Reverse Poll

[Annika L]

I thought it was time for a new poll. But there is a problem with polls. All too often, a position is posted that is supposed to be binary or straightforward, but when particularly thoughtful people read it, they find that the options posted don't really cover their viewpoint, and there is no sensible way for them to reply. So I thought it would be a fun experiment to eliminate the need for choosing an appropriate answer to a complex question. Instead, I submit to you a straightforward answer, and you can choose the question(s) that best suit(s) you to go with it.

[pepperjack]

So this works like the game Jeopardy? Sounds like fun. I like straightforward.

[Long Duck Dong]

honestly I can say yes to all of them in some varying degree, it all depends on the situation and the people....

the one that I struggle with the most, is things like freedom of speech... I have no problem with a persons right to express themselves... its what they say, that I have the issues with.... the name calling, abuse, offensive statements etc, that do not need to be a part of a objection or support for a ideal or a understanding.....

the WBC is a fine example, they may hate fags etc... but protesting funerals is another matter entirely.....

[Annika L]

Yeah, fun, isn't it?

Only, ducky, you aren't saying "yes" to them...you're saying you're firmly *against* them.

The last option was originally going to be "Reading and/or thinking for pleasure", but then I decided why stop there?

[tenni]

Hi
I am a little unclear about
I am firmly against "People who hold a firm stance against things (and all other forms of self-loathing)."


I am not firmly against people who hold a firm stance against things. I don't understand the connection to "self loathing" though?

I don't think that I am firmly against any of the items/issues mentioned though.

[Annika L]

*smile* Hi tenni,

If a person *is* firmly against people who hold a firm stance against things, then they are firmly against themselves, yes? That is the connection to self-loathing.

Happy to clarify!

[Gearbox]

Well I managed to tick 4.
I'm not against freedom of speech as such, but still ticked it because I'd like some who misuse it to STFU! Dan Savage springs to mind.:rolleyes: Not sure if protesting against someone's verbal diarrhoea is setting limits on FOS or not.

I don't support child labour, sweat shops, burglary, mugging, car-jacking etc that make somebody money.lol
I disprove of spammers and scammers etc which maybe legal, but still don't make it ok.
I'm against self loathing, as it gets on my tits for one reason of many!:eek2:

[darkeyes]

*smile* Hi tenni,

If a person *is* firmly against people who hold a firm stance against things, then they are firmly against themselves, yes? That is the connection to self-loathing.

Happy to clarify!
Hmmm.. a lil tenuous Annika.. am firmly against eating too much choccie but it has nowt 2 do with self loathing... bootie preservation maybe... but not self loathing... and b4 u try an tell me if I end up wiv a huge bootie I wud loathe mesel, is not so... mite h8 size of me bootie an' other such roly polyness but not mesel...;)

[falcondfw]

I can't vote in this poll. There are no absolutes in this world. For example: "I am firmly against freedom of speech on certain issues". Who decides which issues are worth banning? Is racist speech worth banning? Who decides what is racist? Or "I am firmly against certain sexual acts between consenting adults." Which acts? Who decides? Anal sex? Hey enjoy yourself. But when two consenting adults get together and consent to hurt a kid? String em up. This whole poll is so subjective, I don't know how anyone can vote in it or take it seriously.

[Annika L]

Hmmm.. a lil tenuous Annika.. am firmly against eating too much choccie but it has nowt 2 do with self loathing... bootie preservation maybe... but not self loathing... and b4 u try an tell me if I end up wiv a huge bootie I wud loathe mesel, is not so... mite h8 size of me bootie an' other such roly polyness but not mesel...;)

Fran misses the point here. Being firmly against something only constitutes self-loathing if what you are firmly against is people who are firmly against things.

[void()]

Upon reading something, I can now see leftists clearly in relation to this poll. I voted as firmly against freedom of speech for certain issues, at least that is what I thought the option was. Reflecting on how the options are phrased, I seek to withdraw any vote and further abstain from the poll. I'm not firmly against anything listed and feel there are absolutes, facts as an example are absolute. YMMV ASDA

[darkeyes]

Fran misses the point here. Being firmly against something only constitutes self-loathing if what you are firmly against is people who are firmly against things.
*laffs*.. no I don't miss the point Annika.. I am people..I am against choccie in over abundance and a fat bootie.. things.. but even by munchin' an over abundance of yummieness and gettin' a big fat bootie... ther will b no self loathin' involved... isn't gonna happen tho.. if me arse gets big an fat it will hav nowt 2 do wiv scoffin' 2 much choccie or owt else I like...

"Things" means very little btw.. or everything.. the question is far too nebulous .. and certainly far too nebulous to attach it to self loathing...:) I am firmly against people who are against many things.. but not everything...

[falcondfw]

There's one important option missing: "I am firmly against ... this poll". Not the asking, but the ambiguity and absolutes in the way the questions are asked.

[pepperjack]

Inclined to agree that "self-loathing" is incongruous; it implies low self-esteem which is not necessarily true of someone who takes a strong stand on an issue.

[Annika L]

*laffs*.. no I don't miss the point Annika.. I am people..I am against choccie in over abundance and a fat bootie.. things.. but even by munchin' an over abundance of yummieness and gettin' a big fat bootie... ther will b no self loathin' involved... isn't gonna happen tho.. if me arse gets big an fat it will hav nowt 2 do wiv scoffin' 2 much choccie or owt else I like...

"Things" means very little btw.. or everything.. the question is far too nebulous .. and certainly far too nebulous to attach it to self loathing...:) I am firmly against people who are against many things.. but not everything...

The first bolded statement has no bearing on option 5...choosing that answer means you're against people who are against things...nothing to do with being against chocolate (although someone who selects #5 is apparently against you).

The second bolded statement shows that option 5 clearly does not apply to you. I don't see the conflict.

[Annika L]

There's one important option missing: "I am firmly against ... this poll". Not the asking, but the ambiguity and absolutes in the way the questions are asked.

You certainly do seem to care a great deal about this poll. Interesting. And no questions are being asked in it...it is merely a way for a person to make up to 8 statements. You (and others) seem like you are annoyed because you don't want to make any of them. Why? If there's a statement you want to make and it's not on the list, go ahead and make it anyway. Hmmm...of course I suppose that's what you did. Good for you!

[pepperjack]

OK, now I'm confused; I thought you said at the onset that you would provide straightforward answers & we would provide the questions, or did I get this wrong?

[Annika L]

OK, now I'm confused; I thought you said at the onset that you would provide straightforward answers & we would provide the questions, or did I get this wrong?

"I am firmly against" it *is* a straightforward answer!

[pepperjack]

"I am firmly against" it *is* a straightforward answer!

To what question?

[Annika L]

To what question?

I'm so glad you asked! There are two answers to your question, actually.

Answer #1 is, of course, to the eight (admittedly implicitly-phrased) questions listed in the poll.
Answer #2 though, is to the question "If you were presented with 8 ridiculously-phrased options, and were asked whether you opposed any of them, would you find yourself compelled to tick at least one, because it's a poll, or would you be firmly against the whole thing?" People are divided into two groups, based on whether or not they respond.

[Long Duck Dong]

Yeah, fun, isn't it?

Only, ducky, you aren't saying "yes" to them...you're saying you're firmly *against* them.

The last option was originally going to be "Reading and/or thinking for pleasure", but then I decided why stop there?

lol thats why I said yes.... there are times that I am against stuff, but at the same time, supporting the very things I am against, depending on the situation....lol....
its hypocritical of me, I know....and made it hard to give a clear answer

if push came to shove, the two things I am firmly against, is total and complete peace.... and that sounds strange and so wrong....
it comes from the understanding that some people are natural born warriors and fighters, they do not fit into the peaceful utopia that many people long for... they need the combat/ conflict situation cos thats where they feel most at peace ( talk about irony ) lol.... but its not about the taking of a life, the need for blood etc... its about the need for planning, thinking on ya feet, the challenge, the strategic thinking, the adrenaline rush under fire......

the other is human ignorance and the assumption that we know everything and therefore our opinions are correct about others...

that aside, thanks for posting the most thread provoking poll I have read on the site and I definitely enjoyed the self exploration that the poll induced

[pepperjack]

I'm so glad you asked! There are two answers to your question, actually.

Answer #1 is, of course, to the eight (admittedly implicitly-phrased) questions listed in the poll.
Answer #2 though, is to the question "If you were presented with 8 ridiculously-phrased options, and were asked whether you opposed any of them, would you find yourself compelled to tick at least one, because it's a poll, or would you be firmly against the whole thing?" People are divided into two groups, based on whether or not they respond.

Still comes across as a convoluted, pseudo-intellectual smoke screen to me & by now, I've learned to trust my instincts. Was temporarily entertaining, though.:smilies15

[Annika L]

Still comes across as a convoluted, pseudo-intellectual smoke screen to me & by now, I've learned to trust my instincts. Was temporarily entertaining, though.:smilies15

If my pseudo-intellect could entertain you temporarily, that entirely justifies the effort I put into posting the poll :).

[Annika L]

if push came to shove, the two things I am firmly against, is total and complete peace.... and that sounds strange and so wrong....
it comes from the understanding that some people are natural born warriors and fighters, they do not fit into the peaceful utopia that many people long for... they need the combat/ conflict situation cos thats where they feel most at peace ( talk about irony ) lol.... but its not about the taking of a life, the need for blood etc... its about the need for planning, thinking on ya feet, the challenge, the strategic thinking, the adrenaline rush under fire......

the other is human ignorance and the assumption that we know everything and therefore our opinions are correct about others...

that aside, thanks for posting the most thread provoking poll I have read on the site and I definitely enjoyed the self exploration that the poll induced

Ah, bless you, ducky. It's nice to see that somebody actually *thought* about the questions (chalk up another purpose to my having posted it).

Your point about total peace is solid. It's not just about "some people" who are natural fighters, though. Adversity is what forces growth. Much philosophy and theology supports this, plain human experience supports it, and experiments in artificial life support this. If we achieve total peace, we stagnate and decay. It is an interesting irony, however, that if we stop *striving* for total peace, we'll blast ourselves into oblivion. So we walk a curious line. I find it intriguing.

[void()]

If my pseudo-intellect could entertain you temporarily, that entirely justifies the effort I put into posting the poll :).

Thank you for this. Glad to know I'm in good company.

[darkeyes]

Still comes across as a convoluted, pseudo-intellectual smoke screen to me & by now, I've learned to trust my instincts. Was temporarily entertaining, though.:smilies15
O Pepper..is meant as a bit of fun.. not 2 b treated seriously.. don't thinkya did didya? Treat it seriously that is.. trust me.. Annika has a keen sense of fun..

[Annika L]

Well I managed to tick 4.
I'm not against freedom of speech as such, but still ticked it because I'd like some who misuse it to STFU! Dan Savage springs to mind.:rolleyes: Not sure if protesting against someone's verbal diarrhoea is setting limits on FOS or not.

I don't support child labour, sweat shops, burglary, mugging, car-jacking etc that make somebody money.lol
I disprove of spammers and scammers etc which maybe legal, but still don't make it ok.
I'm against self loathing, as it gets on my tits for one reason of many!:eek2:

And Geary, I've been meaning to thank you for this. I didn't *mean* to imply that LDD was the only one to demonstrate that he thought about the options...it just slipped out. You certainly did!

For my own part, I would say that protesting something and setting limits on it are two different things. One is disapproval; the other is restriction. Hmmm, maybe the option should have been "Freedom of speech for certain individuals on certain topics"? :tongue:

[maxxcrash]

The initial poll question is an absolute statement. The choices given to answer are relative. This is a methodological paradox between absolute and relative and can not be answered.

[FunE1]

Ha! Clever and fun poll... definitely have to think hard about how it's worded and what you're choosing. Enjoyed everyone's responses.

[pepperjack]

If my pseudo-intellect could entertain you temporarily, that entirely justifies the effort I put into posting the poll :).

Touche.:)

[pepperjack]

O Pepper..is meant as a bit of fun.. not 2 b treated seriously.. don't thinkya did didya? Treat it seriously that is.. trust me.. Annika has a keen sense of fun..

So do I but you don't really know me so you don't know that about me; around here we call that " being ornery." There's some American slang for you in case you haven't encountered it before. I said from the very beginning I saw it as fun and never really took it seriously. Why do you think I use this:smilies15 so often?

[nutme]

Still comes across as a convoluted, pseudo-intellectual smoke screen to me & by now, I've learned to trust my instincts. Was temporarily entertaining, though.:smilies15

Totally agree with you here, pepper.

[Annika L]

Ah, perfect! Another satisfied customer! I am delighted to have entertained so many. :tongue:

By the way, while I agree the options were absurdly worded (intentionally...it was meant as a spoof on the more common complex question with hardboiled answers...a hardboiled question with complex answers, or however you want to view it), I disagree that the options are unanswerable, unless you are unwilling to put the thought into it. For instance, the first option "I am firmly against...freedom of speech on *certain* issues" would be appropriate to tick if there is at least one issue about which you are firmly against freedom of speech. Who gets to decide which issues? You do, of course...you are the one stating what you are against. The second, "I am firmly against...any restrictions on activities that result in somebody making money" would be *uncheckable* if there was at least one activity that results in somebody making money that you *would* like to see restricted.

I created a methodological paradox between absolute and relative? I am giddy with delight! To think what we're capable of here in our own homes...it's the first time I ever made one of *those* in my bed! But it cannot be answered? Hah, 20 some people proved that wrong. Tis perfectly answerable...just damnably frustrating to answer thoughtfully.

Thanks all, for your thoughts and responses! It's a pleasure doing business with you!

[Gearbox]

And Geary, I've been meaning to thank you for this. I didn't *mean* to imply that LDD was the only one to demonstrate that he thought about the options...it just slipped out. You certainly did!

For my own part, I would say that protesting something and setting limits on it are two different things. One is disapproval; the other is restriction. Hmmm, maybe the option should have been "Freedom of speech for certain individuals on certain topics"? :tongue:
Well you got me questioning my view of 'freedom' anyway. And I thought I was a non conformist hippy at heart.:eek2:
Somebody get me off this planet, and quick!!!lol

[æonpax]

Interesting and very non-conventional approach to a poll. It reminds me of a quote;
`


The first step in avoiding a trap, is knowing of its existence.

Thufir Hawat
~ Master of Assasins ~

[*pan*]

Poll: I am firmly against:


This poll will close on Jun 6, 2012 at 1:45 PM



Freedom of speech on *certain* issues.
Any restrictions on activities that result in somebody making money.
A 40-hour (or less) work week.
Any restriction on activities that are legal, but of which I disapprove.
People who hold a firm stance against things (and all other forms of self-loathing).
*Certain* sexual acts between consenting adults (involving no other individuals).


i can honestly say i am not against any of these, that of which would curtail another's freedoms and liberties if i were against them. therefore i cannot vote on this poll for it goes against my beliefs.

[maxxcrash]

Ah, perfect! Another satisfied customer! I am delighted to have entertained so many. :tongue:

By the way, while I agree the options were absurdly worded (intentionally...it was meant as a spoof on the more common complex question with hardboiled answers...a hardboiled question with complex answers, or however you want to view it), I disagree that the options are unanswerable, unless you are unwilling to put the thought into it. For instance, the first option "I am firmly against...freedom of speech on *certain* issues" would be appropriate to tick if there is at least one issue about which you are firmly against freedom of speech. Who gets to decide which issues? You do, of course...you are the one stating what you are against. The second, "I am firmly against...any restrictions on activities that result in somebody making money" would be *uncheckable* if there was at least one activity that results in somebody making money that you *would* like to see restricted.

I created a methodological paradox between absolute and relative? I am giddy with delight! To think what we're capable of here in our own homes...it's the first time I ever made one of *those* in my bed! But it cannot be answered? Hah, 20 some people proved that wrong. Tis perfectly answerable...just damnably frustrating to answer thoughtfully.

Thanks all, for your thoughts and responses! It's a pleasure doing business with you!


Yes a methodological paradox. While I won't deny that the poll is thought provoking and it can generate opinion based replies I would not call those definitive answers. This is a classic case of "Petitio Principii". This is the fallacy of assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you are trying to prove. The initial question is a misuse of terminology and a conclusion is reached on a related matter without the question having been answered.

[Annika L]

Yes a methodological paradox. While I won't deny that the poll is thought provoking and it can generate opinion based replies I would not call those definitive answers. This is a classic case of "Petitio Principii". This is the fallacy of assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you are trying to prove. The initial question is a misuse of terminology and a conclusion is reached on a related matter without the question having been answered.

Hmmm...whatchoo, smokin', mon frer? (cause I may want some)

I have no clue what you think I was trying to prove...I wasn't. I also don't see where you get that I was assuming anything...I wasn't. So your whole accusation scenario kinda falls apart in reality. I was about as far from making an argument as I get.

But hey, "thought provoking" + "can generate opinion based replies" = worthwhile + poll. I'm good with that.

[maxxcrash]

Hmmm...whatchoo, smokin', mon frer? (cause I may want some)

I have no clue what you think I was trying to prove...I wasn't. I also don't see where you get that I was assuming anything...I wasn't. So your whole accusation scenario kinda falls apart in reality. I was about as far from making an argument as I get.

But hey, "thought provoking" + "can generate opinion based replies" = worthwhile + poll. I'm good with that.

I never said it was or was not worthwhile. Just pointing out that your poll question and its available responses is polar which makes it impossible to give a definitive answer. What you are assuming is that because you got 20 or so responses from the poll that it can be answered definitively.

These are your words, "But it cannot be answered? Hah, 20 some people proved that wrong."

[Annika L]

I never said it was or was not worthwhile. Just pointing out that your poll question and its available responses is polar which makes it impossible to give a definitive answer. What you are assuming is that because you got 20 or so responses from the poll that it can be answered definitively.

These are your words, "But it cannot be answered? Hah, 20 some people proved that wrong."

*smile* Ah, but you *did* say it was worthwhile. These are your words: "I won't deny that the poll is thought provoking"...that makes it worth my while to have created and posted it.

And if your claim about an assumption was that I assumed that the poll could be answered because people answered it, then I misunderstood your point...and yes, I did and do assume that...I also assume that this planet is capable of producing rain, that a black politician can be elected president in America, and that fools will argue their points regardless of the validity of their arguments. This is not a case of assuming the conclusion; it is a case of observing what has occurred. I made and make no claim of what answers *mean*...simply that answers have occurred.

But for the record, after tomorrow, your statement will be true...the poll will be unanswerable. So hold out until then and you can be right.

[BiCplAz]

This is the dumbest fucking poll I've ever seen. If your against any of those things you're a nut. and it is about as thought provoking as peeing.

[darkeyes]

But for the record, after tomorrow, your statement will be true...the poll will be unanswerable. So hold out until then and you can be right...and tomorrow never comes...:eek2::bigrin:

[maxxcrash]

*smile* Ah, but you *did* say it was worthwhile. These are your words: "I won't deny that the poll is thought provoking"...that makes it worth my while to have created and posted it.

And if your claim about an assumption was that I assumed that the poll could be answered because people answered it, then I misunderstood your point...and yes, I did and do assume that...I also assume that this planet is capable of producing rain, that a black politician can be elected president in America, and that fools will argue their points regardless of the validity of their arguments. This is not a case of assuming the conclusion; it is a case of observing what has occurred. I made and make no claim of what answers *mean*...simply that answers have occurred.

But for the record, after tomorrow, your statement will be true...the poll will be unanswerable. So hold out until then and you can be right.

You are right those are my words "I won't deny that the poll is thought provoking", please tell me where I said it was or was not worthwhile. I said it was thought provoking, this statement has nothing to do with validity. Please don't put words in my mouth. Please don't call me a fool. I don't know you and you don't know me. I never made this a personal attack on you so please have the same curtesy.

[Annika L]

You are right those are my words "I won't deny that the poll is thought provoking", please tell me where I said it was or was not worthwhile. I said it was thought provoking, this statement has nothing to do with validity. Please don't put words in my mouth. Please don't call me a fool. I don't know you and you don't know me. I never made this a personal attack on you so please have the same curtesy.

You said it was worthwhile by calling it thought-provoking. I never claimed you said the poll was valid (nor have *I* said it is valid...just answerable), nor have I called you a fool...I don't appreciate words being put in my mouth any more than you do.

[darkeyes]

You said it was worthwhile by calling it thought-provoking. Quite Annika.. hoist by his own petard methinks..:bigrin:

[Annika L]

Ok, now that the poll has closed, I have some questions for respondents, or people who didn't response, but considered ticking certain boxes. I'll treat these one at a time, because the response options were so very unrelated.

So first, the one that surprised me most:

In what sense, or for what reason(s), are people against a 40 hour or less work week? My own personal experience is that I become comparatively unproductive when I am forced to apply myself, 10-12 hours (or more) a day, or don't get enough time away from the office. Conversely, when I have plenty of time to myself, I can be extremely productive in just 3-5 hours...often accomplishing in that space as many coworkers can get done in an 8-10 hour work day. I would love to see businesses experiment with a 30-40 hour work week...of course, I also realize that this absolutely could only work for certain industries, and *could* not work for others.

I also realize that only 3 people ticked this box...but others may have considered it. I'm just curious to hear what others think.

[maxxcrash]

You said it was worthwhile by calling it thought-provoking. I never claimed you said the poll was valid (nor have *I* said it is valid...just answerable), nor have I called you a fool...I don't appreciate words being put in my mouth any more than you do.

If you can reduce "thought provoking" = worthwhile you are putting words into my mouth. Something can be thought provoking and not be worthwhile.

Your words, "fools will argue their points regardless of the validity of their arguments"

[darkeyes]

If you can reduce "thought provoking" = worthwhile you are putting words into my mouth. Something can be thought provoking and not be worthwhile.

Your words, "fools will argue their points regardless of the validity of their arguments"
If it keep the lil grey cells from seizing up. .it's worthwhile... even if only by gettin' ya 2 take issue with Annika and thinking of what 2 say asya do it!!!;)

[Annika L]

If you can reduce "thought provoking" = worthwhile you are putting words into my mouth. Something can be thought provoking and not be worthwhile.

Your words, "fools will argue their points regardless of the validity of their arguments"

'fraid I don't buy either part of that. You admitted "thought provoking", and I said that *to me* that made it worth my while to have done. I've added no words to your mouth. I simply disagree that something that provokes thought has no worth. The thoughts provoked may be the *only* worth, but it is still worth. These are *my* words.

Yes, I said "fools will argue their points regardless of the validity of their arguments"; I also said that a black politician can get elected president...am I also calling you Obama? If you choose to apply my statement to yourself, then you choose to label yourself a fool...that is not an attack by me. If you read the converse of my statement, you would get "if you argue your point regardless of the validity of your argument, then you are a fool"...but a statement is not equivalent to its converse. But this has become one of the stupider arguments I've participated in here, and I am beginning to consider whether this converse may in fact apply.

Truly, I would prefer to hear people's thoughts on my question 3 posts up about why a person might be firmly against a 40-or-less hour work week.

[pepperjack]

Ok, now that the poll has closed, I have some questions for respondents, or people who didn't response, but considered ticking certain boxes. I'll treat these one at a time, because the response options were so very unrelated.

So first, the one that surprised me most:

In what sense, or for what reason(s), are people against a 40 hour or less work week? My own personal experience is that I become comparatively unproductive when I am forced to apply myself, 10-12 hours (or more) a day, or don't get enough time away from the office. Conversely, when I have plenty of time to myself, I can be extremely productive in just 3-5 hours...often accomplishing in that space as many coworkers can get done in an 8-10 hour work day. I would love to see businesses experiment with a 30-40 hour work week...of course, I also realize that this absolutely could only work for certain industries, and *could* not work for others.

I also realize that only 3 people ticked this box...but others may have considered it. I'm just curious to hear what others think.


Got to agree w/you 100% on this post! Coincidentally, I recently discovered the results of a study which concluded that the majority of people are most comfortable with a 40 hr work week; while some overtime is nice on the paycheck occasionally, personal experience has taught me, that conclusion is valid. Businesses have experimented. I have worked jobs in the 10-16 hr a day range & it seems high turnover & burnout were the inevitable result. In pursuit of the almighty dollar, we sometimes forget that time is a precious commodity; you know...." stop and smell the roses?"

[Annika L]

Thanks for your response pepper. I'd still like to hear from people who are *against* a 40 hour (or less) work week, but in the meantime, I'll move on to my next question.

I am curious as to *which* sex acts between consenting adults, involving no other individuals, some people are firmly against. I mean, I'm with falcon regarding people mutually consenting to hurt someone else for sexual pleasure...that's clearly not cool...but involving no other individuals? I am hard-pressed to think of such sexual acts to which I would object.

Again, only 3 people ticked this option, but if those people could enlighten me as to their thoughts here, I would appreciate it.

[darkeyes]

*laffs*.. u'll never get me arguing against shortening the working week to less than 40 hours... officially I work a 37.5 hour week.. then I go home..most days but not always... the trouble is 37.5 becomes 60+ very often as the demands of the profession means so much of my "leisure" time is spent slaving away doing what can't be done at work... I don't and never have believed that work.. any work... can't be organised better to prevent such things.. all we need is a little will.

We work to live... no one should live to work and those who do are in my view sad cases.. it would be nice if everyone had a job they love.. I do.. and I believe Annika does too.. but they don't.. probably most don't. That we have an obligation to make our contribution to society and our families I don't argue with in the least.. but in this technological age, and millions with no opportunity of making any contribution, cutting working hours should be an essential aim for our societies, not having people working all the hours they can sometimes for extra money to keep head above water, and sometimes, as in me own case, and in many other professions just to get the job done..

[wanderingrichard]

wow, has anyone set back and looked at how bad the votes are making us as a community look? we're human i grant, but shouldnt we have a somewhat progressive live and let live mindset? and here we are, in a poll of all things, showing the rest of the world how divisive and selfish we can really be.

[Annika L]

wow, has anyone set back and looked at how bad the votes are making us as a community look? we're human i grant, but shouldnt we have a somewhat progressive live and let live mindset? and here we are, in a poll of all things, showing the rest of the world how divisive and selfish we can really be.

Hi Richard, I have mixed feelings on your observation. First, bear in mind the important facts that (a) the options are worded very confusingly, often in double or even triple negative form (e.g., *against*...*restrictions*...on activities of which I *disapprove*)...so it's really not fair to draw any real conclusions from it; and (b) only 20 people replied at all (partly because of a, and probably in large part exactly because the large majority of our community saw nothing they could comfortably tick). So (to me) only on the surface could it possibly make us look bad.

But on the other hand, the most "popular" choices (quotes because of such small n) were against restrictions on activities the respondents disapproved of (a pretty open-minded stance!) and against being against things (a pretty positive stance, once you look past the double-negative)...I think this actually speaks rather well of our community.

I was surprised to see people apparently against less work and consensual sex (of some kinds), and this is why I have asked the followup questions I've asked, to try to understand what people were thinking...interesting to me that nobody who feels these ways has said anything.

But I was probably most surprised to see just how (comparatively) "popular" was the notion of limiting freedom of speech. To me, if you limit that freedom on *certain* forms of speech, you open the door to limiting it on other forms of speech, and ultimately, such a stance leads to limited speech...and then to controlled speech. Basically, I think it's a dangerous path to walk, and I was surprised to see a quarter of the respondents favoring this. But again...a quarter in this case means 5 individuals...vs plenty who looked at it and walked on (for multitudes of reasons).

Anyway, I would love to hear your thoughts on how you see the poll results casting us in a bad light. Care to elaborate?

[just4mefc]

Hi Annika, I just came across this thread and as usual you have me cracking up. This was awesome. I have but two comments; 1) I agree with you, any restriction on freedom of speech is a very slippery slope and 2) I Love You and your twisted brilliant brain ;)

[void()]

This is the dumbest fucking poll I've ever seen. If your against any of those things you're a nut. and it is about as thought provoking as peeing.

To pee or not to pee, that is indeed the question of yon hour.

Believe it or not, some of us do have to think about peeing and the act therefore provokes thought. I think the poll served value in provoking thought. Proof it did that lies in the responses, even yours.