NSFW: One sick and twisted question that will categorically ascertain your true wing leanings.

I wouldn't take the result to seriously. No test is 100% accurate, and you definitely don't come off as a right wing authoritarian.

I am a better chameleon than you are then, friend. ;)

What was your result?

Actually your result is authoritarian right winger. Your 6 was not what the Libertarian has it as in their results vs where you had it. Where you had '3' is where for your results to pan out, you'd need '6' a the very end.

In my results:

RM: Centrist/Chameleon who leans to Fascism.

Blamonkey: Centrist/Chameleon who leans to Libertarian Socialism

If I transcribe Paul's stated stances he probably is 1+5 at the start, so 6 for stage 1.

Then probably is 8 with 4 seemingly being the ridiculous thing he'd never think of as it's clear he least wants to ignore it and doesn't even process that as an option.

8-4 = 4

6-3=3 so a chameleon who probably leans to lib right and that may fit with his agenda somewhat.

Dred: lib right-winger

GreyParrot - Auth Right-Winger

Bmd: dictator in denial (I think being in denial is part of that alignment to be honest, as I hinted)

Ruthless dictator. I think picking the same option for Stage 2 breaks it. Or I could actually be a ruthless dictator 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's very 'breakable' because there's quite a few ways to have Stage 3 be a negative result, but so far no one at all has had it because I designed it to cover all coherent or legitimate moral codes, tbph. If you have a negative result in Stage 3, you're lying to yourself extremely.

I scored it like you said. I got a 6 at the end and 6 was something I would never have thought of.

But theb you put the 6 in the wrong part of the stafe 2 equation. You need ti minus by the 6 in stage 2

I’m a libertarian left-winger. Pretty accurate.

no 6-4=2, so PaulVerliane is actually a chameleon who leans to lib left-wing. That makes more sense.

It wasn't 6-3 =3

GG 

In PM, if you don't want to to it publicly, pls tell me your results so we are sure the math was done right.

I can't reveal your PM without getting punished for PM doxxing so I am bound by privacy clauses of the CoC.

I think these were my choices:

Would: get cops involved (5)

Want: beat him up without kids seeing (2)

Add:

2 + 5 = 7

Least want: Ignore it(4)

Super immoral: joining in (8)

Subtract latter from former: 4 - 8 = -4

Then subtract the second round from the first:

7 - -4 = 11

Over 8 means I am a dictator.

Option 2 means you are giving the children up for adoption afterwards, whereas option 1 is doing what you said. Actually it's true in a way, option 1 entails they will hear/see it so I get your reasoning.

Your choices all imply that given power, you would do many things violent and/or corrupt in the name of what you see as worth doing it, especially since option 2 is to be done without witness (for their own good of course, in your eyes at least) you think most like a tin pot dictator. This sounds like a harsh insult, but that's because you are reading it in the tone of someone who is inherently against authority. I am not saying it as an insult or loathing your character. You would likely be a somewhat fair dictator, I don't doubt that. You would, nonetheless, come down like all hell broken loose on those you deemed immoral under your regime and that trait, especially when combined with your subtle means and loathing of neutrality (4 being what least to do) result in you being overall an interventionalist, 'absolute authority' type when given the chance.

Option 5 is more like playing it safe enough and hiding behind them, you'd probably dislike that you had to do it. That's not objectively good or evil, it's just your style of morality.

Also, the fact that joining in was the most absurd thing you could fathom out of all the options shows that you would not cower to influence you saw as corrupt, no matter how much peace depended upon it.

You would not be an imperialist dictator, you are not a right-wing type. You would be an isolationist type overall, attacking your nearby nations only if they were too immoral for you to stand and the authorities wouldn't do it.

I don't disagree with a lot of your reasoning. I do believe that there can be an immoral aspect to doing nothing.

I don't know if I would attack nearby nations for their immoral actions. Since I am rather nationalistic, I would only do that if it somehow prevented harm in my country. 

Why wouldn't I be a right-wing type?

Never heard of tin-pot dictator, but I don't appreciate it lol.

The second was subjective so I picked what I felt bad about. 

A Right-Winger fundamentally thrives on competition, they want inequality. You would try to ignore inequality, you would rule simply as you saw best, be it fitting to the natural order of things or not.

Well, there are some limitations to that description because I am not an anarchist. Technically having a police force interferes with the natural order of things, and I support having a police force. Right-wingers don't want inequality, they recognize that, because everyone is different, they will all reach different outcomes. They tend to not want to interfere with that inequality through wealth redistribution and other similar programs. 

You are the one who says you're right-wing. I am arguing for my results being true to you.