jj@alice.UUCP (04/05/85)
First there are two rules:
1) I will separate your name from your data upon receipt (meaning
after I read my mail). I will keep a list of those who respond. Second
<and following> responses will be deleted. The list of respondants
will be deleted when the survey is scored.
2) All flaming responses (i.e. more than yes/no answers)
will be trashcanned, and your name put in the respondant's file.
If you want to write me about the survey, say so in your subject line.
In order to not cause gargantuan loads, please make sure the
mail does NOT go to alice.
Please be brief: give me a list of the numbers 1-14, with yes
or no afterwards. Long answers will be regarded as flames.
------------------------
Answer all questions yes or no, as you feel is most accurate. This is
an opinion poll, so there are no right or wrong answers.
-------------------------
1) Does the word "liberal" often describe your personal political ethos?
2) If the United States were attacked on its own landmasses (50 states
or possessions), would you take up arms to protect the US? (When I say
taking up arms, I include other actions of a defensive (of the US) nature
for those who would be better suited to things other than armed combat.)
3) If Western Europe were engaged in a war with the USSR or a
satellite nation, would you be willing to aid their war effort in
whatever way seemed most effective to you?
4) Are you best described as PRO (answer yes) or ANTI (answer no)
nuclear weaponry of the sort usually referred to as "tactical"?
5) Does the word "conservative" often describe your personal potitical
ethos?
6) Are you best described as PRO (answer yes) or ANTI (answer no)
nuclear weaponry of the sort usually described as "strategic"?
7) If the US were threatened by direct military action from one of the
nations in the "western alliance", would you support or engage in the use
of arms?
8) Does the word "libertarian" often describe your personal political
ethos?
9) If the US were threatened by direct military action from one of the
nations in the "third world", would you support or engage in the use
of arms?
10) Does the word "pacifist" often describe your personal political/moral
ethos?
11) If two nations of the "Western Alliance" were at war, would you
expect or support US intervention via use of ARMS? (i.e. a conflict
of the Faulklands variety) (Note that I do NOT care whose side you would
be on.)
12) If there were a conflict anywhere in the world that involved
either the supply of essentail materials (i.e. oil, manganese, etc)
or the chance of the use of fissionables/fusion weapons, would
you support or engage in the use of arms to prevent the perceived
catastrophe?
13) Does the word "independant" often describe your personal political
ethos?
14) Can you imagine that a situation such as that described in question
12 could actually arise?
==============================
Again: Yes or no, ONLY.
Please answer all questions. If you find that you have a particular
moral or ethical dilemma with a question, flip a coin using
heads==yes.
I regard no combinations of yes/no answers in the above questions
as unlikely or unrealistic. Please answer each question independantly,
and as a separate and individual issue.
This survey is for the interest/discussion of/on usenet only.
It does not represent any other interest or organization, and
all data under my control will be destroyed upon the posting of results to
usenet.
The last day for responses to ARRIVE at icarus will be 4/14 midnight 4/15.
Please address all replies to {ihnp4,allegra}!icarus!jj
--
TEDDY BEARS NEED SECURITY BLANKETS, WRAP YOURS TODAY!
"I think I'm going to regret this!"
ihnp4!icarus!jjcharliep@v1.UUCP (Charlie Perkins) (04/08/85)
> 1) Does the word "liberal" often describe your personal political ethos? NOTE: Nobody in their right mind would let themselves be called liberal these days. I used to think of myself as liberal until that word began to be associated with mindless spending, disregard for "family" values, Communist duplicity, and jaded naivete. > 2) If the United States were attacked on its own landmasses (50 states > or possessions), would you take up arms to protect the US? (When I say > taking up arms, I include other actions of a defensive (of the US) nature > for those who would be better suited to things other than armed combat.) NOTE: You do not specify whether taking up arms includes full nuclear retaliation. Some people who would favor self-defense might answer no even to this question. > 4) Are you best described as PRO (answer yes) or ANTI (answer no) > nuclear weaponry of the sort usually referred to as "tactical"? NOTE: You should have explained what "tactical" means, unless in fact you were hoping that the "uncognoscenti" would not even answer. > 5) Does the word "conservative" often describe your personal potitical > ethos? NOTE: Many "true" conservatives would not allow themselves to be classified as such today, since the word implies that one favors mindless faith in Biblical myths, interference with other people's value systems, xenophobia, "nuking 'em till they glow", and says practically nothing about how one interprets the constitution. I consider myself to be a "conservative", in the sense that I understood that word from civics class. > 6) Are you best described as PRO (answer yes) or ANTI (answer no) > nuclear weaponry of the sort usually described as "strategic"? See NOTE to question 4). > 7) If the US were threatened by direct military action from one of the > nations in the "western alliance", would you support or engage in the use > of arms? See NOTE to question 2). > 8) Does the word "libertarian" often describe your personal political > ethos? I might have thought that it did until I read what libertarians were saying in this newsgroup! > 9) If the US were threatened by direct military action from one of the > nations in the "third world", would you support or engage in the use > of arms? See NOTE to question 2). > 10) Does the word "pacifist" often describe your personal political/moral > ethos? If "pacifist" meant "one who favors peace", then I am sure I would be a pacifist. Unfortunately, it means wimpy, credulous, weak, shortsighted, frightened, and lacking convictions. > 11) If two nations of the "Western Alliance" were at war, would you > expect or support US intervention via use of ARMS? (i.e. a conflict > of the Faulklands variety) (Note that I do NOT care whose side you would > be on.) See NOTE to question 2). Also, there is a lot of difference in this context between "expecting" and "supporting" US intervention. And there is a lot of difference between supporting with conventional arms and supporting with nuclear arms. > 12) If there were a conflict anywhere in the world that involved > either the supply of essentail materials (i.e. oil, manganese, etc) > or the chance of the use of fissionables/fusion weapons, would > you support or engage in the use of arms to prevent the perceived > catastrophe? See NOTE to question 11). > 13) Does the word "independant" often describe your personal political > ethos? Many people would recognize that "independant" is not a word at all, and therefore is not a word that could describe anyone's political ethos. (Don't worry! Everyone knew what you meant!!) -- Charlie Perkins, IBM T.J. Watson Research philabs!v1!charliep, perk%YKTVMX.BITNET@berkeley, perk.yktvmx.ibm@csnet-relay