Political Compass Question - Civilization

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

Option 4 of course.

[nini2287]

option 3

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Strongly disagree. I mean look at the islamic world and africa.

[afleitch]

Strongly disagree and I take no shame in defending western liberal democratic culture either.

[dazzleman]

Strongly disagree and I take no shame in defending western liberal democratic culture either.

^^^^^^^^

Funny how some people claim that every culture is equal, but they still call upon the more successful cultures to keep rescuing the less successful ones.

Every culture has its strong and weak points, but some are better than others, and there's no point in pretending otherwise.

[MasterJedi]

Strongly disagree and I take no shame in defending western liberal democratic culture either.

^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^

[Nym90]

Disagree. Some are definitely better than others, although I don't think any are 100 percent good or 100 percent bad.

[opebo]

Strongly disagree and I take no shame in defending western liberal democratic culture either.

^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^

What the hell?  Dazzleman, Masterjedi, you two don't support western liberal democracy at all, you support theocracy.

[12th Doctor]

Disagree... I think there needs to be a serious distinction between "savage" and "different" that often goes unrecongnized... at least by early "anthropologists".  Native American civilization was not "savage" for instance, even though it was labled as such... and I think there are plenty of "civilized" cultures that do practice some pretty savage things, without mentioning any names.  However, I disagree with any notion of absolute relativism, which I think is what the question is driving at.

[MaC]

Option 4.  I've long thought about posting this question.
For any bleeding heart that posts option1, think about the cannibalism, female genital mutilation, and other such horrors that are 'common practice' in third world countries and tell me that-'oh it's not wrong, just different'.

[minionofmidas]

For any bleeding heart that posts option1, think about the cannibalism, female genital mutilation, and other such horrors that are 'common practice' in third world countries and tell me that-'oh it's not wrong, just different'.

Now, cannibals are certainly people that have had a just insanely bad press.[also see below]
There is no reliable record of cannibalism for food procurement ever being a regular practice in any human culture in the world (moles are probably our closest relatives to do that). The cannibalism that once was widespread in the Americas, and also existed in parts of Central Africa, Neu Guinea, Tibet, and probably elsewhere that I'm not aware of, was a religious cerenomy by which parts of freshly deceased persons were ritually consumed in order that their spirit might live on in the souls of their consuments. Anthropologists distinguish between two variants (although some people practiced both) - the consumption of your own relatives, and the consumption of enemy warriors who had excelled in battle.
The first of these was far more widespread, and still exists in some remote corners - although it's certainly not 'common practice' across any third-world country.

As to female genital mutilation, I obviously consider this practice wrong. (The same goes for male genital mutilation, as among Australian aboriginals and in parts of Yemen and formerly of Saudi Arabia, where both male and female genital mutilation were brutally suppressed, and eradicated by the Wahhabi authorities in the 20s and 30s; although I don't mind the purely symbolic form of male genital mutilation practiced by Muslims, Jews and Americans). It should be pointed out, though, that the practice too has its own logic, being as it were a merger of a female initiation rites and of an extreme version of the cult of female virginity, which also exists/ed in Europe.
I gotta say, if forced to choose, that I would consider a society that practiced genital mutilation but not the death penalty as less barbaric than the other way round. (Voted option 2, btw.)

[below]Now, you sort of can't blame non-cannibals for giving cannibals a bad press. If you've got religious views of your own regarding the disposition of your remains, being eaten by your enemies is probably the worst fate you could imagine for yourself, and if only some of your enemies practice this, they obviously become especially dreadful to you.

[Bdub]

Option 4

[Democratic Hawk]

Strongly disagree and I take no shame in defending western liberal democratic culture either.

Ditto

[Reignman]

option 3.

[Speed of Sound]

Something 'savage' is nothing more than a failed human experiment.

Option 2

[Alcon]

Something 'savage' is nothing more than a failed human experiment.

Option 2

That does not mean that it isn't savage....

Option 4 (3.5, really, but 4 for rounding's sake)

[minionofmidas]

Something 'savage' is nothing more than a failed human experiment.

Some traits that get called "savage" are - ie cannibalism.
Others are more like ... what nature ordained for us, especially regarding marriage customs and such like. I suppose you could call lifelong monogamous marriage a failed human experiment, actually.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Option 4.  Does that make your Social score go up or down?

[jerusalemcar5]

Option 4.  Does that make your Social score go up or down?

Up.

Anyways, I agree with it.  Do I think some cultures have better ideals in my opinion? Yes.  Do I think any culture is uncivilized or savage because they hold beliefs different from mine? No.

[Gustaf]

Option 4.  Does that make your Social score go up or down?

Up.

Anyways, I agree with it.  Do I think some cultures have better ideals in my opinion? Yes.  Do I think any culture is uncivilized or savage because they hold beliefs different from mine? No.

That makes no sense. Don't you consider your opinion as beinb worth anything?

And option 4, of course. I consider it border-line evil to agree with this statement.

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

I consider it border-line evil to agree with this statement.

Why? Do you believe that extremist muslim or tribal nations don't have some savage qualities about them?

[WalterMitty]

option 1.

[minionofmidas]

I consider it border-line evil to agree with this statement.

Why? Do you believe that extremist muslim or tribal nations don't have some savage qualities about them?

He said he considers it borderline evil NOT to believe in the innate superiority of himself.

[angus]

Something 'savage' is nothing more than a failed human experiment.

Option 2

I agree as well.  For example, I've had many conversations with local people on second-class buses I've ridden in Latin America.  One thing folks will point out about la cultura gringa is that we do not value family as much as latinoamericanos do, and more specifically that we see no value in wisdom given that we put our old folks in sterile, stainless steel environments so that they can spend their twilight years alone die in the company of strangers.  We are a mobile society, and we do not live in extended families of multiple generations.  I live a thousand miles from where I was born, and my parents conceived me a thousand miles from where they were born.  This is common.  Does money mean more than blood to gringos?  I'm not sure.  But I am sure that ours isn't a savage attitude.  It's merely a consequence of our history.  This history of a relatively young nation in a hurry.  The people who invented "fast food" would hardly be expected to, as Elton John might say, "listen to my old man and stay on the farm" 

Am I more savage than an Indian because I eat his sacred cow?  Is a Frenchman more savage than an Englishman merely because he has the gastronomical courage to sample invertebrates sauteed in cream?  Are the loincloth-wearing Zulu people more savage than their Dutch masters by virtue of the fact they have no shoes or shirts?  Hardly.  It may be that the african is better dressed for his climate.  Sure, Japanese people generally smell better than Europeans, and have longer longevity, but the fact that they are willing to sleep in rooms the size of caskets says more about the general recognition of the value of space in an overpopulated land than it does about civility.

The worldview which necessitates the need to spread civilization is not rare.  In fact it's common.  It's what caused the death of millions of native americans at the hands of the catholocism-spreading spaniards.  It's what supported the capture and sale of millions of africans at the hands of portuguese and dutch slave traders.  It's what still justifies the spilling of arab, english, and american blood in the fertile crescent.  But it's a misleading worldview which does more harm than good.  And anyway it's easily refuted.

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

I consider it border-line evil to agree with this statement.

Why? Do you believe that extremist muslim or tribal nations don't have some savage qualities about them?

He said he considers it borderline evil NOT to believe in the innate superiority of himself.

My bad. This question is kinda funny (reads wrong) if you read it fast.