The last 6 questions on Political Compass

In a stable, affectionate relationship, homosexual couples should not be excluded from the possibility of adopting children. - I agree

The depiction of porn that agrees with adults should be legal for adults. - I saw pornography ruining human relations and marriage, so I tend not to agree with this, but I leave it blank

No, regardless of whether it is heterosexual or homosexual, the overnight stand is not immoral. In fact, sometimes it's just what the doctor sought.

understood. These things have nothing to do with my political philosophy. I noticed that it perfectly agrees with people who thought it was too private to worry the government. And there seems to be no correlation between you and how far you are about these issues. You can be a full-fledged rich, but it is not that you are paying too much attention to the sex life of others, or you may be a complete communist. Well, should cats be free, or should it be user funded efforts? This is a political problem. Right? This is one test that should be done.

These questions show what is wrong with the political compass. My answer would make me look like Bush's most extreme supporters, but I think that this is not the job of managing these problems of the government. If you do not take into account the political compass of this point, it will make these questions meaningless. It is best to change the name of the political role as a personal compass and develop another test for political value.

In a stable, affectionate relationship, homosexual couples should not be excluded from the possibility of adopting children.

So, will they choose to become homosexual? It has appeared in every culture from the beginning. This is certainly not a cultural thing. Why do you choose to deal with hatred and discrimination in order to increase the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases?

When seemingly innocent one in a large commercial facility loses a moral compass, the repeated question poses a question of whether modern enterprises have structurally immoral things 6. The classification is very clear. On the one hand, it is a group of left-handed scholars and activists who think contemporary companies are destructive giants that need to change completely. Professor Lawrence Mitchell is not responsible for the company. As written in recent US exports, "Corporate behavior is not the result of company managers, shareholders, and employees, the results obtained by legal structure and regulations, establishing a company." 8 Like other scholars said "Or most people are like you and me, but they spent a long time on the company's system.

This is not new. Historically, companies chose to avoid politics in long-term games. But in the past six months, many US companies began to publish political statements - they boldly showed their employees and customers that they do not agree with specific policies and ideologies. Many organizations that choose to speak argue that they are "target driven" or "task driven." In March, Ben & Jerry CEO Jostein Solheim wrote a letter to President Trump who wrote a letter stating that banning by immigrants and refugees from Muslim countries is bad not only for the country but also for business.

The problem of refugee resettlement (or general immigration) is not racist, cowardly politics, or lack of basic sympathy, and lack of respect for humanity. They can be used for racial discrimination and foreign phobia, but it is natural and normal that there are questions and concerns about these issues. All policies are positive and negative. Politics is a positive and negative balance to make an effective plan. Calling racists, anti-Jews or homosexuals is easy. Oh, I am the same. Oh, ten years ago, I was really the whole family. Sitting at a local cafe or bar, it is easy to blame paranoia in society. It is easy to support people who support exactly the same things we do (plus or minus questions) and support people to respond to others. But what about actual results? Are we changing our minds?