Results 1 to 20 of 36
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?
I have met neither a religious fanatic nor a hard-core leftist whose arguments did not make me laugh.
The reason is that their arguments are actually one and the same: "it'll work because I believe in it, even though all available evidence is to the contrary."
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.
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"?
: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?
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.
Clearly "they" never had to argue with thick as shit capitalists like yourself.
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.
Sciences & Environment rocks my bedroom.
[FONT=Arial]Say what you mean and say it mean...[/FONT]
"Frankly if we have a revolution and you stop me eating meat, I'm going to eat you."- The inimitable Skinz.
Be careful, lest the time comes where we have to weigh you against a duck.
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.
Your larger point was what? That there's some enourmous invisible fairy that made us all?
Teachers aren't always right. 15 years of expereince or not. Especially if they teach at private schools (the class traitors).
Sciences & Environment rocks my bedroom.
[FONT=Arial]Say what you mean and say it mean...[/FONT]
"Frankly if we have a revolution and you stop me eating meat, I'm going to eat you."- The inimitable Skinz.
Be careful, lest the time comes where we have to weigh you against a duck.
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.
Sciences & Environment rocks my bedroom.
[FONT=Arial]Say what you mean and say it mean...[/FONT]
"Frankly if we have a revolution and you stop me eating meat, I'm going to eat you."- The inimitable Skinz.
Be careful, lest the time comes where we have to weigh you against a duck.
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:
I have met neither a religious fanatic nor a hard-core leftist whose arguments did not make me laugh.
The reason is that their arguments are actually one and the same: "it'll work because I believe in it, even though all available evidence is to the contrary."
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.
Sciences & Environment rocks my bedroom.
[FONT=Arial]Say what you mean and say it mean...[/FONT]
"Frankly if we have a revolution and you stop me eating meat, I'm going to eat you."- The inimitable Skinz.
Be careful, lest the time comes where we have to weigh you against a duck.
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...)
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).
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.
mutal aid is also a factor of evolution
thats why we have societies
without societies
you die (or increase the chances that you die)
ο λαός θα πεί την τελευταία λέξη - αυτές οι νύχτες είναι του αλέξη!
Freedom without equality is privilege - Equality without freedom is a barracks
'Engels, my brother from another class,
we haz got to get fucked up on the grog, and then revolt...if the lessons of the Paris Commune has taught as such, the working class cannot lay hold of the ready made bourgeoisie alcohol, they must smash it, and get pissed on cheap methylated spirits.
holler,
marxy.'
- BCBM=AndreasBaader
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.
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.
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
"Cocaine's a hell of a drug."-Rick James.
"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains."-Rosa Luxemburg.
Class Against Class|MR|MRZine|H+
