No, I put "strongly disagree" because I SO STRONGLY detest the underlying principle that I felt it was important that it be reflected in my score. When you take these quizzes you read a question and ask what the question is getting at, then take your position. This question was a question about racial superiority, which I reject outright, so I said as much on the quiz.

And I am calling foul that you seriously don't see it this way. Do you doubt that that was the quiz creators' intent in crafting the question?

Fair enough. I suppose I did look at intent when asking question number 1...

I took the test again, changing my answer from agree to disagree on this argument (and I guess I also changed my answers on other questions.) My new score:
Economic Left/Right: 7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

looking at the score from yesterday:
Economic Left/Right: +8.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.00

I am surprised that the econ right/left changed more then the social libertarian/authoriatarian did.

Lol the truth is it changes a lot from instance to instance.

So, for the record. I do not believe there is any racial superiority. I would be interested to know how well accepted the idea of "race as merely a social construct" is accepted by anthropologists and geneticists. It is definitely a tough schema to break.

My original agreement that there are things that are better was answered because of the way Thucy asked the question. Which was, do you agree to any degree or something along those lines. I answered strongly disagree or disagree when I took the quiz, because I knew what they were looking for. I don't believe that any race is superior, once all upsides and downsides are weighed together. Well, except from a social standpoint. Being white is way better in the US than being black or latino, when you think about social mobility, concentration of wealth, getting jobs etc. ( I know I am not fitting into the nicely made boxes of the three races listed previously).

"Well, except from a social standpoint. "

My point exactly. Clearly we do not disagree.

Anyway I invite you to research race as a social construct for yourself. I don't think you'll be disappointed. Every source that speaks contrary to the idea has about as much credibility as climate skeptic forums.

Right on. I will look into it for sure. I am definitely too busy to be reading stuff not related to my thesis for the next few days. However, I think I am going to take a week off at the end of this semester so I might put in a little readin'.

"has about as much credibility as climate skeptic forums."
So, would now be a bad time to mention that I believe climate change has been vastly overblown and that I think carbon emissions has little to do with it?

lol. I'm not even going to get into that with you dude.

Oh except there's this great link I saw today:

http://phys.org/news/2012-12-pair-global.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

lol. the daily mail vs phys.org

ok

Fasces, enlighten me. Why are you and a clearly biased article from the dailymail more intelligent than hundreds of actual experts in the field? Note that I will actually argue this with you if you'd like. This is just something to get the ball rolling.

I'm not denying climate change, I just think its been blown out of proportion. And we don't have a consensus among experts in the field like many think we do.

Really? I'd like to point you to a few links:
1. I count at most twelve climate scientists here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
2. There are 620 here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Physical_Science_Basis

That's less than two percent, and not even close to all climate scientists co-author the IPCC. That seems like a consensus to me.

fair enough, but I still think its overeaction. Since the 1950s people have been saying at the rate we are polluting the world will be destroyed in 20 years, that dead has been extended constantly and I think that the reaction scientists are giving is the 'worst case scenario' not the most likely scenario.

*deadline

Reminder that predictions made by the IPCC in 1990 have come true.

http://phys.org/news/2012-12-pair-global.html

Anyway, what were you saying about half-baked alarmism?

http://canute2.sealevelrise.info/access/repository/resource/19854972-62c3-102f-a3d0-40404adc5e91

Hardly any projections use A1F, which currently seems to be the most accurate emissions scenario. Do you accept climate models, or would you like to attempt to refute them?

But thucy I don't accept that argument. 1998 and 2010 are the two hottest years on record. 2011 was far colder then 2010 so if you took that year, then they would be off.

I have done little research into climate change so wont attempt to argue against it, this is where Gugh, you are not going to like me because I am going to have to resort to name-dropping and the like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEqyPbPuJf8
Start at 26:59 cause that is when they start talking about climate change.

This is my main reason for believing that climate change has been exaggerated.

hahahahahaha "Gugh" i love it. Like Hugh, but with a G.

#fuckgugh

Anyway what don't you agree with? It was for the period 1990-2010, not JUST 2010

How can you take that on faith? This guy gives no facts and isn't even close to an expert in the field. I'm fine with you citing sources if they are valid and relevant, but don't waste my time with the rhetoric of some guy who, frankly, does not matter in the slightest.

#goddamnitthucyimagreeingwithyou
#fuckthucy

https://upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com/nugget/50c0d9628a58d100020054ad/attachments/climate-pie-chart.jpg

what he is claiming (and I don't know if its correct) is that scientists are acknowledging that the global warming they cite is a worst case scenario, not an expected outcome like your claiming

Yes, I realize what he's claiming, but he's wrong. The graphic I posted makes it pretty clear that they're not overestimating emissions, with the line data are most closely matching being a quadrupling of atmospheric CO2, most of which occurs in the first 50 years. That means that, if anything, all extensively modeled estimates are underestimates.

then I stand corrected, but i really don't have enough interest in climate change to do extensive research