The fallacies and failure of social Darwinism.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There is a certain frenzied grandeur to your tirades. i imagine your blogs being rapturously received in certain quarters. . That option would seem to be more appealing than posting here where you know that nobody will take you seriously. But maybe you derive a profound inner satisfaction at gloating over our boneheadness, and contemplating the bitter harvest we must reap when your comicbook conspiracy theories come home to roost.

Short version: "You're full of shit."

[En_Route]

He must be a joy to live with.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

He must be a joy to live with.

Irrelevant. His trollish persona is as put on as his opinions. Neither are real world-based nor anything honest.

[Seth]

There is a certain frenzied grandeur to your tirades. i imagine your blogs being rapturously received in certain quarters. . That option would seem to be more appealing than posting here where you know that nobody will take you seriously. But maybe you derive a profound inner satisfaction at gloating over our boneheadness, and contemplating the bitter harvest we must reap when your comicbook conspiracy theories come home to roost.

Short version: "You're full of shit."

Yeah, typical ignorant ad hom.

[pErvinalia]

What fun am I missing in this thread? I assume Seth has gone all Social Darwinist on us? He usually makes no effort to hide it. I imagine he's written almost exactly this phrase somewhere in this thread - "Life's tough. Deal with it"?

[FBM]

We're just having fun trolling each other is all.

[En_Route]

He must be a joy to live with.

Irrelevant./quote]
you're right.

[mistermack]

As far as I'm concerned, the phrase "Social Darwinism" is a nonsense.

Darwinism is an EXPLANATION of how things come about, without a designer. But humans are constantly designing and re-designing their society. So Darwinism is neither an explanation, nor a suitable model to aim at.

Evolution by natural selection depends on huge numbers of failures, to blindly produce a model that succeeds, over a vast period of time.
I don't know anybody that proposes that as a system for people to live by. They might pick out little bits that they like, that's about it.

[FBM]

It's the is-ought fallacy combined with a very narrow and slanted view of the 'is.' Ultimately, it's just ad hoc rationalization for unbridled selfishness and lack of compassion. Small minds trying to justify their small-mindedness.

[pErvinalia]

[laklak]

I thought this was going to be about stupid people dying in really funny ways.

Imagine my chagrin.

[Robert_S]

That's why "democratic" socialist societies are completely fucked beyond belief. You justify theft by the tyrannous majority with an entirely circular argument. "It's ok to steal what someone else worked their whole life for because the government has the power to steal it."

That doesn't morally justify redistributive taxation, it just makes you all thieves and pawns.

You don't present a moral or ethical argument because there is none that supports taking one person's wealth and giving it to someone else by force.

Those losers are fucked because they lack the necessary adaptations to be on the receiving end of the theft. If thieves get away with their thievery, then they can use the rewards of that successful thievery to propagate their genes. When has there ever been natural selection against any plant or animal successfully taking something from another? Oh sure, there is selection on the individual level on not allowing your personal stuff to be taken. But not for working against thieves in general. Not until human civilization anyway.


People who fancy themselves "Social Darwinists" are not upset that there is no selection pressure but rather are advancing an opinion about which way the selection pressures should go. But the minute you want to mess with the selection criteria, you're doing artificial selection rather than natural selection. People have been doing selective breeding long before anyone heard of Darwin. Adding Darwin's name is a dishonest tactic. These people mean to steal scientific validation for what is essentially a moral/ethical position that they fail to support on moral or ethical grounds.

Like most conservatives nowadays, they are butthurt cry-babies trying to act tough. They try to act like they're cold hearted realists when they're not so different from bleeding heart liberals. "Oh, there's something horrible going on! Predators, thugs, parasites and thieves are preying on me! Somebody needs to do something! "

They can't face the fact that "fitness" is a function of environment. It doesn't necessarily mean faster, stronger or smarter. If it did, there would never have been any such animal as a sloth. Fitness means you pass on the genes. End of.

If your environment doesn't allow you to get an advantage by brainwork, then the big brain is a waste of resources. Back to chimp brains or extinction for ya.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I thought this was going to be about stupid people dying in really funny ways.

Imagine my chagrin.

The Social Darwin Awards? For people who die before they can be presented at court?

[Seth]

That's why "democratic" socialist societies are completely fucked beyond belief. You justify theft by the tyrannous majority with an entirely circular argument. "It's ok to steal what someone else worked their whole life for because the government has the power to steal it."

That doesn't morally justify redistributive taxation, it just makes you all thieves and pawns.

You don't present a moral or ethical argument because there is none that supports taking one person's wealth and giving it to someone else by force.

Those losers are fucked because they lack the necessary adaptations to be on the receiving end of the theft. If thieves get away with their thievery, then they can use the rewards of that successful thievery to propagate their genes. When has there ever been natural selection against any plant or animal successfully taking something from another? Oh sure, there is selection on the individual level on not allowing your personal stuff to be taken. But not for working against thieves in general. Not until human civilization anyway.


People who fancy themselves "Social Darwinists" are not upset that there is no selection pressure but rather are advancing an opinion about which way the selection pressures should go. But the minute you want to mess with the selection criteria, you're doing artificial selection rather than natural selection. People have been doing selective breeding long before anyone heard of Darwin. Adding Darwin's name is a dishonest tactic. These people mean to steal scientific validation for what is essentially a moral/ethical position that they fail to support on moral or ethical grounds.

Like most conservatives nowadays, they are butthurt cry-babies trying to act tough. They try to act like they're cold hearted realists when they're not so different from bleeding heart liberals. "Oh, there's something horrible going on! Predators, thugs, parasites and thieves are preying on me! Somebody needs to do something! "

They can't face the fact that "fitness" is a function of environment. It doesn't necessarily mean faster, stronger or smarter. If it did, there would never have been any such animal as a sloth. Fitness means you pass on the genes. End of.

If your environment doesn't allow you to get an advantage by brainwork, then the big brain is a waste of resources. Back to chimp brains or extinction for ya.

Well, there is a valid point there. After all, cats are the most highly evolved life form. Look at how they have adapted in ways that make human beings cater to them and care for their every whim and caprice...One cannot I suppose blame the cat for doing what makes it most likely to survive.

[FBM]

But if you substitute "gummit tax collectors" for "cats," it all goes to shit.