choice of words, but the structural basis is unexceptionable.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I break about 2 or 3 laws every day with absolutely no qualms.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

Me too. I consider myself to be an ordinary person, but I regularly break some of the more pointless laws. *Takes sip of Mike's Hard Lemonade* Ack, there's one now! I think it's important for everyone to obey certain laws, but I think keeping in touch with community affairs is more important than obedience of *all* laws.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Definitely. That's why I'm planning on running for mayor, but still smoke weed, speed like a demon, and flick cigarette butts out the window, which is somehow considered littering around here now.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

Definitely. That's why I'm planning on running for mayor, but still smoke weed, speed like a demon, and flick cigarette butts out the window, which is somehow considered littering around here now.

If you're not flicking the cigarette butts into the eyes of pedestrians, it's not worthwhile!

 

...okay, so maybe that's one of the laws worth upholding.

[Guest papacita]

my statistics teacher... thought it was a horrible survey. She said most questions were too biased, and there was no real middle ground

I don't think it was a horrible survey, in fact I think it was quite good. And I don't think the questions were biased. They weren't leading in any way, as far as I could tell. As for the difference between "very little" and "not much," I suppose I can see where she's coming from, but the ABCDE structure makes it perfectly clear that "C. Not Much" is a middle ground. She can quarrel with the choice of words, but the structural basis is unexceptionable.

I have mixed feelings about the survey. I agree with Marney's saying that the ABCDE stuff was pretty straightforward, but for some of questions (3, 4 and 7 to be specific), it's really hard to answer that with a simple "yes" or "no". For the war question, I'm sure a lot of people who chose "no" would've voted differently if a "maybe" option had been added.

 

Not me though. Nope.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Yeah, I can go with Papacita's criticism of 3 and 4. They weren't all that meaningful. 7, though, was fine. Nuanced questions (ie, if the question had said "defend" instead of "fight for") tend to be leading and manipulative, and overly nuanced answers (ie, a "Maybe" option) give no useful information. A straight yes or no gets at people's core beliefs.

[Guest papacita]

I see what you mean, Marney. "Maybe" really isn't a good way to reach the core beliefs, but for that matter, neither does a simple "yes" or "no", IMO. In all honesty, although I wouldn't want to fight for the U.S. Army, if it all came down to it, I can't honestly say that I wouldn't fight.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Well, it forces the respondent to make a difficult choice. Is his or her patriotism stronger than the natural fear of death, or a belief in nonviolence, or any other factor? This site has a great survey, and if you'll notice they don't have any medial option at all. It's just "Strongly Agree," "Agree," "Disagree," or "Strongly Disagree." This measures first inclination and then passion, and doesn't let you take a middle way. That's how you get responses which really tell you something about how people think. Always make the question as objective as possible (thus, "fight for" rather than "defend," because "defend" has too many positive connotations) and make the only available answers hard and completely unequivocal.

[Guest danielisthor]

Okay, I want to know how anyone could have answered D ("An ordinary person... should obey all laws") for the first question. I'm looking at you, guys - Daniel, KKK, Van Siclen, and Vern Gagne, and anyone else I missed.

 

Maybe I read too much into the question, but the way I see it, you have to assess every law for yourself, and you should obey it if and only if it sits well with your conscience. I'd much rather have citizens question legislature intelligently than blindly "obey all laws" just because they're laws.

Well i could take it one of a few ways.

 

1.) Being a military brat (till my parents divorced when i was 4) and my stepfather's "career" in corrections, i was pretty much brought up to follow orders, rules and laws.

 

2.) Ordinary people should obey all laws. Because, the special people should be allowed to break them. With myself feeling special i tend to lax on certain rules such as speed limits and coming to a full and complete stop at stop signs when no other traffic is coming across my path.

 

 

3.) I don't believe people should have to be active or participate in their community or in their religion. Specially in Jersey where the tax the shit out of you for every little thing and pass stupid laws and codes to be followed.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The problem I had with B which was alot of people's answers was it said "have an interest in community affairs". If it would of said something like people should know about community affairs or even follow community affairs, than D wouldn't of been my choice.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I think the world would be a better place if everyone followed Jim Carey's line in Liar Liar...

 

"STOP BREAKING THE LAW @SSHOLE!"

 

There's nothing wrong with a little peaceful protest, and I don't advocate jailtime for people who remove that "forbidden" tag from their new pillow, but if you obey the laws of the land then you'll be better off...

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I said my reasoning for B on my answer itself. It is good to be interested, but there are 1) people better suited to be active and 2) if everyone was busy protesting and such, nothing else would get done.

 

Kotzenjunge

Wasn't One of the People in Question, but Felt a Need to Answer Anyway

[Guest Retro Rob]

When I answered the first question, I just thought of myself. I consider myself to be ordinary and Choice B applied best when it came to me.

 

As for the laws, I break many laws, therefore I don't think that should be the answer for ANY ordinary person. Reason being, by ordinary, you probably mean the majority, which as we all know are habitual law breakers in one way or another. Now the question did have the word "should" in it. After taking that into consideration, I don't think the majority of people SHOULD be expected to folow all laws. It is just human nature to go against at least one of them. Hell, you may be breaking a law and not even notice it at the time.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

A person can get along just as well by doing what they want in their own home, and treating others with respect outside of it. Laws just try to put that unwritten rule into complex documents. There are stupid laws, though.