Explore beliefs that shape what you see as taboo!

[Born Free]

I discovered a great philosophy website a few years back where you can explore various aspect of "moral judgements, chickens and the yuk factor". It provides report of where you sit on three scales at the end:

Moralising quotient
Inteference factor
Universalising factor

Site is: http://www.philosophersnet.com/

Go down the page to the Games and Activities section and select Taboo.

I would be interested to hear how people score, as I expect we will tend to have scores in the same quadrant, and that our scores will differ substantially from good Mo associates. See if you can get some good Mo friends to complete it and compare results. (CAUTIONARY NOTE: Some of the theoretical scenarios might be too much for some frail MOs! This is adult territory!)

Daryl

PS: If you find this exercise interesting, at the end of your report you can read up more on each of the elements.

[silverfox]

I discovered a great philosophy website a few years back where you can explore various aspect of "moral judgements, chickens and the yuk factor". It provides report of where you sit on three scales at the end:

Moralising quotient
Inteference factor
Universalising factor

Site is: http://www.philosophersnet.com/

Go down the page to the Games and Activities section and select Taboo.

I would be interested to hear how people score, as I expect we will tend to have scores in the same quadrant, and that our scores will differ substantially from good Mo associates. See if you can get some good Mo friends to complete it and compare results. (CAUTIONARY NOTE: Some of the theoretical scenarios might be too much for some frail MOs! This is adult territory!)

Daryl

PS: If you find this exercise interesting, at the end of your report you can read up more on each of the elements.

I always have difficulty with these kinds of tests. Only because I always want to add my explanation and "ands, ifs, and buts". Example - the chicken loving dude. Hey, I don't care what you do with it before you eat it. BUT if it was served to other people then I have issues with that.

Or in the case with the cat. Now, I don't care if anyone else snacks away but it is not something I could do. Does that have anything to do with morals? Or just my own unique personal emotions?

It will be interesting to see the feedback.

Here are my results:

Your Moralising Quotient of 0.04 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.35. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are more permissive than average.

Your Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.25. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are less likely to recommend societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in the form of prevention or punishment, than average.

Your Universalising Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.43. This means you are less likely than average to see moral wrongdoing in universal terms - that is, without regard to prevailing cultural norms and social conventions (at least as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned).

I find it interesting how insecure these type of tests can make one feel. (Oh, my gawd, am I "normal?" What did everyone else get? Maybe I should have answered differently") Which makes me wonder if our morals aren't more influenced than we think they are.

This test actually made me stop and think - How do I REALLY feel vs. how I am conditioned to feel.

[Born Free]

I always have difficulty with these kinds of tests. Only because I always want to add my explanation and "ands, ifs, and buts". Example - the chicken loving dude. Hey, I don't care what you do with it before you eat it. BUT if it was served to other people then I have issues with that.

Or in the case with the cat. Now, I don't care if anyone else snacks away but it is not something I could do. Does that have anything to do with morals? Or just my own unique personal emotions?

It will be interesting to see the feedback.

I find it interesting how insecure these type of tests can make one feel. (Oh, my gawd, am I "normal?" What did everyone else get? Maybe I should have answered differently") Which makes me wonder if our morals aren't more influenced than we think they are.

This test actually made me stop and think - How do I REALLY feel vs. how I am conditioned to feel.

Silverfox,

I'm going to let you stew for a bit until I see how others fared. Sorry to be such a tease.

(Hey, screw normal, BTW. Would you go back to being Mormonormal?)

Daryl

[Born Free]

I always have difficulty with these kinds of tests. Only because I always want to add my explanation and "ands, ifs, and buts". Example - the chicken loving dude. Hey, I don't care what you do with it before you eat it. BUT if it was served to other people then I have issues with that.

Or in the case with the cat. Now, I don't care if anyone else snacks away but it is not something I could do. Does that have anything to do with morals? Or just my own unique personal emotions?

silverfox,

I forgot to congratulate you on your courage BTW, in being prepared to tread first!

You are being a bit masochistic above. The test questions were quiet specific about the scenario. You are beating yourself up about a different situation. He didn't ask about opening a Kentucky Fried Cat fast food outlet! Or pre-loved chickens for the masses!

Stay on task!

Love & laughter
Daryl

[silverfox]

silverfox,

I forgot to congratulate you on your courage BTW, in being prepared to tread first!

You are being a bit masochistic above. The test questions were quiet specific about the scenario. You are beating yourself up about a different situation. He didn't ask about opening a Kentucky Fried Cat fast food outlet! Or pre-loved chickens for the masses!

Stay on task!

Love & laughter
Daryl

I KNEW you were going to point that out!!!! But see, that's where the issue is with me. I think especially with something as sensitive as to how one might view my morals. (oh GAWD do I fit in????? OH the anxiety!!! Am I really a WeIrDo afterall????? - see what I mean?) I HAVE to throw it out there that hey, btw, I wouldn't do this but don't care if anyone else does. And Sturg, just so you know, for the record I've never wanted to have sex with my brother either but hey if it floats anyone else's boat, go for it. :Crazy:

(aren't there some therapists on board here somewhere??? Heeeeeeelp)

[mutleydog]

Your Moralising Quotient of 0.42 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.32. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are less permissive than average.

Your Interference Factor of 0.25 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.21. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are more likely to recommend societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in the form of prevention or punishment, than average.

Your Universalising Factor of 0.33 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.39. This means you are less likely than average to see moral wrongdoing in universal terms - that is, without regard to prevailing cultural norms and social conventions (at least as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned).Mmmmm......got me thinking too!!

[dogzilla]

Once again, I had trouble with the language. I can't just answer yes or no to questions that I think have far more complex connotations than oversimplified yes or now answers.

Do I think it's wrong to eat my pet cat? Of course, and I would never do such a thing. Do think it's even more wrong to judge someone else's choice to eat their cat? Heck yeah!

Do I think it's wrong to have sex with a dead chicken carcass? Well, it wouldn't turn me on but that doesn't mean it's wrong. What is wrong is then eating it later. Eyew.

Therefore, because I refuse to judge other people for their choices, which are none of my business and do not affect my rights, I scored as such:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.21.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

This means you can tell me anything and I probably won't pass judgment on you!

I'm uncomfortable with any sort of discussion regarding morality because I think we all come with our own sets of rules and what violates mine, does not violate yours. Even the very definition of morality is as individual as our fingerprints or DNA.

Recently I was having a conversation with a co-worker who was raised in India by fundamentalist Christian parents (who are still in India, converting heathens, presumably). She believes there's a standard and if you fall on one side of the standard, you're right and if you fall on the other side of the standard, you're wrong. I stared at her in dismay and confusion. That's just like saying all the Buddhists will not get to the C. Kingdom because they never became mormons. I told her I had more of a sliding scale of morality in that I believe there are degrees of right and wrong and very little is completely right or completely wrong.

We agreed to disagree and she noted with a glint in her eye, "You're right. You won't be going back to the Mormons with that attitude."

:D

[pokatator]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.21.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

This means you can tell me anything and I probably won't pass judgment on you!


Hey Dogzilla, I wonder what question we could answer differently to lower our Moralising Quotient?

My Moralising Quotient is: 0.17.

My Interference Factor is: 0.00.

My Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

PS I won't judge you for being higher than me :D
\
Randy

PSS I'm not sure this was of any value to me, but kind of novel for a change.

[dogzilla]

Hey Dogzilla, I wonder what question we could answer differently to lower our Moralising Quotient?


Randy

PSS I'm not sure this was of any value to me, but kind of novel for a change.

I'm known around here as the only person who takes the time to argue semantics. I think it's crucial to communication. We have to agree on what all the words mean before I can react to your words and you can react to mine... Change the wording of all of those questions -- remove the value judgments inherent in answering them -- and we'd both probably score very differently.

[jmkm]

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.08.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

[peter_mary]

My scores:

Moralising Quotent 0.00

Interference Factor 0.00

Universalizing Factor -1.0

And for the record, I'm not having sex with chickens or my sister, nor am I eating pets.

Paul

[shamdiel]

Hey Paul! You and I scored the same;

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.0.

Nice to know I am not theonly nut in this basket!! :eek:

John

[tjohnson]

Wow... that was interesting... :Crazy:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.17.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

[Born Free]

Once again, I had trouble with the language. I can't just answer yes or no to questions that I think have far more complex connotations than oversimplified yes or now answers.

Do I think it's wrong to eat my pet cat? Of course, and I would never do such a thing. Do think it's even more wrong to judge someone else's choice to eat their cat? Heck yeah!

I'm uncomfortable with any sort of discussion regarding morality because I think we all come with our own sets of rules and what violates mine, does not violate yours. Even the very definition of morality is as individual as our fingerprints or DNA.

:D

dogzilla,

Thank God the question didn't ask if was Ok to eat dog? :)

The question was not "Do I think it's wrong to eat my pet cat?" It was a theoretical family decides to, and how do you feel/think about that?

For me the issue is less the specific and more about how I can justify eating a South American cow in a MacDonalds burger, and get distraught about eating Moggy, who last night sat on my lap as I watched TV? Clearly if I am not vegetarian, I have no problem in principal with be a carnevour, so then the issue becomes something to do with I can't eat critters I have known. Bummer if you life on a farm!

In exploring such an issue I discover my blind spots. This is only a few leaps away from "How come good Mormons found it OK to kill gentiles at Mountain Meadows, yet be very indignant when gentiles kill Mormons".

These tests are on a major English philosophy site, designed to facilitate higher levels of awareness of the process by which we arrive at our stance on issues.

"Morality" can be used to justify a visceral "socialised" fear and loathing of homosexuals. Is that unchallengable? I believe that through exercioses like these we can see how rationally, supersticiously or otehrwise, we are making decisions.

Have a look at the additional material on that site on teh yuk factor. It is very interesting. It gets into areas like how do we develop our yuk factor.

You said "I'm uncomfortable with any sort of discussion regarding morality because I think we all come with our own sets of rules and what violates mine, does not violate yours." How do you feel about that statement in light of the questions I asked above about Moggy and Mackas?

This has key relevence IMHO to how Mormons justify their position on homosexuality, women, African-Americans, native Americans and the priesthood. Can they mount a logical and internally consistent argument to support same. I believe not, but then Mormonism has an actively anti-intellectual mindset, so it does not have to deal with such issues.

Daryl

[noodle]

My scores:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

mamajama

[Born Free]

My scores:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

mamajama

At a quick glance we are all scoring in the same quadrant. I was in the same quadrant.

I am quessing we would get very different answers from good Mormon folks. I find it interesting to sit with the idea that some people are afraid others might behave like they would if they did not have the Church to constrain them. I recall on fundy Mormon guy I knew many years ago, who figured that without the Church he would be a lying, cheating, philanderer.

So is morality imposed from the outside, or do we develop to the point where we have internalised the Policeman (Parent/Super-Id), and we don't need Big Brother riding shotgun permanently?

Daryl

PS: Our Moggy went off to the vet, when his time was up; I don't have any sisters; and I am afraid of getting frost bite on my privates! :eek: (Shucks, blew my cover!)

[dogzilla]

dogzilla,

Thank God the question didn't ask if was Ok to eat dog? :)

The question was not "Do I think it's wrong to eat my pet cat?" It was a theoretical family decides to, and how do you feel/think about that?

Yeah, thank all the gods you didn't ask about eating dogs. You'd get a nip in the ankle for that!

That's their perogative. How I feel: It's not my place to judge another family's choice of entree. My point on the previous page was, while I would personally never make this choice, the greater sin is in judging someone else's morality for making that choice. That's why I had trouble with the question. I don't care what YOU do. Doesn't mean I have to do the same thing.


For me the issue is less the specific and more about how I can justify eating a South American cow in a MacDonalds burger, and get distraught about eating Moggy, who last night sat on my lap as I watched TV? Clearly if I am not vegetarian, I have no problem in principal with be a carnevour, so then the issue becomes something to do with I can't eat critters I have known. Bummer if you life on a farm!


For the record... I am a vegetarian. I choose not to eat land animals (fish and seafood are free game) because my cholesterol was 330 at age 24. Eliminating animal fats from my diet became the fastest, easiest way to bring that under control. That said, my vegetarianism was not a moral choice at all, but one made in concern for my health. Still, I wouldn't get any more upset if you chose to eat a Big Mac as if you chose to eat a Big Moggy. Your cow, your cat, your diet, not my problem, not my place to judge. You could cook your wife and eat her and you wouldn't hear a peep from me. That doesn't mean I think it's right, but again, it's not my place to judge what's right for you. I believe I learned this from Kant: you can't ever possibly know all the mitigating factors that may have gone into someone else's decision, so how could I accurately judge without having all the facts?


In exploring such an issue I discover my blind spots. This is only a few leaps away from "How come good Mormons found it OK to kill gentiles at Mountain Meadows, yet be very indignant when gentiles kill Mormons".

These tests are on a major English philosophy site, designed to facilitate higher levels of awareness of the process by which we arrive at our stance on issues.


Yes, but the questions are so poorly written -- that is, they can be interpreted in many ways, that I don't think it is an accurate assessment of morality. Might make a good psych profile site... because I believe a lot of what people read into things says a lot about who they are.


"Morality" can be used to justify a visceral "socialised" fear and loathing of homosexuals. Is that unchallengable? I believe that through exercioses like these we can see how rationally, supersticiously or otehrwise, we are making decisions.


No, I don't think it's unchallengable. I know exactly how I came to my own decisions about morality and do not need some poorly written internet quiz to point out to me what I already know. I have issues with judgment. I have issues with the church judging homosexuals, brown people, women people and any other people who aren't just like the leaders of the church. What I choose to eat, whom I choose to sleep with, all of those moral choices are between myself and my God and no church gets any influence in my choices. Heh. THAT's what the LDS church did for me: it made me reject anything coming from any organized religion.


Have a look at the additional material on that site on teh yuk factor. It is very interesting. It gets into areas like how do we develop our yuk factor.


I hated that site. I went to several other sections and found them all to be poorly written, subject to the interpretations of the reader. I'm sorry if you loved the site, thought it was incredibly accurate and my opinion insults you. I do not mean to be insulting. Perhaps your interpretations better fit into the web site author's intent, moreso than mine. I kept running into language problems that made me wonder, "What do they mean by x?" and then I'd get stuck and couldn't continue. Finally, I just had to get back to work.


You said "I'm uncomfortable with any sort of discussion regarding morality because I think we all come with our own sets of rules and what violates mine, does not violate yours." How do you feel about that statement in light of the questions I asked above about Moggy and Mackas?


I don't know what a Mackas is (another cat?), but I think I've clarified my point sufficiently. You wanna eat your pets, knock yourself out. You get to have your very own set of morals and values to keep, as long as those don't interfere with mine. Your right to eat whatever you want stops when you want to eat MY cat, or try to force your morality on me and expect me to eat my cat. Or the dog, I'm not racist. :p My opinion of your morality is irrelevant. Your opinion of my morality is irrelevant, unless my morality is being shoved down your throat via legislation, church policy or other means of usurping people's rights.


This has key relevence IMHO to how Mormons justify their position on homosexuality, women, African-Americans, native Americans and the priesthood. Can they mount a logical and internally consistent argument to support same. I believe not, but then Mormonism has an actively anti-intellectual mindset, so it does not have to deal with such issues.

Daryl

I agree with you Daryl, the ISSUES have key relevance to how the LDS justify their positions. That particular web site... meh... not so much. In my humble opinion...

[noodle]

At a quick glance we are all scoring in the same quadrant. I was in the same quadrant.

I am quessing we would get very different answers from good Mormon folks. I find it interesting to sit with the idea that some people are afraid others might behave like they would if they did not have the Church to constrain them. I recall on fundy Mormon guy I knew many years ago, who figured that without the Church he would be a lying, cheating, philanderer.

So is morality imposed from the outside, or do we develop to the point where we have internalised the Policeman (Parent/Super-Id), and we don't need Big Brother riding shotgun permanently?

Daryl

PS: Our Moggy went off to the vet, when his time was up; I don't have any sisters; and I am afraid of getting frost bite on my privates! :eek: (Shucks, blew my cover!)

The morality question came up once whilst I was in grad school. Are "moral" constraints innate to some of us and not to others, or do we develop them over time from those outside influences?

Daryl, watch out for those privates! I meant to add to my scores listed above that I was off to make a "catserrole" for dinner!

mamajama

[peter_mary]

My scores:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

mamajama

Okay, mamajama, that's 3 of us that seem to be saying, 'Whatever' at each and every opportunity. You, me and John should probably never be elected to the same Senate... ;)

Paul

[Born Free]

Yeah, thank all the gods you didn't ask about eating dogs. You'd get a nip in the ankle for that!

That's their perogative. How I feel: It's not my place to judge another family's choice of entree. My point on the previous page was, while I would personally never make this choice, the greater sin is in judging someone else's morality for making that choice. That's why I had trouble with the question. I don't care what YOU do. Doesn't mean I have to do the same thing.

For the record... I am a vegetarian. I choose not to eat land animals (fish and seafood are free game) because my cholesterol was 330 at age 24. Eliminating animal fats from my diet became the fastest, easiest way to bring that under control.

Yes, but the questions are so poorly written -- that is, they can be interpreted in many ways, that I don't think it is an accurate assessment of morality. Might make a good psych profile site... because I believe a lot of what people read into things says a lot about who they are.

No, I don't think it's unchallengable. I know exactly how I came to my own decisions about morality and do not need some poorly written internet quiz to point out to me what I already know. I have issues with judgment. I have issues with the church judging homosexuals, brown people, women people and any other people who aren't just like the leaders of the church.

I hated that site. I went to several other sections and found them all to be poorly written, subject to the interpretations of the reader. I'm sorry if you loved the site, thought it was incredibly accurate and my opinion insults you. I do not mean to be insulting. Perhaps your interpretations better fit into the web site author's intent, moreso than mine. I kept running into language problems that made me wonder, "What do they mean by x?" and then I'd get stuck and couldn't continue. Finally, I just had to get back to work.



I don't know what a Mackas is (another cat?), but I think I've clarified my point sufficiently. You wanna eat your pets, knock yourself out.

I agree with you Daryl, the ISSUES have key relevance to how the LDS justify their positions. That particular web site... meh... not so much. In my humble opinion...
dogzilla,

Mackas was my poor abbreviation of MacDonalds. Ok I now see your point clearly. There were some questions I had to sit with for some period before being confident of their intent, so I could confidently respond.

That I should have to wrestle that way, does suggest the words may have been better crafted. And, given you rprefessional experience and focus, I can undertsnad your frustration with poorly crafted work.

On this issue of morality, I know that exposure to libertarianism over 20 years ago heavily shaped my thinking, and gave me the opportunity to think those issues through faily well. The core libertarian stance here was probably based on the US libertarians - No man has the right to initiative the use of force, fraud or coersion against any other man or group of men.

I read last night the material attached to that site on teh Yuk factor (again, as I had read it before), and was reminded of some of the contnt I enjoyed. It pointed out how some cultures bury their dead and see burning their remains as offensive, whilst others see burning remains and the ideal and only "right" way, whilst seeing burying as offensive and repugnant.

The author also raised the interesting examples of circumsicion and female genital multilation (loaded word I know). If I use the libertarian code, I could get myself circked as an adult, but I would have no right to force that onto a minor, which of course brings us into the domain of what rights parents have who claim to have God on their side!

Dogzilla, thanks for a long and comprehensive reply. I feel I understand you better as a result, and certainly take no offence personally that you think the site could have been better executed.

I am in strong agreement with you about pegging down the meaning of words. I observe people can get into some ding dong battles supposedly about an idea, when they have failed to define the meaning they give the basics of their discussion. Branden makes the point in one of his books regarding the meaning of the term God. Most people have not given a moments thought to exactly what they mean, and how that might differ from others unexamined meaning. (Hey, I must have missed that Clinton joke!)

Daryl

PS: Your cholesterol experience is interesting. My score is on the high side (but you really maxed out), and I have just had a problem with side effects (stomach upset) with Lipitor. I may be joining you on your diet yet!

[Born Free]

My scores:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

I think our general scoring in the bottom left quadrant is interesting.

If you look at the definition of each attribute, you can see how we might differ from a 'faithful Mo", and even take some educated guesses about what that score says about how you think now, and what alternatives you have turned away from.

Moralising Quotient relates to notions of harm. Their definition: "You don't think that an act can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. "

Logically that would suggest that an alternative position would be to believe "You do think that an act can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it." For me that has flavours of God watching with his big Book of Life, carefully totalling up how many times Daryl has masturbated or said bugger!

Interference Factor relates to our belief in our right/duty to thrust our "morality" upon others and even use social coersion to enforce complaince. Clearly we are all saying NO. I expect good Mormons would mainly believe that they have the right and duty even to intervene. Just look at Utards position on liquer.

Universalising Factor I see as relating to cultural difference. Again we are all saying that we see how massively cultures vary in what they see as moral and are fairly respectful of diversity, whilst also appreciating how powerful social pressures can be.

My own observation is that most MOs are so ignorant of others difference, that they assume others should be as they are. That theme is heavily touched upon in our conversations regarding strains in familes between Mo and Non-Mo members.

Have a go at that interpretation (which I own as mine BTW)!

Daryl

[noodle]

Okay, mamajama, that's 3 of us that seem to be saying, 'Whatever' at each and every opportunity. You, me and John should probably never be elected to the same Senate... ;)

Paul

Paul,

Whatever....

Mamajama :D

[Born Free]

I have sent an invitation to complete the survey to about 6 active Mormons I know. It will be interesting to see how many respond.

Unfortunantly most the Mormons I know are up the liberal end of the spectrum, so I am not sure what I am going to get back. My guess is that it will still be quite different.

Daryl

[Born Free]

You will no doubt be stunned to hear that I have had no (as in zip, zilch, naught, nil, SFA) replies from my still-Mo acquaintences re doing the Taboo test.

So either they are too busy (which we know they all have to keep the treadmill turning), OR they do not care to pull their head out of their narrow little world and see what other perspectives might exist OR any combination of the above forces (and if the polls I initiate are anything to go by, there will be 21.5 other stances I have not foreseen :) ).

All the above is of great disappointment to me, because I was looking to reading the indignant responses re 'tucky Fried Cat, Prelurved Chickens, and Oh-So-Close Siblings.

It is time for me to 'fess up on an issue. Since departing Mormonism, I take a certain sadistic joy in rattling the cage of small minds a bit. I don't rub it in, mind you. I just rattle a bit and then cease. My partner thinks I should just let them live in their airtight little world undisturbed, but I figure they insist on disturbing others!

Am I sick? Any other sick puppies with me?

Daryl

[nancyp]

Your Moralising Quotient of 0.04 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.24.
Your Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.14.
Your Universalising Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.36



I discovered a great philosophy website a few years back where you can explore various aspect of "moral judgements, chickens and the yuk factor". It provides report of where you sit on three scales at the end:

Moralising quotient
Inteference factor
Universalising factor

Site is: http://www.philosophersnet.com/

Go down the page to the Games and Activities section and select Taboo.

I would be interested to hear how people score, as I expect we will tend to have scores in the same quadrant, and that our scores will differ substantially from good Mo associates. See if you can get some good Mo friends to complete it and compare results. (CAUTIONARY NOTE: Some of the theoretical scenarios might be too much for some frail MOs! This is adult territory!)

Daryl

PS: If you find this exercise interesting, at the end of your report you can read up more on each of the elements.

[Born Free]

Your Moralising Quotient of 0.04 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.24.
Your Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.14.
Your Universalising Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.36
Nancyp,

That would put you in the bottom left quadrant, right?

Silly question! I just realized your score is identical to mine, so you are definately bottom left quadrant, so you join the rest of us that completed it.

Not phased by the cats and chickens, and wanting to rush legislation through the UN for Global Mandatory Condemnation of and Punishment for Weird S#it Behaviour? :)

Daryl

[tjohnson]

It is time for me to 'fess up on an issue. Since departing Mormonism, I take a certain sadistic joy in rattling the cage of small minds a bit. I don't rub it in, mind you. I just rattle a bit and then cease. My partner thinks I should just let them live in their airtight little world undisturbed, but I figure they insist on disturbing others!

Am I sick? Any other sick puppies with me?

Daryl

Yup... me too... rattle the cage, then walk away... over and over and over... :D

[Born Free]

Yup... me too... rattle the cage, then walk away... over and over and over... :D
tjohnson,

If my memory serves me well, it is your facilities that are now hosting post-mormon.com. I have been meaning for a while to say a big "Thanks!" for that important service.

Daryl