If natural selection is the mechanism for superiorty then those at the bottom

  • 77 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by frannkzappa (3003 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] Social Darwinism is derived from biological theories.EagleEyedOne

No, Social Darwinism is derived from, at best, woefully ignorant misinterpretations of biological theories.

If you believe social Darwinism is derived from at best of "woefully ignorant misinterpretations of biological theories" then you have a seriously flawed idea of both social Darwinism and biological theories if that is "the best" of what you can think of.

there's reason that social Darwinism is in the same trash bin as astrology.

#52 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1661 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

No, Social Darwinism is derived from, at best, woefully ignorant misinterpretations of biological theories.

frannkzappa

If you believe social Darwinism is derived from at best of "woefully ignorant misinterpretations of biological theories" then you have a seriously flawed idea of both social Darwinism and biological theories if that is "the best" of what you can think of.

there's reason that social Darwinism is in the same trash bin as astrology.

Says who?
#53 Posted by frannkzappa (3003 posts) -

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] If you believe social Darwinism is derived from at best of "woefully ignorant misinterpretations of biological theories" then you have a seriously flawed idea of both social Darwinism and biological theories if that is "the best" of what you can think of.EagleEyedOne

there's reason that social Darwinism is in the same trash bin as astrology.

Says who?

psychologists,historians, biologists, psychiatrists, sociologist, anthropologists and anyone with a knowledge of empirics.

#54 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1661 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

there's reason that social Darwinism is in the same trash bin as astrology.

frannkzappa

Says who?

psychologists,historians, biologists, psychiatrists, sociologist, anthropologists and anyone with a knowledge of empirics.

Provide relevant names, please.
#55 Posted by frannkzappa (3003 posts) -

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] Says who?EagleEyedOne

psychologists,historians, biologists, psychiatrists, sociologist, anthropologists and anyone with a knowledge of empirics.

Provide relevant names, please.

That would be most of the scientific community . if you don't know the general opinion on social Darwinism, it's quite easy to look up. don't waste other people's time if you aren't willing to look up relevant information, when you have the entire internet in front of you.

#56 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] Social Darwinism is derived from biological theories.EagleEyedOne

No, Social Darwinism is derived from, at best, woefully ignorant misinterpretations of biological theories.

If you believe social Darwinism is derived from at best of "woefully ignorant misinterpretations of biological theories" then you have a seriously flawed idea of both social Darwinism and biological theories if that is "the best" of what you can think of.

Right. Coming from someone who has not the slightest understanding of Natural Selection your comment here is worth dogshit.

#57 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

 

psychologists,historians, biologists, psychiatrists, sociologist, anthropologists and anyone with a knowledge of empirics.

frannkzappa

Provide relevant names, please.

 

That would be most of the scientific community . if you don't know the general opinion on social Darwinism, it's quite easy to look up. don't waste other people's time if you aren't willing to look up relevant information, when you have the entire internet in front of you.

We should probably just stop wasting our time here. You can't fight willful ignorance.

#58 Posted by magicalclick (23718 posts) -
It is too much to concern over such minor thing. If I am rich, that's not the question I would ask myself, because I can't change the county. I can only do what I am capable of doing. And trying to maintain assets is not an easy task. There are several strategy I can do. But, since I am not rich, I don't really care much for it. True natural selection is about adopting the new environment. As you can see, the environment is moving toward socialist system. Then, if you want thrive, you need to find new ways to adopt to it. If you can't, at least migrate. But, if that's not an option, find the best possible way to adopt to the new system. There is always a way, just not easy to find. And obviously, for the ones that found its way, they thrive above others.
#59 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1661 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

psychologists,historians, biologists, psychiatrists, sociologist, anthropologists and anyone with a knowledge of empirics.

frannkzappa

Provide relevant names, please.

That would be most of the scientific community . if you don't know the general opinion on social Darwinism, it's quite easy to look up. don't waste other people's time if you aren't willing to look up relevant information, when you have the entire internet in front of you.

If the general opinion on Social Darwinism is so easy to look up then you would provide a name credible within the scientific community who disregards it as you disputed it and proposed that scientists oppose the legitimacy of social darwinism in the first place. Why can't you support your own claim?
#60 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1661 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

No, Social Darwinism is derived from, at best, woefully ignorant misinterpretations of biological theories.

worlock77

If you believe social Darwinism is derived from at best of "woefully ignorant misinterpretations of biological theories" then you have a seriously flawed idea of both social Darwinism and biological theories if that is "the best" of what you can think of.

Right. Coming from someone who has not the slightest understanding of Natural Selection your comment here is worth dogshit.

Please explain how you have a better understanding of natural selection than myself.
#61 Posted by frannkzappa (3003 posts) -

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] Provide relevant names, please.EagleEyedOne

That would be most of the scientific community . if you don't know the general opinion on social Darwinism, it's quite easy to look up. don't waste other people's time if you aren't willing to look up relevant information, when you have the entire internet in front of you.

If the general opinion on Social Darwinism is so easy to look up then you would provide a name credible within the scientific community who disregards it as you disputed it and proposed that scientists oppose the legitimacy of social darwinism in the first place. Why can't you support your own claim?

I am not your personal information box. this is not a worthwhile conversation in which points are argued, therefore instead of answering you further i will instead be watching "paranoia agent".

have a nice day.

#62 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1661 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

That would be most of the scientific community . if you don't know the general opinion on social Darwinism, it's quite easy to look up. don't waste other people's time if you aren't willing to look up relevant information, when you have the entire internet in front of you.

frannkzappa

If the general opinion on Social Darwinism is so easy to look up then you would provide a name credible within the scientific community who disregards it as you disputed it and proposed that scientists oppose the legitimacy of social darwinism in the first place. Why can't you support your own claim?

I am not your personal information box. this is not a worthwhile conversation in which points are argued, therefore instead of answering you further i will instead be watching "paranoia agent".

have a nice day.

Exactly. You have no proof or corroborated evidence other than your own inclinations.
#63 Posted by wis3boi (31935 posts) -

yx3q10y.gif.

#64 Posted by MrGeezer (56967 posts) -

of society begging for help/money are those begging against the natural order of life.

Why should we give those at the bottom resources the bottom did not work for? The bottom will not ever provide resources for the future if they continue to beg so why keep giving them resources instead of providing the ones (the ones not on the bottom) who will use those resources to provide for future generations?

(Ones on the bottom would be the ones who beg on the corners or sleep on sidewalks).

EagleEyedOne
Well, those people are probably begging for money because they want to use that money to buy something. Maybe food, maybe drugs, maybe booze, I don't know. It doesn't matter. The point is, they don't care about the money. The money is just a means to get what they REALLY want. Without donations from strangers, they're STILL gonna try to get what they REALLY want, they'll just resort to more extreme measures than "standing on the corner and asking a stranger for change." They only ask because asking works. Once asking stops working, they simply take. And that involves people getting stabbed and beaten. And here's the thing...money doesn't mean $hit when it comes to natural selection. Yes, you might be financially stable or even wealthy. That doesn't mean jack $hit when some broke-ass crackhead stabs you in the face in order to take $50 from your wallet. He might be bottom rung, but now he's got your money and you're f***ing dead. I'd also like to bring up the old saying "the rich get richer and the poor get children." It's a bit ridiculous to pretend that natural selection favors the rich, when it's typically the people who are poor as $hit who have the most kids. Yes, the poor are more reproductively successful than the rich. We can spend all day claiming that we don't owe the poor anything, but the fact is that they'd be able to take what they want if they got desperate enough. If anything, the "natural order" of life is NOT to "provide for future generations". The natural order of life is to SURVIVE. That's not to say that you should give beggars money. I don't give beggars money either. But it's not because I think they're inferior or that giving them money that they haven't earned goes against some kind of natural order. No, I don't give money to bums because I'd rather keep the money for myself and MOST bums aren't desperate enough to take my money by force. If things were different and the likely outcome of not giving bums money was that they take it anyway and then leave me dead, then you f***ing bet I'd give them money. Whether or not they deserve it or worked for it is completely 100% irrelevant.
#65 Posted by trasherhead (3058 posts) -
Because we are humans, and most humans are born with compassion, at least atheist are. Religious people do fight the urge to have compassion very hard these days. And if TC want to go the route of evolution, it is the natural selection of the ones that can adapt to their surroundings. Those at the bottom of the social ladder do survive, not all of them, but they do. They live in a different environment then you and I. If you were to lose everything and land a*s first on the street, would you survive?
#66 Posted by lostrib (41948 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] If you believe social Darwinism is derived from at best of "woefully ignorant misinterpretations of biological theories" then you have a seriously flawed idea of both social Darwinism and biological theories if that is "the best" of what you can think of.EagleEyedOne

Right. Coming from someone who has not the slightest understanding of Natural Selection your comment here is worth dogshit.

Please explain how you have a better understanding of natural selection than myself.

because we had to explain it to you

#67 Posted by comp_atkins (31923 posts) -
"we're trying to have a civilization here"
#68 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -
Natural selection refers to genetic adaptation, it has nothing to do with social issues. It's an extremely misunderstood and misrepresented process. As genes mutate from one generation to the next, those that improve adaptation to environmental conditions get passed on, those that make survival unlikely don't get passed on because the hosts of those genes die off. It's quite logical if you think about it. As for social issues, would you rather live in a compassionate society or a cruel one?
#69 Posted by Angie7F (1175 posts) -

I agree that natural selection is about genes, not social issues.

However I will like to point out that if you kid is stupid enough to get cuaght in revolving doors and die from it, I believe evolution is trying to weed out the less suitable offsprings

#71 Posted by Barbariser (6761 posts) -

Lol at the irony of someone as clearly genetically unfit like the TC arguing for social darwinist policies.

#72 Posted by Riverwolf007 (24185 posts) -

of society begging for help/money are those begging against the natural order of life.

 

Why should we give those at the bottom resources the bottom did not work for? The bottom will not ever provide resources for the future if they continue to beg so why keep giving them resources instead of providing the ones (the ones not on the bottom) who will use those resources to provide for future generations?

 

(Ones on the bottom would be the ones who beg on the corners or sleep on sidewalks).

EagleEyedOne

i just used this speech as the opening monologue for my gritty reboot of the snidely whiplash movie.

thanks.

th?id=H.5058364388476122&pid=15.1

#73 Posted by -TheSecondSign- (9235 posts) -

Success in the modern world is not always determined by who deserves to survive the most based on inherited traits.

You aren't being chased by rabid packs of wolves or forced to find your own food anymore. Things that would make or break in an environment where natural selection works properly aren't present in your day to day life anymore.

#75 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

I agree that natural selection is about genes, not social issues.

However I will like to point out that if you kid is stupid enough to get cuaght in revolving doors and die from it, I believe evolution is trying to weed out the less suitable offsprings

Angie7F

Natural selection has more to do with genetic evolution between species rather than within species.  For example, the genetic differences between the hominids and the neanderthals.  Contrary to popular belief, neanderthals were actually more civilized and also more skillful tool makers than the hominids, but the physical differences between the two made the hominids better suited for the harsh environment in which they lived, thus the hominids survived and went on to create things like the GS forums, whereas neanderthals became extinct.

#76 Posted by Teenaged (31748 posts) -

Well if those at the bottom are handsome, "gifted" (*wink*) and/or intelligent, they should have all of your money TC. Especially if you are ugly.

#77 Posted by Jebus213 (8919 posts) -

huehuehue