What would you do?

[Deletedaccount1]

I am taking Scott Alexander's political spectrum quiz and some these questions are really stumping me, particularly this one:

Edit: This is just a hypothetical. Don't get into the nitty gritty details. This is just an elaborate way of asking "Is it okay to break the rules to achieve something good at the expense of an evil entity?"

5. The United Nations is trying to pass a resolution banning land mines and allocating some resources to clean up existing mines that pose a danger to civilians. North Korea is causing a fuss and refusing to support the resolution, and this is endangering its chances of passing. The proponents of the resolution come up with a scheme to exploit a loophole in UN procedures, holding the vote in secret at a time when the North Korean representative might not even be present.

a) Exploit this loophole to make sure the anti-mine resolution passes
b) Stick to normal procedure and try to pass the anti-mine resolution above board and through legitimate channels

What would you do and why?

[Independent voter]

b. Cause North Korea isn't going to listen to the UN anyway, why exploit the rules and weaken the UN when passing the law will have no effect?

[Deletedaccount1]

b. Cause North Korea isn't going to listen to the UN anyway, why exploit the rules and weaken the UN when passing the law will have no effect?

Well assume that the bill greatly helps cleaning up mines in places like Cambodia or some African countries, not just North Korea. They might oppose on self-defenses purposes but the bill is not really about them.

[the game]

Roll a d20 to decide.

[chazus]

There's two problems here.

1) If DPRK is the 'swing vote' then it's no an issue. Maybe it shouldn't pass
2) Why the hell are so many other countries besides DPRK against it?

There are bigger problems here than the question is asking.

[Deletedaccount1]

There's two problems here.

1) If DPRK is the 'swing vote' then it's no an issue. Maybe it shouldn't pass
2) Why the hell are so many other countries besides DPRK against it?

There are bigger problems here than the question is asking.

The question is asking more about the general principle of whether or not it is okay to dodge the rules to achieve a good thing in a situation where the rules favor an evil side.

[Thrive]

I am taking Scott Alexander's political spectrum quiz and some these questions are really stumping me, particularly this one:

5. The United Nations is trying to pass a resolution banning land mines and allocating some resources to clean up existing mines that pose a danger to civilians. North Korea is causing a fuss and refusing to support the resolution, and this is endangering its chances of passing. The proponents of the resolution come up with a scheme to exploit a loophole in UN procedures, holding the vote in secret at a time when the North Korean representative might not even be present.

a) Exploit this loophole to make sure the anti-mine resolution passes
b) Stick to normal procedure and try to pass the anti-mine resolution above board and through legitimate channels

What would you do and why?

This quiz is a bit silly, rather than asking what you would politically believe in it asks what you would think, which doesn't prove it's point. The filibuster question could be an example. Do I think the dudes an asshole? Sure. Is it within his rights? Yes.
Another obvious one being the two supreme court questions where the supreme courts main purpose is to decide if something is constitutional, not if it stands with their political opinion.
Another would be the firing of the news anchor. I think they have the right to fire people they think have harmful views, but I don't necessarily agree that that is the way to diversify and succeed as a company or news organization, and I would say it was outrageous as far as the fact that people should be judged on their work.
As far as this question, it is the exact reason why the UN is a failure. There are countries who actively shoot down anything that can bring change, and any method of circumventing these countries only stands to weaken the UN. The correct answer would to make a international agreement outside of it, but as far as the question I'd likely go B.

[Seranthor]

I am taking Scott Alexander's political spectrum quiz and some these questions are really stumping me, particularly this one:

5. The United Nations is trying to pass a resolution banning land mines and allocating some resources to clean up existing mines that pose a danger to civilians. North Korea is causing a fuss and refusing to support the resolution, and this is endangering its chances of passing. The proponents of the resolution come up with a scheme to exploit a loophole in UN procedures, holding the vote in secret at a time when the North Korean representative might not even be present.

a) Exploit this loophole to make sure the anti-mine resolution passes
b) Stick to normal procedure and try to pass the anti-mine resolution above board and through legitimate channels

What would you do and why?

B) for the simple reason if you need NK to pass a landmine ban then you have far far far far bigger problems in your UN than a recalcitrant North Korea.

[Asiwassaying]

Why is North Korea a part of my UN? They are not united with the world.

Boot them first. Then proceed as normal and fix that loophole.

Also the question is stupid.

[Deleted]

Smashing B. United Nations should be a institution of higher virtue no matter what. No shady moves ever.

[Deletedaccount1]

Smashing B. United Nations should be a institution of higher virtue no matter what. No shady moves ever.

That is very interesting. I would recommend taking the entire quiz on the site. I have the exact opposite view.

[Deleted]

That is very interesting. I would recommend taking the entire quiz on the site. I have the exact opposite view.

Already did. Scored 4 out of 6

1) A 11) A
2) B 12) B
3) B 13) A
4) A 14) A
5) B 15) B
6) B 16) A

[Deletedaccount1]

Already did. Scored 4 out of 6

1) A 11) A
2) B 12) B
3) B 13) A
4) A 14) A
5) B 15) B
6) B 16) A

Interesting I got 4 out of 6 as well but my results were

1)A 11) A
2)A 12) A
3)A 13) A
4)A 14) B
5)A 15) B
6)B 16) B

[Moralgy]

0 out of 6

15 and 5 are the only ones that I disagree with being false equivalence. The others are sketchy and need more context, but overall it was a neat little quiz.

15. The Democrats are in the process of passing a new law that cuts corporate welfare to large oil companies. A small group of Republicans oppose this measure but seem to be outnumbered. One delegate realizes that if he filibusters for the next twenty-six hours, he can delay the bill long enough that it will fall off the schedule of this session of Congress and potentially be voted upon by a friendlier legislature next term.

a) The Republican legislator is fairly following procedure and therefore his filibuster is acceptable or even commendable
b) The Republican legislator is contradicting the obvious will of the chamber and is kind of an asshole

5. The United Nations is trying to pass a resolution banning land mines and allocating some resources to clean up existing mines that pose a danger to civilians. North Korea is causing a fuss and refusing to support the resolution, and this is endangering its chances of passing. The proponents of the resolution come up with a scheme to exploit a loophole in UN procedures, holding the vote in secret at a time when the North Korean representative might not even be present.

a) Exploit this loophole to make sure the anti-mine resolution passes
b) Stick to normal procedure and try to pass the anti-mine resolution above board and through legitimate channels

The filibuster to maybe delay the vote =/= trying to be shady and leave North Korea out of the vote completely. I get where the author was going with it, but the two situations are vastly different.

[LilSaihah]

The questions seem malformed. For 6, both A and B can be simultaneously true.

For what it's worth, I got 2/6.

[Ryme]

6 is tough, I believe the feminists in this situation are within their rights but deserve condemnation.

- - - Updated - - -

Scored 1/6 with a disagreement on this feminist one, but I agree with the above, the options aren't mutually exclusive enough.

[Alski]

Roll a d20 to decide.

What kind of target are we looking for? and what are my modifiers?

[nextormento]

This quiz is a bit silly, rather than asking what you would politically believe in it asks what you would think, which doesn't prove it's point. The filibuster question could be an example. Do I think the dudes an asshole? Sure. Is it within his rights? Yes.

How you answer both is the point.
The UN can rightfully exploit the so called "loophole", and be a bit of a dick in the process.

There is no right answer. It's a test for consistency.

[Barael]

01-06: a,b,a,a,b,b
11-16: a,a,a,a,b,b

so that's a 5 for me.

[Thrive]

How you answer both is the point.
The UN can rightfully exploit the so called "loophole", and be a bit of a dick in the process.

There is no right answer. It's a test for consistency.

But it's not. It's a test of what your opinion is. If it was a test of consistency it wouldn't ask what you think, but rather what you'd do.