if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

I think believing humans are the best thing existing in the world and not being ready to accept anything stronger, personified or not, is symptomatic of overly developed pride :]

---

Hey now. I wouldn't rule out intelligent life out there that is more advanced than us. Just not "god" like lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaCucho

Hey now. I wouldn't rule out intelligent life out there that is more advanced than us. Just not "god" like lol

---

I did not quote you ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

I did not quote you ;)

---

Yes I know :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

I think believing humans are the best thing existing in the world and not being ready to accept anything stronger, personified or not, is symptomatic of overly developed pride :]

---

Humans are the worst, but it doesn't make God any likelier. An omnipotent God could have made us as perfect as he wanted, but instead he did this. Would you say he intentionally did a shit job, or is he just not very good at it?

The worst compared to what?
I mean, humans can be evil as fuck but also ‘good’ as fuck.
We don’t really have a baseline for intelligent species.
If you look at some of the smartest animals they too be can be pretty cruel.
Chimps are bloody brutal, you don’t want to be a chimp... they literally tear each other to pieces.
I think I recall hearing about a group of chimps who ganged up on another chimp and proceeded to rip his genitals and attack him with it, or so... they’re cruel as fuck lol.
Wolves kill even when they’re not hungry. Because they enjoy it.
Dolphins aeenvicious as hell, too. I’ve heard of dolphins killing fish to use them as masturbation aids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

humans are the best thing existing in the world

---

Yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Yes

---

Es.uWu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

I think believing humans are the best thing existing in the world and not being ready to accept anything stronger, personified or not, is symptomatic of overly developed pride :]

---

Yes. Humans, the one species of Earth that is capable of destroying every other species as well as the planet's atmosphere and waters, is the best species of the world. Only the best in terms of genetic composition.

Would you rather we all died?

Anyways humans are just doing what all other predatory species would be doing. We’re btw the only species with Animal Cruelty movements and who care for other species.
We certainly don’t exterminate everything we get our hands on.
Unlike cats, say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Yes

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganelon

Anyways humans are just doing what all other predatory species would be doing. We’re btw the only species with Animal Cruelty movements and who care for other species.
We certainly don’t exterminate everything we get our hands on.
Unlike cats, say.

---

+69.uWu!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganelon

+1

---

+0.i honestly think that morally, we're not better or worse than other predatory animal species.

ECK.


inthe end, i think this is a pretty stuwupid discussion. r humans shitty?yea. so what??uVu

RREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganelon

Anyways humans are just doing what all other predatory species would be doing. We’re btw the only species with Animal Cruelty movements and who care for other species.
We certainly don’t exterminate everything we get our hands on.
Unlike cats, say.

---

Known species*

We don't know about aliens, or "higher beings" you can call "gods" if you want, or whatever else there could be in the universe. All I said is that believing nothing could be better than us is being pretty proud lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plotato

holy crap y'all are commies or some shit?

Bruh I'm so patriotic, I piss red, white, and blue. My doctor said it may be pancreatic cancer. I told him to shut his COMMIE mouth

---

LMFAO

UwU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plotato

holy crap y'all are commies or some shit?

Bruh I'm so patriotic, I piss red, white, and blue. My doctor said it may be pancreatic cancer. I told him to shut his COMMIE mouth

---

Yes, we are. LONG LIVE THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIATE!

https://i.imgur.com/0xCJ64X.png

First off, the wording is terrible for the federal vs unitary section. Federal should mean the union of regions (e.g., federal government) whereas local / regional should refer to subdivisions within a country (e.g., provinces, prefectures, states, metropolitans).

Nearly 50-50 on democracy vs authority because it's all on a case-by-case basis. For global threats like COVID-19, climate change, mineral exhaustion, warfare / mass destruction, agricultural crisis, give all the power to authority to ensure the issues are quickly resolved ASAP temporarily. Democracy otherwise is important for equality between people and gives people vested interest in their political system.

Peace mostly benefits all countries because usually diplomacy is based on economics where deals are both efficient and beneficial for both countries because of specialization in labour. During war efforts, the only countries benefiting are those tied to the production of arms and supplies who are sitting on the sidelines (e.g., US during WW2). However, you still need a military force for self-protection in case you have any unstable political neighbours who keep on eyeing your resources.

50-50 on securities vs freedoms. In general, I'd rather be safe than to keep certain freedoms I don't even use against threats. If there aren't any threats, I don't see why people can be free to do what they choose.

Socialism is OK depending on the policies instituted, but it's far better to have a mixed economy where national corporations are competing with private sectors to innovate. If that national corporation can't survive, it should be privatized to increase market efficiency.

Fuck religion - it shouldn't have any place in politics or society. Keep it as far away from the state as possible.

Technological progress is good. Even if automation displaces people's jobs, it was a dying industry anyway and only improves people's QOL generations down. No need for horse caretakers and horse carraige taxis if there's no economic demand for them, and they would go into other more in-demand sectors.

Living in Canada, there are good and bad sides to multiculturalism. People should be free to practice their own cultures so long as they don't harm the country's values. But too many immigrants is bad for a country's identity because besides the indigenous people's cultures, I can safely say that Canada itself has no culture. And I can proudly say this because it seems that modern Canadian culture is still based on the roaring 20th century of Canada of Tim's, Canadian beer, beavers, hockey, moose, toonies / loonies, and maple syrup and it hasn't changed at all. If you look at other countries' cultures, they're innovating and making breakthroughs in establishing their distinct identities (e.g., America's IT technology, French gourmet cuisine, Scandinavian industrial design, etc.). Really a problem of being a jack-of-all-trades but master of none.

Well, this test is kinda working (completed the long version)
Attachment 27437

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

Neutrals are not town, so they have to die.

-vote Rumox

---

Lynch the Survivor claim!

-vote Rumox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Ya I think some of the questions miss context.

---

I'm 14 questions into the long one, and I already think half the questions asked are really poorly/ambiguously phrased. Like "Local governments give each region good representation of their views." I'm not entirely sure what the fuck this question is even supposed to mean. Like... it depends? I'm sure a local government comprised of, say, KKK members in a mostly minority community would probably not give good representation. In an ideal world, under a democratic system? Sure, maybe - depends on voters, levels of voter engagement, and a bunch of other factors (like how gerrymandered / representative is the voting process to begin with).


No clue how to answer about half of these in just different strengths of "agree/disagree" because for many of the questions, I both agree AND disagree: e.g. "should anyone who wants to be free to enter the country?" I feel like I agree with the general sentiment of this (freedom of movement is important, as is the freedom to immigrate - it's one of the things that has historically made my country strong), but the way the question is phrased makes it seem like a trap - like "AHA! So you DO want Nazis to be able to enter the country freely!"


Curious to see what my results will be.


EDIT:

"Military spending is a waste of money."

Come the fuck on. Yes, when you are at peace (IF you are spending disproportionately high on military compared to things like social safety nets or basic infrastructure, etc; though obviously not for just maintaining basic defense). Obviously not when you are being like... Red Dawn'd by hostile paratroopers. How do I add context to "agree/disagree/unsure"?


EDIT:

"Laws should be completely consistent within all regions of a nation"


Seriously? Why isn't there a "depends on the damn law" option? A total campfire ban / stringent fire regulations makes sense in California; less so on the Gulf Coast. But there's a good case to be made for things like, say, murder being fairly universally standardized.


I don't think I'm going to make it to 216 because every fucking question makes me want to type up a new rant on how bad the questions are.


EDIT:

"The national government needs more power"

Fuck the people who wrote these questions.

Am I an authoritarian fascist if I strongly agree that the national government needs more power to enforce climate regulations without thinking that they just need a blanket "more power" in every category? I feel like I am answering "neutral/unsure" to every question except the obvious gimmes like "should we wipe out countries that don't serve us" or shit like that.

EDIT:

Please define "more power" you quiz writing hacks. That's like the vaguest thing ever, and it's been in like five questions now. "More power" can mean anything from extra taxation powers for infrastructure maintenance to fucking death camps.


EDIT:

"When people have already suffered for technology to be developed, we should use that technology"

Is the technology in question like... new, better solar panels, or Skynet? FFS

"Nations should cooperate whenever it benefits them both"

There are more than two nations. "Sure, but not if it comes at the cost of a third nation, unless the third nation is doing some fucked up shit" doesn't seem to be an option, so I guess neutral/unsure it is.


EDIT:

"The United Nations should have a military to enforce its resolutions"


It kind of does?


https://peacekeeping.un.org/en


EDIT:

So near the end finally got a bunch of questions where I could solidly answer how I felt one way or the other. But those early categories were hard to get through without a little more nuance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lysergic

Lynch the Survivor claim!

-vote Rumox

I'm 14 questions into the long one, and I already think half the questions asked are really poorly/ambiguously phrased. Like "Local governments give each region good representation of their views." I'm not entirely sure what the fuck this question is even supposed to mean. Like... it depends? I'm sure a local government comprised of, say, KKK members in a mostly minority community would probably not give good representation. In an ideal world, under a democratic system? Sure, maybe - depends on voters, levels of voter engagement, and a bunch of other factors (like how gerrymandered / representative is the voting process to begin with).


No clue how to answer about half of these in just different strengths of "agree/disagree" because for many of the questions, I both agree AND disagree: e.g. "should anyone who wants to be free to enter the country?" I feel like I agree with the general sentiment of this (freedom of movement is important, as is the freedom to immigrate - it's one of the things that has historically made my country strong), but the way the question is phrased makes it seem like a trap - like "AHA! So you DO want Nazis to be able to enter the country freely!"


Curious to see what my results will be.


EDIT:

"Military spending is a waste of money."

Come the fuck on. Yes, when you are at peace (IF you are spending disproportionately high on military compared to things like social safety nets or basic infrastructure, etc; though obviously not for just maintaining basic defense). Obviously not when you are being like... Red Dawn'd by hostile paratroopers. How do I add context to "agree/disagree/unsure"?


EDIT:

"Laws should be completely consistent within all regions of a nation"


Seriously? Why isn't there a "depends on the damn law" option? A total campfire ban / stringent fire regulations makes sense in California; less so on the Gulf Coast. But there's a good case to be made for things like, say, murder being fairly universally standardized.


I don't think I'm going to make it to 216 because every fucking question makes me want to type up a new rant on how bad the questions are.


EDIT:

"The national government needs more power"

Fuck the people who wrote these questions.

Am I an authoritarian fascist if I strongly agree that the national government needs more power to enforce climate regulations without thinking that they just need a blanket "more power" in every category? I feel like I am answering "neutral/unsure" to every question except the obvious gimmes like "should we wipe out countries that don't serve us" or shit like that.

EDIT:

Please define "more power" you quiz writing hacks. That's like the vaguest thing ever, and it's been in like five questions now. "More power" can mean anything from extra taxation powers for infrastructure maintenance to fucking death camps.


EDIT:

"When people have already suffered for technology to be developed, we should use that technology"

Is the technology in question like... new, better solar panels, or Skynet? FFS

"Nations should cooperate whenever it benefits them both"

There are more than two nations. "Sure, but not if it comes at the cost of a third nation, unless the third nation is doing some fucked up shit" doesn't seem to be an option, so I guess neutral/unsure it is.


EDIT:

"The United Nations should have a military to enforce its resolutions"


It kind of does?


https://peacekeeping.un.org/en


EDIT:

So near the end finally got a bunch of questions where I could solidly answer how I felt one way or the other. But those early categories were hard to get through without a little more nuance.

---

That is how all these kind of quizzes go. (I only read your first paragraph)

As I recall doing this months ago, there were some questions that I would strongly agree or disagree just based on interpretation