Search:

You’re giving the test WAY too much credit. It’s clickbait crap...


In mafia terms, y’all are assuming some intended WIFOM here and you’re right. But the WIFOM is there to get clicks, not to actually analyze jack shit

You’re giving the test WAY too much credit. It’s clickbait crap...


In mafia terms, y’all are assuming some intended WIFOM here and you’re right. But the WIFOM is there to get clicks, not to actually analyze jack shit

[QUOTE=Lysergic;888947]Lynch the Survivor claim!


[vote]Rumox[/vote]




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 [i]every question[/i] 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?


[url]https://peacekeeping.un.org/en[/url]


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]

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

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

The point I was trying to make is:
Why should you believe 1 thing that has absolute zero real life evidence and reject something else in the same boat? Just seems extremely arbitrary. Like if enough people had told you the 2nd thing was real since birth then you’d probably believe that instead of the 1st one.

The point I was trying to make is:
Why should you believe 1 thing that has absolute zero real life evidence and reject something else in the same boat? Just seems extremely arbitrary. Like if enough people had told you the 2nd thing was real since birth then you’d probably believe that instead of the 1st one.

[QUOTE=Ganelon;869210]I think the issue is that dragons, fairies and so don’t have any real reason to exist. For me, I believe the most believable God is that of Judaism (not of Christianity); he has a purpose to exist; and somehow the idea that someone out there really gives a shit about human intelligence and will be very angry if you misbehave sounds more appealing and believable than a dragon.

I just think that such a being wouldn’t even have to be the one who created the Universe; it could
merely have created life on Earth, or accelerated evolution in early man. It could literally be an extremely powerful alien with a paternalistic outlook.[/QUOTE]

The god of judaism, Christianity, and Islam is the exact same god

Originally Posted by Ganelon

I think the issue is that dragons, fairies and so don’t have any real reason to exist. For me, I believe the most believable God is that of Judaism (not of Christianity); he has a purpose to exist; and somehow the idea that someone out there really gives a shit about human intelligence and will be very angry if you misbehave sounds more appealing and believable than a dragon.

I just think that such a being wouldn’t even have to be the one who created the Universe; it could
merely have created life on Earth, or accelerated evolution in early man. It could literally be an extremely powerful alien with a paternalistic outlook.

The god of judaism, Christianity, and Islam is the exact same god

why is guy who floats in the sky somehow more believable than dragons,fairies,etc.? Because 1 was presented to you as the truth and the other was presented as fiction? I mean, what actual reasons in your own experience do you have to believe one over the other?

why is guy who floats in the sky somehow more believable than dragons,fairies,etc.? Because 1 was presented to you as the truth and the other was presented as fiction? I mean, what actual reasons in your own experience do you have to believe one over the other?

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;869196]Well, yes and no, but mostly no. The things you named (dragons, flying spaghetti monster, etc.) are [I]extremely unlikely[/I] to exist, so I can say I believe beyond a [I]reasonable[/I] doubt that those things do not exist, a bit like how I can say I believe beyond a [I]reasonable[/I] doubt that existing religions do not have the pure and exact truth, although some principles of sikhism and what it implies about Hinduism, Islam and Christianism make sense to me. However, I cannot purely and simply prove that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist beyond [I]any[/I] doubt; it doesn't mean I have to believe in it. It's about probabilities, at that point.

As for the last line "do you really exist", I'll just give you a quote :)

[I][FONT=Book Antiqua]Je pense, donc je suis.
- René Descartes, Discourse on the Method, 1637[/FONT][/I]

Still true in 2020.[/QUOTE]

Why are those religions more likely than the flying spaghetti god? Seriously I would like to know what is the difference beyond simply spending more time in your life talking about them

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

Well, yes and no, but mostly no. The things you named (dragons, flying spaghetti monster, etc.) are extremely unlikely to exist, so I can say I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that those things do not exist, a bit like how I can say I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that existing religions do not have the pure and exact truth, although some principles of sikhism and what it implies about Hinduism, Islam and Christianism make sense to me. However, I cannot purely and simply prove that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist beyond any doubt; it doesn't mean I have to believe in it. It's about probabilities, at that point.

As for the last line "do you really exist", I'll just give you a quote

Je pense, donc je suis.
- René Descartes, Discourse on the Method, 1637

Still true in 2020.

Why are those religions more likely than the flying spaghetti god? Seriously I would like to know what is the difference beyond simply spending more time in your life talking about them

[QUOTE=Frinckles;869180]why did we take this test again?[/QUOTE]

people who like to play FM, also LIKE to argue. That includes you, and me too. This thread is basically a mini-fm with 3 factions

Originally Posted by Frinckles

why did we take this test again?

people who like to play FM, also LIKE to argue. That includes you, and me too. This thread is basically a mini-fm with 3 factions

Okay but I would challenge agnosticism with this:

Are you then also unwilling to say for sure whether Dragons, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster"]A Spaghetti God,[/URL] Fairies, Gnomes, Vampires, Werewolves, Blah Blah Blah insert fantasy thing here exist?

If so, do you even believe anything?


What ARE you sure about the existence of? Do YOU even really exist? Can you say for sure?

Okay but I would challenge agnosticism with this:

Are you then also unwilling to say for sure whether Dragons, A Spaghetti God, Fairies, Gnomes, Vampires, Werewolves, Blah Blah Blah insert fantasy thing here exist?

If so, do you even believe anything?


What ARE you sure about the existence of? Do YOU even really exist? Can you say for sure?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27102[/ATTACH]

Did short version

Did short version