Tweet
Why not? If you believe Bell Curve, surely certain "races" are inferior.
-
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within." -
what the hell?
Spencer, the founder of social darwinism, made it clear that the transition from homogenity to heterogenity of the human species is a sign of our advancement and evolution. human diversity is considered a big plus to the social darwinists."Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben KenobiComment
-
How does that reconcile with the belief that inferior individuals needed to be weeded out?(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."Comment
-
Berz,
Arguing with you becomes so tedious. You define everything according to libertarian context. For example, you think that every time you see the work 'right' it means natural right. Only libertarians talk like that. The rest of us aren't obsessed with natural rights.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
And I disagree with Boris. Even though people had already tried to find psuedo-scientific ways to justify racism before Darwin, they found his "survival of the fittest" idea to be very appealing as a new psuedo-scientific justification for racism.Originally posted by Albert Speer
shut up mrfun... racism has nothing to do with social darwinism. didn't me and Boris already disprove this notion? do you intake any information?A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.Comment
-
If you talk about legal rights, then your discussion has no bearing on morality. Since you're arguing morality, of COURSE you're talking about "natural rights".Originally posted by Kidicious
Berz,
Arguing with you becomes so tedious. You define everything according to libertarian context. For example, you think that every time you see the work 'right' it means natural right. Only libertarians talk like that. The rest of us aren't obsessed with natural rights.Comment
-
Re: Libertarianism and Social Darwinism
If there is an unfair or unjustified element in the system (i.e. corporate welfare, or loopholes in the tax code, or some kind of collusion at the top) then that should be fixed, and victims of it should be helped. Though some elements you may consider unfair, would be considered fair in a libertarian system. and vice-versa.Originally posted by MrFun
It seems that libertarianism is a political adaptation of the ideology underlying social Darwinism in that if you play by the rules and you end up losing you are screwed and undeserving of any government assistance and/or protection -- even if you lost out due to some unfair or unjustified element of the system.
Or am I talking out of my ass?
Also, no government assistance does not mean no assistance. Libertarians (at least in theory) are big fans of private charity and help and such.
So social darwinism doesn't equal libertarianism.Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012
When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - RahComment
-
We were talking about a dictionary definition, and legal rights do have a bearing on morality.Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If you talk about legal rights, then your discussion has no bearing on morality. Since you're arguing morality, of COURSE you're talking about "natural rights".I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
No they don't! Unless your morality is "what's legal is moral, what's illegal is immoral", then the two are completely unconnected! What is legal is merely an empirical claim.Comment
-
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No they don't! Unless your morality is "what's legal is moral, what's illegal is immoral", then the two are completely unconnected! What is legal is merely an empirical claim.
DanSed you.
What I meant to say is that illegal is unethical, not immoral. The problem is that Berzerker thinks that his morals are ethical, and that is ridiculous.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Thus, killing all the Jews in Nazi Germany was ethical.Comment
-
Thus conceding my point...Originally posted by Kidicious
DanSed you.
Comment
-
That's a tough one. The govt was captured by special interests. I don't think killing the Jews was culturally accepted, so I say no.Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Thus, killing all the Jews in Nazi Germany was ethical.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Wait - so now, if killing Jews had be culturally accepted, it would have been A-OK in your book? Good to know...Comment
-
Ethics is culturally accepted norms. How do you figure that genocide is ok with me from that?Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Wait - so now, if killing Jews had be culturally accepted, it would have been A-OK in your book? Good to know...I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
Comment