Which of the following statements do you agree with?

[Ebowed]

The following are taken directly from the Political Compass test.

STATEMENT #1:
"Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races."

STATEMENT #2:
"All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind."

STATEMENT #3:
"There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures."

Please vote on which ones you agree with.

[Gabu]

Statement #3 I agree with; it seems pretty obvious to me that those in the Middle East tend to be more violent than those in first-world countries.  Of course, this says nothing about whether that's inherent in the culture or not, but it's simply a fact, taken as is.

Statement #s 1 and 2 I don't agree with at all.

[DanielX]

NOTA.

[KEmperor]

I disagree with all of them.

The first two are racist, the third implies moral relativism.

[Inverted Things]

The following are taken directly from the Political Compass test.

STATEMENT #1:
"Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races."

STATEMENT #2:
"All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind."

STATEMENT #3:
"There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures."

Please vote on which ones you agree with.

Statement #1: Disagree.

Statement #2: Agree. Ohhh, I bet I get flamed for this one.

Statement #3: Semantics. Meaningless statement.

[Blue Rectangle]

I disagree with all of them.

The first two are racist, the third implies moral relativism.

[Nation]

I disagree with all of them.

The first two are racist, the third implies moral relativism.

[ATFFL]

I agree with the first.  It is true that my race has advantages in areas that other races do not.

The other races have similar advantages over mine.

This is why I hate the political compass and willnot post a score.  It is very poorly written.

[??????????]

Options 1, 2 and 3.

[angus]

I remember these questions.

I chose disagree, disagree, agree.

I can't remember if I was "strongly" in disagreement though.  I don't think I usually do "strongly" so probably not.

[John Dibble]

Disagree with all of them.

[??????????]

Disagree with all of them.

A country/religion that encourages wife beating, suicide bombing, etc isnt a savage group?

[Sam Spade]

I disagree with all of them.

The first two are racist, the third implies moral relativism.

[Sam Spade]

Disagree with all of them.

A country/religion that encourages wife beating, suicide bombing, etc isnt a savage group?

Read question 3 again.  It's implying the opposite of what you mean (I think).

I happen to believe their are savage and civilized peoples and Western culture is frankly more civilized than any other culture around.

[??????????]

I disagree with all of them.

The first two are racist, the third implies moral relativism.

The first two are not racist. It really depends on perspective. Sure you can view them as racial comments but if you think about it they certainly are not.

[??????????]

Disagree with all of them.

A country/religion that encourages wife beating, suicide bombing, etc isnt a savage group?

Read question 3 again.  It's implying the opposite of what you mean (I think).

I happen to believe their are savage and civilized peoples and Western culture is frankly more civilized than any other culture around.

Opps, I messed up. I strongly disagree with Option 3.

[Sam Spade]

I disagree with all of them.

The first two are racist, the third implies moral relativism.

The first two are not racist. It really depends on perspective. Sure you can view them as racial comments but if you think about it they certainly are not.

I'll agree on the second one, maybe.  The first, I definitely do not agree with.

[??????????]

I disagree with all of them.

The first two are racist, the third implies moral relativism.

The first two are not racist. It really depends on perspective. Sure you can view them as racial comments but if you think about it they certainly are not.

I'll agree on the second one, maybe.  The first, I definitely do not agree with.

You don't think their are any differences genetically between blacks, whites, asians, etc?

[Alcon]

None.

#1 would be fine if it was different was used in place of superior or many was dropped, but in this current state it is just racism.

#2 can be interpreted variously. People of different interests? People of different social classes? People of different ethnicities? The first is fine, but I don't think that is what they are going for here. I disagree.

#3 I disagree with. How can one not describe cannibalistic cultures as "savage"?

[angus]

States,
sure, they do.  seriously.  you probably don't have much melanin.  which means that you'd get sunburned if you lived in Sudan all the time.  On the other hand, africans and dravidians and polynesians have quite a bit, which means that they'd get frostbite if they had to live in Siberia all the time, since melanin has a higher freezing point than other components of the epiderm.  There are differences.  But to say that one is "superior"  well that's silly.  In the hot sun at the equator, you are "inferior" but in a blizard, you are "superior"  which is it?  Or what about in the Gobi desert?  You don't have the epicanthic fold under your eyes which keeps out sand.  Does that mean that the asians are "superior" to the Round Eye.  Well, in fact, it's just a semantics game isn't it?  You are neither superior nor inferior to others.  Just different because your ancestors went in a different direction in which the climate selected different types for survival.

[Sam Spade]

You don't think their are any differences genetically between blacks, whites, asians, etc?

Of course, there are slight differences genetically.  And there are certain attributes and negatives which I'm sure tend to be favored among different races in general.

But I'm with Alcon here on the interpretation of #1.

[??????????]

States,
sure, they do.  seriously.  you probably don't have much melanin.  which means that you'd get sunburned if you lived in Sudan all the time.  On the other hand, africans and dravidians and polynesians have quite a bit, which means that they'd get frostbite if they had to live in Siberia all the time, since melanin has a higher freezing point than other components of the epiderm.  There are differences.  But to say that one is "superior"  well that's silly.  In the hot sun at the equator, you are "inferior" but in a blizard, you are "superior"  which is it?  Or what about in the Gobi desert?  You don't have the epicanthic fold under your eyes which keeps out sand.  Does that mean that the asians are "superior" to the Round Eye.  Well, in fact, it's just a semantics game isn't it?  You are neither superior nor inferior to others.  Just different because your ancestors went in a different direction in which the climate selected different types for survival.

It's all perspective really. If someone has a better built body for atheletics then someone of another race I suppose that could be considered superior. Take some of your examples. If the adaption helps someone to survive and the other persons lack of that adaption causes them to die, then in a way you can say the person that survived IS superior.

[angus]

Deion Sanders superior to you?  just because he runs faster and has good hand-eye coordination?  well, you could argue that his "type" make for better football and basketball players, while your type may make for better in other fields.  But saying that whites generally make better swimmers, chinese make better gymnasts, and blacks make better basketballers, is not the same as saying one group is "superior"  Just means people are different.  I don't think we disagree on this.  I think you're not the knee-jerk PC type and neither am I, and we don't mind talking about race.  But you can't say any race is abjectly "superior" can you?  Just that they are differently suited.

[??????????]

Deion Sanders superior to you?  just because he runs faster and has good hand-eye coordination?  well, you could argue that his "type" make for better football and basketball players, while your type may make for better in other fields.  But saying that whites generally make better swimmers, chinese make better gymnasts, and blacks make better basketballers, is not the same as saying one group is "superior"  Just means people are different.  I don't think we disagree on this.  I think you're not the knee-jerk PC type and neither am I, and we don't mind talking about race.  But you can't say any race is abjectly "superior" can you?  Just that they are differently suited.

If someones pyhsical advantage gains them something more then someone w/out it, ie more money, more women, etc. In a way you could say they are superior to someone w/out that advantage.

[JohnFKennedy]

Deion Sanders superior to you?  just because he runs faster and has good hand-eye coordination?  well, you could argue that his "type" make for better football and basketball players, while your type may make for better in other fields.  But saying that whites generally make better swimmers, chinese make better gymnasts, and blacks make better basketballers, is not the same as saying one group is "superior"  Just means people are different.  I don't think we disagree on this.  I think you're not the knee-jerk PC type and neither am I, and we don't mind talking about race.  But you can't say any race is abjectly "superior" can you?  Just that they are differently suited.

If someones pyhsical advantage gains them something more then someone w/out it, ie more money, more women, etc. In a way you could say they are superior to someone w/out that advantage.

Basically then it depends on the geographic location as to who is superior, in Siberia a white man would be whereas in Africa a black man would be. Balances out in the end really.