Conundrum

[t_wolves_fan]

When it comes to evolution and people, why is it that:

The religious/capitalists tend to reject evolution, which is survival of the fittest, on a grand scale, but don't have a big problem with social darwinism

while,

The far-left/communists/etc. tend to favor evolution, which is survival of the fittest, on a grand scale but have a huge problem with social darwinism.


I tend to favor both broad-scale evolution and social darwinism. Does that make me less a hypocrite?

[Intellectual47]

Most religious people support survival of the fittest. They don't support the idea that that's how life started because of A. religous reaons, or B. evolution has some serious holes in it. Everyone agrees with Survival of the fittest, they just don't think that's how life began.

Communists have a problem with social Darwinism because it means working for your stuff.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 05:45 pm
evolution has some serious holes in it. Everyone agrees with Survival of the fittest, they just don't think that's how life began.
Yes, and some mystical sky wizard creating humans from dirt or his finger tips is a water tight explanation for the creation of humanity.

Would you care to share with us these "serious holes"?


Communists have a problem with social Darwinism because it means working for your stuff.

:angry:

Listen to me fucktard! My patience is just about run dry with you. If you are not even going to take the time to understand what communism is, opting to make ridiculous provocative statements like this you will just be banned

Do you understand me? Seriously, do you grasp what these words mean?

[Intellectual47]

Okay, sorry for making you mad. (Did you know that they say that if you get angry in a debate, it proves that you have nothing more to say?)

One hole is the mathmatical improbability of four genes changing in a manner that wouldn't kill the organism. I think it's 10 to the 30'th power. The number of known particles in the universe is 10 to the 15'th power.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 04:53 pm
(Did you know that they say that if you get angry in a debate, it proves that you have nothing more to say?)
Clearly "they" never had to argue with thick as shit capitalists like yourself.


One hole is the mathmatical improbability of four genes changing in a manner that wouldn't kill the organism. I think it's 10 to the 30'th power. The number of known particles in the universe is 10 to the 15'th power. Consider that our universe is near enough infinite, given that, it is entirely possible mathematically that at least one world will exist whereby this has happened, no matter how mathematically improbable.

[Intellectual47]

Jazzratt, you didn't answer my point. Instead you decided to get me on little things and ignored the larger point.

And "they" was my debate teachers. But what do they know? They've only been doing this for 15 years each.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 05:56 pm
Jazzratt, you didn't answer my point. Instead you decided to get me on little things and ignored the larger point.
Your larger point was what? That there's some enourmous invisible fairy that made us all?


And "they" was my debate teachers. But what do they know? They've only been doing this for 15 years each. Teachers aren't always right. 15 years of expereince or not. Especially if they teach at private schools (the class traitors).

[Intellectual47]

No, the bigger point that the chance of four genes mutating without killing the creature is 10 to the 30'th power. That's a ten with 30 zeroes behind it. 100 million has 8 zeroes behind it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 06:03 pm
No, the bigger point that the chance of four genes mutating without killing the creature is 10 to the 30'th power. That's a ten with 30 zeroes behind it. 100 million has 8 zeroes behind it.
I know what standard form is you dullard.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 05:59 pm
Teachers aren't always right. 15 years of expereince or not. Especially if they teach at private schools (the class traitors).
So you are saying that wealthy schools go out of their way to teach things that are incorrect,

or,

simply having the wrong opinion makes what you say incorrect, regardless of the facts of your statement.

:wacko:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 14, 2006 06:23 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 14, 2006 06:23 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2006 05:59 pm
Teachers aren't always right. 15 years of expereince or not. Especially if they teach at private schools (the class traitors).
So you are saying that wealthy schools go out of their way to teach things that are incorrect,

or,

simply having the wrong opinion makes what you say incorrect, regardless of the facts of your statement.

:wacko: [/b]
It was more of tongue in cheek statement. Most wealthy schools actually poach the better teachers, so that only people with money can get a decent education. Some teachers, however, have more principals than to work for a private school.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

The far-left/communists/etc. tend to favor evolution, which is survival of the fittest, on a grand scale but have a huge problem with social darwinism.


Well social darwinism is totally skewered by the class system.

Capitalist states are pre-supposed to be meritocracies. And, when the capitalist state you live in is seen as a legitimate meritocratic state, then you might agree that social Darwinism does exist.

However, complete imbeciles ..(ahem Bush Jr)...can start and be the Boss of an Oil company, not because they have been the strongest human specimen, but because their father was a capitalist pig.

For social Darwinism, each generation would have to have a "clean slate" to start from. Each person would have all the same chances, same education, access to capital etc.

Then, you could see who rises and who falls.

Thats not what happens though.

Communists obviously don't support social Darwinism, yet we do support some sort of meritocracy.

The capitalists support social Darwinism because they either don't acknowledge a class system or see it as a minor thing that can be overcome.

They believe they are the boss from their own merit. People wont really accept capitalism unless that is instilled into social consciousness.

(Ive been really tired from working loads recently, i hope you understand me because of my dopey grammar...)

[manic expression]

Social darwinism is an idiotic interpretation of the theory of evolution. Evolution comes from nature, not from humans; you don't see animals killing one another just because they don't like the shade of their fur. Furthermore, a diverse species is a stronger species, for genetic mutation is something that allows for adaptation in a crisis. Therefore, a species which has more diversity can respond and adapt and survive far better than a species with less diversity.

From looking at the theory of evolution, it is clear that diversity is ideal and desirable (contrary to what the delusional and insipid eugenicists would have you mistakenly believe).

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 04:53 pm
Okay, sorry for making you mad. (Did you know that they say that if you get angry in a debate, it proves that you have nothing more to say?)

One hole is the mathmatical improbability of four genes changing in a manner that wouldn't kill the organism. I think it's 10 to the 30'th power. The number of known particles in the universe is 10 to the 15'th power.
You should expect such responses, because your points are inexplicably ridiculous. Most people here expect people to get the fact that "working for your stuff" has nothing to do with reality, and is only a shallow justification for exploitation.

Social darwinism is the survival of the richest and little more. Those who are on top get to exploit those who are on the bottom. People who are actually working for stuff get nothing, while the elite use others' work for their own selfish aims. How can you possibly say that the wealthy "work for their stuff", when they only force others to work for them? It has nothing to do with who works more, it has everything to do with who owns what and who exploits the most. This is injustice to the highest degree (which is why communists, leftists and other people who have a shred of intelligence and decency don't like it).

Perhaps instead of me explaining this to you, you could think about it yourself.

[Enragé]

The far-left/communists/etc. tend to favor evolution, which is survival of the fittest, on a grand scale but have a huge problem with social darwinism.

mutal aid is also a factor of evolution
thats why we have societies
without societies
you die (or increase the chances that you die)

[Intellectual47]

So how do the rich get rich? BY working. Hence the point of capitalism

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 08:46 pm
So how do the rich get rich? BY working. Hence the point of capitalism
The rich get rich by exploiting others. They don't work for anything; it is the workers, who are more than likely poor, who do the work while the rich simply reap the benefits of their work.

You think the owners of large food chains actually work? They do next to nothing and get everything, while those who do everything get next to nothing.

So no, the point of capitalism is exploitation. The point of capitalism is to force others to work for your own selfish gain.

[Intellectual47]

You think the owners of large food chains actually work? They do next to nothing and get everything, while those who do everything get next to nothing.
And how do you think they became owners of a large food chain? And if you were to ask them, I think they would say that they're job is not the cusshiest in the world. Isn't it bizzare that workaholics often own a buisness. I know one myself

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 08:56 pm

You think the owners of large food chains actually work? They do next to nothing and get everything, while those who do everything get next to nothing.
And how do you think they became owners of a large food chain? And if you were to ask them, I think they would say that they're job is not the cusshiest in the world. Isn't it bizzare that workaholics often own a buisness. I know one myself
They probably became "successful" by finding the lowest wages possible, driving others out of business and the like. It's a race to the bottom, whoever can treat their workers the worst, get the most money from customers and profit the most at others' expenses "wins". The problem is that everyone else loses (including society as a whole).

Therefore, they became owners of this successful business through exploitation. Exploitation of workers, exploitation of the market, exploitation of consumers. The owner fleeces his pockets while their workers get thrown out of their homes because no matter how hard they work, they can't make rent. That, not your Horatio Alger novel, is capitalism, and it is beyond wrong.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 12:42 pm
When it comes to evolution and people, why is it that:

The religious/capitalists tend to reject evolution, which is survival of the fittest, on a grand scale, but don't have a big problem with social darwinism

while,

The far-left/communists/etc. tend to favor evolution, which is survival of the fittest, on a grand scale but have a huge problem with social darwinism.


I tend to favor both broad-scale evolution and social darwinism. Does that make me less a hypocrite?
Survival of the fittest was a term developed by Spencer to alleged parallels to his beliefs and that of Darwin's belief of natural selection therefore it is not a direct reflection of Darwinian science, but primarily a reflection on a diluted twit's fantasy.

Also social Darwinism is a socio-political concept developed by a fool, and is not based on any real scientific analysis, unlike Communal Darwinism, which is discussed in Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: Theory of Evolution.

Therefore there is no hypocrisy

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by manic expression+December 14, 2006 08:53 pm--> (manic expression @ December 14, 2006 08:53 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2006 08:46 pm
So how do the rich get rich? BY working. Hence the point of capitalism
The rich get rich by exploiting others. They don't work for anything; [/b]
It's hilarious that you believe this.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 14, 2006 09:07 pm

They probably became "successful" by finding the lowest wages possible, driving others out of business and the like. It's a race to the bottom, whoever can treat their workers the worst, get the most money from customers and profit the most at others' expenses "wins".
Explain the success of Whole Foods, which pays its workers a living wage and provides them with health benefits.

Thanks.

[Alexander Hamilton]

It is IMPOSSIBLE to be a socialist and not be a religious fanatic. All Marxists are religious, and have their mantras and beliefs.

There are no real socialist societies, yet they are waiting for the day of the Great Sky Wizard Socialist Revolution. One that will be pure and perfect; where the People's Army and Party are not personally greedy, or corrupt, or can be influenced.

All attempts at socialism have been shams, eventually lead by crony capitalists, who share their bounty with their friends.

Che might have been one of the only real believers around, like a Lincoln, or myself, people who don't care about personal gain, only the achievement of their beliefs. In Lincoln's case: the continuation of America, in Che's case: the election of a moderte Republican in the U.S. Senate, and free Turkeys on Thanksgiving.

Of course Che was rejected by his own kind, and eventually killed with the support of the Cuban socialists.

You can't "prove" anything to a socialist that does not conform to their religious world view.

AH

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 14, 2006 11:14 pm
Also social Darwinism is a socio-political concept developed by a fool, and is not based on any real scientific analysis, unlike Communal Darwinism, which is discussed in Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: Theory of Evolution.

Therefore there is no hypocrisy
This is actually a good theory, though I have a problem with the idea that it can ever apply in its purest forms to human beings. Beetles and such are simple enough to want to cooperate merely to stay alive. They also have little if any desire to advance their situation. People on the other hand have significantly more complex needs and wants and are always looking to advance. It's hard to advance when you have to carry the weak.

If you ask me, it's good ammo for encouraging charity and providing a social safety net; it's not a good argument for forced equality.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 15, 2006 02:33 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 15, 2006 02:33 pm)
Originally posted by manic [email protected] 14, 2006 08:53 pm

[email protected] 14, 2006 08:46 pm
So how do the rich get rich? BY working. Hence the point of capitalism
The rich get rich by exploiting others. They don't work for anything;
It's hilarious that you believe this. [/b]
It's pathetic that you don't. Capitalism is based on exploitation. Believing anything else is pure delusion.


Explain the success of Whole Foods, which pays its workers a living wage and provides them with health benefits.

Thanks.

They found a niche in the market: rich people who want to spend a ton of money for their food. Where I come from we call them "Whole Paycheck", because you can't realistically shop there unless you're raking in the cash. The rich are able to afford such an exception to the vast rule, while the poor are not.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 15, 2006 02:50 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 15, 2006 02:50 pm)
Cryotank [email protected] 14, 2006 11:14 pm
Also social Darwinism is a socio-political concept developed by a fool, and is not based on any real scientific analysis, unlike Communal Darwinism, which is discussed in Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: Theory of Evolution.

Therefore there is no hypocrisy
This is actually a good theory, though I have a problem with the idea that it can ever apply in its purest forms to human beings. Beetles and such are simple enough to want to cooperate merely to stay alive. They also have little if any desire to advance their situation. People on the other hand have significantly more complex needs and wants and are always looking to advance. It's hard to advance when you have to carry the weak.

If you ask me, it's good ammo for encouraging charity and providing a social safety net; it's not a good argument for forced equality. [/b]
Why couldn't it be applied to humans? People work together when they see that they have common interests. When they are blinded into thinking that the "me" is more important than the "we", they don't, but that can be changed.

Society has changed over time, humans have accepted many different systems on many different principles. There's no reason to think this one couldn't be accepted as well.

Also, I see humans as, if nothing else, adaptable. We are very good at adapting to change and new situations, so it isn't against human nature for such a change to occur.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

This is actually a good theory, though I have a problem with the idea that it can ever apply in its purest forms to human beings. Beetles and such are simple enough to want to cooperate merely to stay alive. They also have little if any desire to advance their situation. People on the other hand have significantly more complex needs and wants and are always looking to advance. It's hard to advance when you have to carry the weak.
But one of the ways in which humans differ from most other animals is in their emotions, the most relevant one here being sympathy. People do not desire to see the weak abandoned by society. Also, while this sentiment has been a part of humanity for centuries (perhaps since we came into existence) to some extent, it has actually strengthened as we have advanced economically, technologically and socially.

I'm no expert on the subject of evolution, but it seems to me that if you want to point out that humans are more complex than other animals you must take into account emotional and ethical complexities as well.

[Intellectual47]

For a love of the weak, ya'll don't seem to care very much about unborn people?



Please reply to this on my abortion thread.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Was that addressed to me? I think it's irrelevant. As you know, many (including Communists) see fetuses as non-living things, or at least unconscious. By any account, they are certainly not people, not in our view. With this in mind, I personally am of the opinion that I have no right to interfere in the debate over abortion, being a male and as such am not biologically, situationally or legally tied to the fetus. So my apologies, but I will not reply in your abortion thread.

At any rate, citing abortion as proof that humanity does not care about the weak is an invalid argument, as there is much sympathy in society towards the disabled, the ill, albinos etc.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 07:11 pm

This is actually a good theory, though I have a problem with the idea that it can ever apply in its purest forms to human beings. Beetles and such are simple enough to want to cooperate merely to stay alive. They also have little if any desire to advance their situation. People on the other hand have significantly more complex needs and wants and are always looking to advance. It's hard to advance when you have to carry the weak.
But one of the ways in which humans differ from most other animals is in their emotions, the most relevant one here being sympathy. People do not desire to see the weak abandoned by society. Also, while this sentiment has been a part of humanity for centuries (perhaps since we came into existence) to some extent, it has actually strengthened as we have advanced economically, technologically and socially.

I'm no expert on the subject of evolution, but it seems to me that if you want to point out that humans are more complex than other animals you must take into account emotional and ethical complexities as well.
Sympathy and charity can be expressed and performed even in the most libertarian of societies, can they not?

The animals that practice mutual cooperation, have they advanced very far in the past 200 years? 1,000 years? 5,000 years? Do they even want to advance?

No to both. Correct?

People have advanced and do want to advance, right?

Yes to both. Correct?

These animals neither have advanced nor consciously want to advance, and they're basically stuck in the same situation as they were before. That's because instead of using their individual talents to find advancements, they're constantly sacrificing themselves to keep the weak on the same level as them. Humans on the other hand have advanced specifically because we've provided incentives - namely wealth - to those who seek advancement. If wealth is not provided as an incentive and instead is spent keeping the weak equal, then fewer resources can be devoted to advancement. It's opportunity cost: the resources you spend assuring the weak are equal cannot be used to seek advancement.

That's not a pretty picture but that's the value-neutral facts regarding our reality. Fortunately we do not - nor should we - completely sacrifice the weak for the sake of advancement. We should not choose either extreme.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Sympathy and charity can be expressed and performed even in the most libertarian of societies, can they not?
That's exactly my point. People choose to help the weak of their own free will, because they pity them. It's human nature.



The animals that practice mutual cooperation, have they advanced very far in the past 200 years? 1,000 years? 5,000 years? Do they even want to advance?
No, but then neither have species that have practiced survival of the fittest. In fact, I don't think any species other than humanity has advanced all that much over the given timespans. The problem is not mutual cooperation, it is lack of reasoning, emotion and ambition.


These animals neither have advanced nor consciously want to advance, and they're basically stuck in the same situation as they were before. That's because instead of using their individual talents to find advancements, they're constantly sacrificing themselves to keep the weak on the same level as them. Humans on the other hand have advanced specifically because we've provided incentives - namely wealth - to those who seek advancement. If wealth is not provided as an incentive and instead is spent keeping the weak equal, then fewer resources can be devoted to advancement. It's opportunity cost: the resources you spend assuring the weak are equal cannot be used to seek advancement.
I'm not talking about keeping the weak equal, per se. I don't see what a mentally retarded kid would do with a personal computer, and to be perfectly honest I think buying a physically disabled person a bicycle is just cruel. I'm talking about sustaining the weak, carrying them in other words. It doesn't consume nearly as much resources as you might think, it creates employment and gives a social function to those with a caring disposition, and it is perfectly complimented by humanity's advance in technology.


That's not a pretty picture but that's the value-neutral facts regarding our reality. Fortunately we do not - nor should we - completely sacrifice the weak for the sake of advancement. We should not choose either extreme.

Well that was kind of my argument in the first place..

[t_wolves_fan]

That's exactly my point. People choose to help the weak of their own free will, because they pity them. It's human nature.

Then why is governmental assurance of socioeconomic equality required?


No, but then neither have species that have practiced survival of the fittest. In fact, I don't think any species other than humanity has advanced all that much over the given timespans. The problem is not mutual cooperation, it is lack of reasoning, emotion and ambition.

Which is inherent in humanity. People who lack reasoning and ambition don't help humanity and certainly do not deserve an equal share of the societal rewards.


I'm not talking about keeping the weak equal, per se. I don't see what a mentally retarded kid would do with a personal computer, and to be perfectly honest I think buying a physically disabled person a bicycle is just cruel. I'm talking about sustaining the weak, carrying them in other words. It doesn't consume nearly as much resources as you might think, it creates employment and gives a social function to those with a caring disposition, and it is perfectly complimented by humanity's advance in technology.

Sustaining the weak can be done in concert with capitalism through charity - which you said above is inherent in us - and intelligent government programs. You also need to motivate the weak to become stronger, don't you? When I talk about weakness here I'm not just talking about mental or physical defect, I'm talking about laziness and avarice. How broadly do we define the "weaknesses" we will carry through taxation? Is there a limit? Is someone who keeps abusing drugs and can't hold down a job despite receiving tons of help worthy of being carried? I'd say not.

You need not throw out the capitalism baby with the weakness/poverty bathwater, because capitalism provides more individual freedom and more economic efficiency than does socialism or communism, and by tweaking it you can alleviate the problems we both agree exist.


[

[manic expression]

twolvesfan, poverty is an inherent part of capitalism. Capitalism thrives on the misfortune of many. It exploits workers and serves the rich. To think that capitalism can yield an equitable society is patently laughable.

Furthermore, capitalism gives freedom, if you can afford it. Freedom costs far too much in capitalism, and only the rich can buy it. Sure, you can say what you want, but if you don't own a company, you'll find ourself out on the street before you can say "Locke". Lastly, what you see as "individual liberty" is, in fact, the ability to use others and use society for personal benefit.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Then why is governmental assurance of socioeconomic equality required?
It doesn't, not in my opinion. Although a government based on the principle of socio-economic equality would probably be better suited to representing the will of the people as regards aiding society's vulnerable and other such "human interest" issues.



Which is inherent in humanity. People who lack reasoning and ambition don't help humanity and certainly do not deserve an equal share of the societal rewards.

Humanity itself seems to disagree.



Sustaining the weak can be done in concert with capitalism through charity - which you said above is inherent in us - and intelligent government programs. You also need to motivate the weak to become stronger, don't you? When I talk about weakness here I'm not just talking about mental or physical defect, I'm talking about laziness and avarice. How broadly do we define the "weaknesses" we will carry through taxation? Is there a limit? Is someone who keeps abusing drugs and can't hold down a job despite receiving tons of help worthy of being carried? I'd say not.
Well laziness isn't really a genetic trait, so you can't really talk about it as a weakness in the context of evolution and strength of the species. If someone does drugs because they are bored or they think it makes them look "cool" in front of their well 'ard friends or something, that's not a hereditary weakness, that's a fault of the individual and if anything it is a social, and not an evolutionary issue. If, however, they do drugs because they are depressed or because they are mentally predisposed to addiction, then they can be called weak, and such people often have society's sympathy.

[t_wolves_fan]

It doesn't, not in my opinion. Although a government based on the principle of socio-economic equality would probably be better suited to representing the will of the people as regards aiding society's vulnerable and other such "human interest" issues.

The will of the people is expressed when they donate to charity. Government action, while I am supportive of it, is enforced on those who do not want to give. The "will of the people" is never unanimous.




Which is inherent in humanity. People who lack reasoning and ambition don't help humanity and certainly do not deserve an equal share of the societal rewards.

Humanity itself seems to disagree.

No it doesn't. Helping people in need is not believing they deserve an equal or even significant share of societal rewards. I might help people out with time or money but I'm absolutely opposed to them getting a check from the government that matches my salary.



Well laziness isn't really a genetic trait, so you can't really talk about it as a weakness in the context of evolution and strength of the species.

That's irrelevant to me, since lazy parents will probably raise lazy children. I'd rather the lazy perished before they had any children.


If someone does drugs because they are bored or they think it makes them look "cool" in front of their well 'ard friends or something, that's not a hereditary weakness, that's a fault of the individual and if anything it is a social, and not an evolutionary issue. If, however, they do drugs because they are depressed or because they are mentally predisposed to addiction, then they can be called weak, and such people often have society's sympathy.

I have sympathy for people like that but it is limited. Certainly we all make mistakes - if you get yourself into trouble once, maybe twice, I'm willing to help. Make the same mistake again and I see no reason for you to receive help at all.

What do you think of the recent book that shows people who tend to be conservative donate more money than those who identify as liberal despite the fact that the liberals had more money?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

The will of the people is expressed when they donate to charity. Government action, while I am supportive of it, is enforced on those who do not want to give. The "will of the people" is never unanimous.
Most people would like to see things done without having to pay for it. If there was a system whereby poverty could be eradicated, the ill and disabled could be provided for, education, healthcare etc. could be good and free and no one had to to pay for it, I'm sure it would get a lot more votes than the Republicans or Democrats. But there's not, and I see no problem with the government spending money on helping the ill and disabled. More money would be collected and people wouldn't have to pay as much. Think of it as the charity of the greater will of the people. And the will of the people doesn't need to be unanimous, you know that. There are going to be people who don't want to pay taxes, who don't want to let foreigners into their country, etc. Tough shit.



No it doesn't. Helping people in need is not believing they deserve an equal or even significant share of societal rewards. I might help people out with time or money but I'm absolutely opposed to them getting a check from the government that matches my salary.
Refer back to my point about equality.



That's irrelevant to me, since lazy parents will probably raise lazy children. I'd rather the lazy perished before they had any children.
Well unfortunately this isn't about you, this is about evolution.


I have sympathy for people like that but it is limited. Certainly we all make mistakes - if you get yourself into trouble once, maybe twice, I'm willing to help. Make the same mistake again and I see no reason for you to receive help at all.
Rejection of society's overtures of charity is not hereditary either, it is an individual fault and could be considered anti-social and, in some of the more serious cases, criminal.



What do you think of the recent book that shows people who tend to be conservative donate more money than those who identify as liberal despite the fact that the liberals had more money?
I haven't read the book nor do I intend to, but if you're asking my opinion on this particular point then it doesn't really mean much to me. Liberals tend to be more ethically apathetic, or "morally bankrupt" as some conservatives may put it. I think they favor liberalism because it give them more benefits, not society as a whole. Conservatives probably donate because of religious or nationalist views, but these are different arguments altogether.