Social Darwinism

[Solstis]

Is stupid and outdated. Seriously.

Darwin expressed that the strongest survive. True. But, strength according to Darwin (as far as I can tell) referred to the ability to adapt and change with the environment, social or otherwise.

LoL we need to kill the gays and retards doesn't make any sense. Anyone that holds this belief is unwilling to adapt, but the dumbasses probably wouldn't care that they're being illogical anyway.

To each his/her own hypocritical philosophy, I guess.

[Otis_Kat]

I think the gays and retards should be killed off, just so we can we see what other stupid bullshit people like that rally against.

[omegapirate2k]

On 2007-09-19 13:12, Otis_Kat wrote:
I think the gays and retards should be killed off, just so we can we see what other stupid bullshit people like that rally against.



It'll be the Jews next.

[DikkyRay]

So liking your own sex is adapting to the ever changing environments? Riiiiiiiiight.
And i gotta disagree with your "Anyone who believes this is unwilling to adapt"
I for one, agree with Social Darwinism. Hell, not just homosexuals and retards, but stupid people in general. Yesterday, a girl didnt know that a Brazilian was from Brazil. People like that need to be wiped off the face of the earth. I think stupidity is hereditary.
Also, Retardation i dont believe should be killed off. It is not like they chose to adapt like that :/
Homosexuals on the other hand.....

[AlexCraig]

You got a problem with homosexuals?

[DikkyRay]

Yes and no. Do i approve of them? No. Do i care about them though? No. Doesnt bother me, but i dont approve of them.

[Otis_Kat]

Before anyone else does this.

IF YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THEM WHY DO YOU DISAPPROVE OF THEM?

A big http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif not @ Dikky

[ABDUR101]

On 2007-09-19 14:03, DikkyRay wrote:
Yes and no. Do i approve of them? No. Do i care about them though? No. Doesnt bother me, but i dont approve of them.


Lets throw race into the mix and see how quickly the pot comes to a boil.

[Scejntjynahl]

If any external stimuli threatens your own perception of selfworth and place in society, then your most natural reaction would be to control said stimuli or destroy it. The path of adapting entails the ability to tolerate said stimuli without risking your core self.

[Blue-Hawk]

On 2007-09-19 14:03, DikkyRay wrote:
Yes and no. Do i approve of them? No. Do i care about them though? No. Doesnt bother me, but i dont approve of them.


Kind of a contradictory way to see things, isn't that?

[astuarlen]

At first I thought the ideas expressed in this rant were too obvious. And then I read some replies!

Fun thing about the whole let's-kill-those-who-are-unfit/haven't-adapted... those favoring such a plan might end up rather unhappy with the arrangement.

[Scejntjynahl]

On 2007-09-19 15:46, Blue-Hawk wrote:

On 2007-09-19 14:03, DikkyRay wrote:
Yes and no. Do i approve of them? No. Do i care about them though? No. Doesnt bother me, but i dont approve of them.


Kind of a contradictory way to see things, isn't that?



I believe he/she is trying to say "out of sight, out of mind". As long as its not put before their immdediate life they don't give it much thought. But if they had to deal with it, then their reaction would be one of rejection.

[Solstis]

On 2007-09-19 15:46, astuarlen wrote:
At first I thought the ideas expressed in this rant were too obvious.

Ah, if only it were true!

[astuarlen]

On 2007-09-19 15:55, Solstis wrote:

On 2007-09-19 15:46, astuarlen wrote:
At first I thought the ideas expressed in this rant were too obvious.

Ah, if only it were true!


I'm a closet optimist.

[Sinue_v2]

Not really. I think you can accept and work with people, without having to like them. We do it every day at work and school. Whether or not I or anyone else see Dikky's reason for disliking them as justifiable or condemnable doesn't matter.

As for Social Darwinism, it is in effect as we speak. It's a sink or swim world, and you either adapt to your environments, change your environments, or you won't survive. Well, perhaps not survive, but you certainly won't get very far in life. Though I will say the the idea of Social Darwinism as an enforced dogma is rather frightening, as it inevitably lead to concepts like eugenics - which we've already seen where that road leads.

[DikkyRay]

Allright, i knew my statement would be under fire.
As a christian, i morally disapprove of them. God made it so a man and woman could live together....blah blah. So Homosexuality is wrong
But i really could care less if You are gay. Hell, why would i? So you are different then me. OH NOEZ D:. I am not for/against gay rights. I do, however, believe gays should have more rights than they already have. I know and think that many gay males would make MUCH MUCH MUCH better parents than alot of people i personally know.
At the same time however, too much...homosexuality could be bad in a way. 2 males cannot reproduce, and as hot as it is, 2 females cannot either. We gotta reproduce somehow. And we cannot all depend on artificial semenation (idk if thats the correct term). Personally, i believe that a child should have both a mom and a dad, to get a proper understanding of Masculinity/Feminism.
Now you get where i am coming from? I personally am not for/against gay marriage. At the same time however, i do disapprove of them because of my faith.

Thanks to the few who saw where i am coming from.

[Weeaboolits]

I'm Christian as well (granted, not a very religious person), and I couldn't care less which sex someone is interested in, it's really none of my business, it's not like it affects me any.

[AlexCraig]

Here is my post from a similar thread on another site a few months back:

I think Peter Griffin from Family Guy said it best when he said, "Hey, if gay people want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, then I say why not?"
As for religion, I do not think it should get involved. Especially when the religion that says "no same sex marriage" also says "thou shall not kill." I mean, here we are in a war killing other people.
That's just my opinion, anyway. Not my religion.

[KodiaX987]

Just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself...

[Weeaboolits]

One thing that really got me with the whole anti-gay-marriage deal, is the fact that it has absolutely no legal legs to stand on, in fact, it only has things going against it, (separation of church and state for one), so it should have been squashed immediately, the fact that something like that could be supported as much as it was when it's so obvious that it shouldn't pass really says something. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_disapprove.gif

[DikkyRay]

Im pretty religious. Best way to describe it is "Tolerance". Personally, like i said, i dont care about gay marriage. It is clearly stated in the Bible though. I understand that it says "cant murder". I agree with this. Murder is terrible. Yet it happens. There is a war going on right now. Do i care? nope.
I am religious, but im not fucking extreme about it.

[Sinue_v2]

Just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself...

Meh, half those fucks can't/won't read and it would only end up making more (crippled) social parasites and make rich lawyers even richer.

[Sord]

so as long as we go to law school and become lawyers first, we could then take the labels off, one hell of a financial plan http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

I agree with it

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sord on 2007-09-19 18:14 ]</font>

[omegapirate2k]

On 2007-09-19 16:26, KodiaX987 wrote:
Just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself...



I approve of this solution.

[Dre_o]

In a perfect world, the weak REALLY WOULD DIE OFF. Why? Then humanity as a whole would be better off. But, Oh ho ho! Then it wouldn't be perfect would it? People would suffer and hatred would cause those who were going to go extinct to fight back.

Then everyone dies.

Lovely little paradox type situation, isn't it?

[ABDUR101]

Dre, go back acouple hundred years and let me know how that social darwinism works out for you. =]

[SolomonGrundy]

Social Darwinism had led current society to be more accepting of minorities (whether they be a minority of race, sexual preference or religion).

pretty cool, I'd say.

[opaopajr]

wow, the ignorance about what is Social Darwinism, and how it has been used, and how it is patently a gross misinterpretation of everything Darwin said is so depressing... my only consolation is that most of these replies are coming from high schoolers, i hope. but then my high school (catholic) was pretty intense about teaching us evolution, Darwin's theory, the dumbfuckery of Social Darwinism, etc. so i'm lowering my expectations here; we all should know what the original post is about.

Social Darwinism is a simplistic, in fact moronic, understanding of Darwin's theory of natural selection. basically it was a society that was moving away from religious dogmatism to science, but on the way wanted to keep all its bigotry and decided to hide it under the guise of dogmatic science (which is literally a contradiction in terms -- true science is willing to admit it is wrong and start all over). the theories created under it are ridiculous because they assume all is competition without taking into account cooperation, the fact that humans are social (which throws natural selection pretty much out the window -- hemophiliac royal families anyone?), that we are advanced tool makers and shape our environment (people wearing glasses and farming, anyone?), etc. they also assume the genes selected from the matin pair will carry and refine the desired traits, whereas genes really are far more complex than that. things like intelligence, beauty, etc. are nowhere near as connected to breeding, but as a potential inherent in all individual chromosomes (this is why intelligent or beautiful parents in no way guarantees intelligent or beautiful children -- in fact, we are finding that nature selects the exact opposite instead to retain a diverse gene pool).

why this delusion has persisted into this new century is quite disappointing. i really wish people, americans in particular, pushed for more strenuous standards in education. such myths, and harmful ones at that, should be long dead now, not just its bastard children of eugenics and phrenology.

[BlaizeYES]

On 2007-09-20 04:04, opaopajr wrote:

Social Darwinism is a simplistic, in fact moronic, understanding of Darwin's theory of natural selection. basically it was a society that was moving away from religious dogmatism to science, but on the way wanted to keep all its bigotry and decided to hide it under the guise of dogmatic science (which is literally a contradiction in terms -- true science is willing to admit it is wrong and start all over). the theories created under it are ridiculous because they assume all is competition without taking into account cooperation, the fact that humans are social (which throws natural selection pretty much out the window -- hemophiliac royal families anyone?), that we are advanced tool makers and shape our environment (people wearing glasses and farming, anyone?), etc. they also assume the genes selected from the matin pair will carry and refine the desired traits, whereas genes really are far more complex than that. things like intelligence, beauty, etc. are nowhere near as connected to breeding, but as a potential inherent in all individual chromosomes (this is why intelligent or beautiful parents in no way guarantees intelligent or beautiful children -- in fact, we are finding that nature selects the exact opposite instead to retain a diverse gene pool).

why this delusion has persisted into this new century is quite disappointing. i really wish people, americans in particular, pushed for more strenuous standards in education. such myths, and harmful ones at that, should be long dead now, not just its bastard children of eugenics and phrenology.




JESUS GOD if you were a man i would definitely make out with you right now. that, and that absolutely gorgeous picture of a chao you have as your little icon, i am so glad i read what you put before i left for work. jesus i miss my chaos. their cooing soothed a soul of a troubled man many years prior.

i myself am a heterosexual. i dont care if people are homosexuals, just like i'm one of the few dudes that dont get "turned on" if i see lesbians making out. its nothing i have any use for sexually, so why do i care to begin with?

now in respect to religion... i myself was raised catholic and then turned athiest a few years back when i started watching the discovery channel as a 16 year old to hear that religious leaders used to burn documents if it contradicted anything said in the bible. then it hit me: they denounce christianity because jesus was creating an "uprising," but as soon as it was deemed an acceptable means of controlling people, they adopted it. religion is just a way of controlling people.

"survival of the fittest" doesnt apply. america is still in this service era going back to the 70s of making everything as convenient as possible and making the people as fat and lazy as they can get. no longer does it mean intelligence when all you have to do is push a button few buttons and only learn enough to "get by". nobody knows how to have a long term goal and reach it, everyone has forgotten the meaning of being pragmatic. social darwinism is this concept that applies to movies and tv shoes when the asshole executive is beating out the "good guy" who is morally right. i've heard that "businesses are kill or be killed" in so many different shows its retarded.

stupid people will always be there, and alot of the things i could have said have been intercepted by this person with the glorious chao icon. i like the way you think