(November 12, 2012 at 6:45 pm)festive1 Wrote:

(November 12, 2012 at 6:30 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: As an atheist, it's clear that social darwinism is right.

Helping the poor, the disabled and disadvantaged is, ironically, the creation of the religious.

A truly secular world will treat humans according to their own worth. Only the strongest should survive.

In fact, I'm ashamed of atheists on welfare.

Ummm... You should change your religious views from Neo-Humanism then... Social Darwinism is the antithesis of humanism, neo or not.

Uhh no.

Social darwinism ultimately creates a better, stronger human race. This is the best expression of humanity I've seen, and no other comes close.

Unless you are trying to suggest that human life is special. It's not. Dawkins says as much in his books.

Vincent, are you realy an atheist?

Humanism |ˈ(h)yoōməˌnizəm|
noun
an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.
Bolding mine.

Social Darwinism: an extension of Darwinism to social phenomena; specifically : a sociological theory that sociocultural advance is the product of intergroup conflict and competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for existence

These two definitions are at odds, sir. You can't be a humanist and a social Darwinist.

Vinny, do you have an understanding of what Darwinism and evolution really are? Do you understand the difference between 'survival of the fittest' and 'survival of the strongest?'

If we attempt to alter social evolution, all we really do is alter the environment. In the end, the social behaviors that survive won't always be he best behaviors for society but the behaviors that are best for that specific situation. What you're suggesting is some kind of Tea Party view of the world, but what you would get is a world filled with selfish pricks only looking out for themselves and screw everyone else. I would much rather live in a compassionate world with a little higher taxes than to be transported to a bad gangster movie.

(November 12, 2012 at 7:07 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: Vincent, are you realy an atheist?

What a preposterous question.

I'm not here to prove my atheism to you.

(November 12, 2012 at 7:11 pm)festive1 Wrote: Humanism |ˈ(h)yoōməˌnizəm|
noun
an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.
Bolding mine.

Social Darwinism: an extension of Darwinism to social phenomena; specifically : a sociological theory that sociocultural advance is the product of intergroup conflict and competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for existence

These two definitions are at odds, sir. You can't be a humanist and a social Darwinist.

Darwinism as a process results in a stronger, more survivable species. This increases the value and goodness of human beings, partially or wholly relieves common human needs and on its own contributes to the resolution of human problems.

On all areas of your definition, social darwinism thus has a positive humanistic impact.

After all, humanistic values ultimately boil down to survival and reproduction.

(November 12, 2012 at 7:32 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(November 12, 2012 at 7:07 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: Vincent, are you realy an atheist?

What a preposterous question.

I'm not here to prove my atheism to you.

No offense.

On subject:
Dont your views lead to eugenics? And isn`t the main difference between animals and us that we are social animals who have a grasp of the concept of sociaty?

(November 12, 2012 at 7:32 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Darwinism as a process results in a stronger, more survivable species. This increases the value and goodness of human beings, partially or wholly relieves common human needs and on its own contributes to the resolution of human problems.

On all areas of your definition, social darwinism thus has a positive humanistic impact.

After all, humanistic values ultimately boil down to survival and reproduction.

Ok, question tiem!

Do you suggest we automatically euthonize children born with down syndrome as an attempt to improve the gene pool? What about other well known genetic disabilities? How about Parkinsons? Sickle Cell Anemia? Diabetes? Cancer? These are traits that are either entirely genetic or at least partially genetic. If you're suggesting we weed out the undesirable traits from humanity, what would you suggest we do with these people?

And why poor people? Is there a poor gene now? Is someone's wallet size directly proportional to their value as a human being? Absolutely not. Many people are impoverished for reasons largely outside of their control; some people never had a chance. To say someone is lesser for the sole reason of their living below the poverty line would not have any basis in reality. The assumption that people are poor because they are somehow inherently inferior, either in terms of character or intelligence, is often a false one.

(November 12, 2012 at 6:53 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Social darwinism ultimately creates a better, stronger human race.

Says who?

(November 12, 2012 at 7:46 pm)TaraJo Wrote:

(November 12, 2012 at 7:32 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Darwinism as a process results in a stronger, more survivable species. This increases the value and goodness of human beings, partially or wholly relieves common human needs and on its own contributes to the resolution of human problems.

On all areas of your definition, social darwinism thus has a positive humanistic impact.

After all, humanistic values ultimately boil down to survival and reproduction.

Ok, question tiem!

Do you suggest we automatically euthonize children born with down syndrome as an attempt to improve the gene pool? What about other well known genetic disabilities? How about Parkinsons? Sickle Cell Anemia? Diabetes? Cancer? These are traits that are either entirely genetic or at least partially genetic. If you're suggesting we weed out the undesirable traits from humanity, what would you suggest we do with these people?

What do we do with these people? We prevent them from creating more people at the very least.

It's certainly consistent with the pro-choice position to euthanize children born with down syndrome. We do that already, although before the fetus comes to term (see Rowe vs. Wade).

If Down Syndrome markers show on the CVS test (That's Chorionic Villi Sampling test, not the convenience store), then we proceed to abort. Over 90% of Down Syndrome births in Europe are aborted just like this already. And there is no real difference between a fetus inside or outside a womb for most medical ethicists today.

So the bottom line is, there's no problem with euthanizing people outside the womb. But if that's a problem we can start slowly, by legalizing sterilization first, so that they can't reproduce. The only problem is finding a convenient legal avenue in the American courts. We need 30 years at the most of consistently liberal Supreme Court selections till it's possible to start open, large-scale euthanasia or sterilization of some form in the US.

Now that the Republicans have been destroyed in this last election, we are ready to start this chain. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is already 79. Those achy bones need to be replaced with a young, liberal maverick.

And frankly it's about time.