Also, go polygamy, you don't have a say what goes on between consenting folk in their bedroom.

It's not about whether you think this should be legal, it's whether you personally consider it to be moral, that is you yourself would do it. I would personally answer that it's immoral, but that it should be legal since personal morals should not determine laws.

Edited 8/27/2016 18:41:27

Stop the jihadism Karl my dude

It's not about whether you think this should be legal, it's whether you personally consider it to be moral, that is you yourself would do it. I would [personally answer that it's immoral, but that it should be legal since personal morals shoul;d not determine laws.

Well I have morals set up differently and to different principles, so yes, according to both it's pretty ok.

Edited 8/27/2016 18:40:17

i thought you liked freedoms? Is it not a freedom for a woman to have the right to do what she wants with her body?

1/22, Infidel.

Only thing I agreed with was "Do you think converting others to your faith (or lack of it) is a moral duty?" because I like exposing truth to the sheeple masses! Bush did it! What moon landing? It's Flat! NASA propaganda!

Edited 8/27/2016 19:45:16

^

tabby make a new thread

Tabby's test:

1.U
2.U
3.Y
4.N
5.N
6.Y
7.N
8.U
9.Y
10.N
11.N
12.N
13.U
14.N
15.U
16.Y
17.Y

7.5
Neutral, almost slighty caninist.
.
.
.
Opps.

15.Shall children be taught laws and morals of the state instead of whatever their families want to brainwash them into?

"You can't brainwash him, that's our job!"

Also, here's a great feline hunt against radic religious folk:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchenkampf

I am sure you mixed something up... for a bunch of these answer should be the other way around for Islam?

1. no
2. no
3. unsure
4. no
5. no
6. no
7. no
8. no
9. no
10. no
11. unsure
12. unsure
13. yes
14. no
15. no
16. no
17. no
18. no
19. no
20. no
21. no
22. no

2.5/27

Deep, deep infidelity.

^Nope. Nazi Germany was a pro-family and pro-ethnicity caninist entity

They committed acts against radic religious groups, that is felinism.

About Points 11 and 12, newborn infants should be named by the state without a family name.

So the state now owns a ever growing section of the population. The state also owns the entire world, so they have unlimited resources. Everyone is taught by the government, so they have no choice in political opinion, and will vote for who the government tells them to, which will of course be the in-control party.

There is literally no checks and balances on the abuse of state power at this point, so what will stop your one world state from abusing as it wants, and giving kick backs to a small part of society that controls it? What would stop it from taking away the few rights you want for folk, pressing some religion onto the folk, or executing them for simple abuses? I'm waiting for the answer, Equality 7-2521.

^Because family power must be removed using any peaceful and legal method.

That's like someone asking me: "How would you prevent harmful monopolies from forming in Ancapistan"

And me answering: "The state needs to be dismantled"

That's ignoring the question, so again, how will you prevent abuses of power?

3

^By having multiple political parties and fair elections

The state has unlimited power over children's education in their formative years, so they can tell them one party is good and to vote for it. The children will be indoctrinated, and the other parties will die out from lack of votes and membership.

Also extremist movements from any side are decimated by children removal to make sure that extremism is not hereditary.

Children would be removed by the state, folk who control the state could simply just not remove their own children and become a privileged class.

Mine:
1. N
2. N
3. U
4. N
5. N
6. U
7. N
8. Y
9. N
10. Y
11. N
12. Y
13. N
14. N
15. N
16. N
17. N
18. N
19. N
20. U
21. N
22. N

for a bunch of these answer should be the other way around for Islam?

I don't think so, most of these are backed up by the Quran and if not, I took what Egyptian Muslims said.

1: No
2: No
3: Unsure
4: No
5: Yes
6: Yes
7: Yes
8: No
9: Yes
10: Unsure
11: No
12: No
13: No
14: No
15: No
16: No
17: No
18: No
19: Yes
20: Yes
21: No
22: Unsure

Final Score:7.5/22

Just barely not an Infidel. Yay?

^^What about let humans and robots share power?

Robots? Really? This is ridiculous, but well I have little better to do, so here it is:

Robots should also make sure that humans can not break the law no matter how powerful they can be

Unless it's illegal to teach anything in relation to politics, this doesn't make indoctrination not a problem. The teachers can teach that robots are oppressive and so the eventual voters will vote against the robot guard in the referendum, and state aligned humans will take over.

^Nothing related to political parties should be taught. Instead how the state works should be taught in an unbiased way.

Then populism and guard-hate will take over, and the anti-robot bloc will rise and vote against the robots.

Jesus (was God's son), what're you talking about? The family's role and command, or sex with robots?