Do you believe in Social Darwinism? (with poll)

[Ausm]

Sperm donation is not really that common at this point. Also, even sperm donors are not having kids at anyone else's expense. Pretty much everyone has kids if they want them these days.

That was my major in College.

 

[monovillage]

Read a book called Black Swan. And no, it's not about ballerinas. And it's funny that I was basically right about your view of mutual fund managers and you got all outraged.


Why do I need to define it here? I'm not the one saying that successful people are more or or less biologically fit.


No, it's not. *yawn* But at the same time it suggests Social Darwinism doesn't really make any sense.

OT, but here's a post by Judith Curry that discusses

"The concept of “black swan” comes from Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of the book ”The Blacks Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable,” ."

Sorry about the OT, but I found it interesting in this context.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/02/anticipating-the-climate-black-swan/

 

[sandorski]

No, but there have been quite a few studies that show that people who fit a particular societies version of "good looking" or "attractive" get hired to better jobs and get paid more then "ugly" people. People are also more likely to be hired and/or successful if they are thin or fit rather then fat or out of shape, even if the job has nothing to do with physical fitness. Tall people in our society are more likely to be successful. Seeing a #9 woman with a #5 man, most people would assume the man is wealthy or has some other "hidden" advantage. We see examples of natural selection every day in society.

...ok. What exactly is your point though?

 

[cybrsage]

That was my major in College.

Sorry to hear you failed out of college, Ausm.

Come on, you set yourself up for it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Read a book called Fooled by Randomness. And it's funny that I was basically right about your view of mutual fund managers and you got all outraged.

I couldn't give two shits about mutual fund managers. What outrages me is your either acting coy or you're an oblivious idiot. You obviously chose mutual fund managers specifically to evoke a emotional response in here (which is generally revulsion) and thereby push readers in a particular direction through their built-in aversion.

Why do I need to define it here? I'm not the one saying that successful people are more or or less biologically fit.

Nor am I. But you seem to be so wound up trying to defend your OP troll that you are clueless about what I'm saying in the first place.

No, it's not. *yawn* But at the same time it suggests Social Darwinism doesn't really make any sense.

"yawn" indeed. As I already explained to you, Social Darwinism is a concept that truly doesn't have any relevance in the first place because it can't be executed in our current system. You are arguing a straw man.

 

[Infohawk]

I couldn't give two shits about mutual fund managers. What outrages me is your either acting coy or you're an oblivious idiot. You obviously chose mutual fund managers specifically to evoke a emotional response in here (which is generally revulsion) and thereby push readers in a particular direction through their built-in aversion.

You are really projecting about the mutual fund managers. The point is that it's something that people think takes skill, but has been shown to involve a tremendous amount of

Nor am I. But you seem to be so wound up trying to defend your OP troll that you are clueless about what I'm saying in the first place.

The OP's a troll? How so?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

You are really projecting about the mutual fund managers. The point is that it's something that people think takes skill, but has been shown to involve a tremendous amount of

No doubt you're an expert on mutual fund managers and the skill required because you read a book about it.

Tell Warren Buffet, John Neff, or Peter Lynch that what they do requires no skill whatsoever.

The OP's a troll? How so?

The OP is a troll because you've made it clear that it's little more than bait so you can lure in what you perceive as a true believer in Social Darwinism and proceed to rag on their beliefs. That's pure trolling, nothing more.

 

[Infohawk]

No doubt you're an expert on mutual fund managers and the skill required because you read a book about it.

Tell Warren Buffet, John Neff, or Peter Lynch that what they do requires no skill whatsoever.

Warren Buffet is not a mutual fund manager. In fact, he advises people to invest in index funds, which are passively managed and don't rely on individuals to pick stocks based on BS reasons.

The OP is a troll because you've made it clear that it's little more than bait so you can lure in what you perceive as a true believer in Social Darwinism and proceed to rag on their beliefs. That's pure trolling, nothing more.

I don't agree with Social Darwinism. If someone's going to defend it I'm going to disagree with them. That's not trolling.

 

[JS80]

Your question is fail because your premise assumes that 99% of people are not capable of being economically fit to the extent that they will not need assistance. You ask this question because you do not believe in humans. Or you're an elitist asshole. Or both.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Warren Buffet is not a mutual fund manager. In fact, he advises people to invest in index funds, which are passively managed and don't rely on individuals to pick stocks based on BS reasons.

There's not much of a difference. He chooses many of the very same assets to invest in that mutual fund managers do. People invest in his "fund" and collectively reap the profits, or lose money as has sometimes been the case recently.

I don't agree with Social Darwinism. If someone's going to defend it I'm going to disagree with them. That's not trolling.

So you start a thread in the hope of luring someone in who defends the belief so you can express your disdain for their beliefs, and that's not trolling.

K.

 

[Pia]

A responsible person would only have children if the family has a reasonable expectation of being able to feed said children.

Unfortunately there's not a whole lot that can be currently done to stop religiously motivated or apathetic people from plopping out children and not caring for them. I don't want children to starve because they have an irresponsible parent. In a situation where the family is completely dependent on aid to survive, any punishment of the irresponsible parent tends to carry over to the children so in effect the children are hostages in this situation.

If reversible medical sterilization was really safe and reasonably cheap, I would make it a condition of collecting any substantial, long term government benefit. This isn't harming anyone's rights and would at least prevent some of the problem. Keeping monetary child benefits down to a minimum is a good idea; as much of the assistance as possible should come in forms the parent cannot waste or use for their own benefit (health care, child clothes, school meals etc.).

 

[Tom]

A responsible person would only have children if the family has a reasonable expectation of being able to feed said children.

Unfortunately there's not a whole lot that can be currently done to stop religiously motivated or apathetic people from plopping out children and not caring for them. I don't want children to starve because they have an irresponsible parent. In a situation where the family is completely dependent on aid to survive, any punishment of the irresponsible parent tends to carry over to the children so in effect the children are hostages in this situation.

If reversible medical sterilization was really safe and reasonably cheap, I would make it a condition of collecting any substantial, long term government benefit. This isn't harming anyone's rights and would at least prevent some of the problem. Keeping monetary child benefits down to a minimum is a good idea; as much of the assistance as possible should come in forms the parent cannot waste or use for their own benefit (health care, child clothes, school meals etc.).

So you want to sterilize veterans who got their legs blown off protecting our candy-asses ?

Or just some other people ? I assume you don't think you are one of those people, you are some other sort of person, not like them ? What is your species ?

 

[sm625]

It doesn't really matter what I believe. The people who control the levers of power all believe in it. And they practice it in the form of eugenics.

People in general have absolutely no interest in unmasking the true political paradigms, and for that they will continually get poorer. So I say hell with them. It makes no sense to just give them handouts when they don't care enough to become informed on why they are getting poorer and poorer each year.

It is like giving water to plants on the side of a road in rural Nevada. They will flourish for a day or two then wither away, unless you keep giving them water. Unlike those weeds, people have the power to save themselves, they just choose not to use it. If you dont believe in social darwinism then you have to explain what good comes from supporting or subsidizing that type of helplessness. In the end you always invariably get a Stalinist / Maoist type mass slaughter because you have millions of people who cant and wont do anything to help themselves.

 

[Tom]

It doesn't really matter what I believe. The people who control the levers of power all believe in it. And they practice it in the form of eugenics.

People in general have absolutely no interest in unmasking the true political paradigms, and for that they will continually get poorer. So I say hell with them. It makes no sense to just give them handouts when they don't care enough to become informed on why they are getting poorer and poorer each year.

It is like giving water to plants on the side of a road in rural Nevada. They will flourish for a day or two then wither away, unless you keep giving them water. Unlike those weeds, people have the power to save themselves, they just choose not to use it. If you dont believe in social darwinism then you have to explain what good comes from supporting or subsidizing that type of helplessness. In the end you always invariably get a Stalinist / Maoist type mass slaughter because you have millions of people who cant and wont do anything to help themselves.

What a jerk. The people who Stalin and Mao slaughtered were peasants, who worked their asses off but survived, until fucked up central planning made their lives impossible.

btw, poor people everywhere around the world aren't any different than the rest of us, they are just unlucky. It isn't right to pat yourself on the back and think the reason you aren't one of them is all because you're so f-ing great.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Social Darwinism doesn't really happen because humans intervene in the process to prevent it.

I agree with TLC on this one but probably not in the same spirit of the statement that he intended.

If the banks would have been allowed to fail, a lot of those at the top of the food chain would have suffered greatly. We couldn't have that now, could we?

As much as the right likes to claim that the government is trying to steal from them to support those on the very bottom from becoming socially extinct (and they are correct to a large extent in making that claim), they turn a blind eye to how the government is used to keep those at the top of the social ladder, at the top.

Social Darwinism is a fallacy perpetuated by those that have the financial and personal connections to make it happen.

If you truly wanted to see if it was a viable hypothesis, you'd take a control group from each segment, put them into situations that were as close to exact as you could and see who comes out on top.

Claiming that it exists because an idiot like GWB can run 6 businesses into the ground yet rise to become president because of familial political connections when Juan Jose Morales busts his ass everyday to make ends meet while running a landscaping business that can't net him $50k/yr isn't proof that it does. In fact, it proves the exact opposite.

 

[Infohawk]

Your question is fail because your premise assumes that 99% of people are not capable of being economically fit to the extent that they will not need assistance. You ask this question because you do not believe in humans. Or you're an elitist asshole. Or both.

There is no premise, it's just a question.

 

[sm625]

What a jerk. The people who Stalin and Mao slaughtered were peasants, who worked their asses off but survived, until fucked up central planning made their lives impossible.

btw, poor people everywhere around the world aren't any different than the rest of us, they are just unlucky. It isn't right to pat yourself on the back and think the reason you aren't one of them is all because you're so f-ing great.

We are different than the other peasants around the world, but not how you say. It's not about luck. We are duplicitous. We pretend like we're better, harder working, etc. But that's not it. We stand by and watch as horrible things are done in our name, and than delude ourselves and wrap ourselves in the flag and create euphemisms for all the unspeakable atrocities we commit. 4 million dead iraqis. 2 million+ dead Afghans. For what? For oil, opium, and technological advancement. And then we drug ourselves to keep from realizing that we support the biggest organized crime cartel in the world with our tax dollars. We export cheap worthless dollars all around the world, and force them to be used basically at gunpoint. It is all explained with occult symbolism right on the money itself. But americans feign ignorance and pretend they dont know wtf any of it means.

 

[woolfe9999]

4 million dead iraqis. 2 million+ dead Afghans.

You have a source to support these figures?

 

[JS80]

There is no premise, it's just a question.

It's a question based on the assumption that Social Darwinism exists/has to exist. I contend that SD is a social construction and in reality does not exist. It's all created in your head because you assume a large chunk of the populace are incapable of enough production to sustain themselves hence rely on others' production to fill the gap.

 

[Infohawk]

It's a question based on the question that Social Darwinism exists/has to exist. I contend that SD is a social construction and in reality does not exist. It's all created in your head because you assume a large chunk of the populace are incapable of enough production to sustain themselves hence rely on others' production to fill the gap.

Actually it's just a question about a theory. For some reason you're attacking the person asking a question. If you want to say it doesn't match reality, that's fine. I don't really need you to tell me about what assumptions I'm making when I'm simply asking a question.

 

[JS80]

Actually it's just a question about a theory. For some reason you're attacking the person asking a question. If you want to say it doesn't match reality, that's fine. I don't really need you to tell me about what assumptions I'm making when I'm simply asking a question.

I am not attacking you. I am attacking the false question. If I do not believe Social Darwinism is a valid theory, then how could I answer yes/no?

 

[Infohawk]

I am not attacking you. I am attacking the false question. If I do not believe Social Darwinism is a valid theory, then how could I answer yes/no?

You would vote no. Sounds like you don't like it...