Fighting Social Darwinists

[Lozzer]

Could anyone give me any information or help with regards to debating such people? Because I'm tolerant of homosexuals etc I've recently received a rather large amount of messages on Youtube accusing me of being a 'religious faggot'.

[Feck]

The modern Conservative Movement has embraced social Darwinism with no less fervor than it has condemned Darwinism. Social Darwinism gives a moral justification for rejecting social insurance and supporting tax cuts for the rich. "In America," says Robert Bork, "‘the rich’ are overwhelmingly people – entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, etc. – who have gained their higher incomes through intelligence, imagination, and hard work." Any transfer of wealth from rich to poor thereby undermines the nation’s moral fiber. Allow the virtuous rich to keep more of their earnings and pay less in taxes, and they’ll be even more virtuous. Give the non-virtuous poor food stamps, Medicaid, and what’s left of welfare, and they’ll fall into deeper moral torpor.

There is, of course, an ideological inconsistency here. If mankind did not evolve according to Darwinist logic, but began instead with Adam and Eve, then it seems unlikely societies evolve according to the survival-of-the-fittest logic of social Darwinism. By the same token, if you believe one’s economic status is the consequence of an automatic process of natural selection, then, presumably, you’d believe that human beings represent the culmination of a similar process, over the ages. That the conservative mind endures such cognitive dissonance is stunning, but not nearly as remarkable as the repeated attempts of conservative mouthpieces such as the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard to convince readers the conservative movement is intellectually coherent

that help they are right wing fools

[Feck]

oh here's the rest of it and the author
The only consistency between the right’s attack on Darwinism and embrace of social Darwinism is the utter fatuousness of both. Darwinism is correct. Scientists who are legitimized by peer review and published research are unanimous in their view that evolution is a fact, not a theory. Social Darwinism, meanwhile, is hogwash. Social scientists have long understood that one’s economic status in society is not a function of one’s moral worth. It depends largely on the economic status of one’s parents, the models of success available while growing up, and educational opportunities along the way.

A democracy is imperiled when large numbers of citizens turn their backs on scientific fact. Half of Americans recently polled say they don’t believe in evolution. Almost as many say they believe income and wealth depend on moral worthiness. At a time when American children are slipping behind on international measures of educational attainment, especially in the sciences; when global competition is intensifying; and when the median incomes of Americans are stagnating and the ranks of the poor are increasing, these ideas, propagated by the so-called Conservative Movement, are moving us rapidly backwards.

Robert B. Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley

[Lozzer]

The modern Conservative Movement has embraced social Darwinism with no less fervor than it has condemned Darwinism. Social Darwinism gives a moral justification for rejecting social insurance and supporting tax cuts for the rich. "In America," says Robert Bork, "‘the rich’ are overwhelmingly people – entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, etc. – who have gained their higher incomes through intelligence, imagination, and hard work." Any transfer of wealth from rich to poor thereby undermines the nation’s moral fiber. Allow the virtuous rich to keep more of their earnings and pay less in taxes, and they’ll be even more virtuous. Give the non-virtuous poor food stamps, Medicaid, and what’s left of welfare, and they’ll fall into deeper moral torpor.

There is, of course, an ideological inconsistency here. If mankind did not evolve according to Darwinist logic, but began instead with Adam and Eve, then it seems unlikely societies evolve according to the survival-of-the-fittest logic of social Darwinism. By the same token, if you believe one’s economic status is the consequence of an automatic process of natural selection, then, presumably, you’d believe that human beings represent the culmination of a similar process, over the ages. That the conservative mind endures such cognitive dissonance is stunning, but not nearly as remarkable as the repeated attempts of conservative mouthpieces such as the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard to convince readers the conservative movement is intellectually coherent

that help they are right wing fools

The Social Darwinist I'm debating isn't a creationist, he doesn't care for economics either.

[Feck]

sounds like he is a bit confused then ,Whats his point about gay people any way ?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Social Darwinist I'm debating isn't a creationist, he doesn't care for economics either.

So he's making up his own definition?

[Lozzer]

sounds like he is a bit confused then ,Whats his point about gay people any way ?

I quote

Evolution is only possible with HETEROSEXUAL relationships... Heterosexual reproduction is the most evolved state of evolutionary biology. LHMcalindon is a religious faggot.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

sounds like he is a bit confused then ,Whats his point about gay people any way ?

I quote

Evolution is only possible with HETEROSEXUAL relationships... Heterosexual reproduction is the most evolved state of evolutionary biology. LHMcalindon is a religious faggot.

That's not social Darwinism. That's the old homosexuality as an evolutionary dead-end argument. Point out that Amoebas, slugs and worms also employ heterosexual reproduction and ask him how advanced he thinks they are.

Also, the fact that homosexuals never (rarely) breed but continue to arise in the population at roughly the same rate, implies that they are not being bred out of the population and that the genes responsible for such behaviour are somehow beneficial.

[Lozzer]

sounds like he is a bit confused then ,Whats his point about gay people any way ?

I quote

Evolution is only possible with HETEROSEXUAL relationships... Heterosexual reproduction is the most evolved state of evolutionary biology. LHMcalindon is a religious faggot.

That's not social Darwinism. That's the old homosexuality as an evolutionary dead-end argument. Point out that Amoebas, slugs and worms also employ heterosexual reproduction and ask him how advanced he thinks they are.

Also, the fact that homosexuals never (rarely) breed but continue to arise in the population at roughly the same rate, implies that they are not being bred out of the population and that the genes responsible for such behaviour are somehow beneficial.

He's also very much into the idea of letting the 'weak' die in society.

[Feck]

He means the poor ,doesn't he oh and all those people he is obviously better than .Nice chap Love to meet himin an alley way

[Lozzer]

He means the poor ,doesn't he oh and all those people he is obviously better than .Nice chap Love to meet himin an alley way

Oh please, help yourself http://www.youtube.com/user/SirWinstonChurchill

He's one of Pat Condells' crowd.

[al-rawandi]

Could anyone give me any information or help with regards to debating such people? Because I'm tolerant of homosexuals etc I've recently received a rather large amount of messages on Youtube accusing me of being a 'religious faggot'.

Did it occur to you that there is value in having homosexuals in the population? I mean a value in terms of natural selection.

On the other hand there are aspects of a "social Darwinist" perspective I do find reasonable. But that certainly isn't one of them.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Evolution is only possible with HETEROSEXUAL relationships... Heterosexual reproduction is the most evolved state of evolutionary biology. LHMcalindon is a religious faggot.

"only possible"? What about hermaphoditic creatures, did they not evolve? (And they're the ultimate homosexuals, IMHO.)

[Red Katie]

That the rate of homosexuality holds steady might not be attributable to survival value. It might be the consequence of something in human nature and be of neutral value.

For example, biologists wondered for years what the survival value was in female hyenas having genitals nearly indistinguishable from those of male hyenas. Turned out it didn't have any survival value. It was merely a consequence of the high testosterone titer of female hyenas.

Now, I don't have a theory, or even an hypothesis, but it's possible that homosexuality is the same kind of phenomenon. Something tips the scale one time in twenty-five, and the kid comes out gay instead of straight.

If there is such a scale tipper, we would have a better chance of finding it by looking at dolphins. They have a homosexuality rate of 41%.

[al-rawandi]

That the rate of homosexuality holds steady might not be attributable to survival value. It might be the consequence of something in human nature and be of neutral value.

For example, biologists wondered for years what the survival value was in female hyenas having genitals nearly indistinguishable from those of male hyenas. Turned out it didn't have any survival value. It was merely a consequence of the high testosterone titer of female hyenas.

Now, I don't have a theory, or even an hypothesis, but it's possible that homosexuality is the same kind of phenomenon. Something tips the scale one time in twenty-five, and the kid comes out gay instead of straight.

If there is such a scale tipper, we would have a better chance of finding it by looking at dolphins. They have a homosexuality rate of 41%.

Agreed. We certainly don't have enough information on it. It would seem to be jumping the gun to say we should send homosexuals to death camps because they are valueless on an evolutionary basis. (Please read with extreme sarcasm). Now, it makes no sense to deprive society of the contributions of homosexuals simply because they have an attraction to the same sex (imagine no Elton John or Freddie Mercury). The homophobia of so-called "social darwinists" simply makes no sense at all. The "Darwinist" part is simply adopted to cover their irrational homophobia.