Tooth Fairy Bullshit

[Amarok]

Only 50% of the time.

The other 50% he's disingenuous or intentionally obtuse

---

Wait, Thumpo= Thump?

So he can't even spell now. Your name doesn't even contain an "o"

And who the fuck is Herbet Spencer?

That's probably how he spells my name

Spencer popularised Darwin's Theory of Evolution, coming up with phrases such as "survival of the fittest" and "nature red in tooth and claw". He was a journalist first and foremost, so in his attempt to make the theory more understandable to the layman he oversimplified.

Indeed and he failed miserably

There is no survival  of the fittest as for tooth and claw again this ignores huge swathes of nature  it's idiotic and clashes with what we have learned since

---

My apologies for two things: 1) incorrectly abbreviating you username and 2) misinterpreting your text as favoring social Darwinism. I was careless on both accounts.

Over the course of this thread I have mentioned a wide variety of things whose ontological status(es?) are the subject of scholarly debate, e.g. time, numbers, values, possibilities, intentionality, minds, etc. To the extent to which they do or do not exist they fall into categories of being unlike that of physical objects. Thus the means by which beliefs about those kinds of things are justified differ from the means by which someone would justify beliefs about physical objects. You can assert that numbers are abstractions but I can point to modern philosophers, like Godel, that would beg to differ. It’s really a very simple concept and I don’t understand why it remains of elusive to some. Beliefs about different kinds of things require different kinds of justification.

Now the claim you were making earlier, if I am not misreading you again, is that altruistic instincts like humility, sacrifice, mutual respect, and empathy enhance the fitness of the species. And according to you that makes them good.  

Unfortunately evolutionary science has proven decisively that this is simply not the case. One in 200 men, approximately 17 million, are directly descended from a brutal killer and serial rapist, Genghis Khan. Apparently the instincts of lust and conquest are those that most enhance fitness, which in evolutionary terms means leaving lots and lots of offspring. If morality is defined as fitness, then Genghis Khan was the greatest saint in human history.

Firstly, no apologies needed about the screenname, it's all good. And I appreciate and accept your apology about the misunderstanding.

Regarding descent from Khan, you're making two errors there: First, you're assuming that traits such as brutality and suchlike are genetic, when the overwhelming opinion among behavioral psychologists is that human behavior is a complex interaction between genetics and environment, wherein the proportions of each influence are usually uncertain. Your second error is in assuming that .5% of the male population is enough support for your point that such behavior demonstrates fitness. Even if it is entirely genetic (which is doubtful in the extreme), the fact is that we humans structure our society to contain such behavioral impulses in order to minimize the harm they cause.

Indeed it's not nature or nurture it's nature and nurture  and 5% is a pathetic means of determining fitness even if we allow for poor genetics they are anomaly that has managed to cling not a genetic trait the dominant nor likely to become so