The Sick Social Darwinism Driving Modern Republicans

[Captain Oates 911]

The RWNJ's don't see any irony in claiming the earth is 6,000 years old and was created, and the theory of evolution is wrong - while, at the same time, saying that social evolution is the only way to create a clean, healthy, god-fearing, financial successful society

If creation is the way, then creating a society according to a plan, rather that letting it evolve, is the way to go because that is the method that god chose

A rational person would be given a headache when confronted by that, but aspirin sales wont spike because the right wingers aren't rational

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The RWNJ's don't see any irony in claiming the earth is 6,000 years old and was created, and the theory of evolution is wrong - while, at the same time, saying that social evolution is the only way to create a clean, healthy, god-fearing, financial successful society

If creation is the way, then creating a society according to a plan, rather that letting it evolve, is the way to go because that is the method that god chose

A rational person would be given a headache when confronted by that, but aspirin sales wont spike because the right wingers aren't rational

That would be a good argument if true.

[Dakine10 5,452]

That would be a good argument if true.

I disagree. That's a good argument even if it isn't true.

[Captain Oates 911]

That would be a good argument if true.

China is creating an economy according to a plan

The Marshall plan after WW2 created a very successful Europe within a very few short years

The USA is using market evolution and the result is....

Mexican religious families and Muslims don't use family planning and the result is...

Its quite obvious by now that planning a market economy which is heavily regulated to protect against abuses, is the way to go. Planning the direction of a market economy is not a contradiction in terms as it can be shaped in various ways. The sex trade in Thailand is an unregulated market economy which Ron Paul would not regulate. Child hookers, kids up chimneys and cleaning toilets, restaurant owners refusing black people; what a wonderful prospect the Right Wing offers us.

I cant think of any first world country which has a great economy and is a safe and healthy and 'fear-free' place to live that wasn't created according to that model

The US almost qualifies, but it has little protection for workers (child toilet cleaners proposed now) and no universal health care

Obama has it totally right and even though he is as ineffective as my chief accountant used to be, his heart is in the right place. Its hard to be a nice guy and have the killer instinct - I can do it but O can't.

He should stamp on the right wing like the cockroaches they are. The FBI should invent false charges against them and get them jailed a la J Edgar Hoover. No mercy

They stamp on him so he should stamp on them. It is a war after all with the further financial enslavement of the US population if the right wing win

[slim 1,533]

We should let people who can't afford to live..... die.

[Captain Oates 911]

We should let people who can't afford to live..... die.

That philosophy also validates the idea that if an armed person can kill someone who is richer and take his money, then that is just the market operating and it should be allowed as a liberty

Its the victims fault for having money and not having the guns to protect it

Dog eat dog - survival of the most violent

The stone age

At least the right wing are honest about wanting this so its not like the electorate are being deceived

If they vote for that then they must live like sewer rats - eating the legs of the sick

A shining city on a hill ? More like a bunch of starving rats.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Why would you watch a left-wing propagandist show like Frontline?

He's also on Obama's mailing list for donors. I listen to Marc Levin and Michael Savage from time to time, I like to be informed of what the wingnuts are saying. I would think it's a good thing for people to listen to opposing viewpoints. Stepping down from the soap box.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That philosophy also validates the idea that if an armed person can kill someone who is richer and take his money, then that is just the market operating and it should be allowed as a liberty

Its the victims fault for having money and not having the guns to protect it

Dog eat dog - survival of the most violent

The stone age

At least the right wing are honest about wanting this so its not like the electorate are being deceived

If they vote for that then they must live like sewer rats - eating the legs of the sick

A shining city on a hill ? More like a bunch of starving rats.

You can help by donating

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

That's like saying Socialism is equivalent to Nazism since they called it National Socialism. Nazism is actually a form of fascism. (but lets not go off on a tangent with that)

Look, it's not that difficult to see the distinction between the concept of Social Darwinism and Racism. You insist they are inseparable.

I never insisted they are inseparable. I said "Social Darwinisim" isn't real science and is used by Racists to justify their beliefs. Equating it with Eugenics invalidates the source of your definition as Eugenics is real science. The whole Nazi angle was again from your invalid definition wherein Nazis were connected to Social Darwinism which is false. Hitler & his Nazi followers practiced Eugenics.

Darwinism itself supports the attitude that the strongest in any grouping (including human society) will rise to the top (and therefore have more chances to spread their seed).

There is no need for the stupid moniker of "Social Darwinism", the concept is rather simple and I don't give any weight to sources that can't grasp that.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I never insisted they are inseparable. I said "Social Darwinisim" isn't real science and is used by Racists to justify their beliefs. Equating it with Eugenics invalidates the source of your definition as Eugenics is real science. The whole Nazi angle was again from your invalid definition wherein Nazis were connected to Social Darwinism which is false. Hitler & his Nazi followers practiced Eugenics.

Darwinism itself supports the attitude that the strongest in any grouping (including human society) will rise to the top (and therefore have more chances to spread their seed).

There is no need for the stupid moniker of "Social Darwinism", the concept is rather simple and I don't give any weight to sources that can't grasp that.

Charles Darwin didn't hypothesis that the strongest survive. He stated that evolution happens through natural selection and natural selection is dependent upon a myriad of circumstances. For example, the Polar Bear, with its enormous size ferocity is at the top of the food chain, however, that makes it vulnerable to starvation. It's thick fur keeps it alive in cold, harsh conditions, but put one in the Phoenix Zoo without adjusting the climate and it will die.

Social Darwinists, however, hypothesis those who make it to the top, did so because they were the strongest. They've taken Darwin's idea of natural selection and turned it inside out. They fail to recognize the other factors that determine who wins and who loses in society.

I'd compare it to those who believe that popularity equates to quality. There are people who think that because Brittany Spears sells millions of records, she must therefore be a good musician.

[Captain Oates 911]

I never insisted they are inseparable. I said "Social Darwinisim" isn't real science and is used by Racists to justify their beliefs. Equating it with Eugenics invalidates the source of your definition as Eugenics is real science. The whole Nazi angle was again from your invalid definition wherein Nazis were connected to Social Darwinism which is false. Hitler & his Nazi followers practiced Eugenics.

Darwinism itself supports the attitude that the strongest in any grouping (including human society) will rise to the top (and therefore have more chances to spread their seed).

There is no need for the stupid moniker of "Social Darwinism", the concept is rather simple and I don't give any weight to sources that can't grasp that.

In fact they don't have to be the strongest - that's why humans are stronger than mice but there are more mice than people

They just have to be living and able to produce offspring

That is why human evolution is running in reverse where intelligent people are not religious and use birth control, while the stupid and illiterate are religious and breed like mice

Edited December 8, 2011 by Ashud Cocoa

[slim 1,533]

That philosophy also validates the idea that if an armed person can kill someone who is richer and take his money, then that is just the market operating and it should be allowed as a liberty

One is active.... one is passive.

Allowing someone to die is a lot different than causing their death. What some folks don't understand is true liberty does not require us to do anything. We should not be forced to save people if we don't choose to.

It also allows us to exercise our rights provided they don't infringe upon someone else's. Killing someone infringes upon their rights. Standing by while they die does not.

He's also on Obama's mailing list for donors. I listen to Marc Levin and Michael Savage from time to time, I like to be informed of what the wingnuts are saying. I would think it's a good thing for people to listen to opposing viewpoints. Stepping down from the soap box.

WWSD?

What would Sun do?

[Captain Oates 911]

One is active.... one is passive.

Allowing someone to die is a lot different than causing their death. What some folks don't understand is true liberty does not require us to do anything. We should not be forced to save people if we don't choose to.

It also allows us to exercise our rights provided they don't infringe upon someone else's. Killing someone infringes upon their rights. Standing by while they die does not.

WWSD?

What would Sun do?

That's the absolute essence of the left/right philosophical debate

When the good Samaritan comes across the injured person by the roadside, does the injured person have the right to expect assistance or is it just up the the charitable whim of the Samaritan on that day ?

Its all down to that.

I say, if the Samaritan walks off and lets the guy die, he is being bad, antisocial - in fact some states would prosecute him

Ron Paul would say he has the right to walk away

Society has moved on from this philosophy and the US is getting civilized

The right wing are being too honest about how they think and they will be swept away at the next election

They are like a 60 year old guy in a disco with 6 pints in him, who thinks he is still attractive and can still pull - they are deluded and are set to fail

Edited December 8, 2011 by Ashud Cocoa

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

In fact they don't have to be the strongest - that's why humans are stronger than mice but there are more mice than people

They just have to be living and able to produce offspring

That is why human evolution is running in reverse where intelligent people are not religious and use birth control, while the stupid and illiterate are religious and breed like mice

You can help by donating

That's the absolute essence of the left/right philosophical debate

When the good Samaritan comes across the injured person by the roadside, does the injured person have the right to expect assistance or is it just up the the charitable whim of the Samaritan on that day ?

Its all down to that.

I say, if the Samaritan walks off and lets the guy die, he is being bad, antisocial - in fact some states would prosecute him

Ron Paul would say he has the right to walk away

Society has moved on from this philosophy and the US is getting civilized

The right wing are being too honest about how they think and they will be swept away at the next election

They are like a 60 year old guy in a disco with 6 pints in him, who thinks he is still attractive and can still pull - they are deluded and are set to fail

You can help by donating

[Captain Oates 911]

I donate my advanced European enlightened perspective to the USA

They cant expect to get my money as well

If US tax rates ever rise to the levels of civilized countries who have a sense of community, I will be out of here tout de suite if not sooner

Since I immigrated, I have lived in Florida and Washington State and my final stop will be Florida - now what do those two have in common as far as tax policy is concerned ? Its zero

However, I do believe in universal health care because its cheaper for patients and employers and the shareholders of most companies.

The only people who lose are filthy rich disgusting predatory 'doctors' (all doctors) and the shareholders and CEO's of insurance companies