Social Darwinism: Right or Wrong

[Something completely different]

Still, it doesnt make the ape human.
One can debate on what might be a moral and what might be an inmoral way to treat other species, but one cannot equate the life of a human with the life of other species.

Only because a infant behaves like a animal at the beginning of it`s life, this does not mean that it is not human, a infant child will grow up to be an adult human.

a infant child is a human being

a cockroach is not
a dog is not

do i need to paint you a picture?

humans equal to animals? Are you one of these people who think that a chickenfarm is like ausschwitz? please dont be.

[Cato]

C'mon Vinny. Are you ducking me? I asked a two word question replying to your assertion regarding 'the' path to a superior race. Your voice has littered the last two AF pages on this thread, but have conveniently ignored my obseration. Who?

[TaraJo]

C'mon Vinny. Are you ducking me? I asked a two word question replying to your assertion regarding 'the' path to a superior race. Your voice has littered the last two AF pages on this thread, but have conveniently ignored my obseration. Who?

He's a troll; you don't expect a troll to answer questions like that, do you?

[Polaris]

Since I am a Democratic Socialist, I am adamantly opposed to Social Darwinism having any impact on society whatsoever. It is a system that favors the 1% and sadly exists in America because of the corruption of the two-party system.

[jonb]

Since I am a Democratic Socialist, I am adequately opposed to Social Darwinism having any impact on society whatsoever. It is a system that favors the 1% and sadly exists in America because of the corruption of the two-party system.

The problem with democratic socialism, is that who sets up the policies? In britain the labour party has become a rich man's club, with just enough working class people to pretend it has some credibility, but they never get their hands on the power.

[Cato]

He's a troll; you don't expect a troll to answer questions like that, do you?

No. You are right. I don't expect it; however, he/she must consider it even if the choice is made to ignore me.

---

Since I am a Democratic Socialist, I am adequately opposed to Social Darwinism having any impact on society whatsoever. It is a system that favors the 1% and sadly exists in America because of the corruption of the two-party system.

Praytell, what does it mean to be adequately opposed? I am opposed to hair weaves. People still get hair weaves. I doubt saying I'm 'adequately' opposed to hair weaves will change the frequency of people getting hair weaves or significantly enhance my opposition. What's the purpose of the 'adequate' qualifier? You can't say, can you?

It's like American football announcers using the term 'differential' instead of saying difference.

---

The problem with democratic socialism, is that who sets up the policies? In britain the labour party has become a rich man's club, with just enough working class people to pretend it has some credibility, but they never get their hands on the power.

Precisely. This goes back to my question to Vinny (troll or not)...says who?

[The Grand Nudger]

On to the "state of nature" now are we? Fliirting with hilarity, as always. Suppose any given batshit proposition you care to invoke actually -was- the "state of nature". Who fucking cares?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Ok, so, as far as down syndrome goes, we automatically abort them before they're born. I'm assuming you'd do the same thing with many of the other genetic birth defects I mentioned, right? Parkinsons? Sickle Cell Anemia? What about traits that are partially genetic? Diabetes? Heart disease? Alcoholism? Mental illness? Are we going to eliminate those traits from our gene pool as well?

While you're considering that slippery slope, consider this one as well: social darwinism is generally used to justify objectivism. However, if you want to use social darwinism to emphasize traits that are productive to society, what do you do when someone decides they want to eliminate selfish douchebag genes from the gene pool? I think the world would be much better if we eliminated some of these greedy bastards like Grover Norquist, the Koch brothers and Donald Trump and I think the world would be much better if the kind of greedy traits they're known for were eliminated from the gene pool.

Depends on what society needs. We can keep them alive, resorting to sterilization only when the genetic pool becomes too unwieldy for the healthcare system to treat them. Until then, they are free to live and go about living normal lives.

Euthanasia will only be the final stage on that path, if things really become too much to bear. Say, if food shortages occur, and people are starving to death- instead of letting people live and die based on chance factors like poverty, geographic location, etc, we let people live and die based on how best to preserve genetic quality.

Listen, I know this sounds controversial, but it's only because of society. A few decades ago genetic population management had a serious place in political discussion in the United States, before the boom of social conservatism in the 50s.

It's going to come up again very soon, when the rising population and dwindling resources start becoming noticeable problems.

C'mon Vinny. Are you ducking me? I asked a two word question replying to your assertion regarding 'the' path to a superior race. Your voice has littered the last two AF pages on this thread, but have conveniently ignored my obseration. Who?

Sorry cato. I thought such a question was surely rhetorical. I didn't know you were being serious. I'll try to answer it.

Social darwinism ultimately creates a better, stronger human race.

Says who?

Says common sense. Darwinism rewards the fit and allows for the spreading of superior genetics.

It's simply common sense to think it would work in much the same way for human beings.

Still, it doesnt make the ape human.
One can debate on what might be a moral and what might be an inmoral way to treat other species, but one cannot equate the life of a human with the life of other species.

Only because a infant behaves like a animal at the beginning of it`s life, this does not mean that it is not human, a infant child will grow up to be an adult human.

a infant child is a human being

a cockroach is not
a dog is not

do i need to paint you a picture?

humans equal to animals? Are you one of these people who think that a chickenfarm is like ausschwitz? please dont be.

It doesn't make the ape human, I agree. But I'm saying "being human" is not special as opposed to "being a potato" or "being an orangutan".

They are all different categories of living things occupying different regions on the tree of life.



If your claim is that "being human" makes you special, than this is little more than discrimination based on species, no? You treat one species better than another, and the better species is yours.

Do you not know how this is discrimination?

[The Grand Nudger]

Population problems eh Vinny? So, out of these two options which would you prioritize?

Growing more potatos.
Eugenics.

(for the record, I'm a fan of "potato eugenics", and also engineering our own species. I wouldn't mind that being called eugenics so long as the bullshit social aspects are left out.)

[TaraJo]

Depends on what society needs. We can keep them alive, resorting to sterilization only when the genetic pool becomes too unwieldy for the healthcare system to treat them. Until then, they are free to live and go about living normal lives.

Euthanasia will only be the final stage on that path, if things really become too much to bear. Say, if food shortages occur, and people are starving to death- instead of letting people live and die based on chance factors like poverty, geographic location, etc, we let people live and die based on how best to preserve genetic quality.

Listen, I know this sounds controversial, but it's only because of society. A few decades ago genetic population management had a serious place in political discussion in the United States, before the boom of social conservatism in the 50s.

It's going to come up again very soon, when the rising population and dwindling resources start becoming noticeable problems.

Wow. You're still sticking with you're REALLY slippery slope, aren't ya' Vinny?

The reason these ideas were basically abandoned in the 50's is because they were the same ideas Hitler used in the 30's and 40's to justify is extremination of 'inferior races.' And, yep, he started out like you in that he didn't want to outright execute them for belonging to a different race, but he put restrictions on them, restrictions specifically on reproduction for example, but as his war carried on he didn't want to have to waste any more resources on them so when he found a cost effective way to do it, he started executing people.

I don't know about you, Vincent, but if I find myself following the same path as the biggest madman in human history, I rethink my positions.