Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 17:00 UTC, 30 November!

Talk:Social Darwinism/Archive 1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

New Material[edit]

I have cut out the explanations about Darwin not being the first person to postulate this idea, problem with the term "darwinism", and the odd comment that "most religions use nature as a guiding principal". What is left still seems rather redundant to what has already been stated. Maybe we can figure out what the OP was trying to add, and expand the section. --Green mowse.pngGodotIz a sekret Kristian 20:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Catholicism explicitly points to "natural law" as a justification, and it is common among religious people in general to make arguments like "homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural".Fdof (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Many religions have also held a dualistic view in which the spirit is sacred and matter is merely a corruption of a kind of Platonic ideal. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Social Darwinism[edit]

Just to point out that the naturalistic fallacy interpreted as that: "you can't get an ought from an is", is false. If you identify that love or hate IS there, then oughts and oughts not automatically follow from that. This is why social darwinism does indeed follow from natural selection theory when it is phrased differential reproductive success, as the phrasing implies organisms have an inherent love for survival / reproduction.

–This odd characterization of 'social darwinism" requires explanation, if it is original, or supporting citations, if it is not. Given that the poster is actually referencing Herbert Spencer's mis-application of a few of Darwin's ideas to Spencer's own moral imperatives, perhaps the poster should coin a neologism; "social spencerism" would serve, to keep from seeming to blame Darwin for the actions of those who misapplied his ideas.Slowvehicle (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It then becomes moral for organisms, and human beings as being organisms also, that the should survive / reproduce.

––As an example of the point made above, this claim is not a claim made by Darwin, but by Spencer. (see http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml for an informal treatment.Slowvehicle (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The solution to this problem is that one has to chose in order to identify love or hate being there, to make love and hate categorically into a subjective issue. But as said, at the present Darwinists overwhelmingly are social darwinists also, who consider that natural selection theory informs them that organisms have an inherent, biochemical, love for survival and reproduction, and hate for death etc. --Syamsu (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

–This bald assertion has yet to be supported by evidence or citation, here or in any of the other fora in which it has been made.Slowvehicle (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Err... no. Close to not even wrong. Bad Faith (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
If you think you've solved the is/ought issue that easily, why are you posting here instead of submitting papers to philosophy journals? But that's really only the first problem, I still don't see how "social darwinism follows from natural selection" even if that were the case, and certainly "present Darwinists overwhelmingly are social darwinists also" is flat-out wrong. I'm really struggling to find a chain of words longer than 4 in that paragraph which isn't considered just plain incorrect. Scarlet A.pngd hominemModerator 14:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


Overview of the dual categories in free will[edit]

–Title is misleading, and pretends that the material that follows is something it is not. The Title should either be rephrased ("overview of my own personal opinion of the categories in free will" or some such), supported (citations to other sources that identify or accept these categories), or withdrawn as misleading and arguably dishonest. As it is presented, the material does not comprise the kind of "constructive dialogue" encouraged on Rationalwiki (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page) but is an attempt to cloak a set of egregiously unsupported personal opinions as endorsed.Slowvehicle (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at this table I made at creationwiki, which represents logic of Occam, Reid, etc. a great majority of metaphysical libertarians.

–Requires citation to the works of Ockham, Reid, and the "great majority of metaphysical libertarians", demonstrating that these 'categories" do, in fact, "represent" their collective logic.Slowvehicle (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Now what social darwinists do is place love and hate incorrectly with matters of fact.

–This bald assertion has yet to be supported by evidence or citation, here or in any of the other fora in which it has been made.Slowvehicle (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

When Hitler pseudoscientifically identified love and hunger as what motivated organisms in the struggle for life, then he was morally right to make survival and reproduction the mainstay of his policy, because ought and ought not follow from what is identified as loving and hateful.

–Evidence? Citation? Example?Slowvehicle (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC) This section still stands totally unsupported by fact. it should be rewritten, supported with citation, or withdrawn.Slowvehicle (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The insidious nature of social darwinism is in making worth a matter of fact, because then when faced with moral questions one doesn't inform oneself with feeling, but like an automaton one simply follows the objective good in a cold calculating way.

—It should be pointed out that this sort of bald assertion is this poster's stock-in-trade. Note the incorrect identification of the nature of "social darwinism"; note the unsupported opinion that "social darwinists" do not have feelings, but act only as automatons. Slowvehicle (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

what choses (agency) what is chosen
subjectively identified objectively measured
non-physical physical
spiritual material
soul body
opinion fact
God love hate self etc. gas, liquid, matter
creator creation

(where it is understood that subjectivity is an act of free will with alternative results available in the moment)

——It should be noted that this is the same screed this poster repeatedly posts, and gets called on, at Talk.Origins. "Alternative results available in the moment" is this poster's novel contribution; as such, it seems innocuous. The poster uses the phrase to mean that, in any contingent situation, free will is being exercised--even by, or especially by, inanimate objects. The poster uses the phrase to claim that, for instance, weather has free will and makes decisions. Slowvehicle (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I can only hope this makes some sort of sense to you because it's incoherent gobbledy-gook to everyone else. Bad Faith (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not gobbledy-gook to everyone, it makes sense to creationists.

–This statement requires support. I have shared it with several creationists over the past two days, and, contrary to the poster's claim, there are creationists to whom it is, in fact, gobbledygook. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gobbledygook) Slowvehicle (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The worth of a human being is not a matter of fact, but a matter of opinion. And worth follows from what is identified as loving or hateful. And since most all Darwinists identify love and hate as matters of fact, therefore most all Darwinists are also social darwinists--Syamsu (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

––Note the bald assertion that "most all 'darwinists' identify love and hate as a matter of fact". The poster has _never _ supported this claim, and becomes scatalogical and abusive when pressed to do so. Slowvehicle (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

–Note the unsupported (and demonstrably untrue) claim that "most all 'darwinists' are 'social darwinists' "; the poster believes, with no evidence, that there is a monolithic consensus among what he calls 'darwinists'. The poster also continually misrepresents the nature of "social darwinism", despite being frequently and repeatedly corrected. Slowvehicle (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth....
  • worth follows from what is identified as loving or hateful - This is an unsupported assertion. Citation needed.
  • most all Darwinists identify love and hate as matters of fact - Another unsupported assertion - and, in this case, as far as I am concerned, wrong.
  • therefore most all Darwinists are also social darwinists - A fanciful, and unsupported, leap of logic.
So, in conclusion, this conclusion follows faulty logic from unsupported assertions and is what we philosophers call "a load of old bollocks".
Nice try but no cigar. Bad Faith (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
It's odd that you seem to know it is wrong to treat love and hate as matters of fact, yet you discount the rationale why it is wrong. --Syamsu (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

–Note the continued, unsupported assumption that "'darwinists' treat love and hate as matters of fact". This needs citations, or should be removed.Slowvehicle (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Take a look here for instance http://www.101bananas.com/library2/lampman.html --Syamsu (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

–Note that nowhere in the article does Darwin, or anyone else, make the claim that "love and hate are a matter of fact". This is typical of this poster's inability to use sources accurately, or honestly...Slowvehicle (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, how odd it is to strenuously deny Darwin treated love and hate as fact,

–again, how dishonest to say "Darwin treated love and hate as a matter of fact", with no support, and no evidence. This bald, repeated assertion requires a citation that actually demonstrates or supports the claim, or a retraction.Slowvehicle (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

and at the same time assert that treating love and hate as fact has nothing to do with social darwinism.

–again, how dishonest to imply that what you call "social darwinism" (and blame on Darwin directly, as if he founded the movement and wrote its manifesto) makes the claim that "love and hate are a matter of fact". This bald assertion, which the poster has made here and elsewhere, requires a citation that actually demonstrates or supports the claim, or a retraction. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ASocial_Darwinism for yet another instance of unsupported and mis-cited iterations of this assertion.Slowvehicle (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

that When we put 2 and 2 together to make 4, it is obvious that Darwin did treat love and hate as fact,

–This attribution of what it is "obvious" that Darwin did requires a citation that actually demonstrates or that Darwin did, in fact, claim that "love and hate are matters of fact", or a retraction. If the claim is so "obvious", the poster should have no problem supprotinng it...Slowvehicle (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC) And that this is social darwinism in most of it's essence of measuring worth of people.--Syamsu (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

–Note that it is the poster's original unsupported nonsense that is "unreadable"; the nonsense that the poster "does not feel obligated to provide citations for"; the nonsense that pretends that the poster's "analysis" of "decision-making" represents reality in any way at all. In essence, this is about a poster who is on record as claiming that it is not a "lie" to tell a "false fact" if the "false fact" is "told lovingly" (see the poster's contribution to https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/06459dbfb5dc4dfa ) trying to get an egregious and idiosyncratic opinion endorsed as fact. The poster has stated that "everyone must validate" the "spiritual domain"--and is willing to throw history, philosophy, logic, and empirical relity under the bus to demonstrate that "Darwin caused the Holocaust". (see, for instance, just above, the claim that all non-creationists reach decisions through "bullshit social darwinist pseusoscience", managing to misuse three of the four words in the phrase)(see also, for further example, the poster's insistence that "most all 'darwinists', including Darwin, are/were social darwinists', mis-stating history, sequential chronology, and the meaning of "social darwinism") Slowvehicle (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

–The idea that Darwin founded, or would have endorsed, what the poster is calling "social darwinism" requires support. At the very least, the poster should provide citations demonstrating the congruence between Darwin's personal views and the claims of "social darwinism", beyond the misleading incident of name.Slowvehicle (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and FFS, you've been asked before to sign your posts. Failure to do so is pure bad manners. Bad Faith (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


To clarify,

–Poster is apparently using "clarify" in a novel way, which should be explained and supported.Slowvehicle (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

here's an example which constrasts social darwinism with creationism:

–Note the...odd...characterizations of both "creationism" and "social darwinism". If these are original, they should be expanded and explained. If they are not original, they should be supported with citations. Slowvehicle (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Example: 1 somebody makes a big choice in their life 2 What was it that made the choice turn out the way it did?

creationist:

3 I chose between hate and love as what made the choice turn out the way it did 4 In my opinion it was hate (2 or more alternative answers are logically valid)

The creationist expresses their emotion about what is in the human spirit, resulting in an opinion.

–Note that the "creationist" procedure can only produce an opinion about what "casued the decision to turn out the way it did". At no point is the opinion compared with reality, or tested in any way.Slowvehicle (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

social darwinist:

3 I measure according to for instance facial expressions, and what people said, to find out what it was that made the choice turn out the way it did. 4 it was in fact love (only 1 answer is logically valid)

The social darwinist measures what people consist of, resulting in a (pseudoscientific) fact.

–Note the misuse of the term "pseudoscientific". Note the...odd...process through which a choice is presumed to be made. Note the unsupported claim that this "process" produces only one "logically valid" answer. All these claims are unsupported and undemonstrated. This should be rectified, or the material withdrawn.Slowvehicle (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

end example

As far as references are concerned, I don't feel obliged to provide them.

–The Rationalwiki should not be the stage for unsupported idiosyncratic flights of fancy, but a source for dependable, reviewed, supported factual information. Citations are required for support, to prevent egregious and idiosyncratic flights of fancy from being passed off as fact.Slowvehicle (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that freedom is real in this creationist sense of 2 or more answers are logically valid in respect to what's in the human spirit, is self-evident.

–This "self-evident" fact needs support--or it is, at best, merely the poster's completely subjective opinion.Slowvehicle (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't want it in the article that most all Darwinists including Darwin are / were social-darwinists,

–...the poster put it there, the poster can withdraw it.Slowvehicle (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

although that's ofcourse the reality we have to deal with.

–Note the passive-aggressive (and remarkably dishonest) "I don't want it in the article, even though it's true". If it is true, support it, and leave it in. Since it is not true, remove it.Slowvehicle (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I just want it in the article that social darwinism is based on identifying love and hate as matters of pseudoscientific fact, instead of subjective opinion. --Syamsu (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

–If this idiosyncratic obsession belongs in the article, it can be defended and supported. If all the poster has is his own subjective opinion, he should consider starting a private blog where the standards could be lower, and looser. The merits of his ideas, which he believes do not have to be supported, because they are "self-evident", could be discussed there, without exposing Rationalwiki to the poster's claims that the weather has free will(https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f3e580ff922f41a6/76f6545ec77457d3?lnk=raot&fwc=1&hl=en {ninth post down}), and rocks make decisions based on alternative results available in the moment (http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2012-06/msg06355.html).Slowvehicle (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you presently taking medication?--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Or to put it more bluntly: "English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"In essence this is all a very simple issue: When the question is; what makes a choice?"

–I challenge the poster to provide support for this characterization of the "issue". If this is the only issue, why all the contentious self-serving unsupported vrbiage about "most all Darwinists" being "social darwinists" (a claim that remains unsupported)Slowvehicle (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"Then logic says that to answer the question you got to have 2 or more alternative answers available to chose from."

–It is clear that the poster does not understand that his second claim has nothing to do with his first claim; the two are not related causally, temporally, or logically.Slowvehicle (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"That's all. And what social darwinists do is say, no there is just 1 factually correct answer."

–I challenge the poster to support this statement, or admit that it is his subjective opinion, supported by nothing more than his hatred for, and disdain of, anyone he decides to label a "social darwinist" (whether they are,in fact, a social spencerist or not). It is, in fact, the case that there are situations in which there is only "1 factually correct answer"; some trivial (What was the score in the Diamondback's most recent home game?) some significant (Is this chemical poison?). Slowvehicle (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"You see the difference? 2 or more answers are logically valid (creationism), or only 1 answer is valid (social darwinism)."

–If this is the poster's position, why is the poster unwilling to accept that even the straw-man opposition he raises up and (incorrectly) labels "social darwinism" is, by his own definition, a valid opinion? Why is he unwilling to accept that rejecting what he calls the "spiritual domain" (in fact, rejecting his entire schema)is, by his own definition, a valid opinion?Slowvehicle (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"So then social darwinists say it is a (pseudoscientific) fact that Jews are hateful in their decisionmaking, and Aryans are loving, I can measure it."

–This bald assertion consists of three demonstrable factual errors. Unless the poster can demonstrate that it is a common tenet of what he calls "social darwinism" that "Jews are hateful", he should withdraw the accusation with an apology. Unless that poster can demonstrate that is is a common tenet of what he calls "social darwinism" that "Aryans are loving", he should withdraw that accusation with an apology. Unless the poster can substantiate his odd and recurrent assertion that anyone who does not think as he does can only make decisions by measuring things, he should withdraw the statement. Despite the poster's blithe claim that he is not obligated to support his statements, the longer they stay unsupported, the more they look like lies.Slowvehicle (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

–The poster should also consider explaining his non-standard use of the term "pseudoscientific".Slowvehicle (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

" But "rational" people say, no you cannot measure it, you can only chose about what makes a decision resulting in a subjective opinion." Syamsu --Syamsu (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

–The poster's odd use of "scare quotes" makes this sentence unparseable--is he casting aspersions on the so-called rationality of anyone who accepts the poster's characterization of a subjective opinion being formed by what (not who--the poster is on record as claiming that inanimate objects have free will and volition) makes a decision; or did he "intend" to "emphasize" the "term" in "scare quotes"? I suspect is is the latter, but the former is also equally valid. This statement requires clarification.Slowvehicle (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"Slowvehicle you are making the page unreadable.... You are not supposed to cut within contributions, post after a contribution instead, ideally with a difference in indentation.

"In essence this is about: 1 a choice has 2 possible outcomes or more 2 the question what made a choice turn out the way it did has 2 or more logically valid answers. That's all. 2 or more possibilities is correct and is in line with freedom of expression, 1 certain answer is bullshit social darwinist pseudoscience. Yes freedom is as simple as that, having 2 alternatives to chose from, instead of being forced by pseudoscientific fact to a conclusion. --Syamsu (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)"

–Notice that the poster claims that "2 or more answers" is a loving creationist result, but will only tolerate one answer--that everyone accept and acknowledge the poster's subjective personal opinion as the one correct result. It is difficult to tell, here and in other places where the poster has had this pointed out to him, whether this results from cynicism or dishonesty on the poster's part.Slowvehicle (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

–FWIW, the poster really ought not to use terms, the meaning of which he is clearly mistaken, without support for why he uses such terms so (see, for one example, "pseudoscientific", just above.)Slowvehicle (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

–The poster should realize that it is his crepuscular "contributions" that are making the page unreadable...Slowvehicle (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

–The poster really ought to face his own untrue and dishonest claims, and either support them, clearly mark them as purely unsubstantiated subjective opinions, or remove them.Slowvehicle (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

–The poster shold explain why rules and mores apply to others, and not to him--is that one of the "alternative results available in the moment" that indicates that a "loving decision" has been made "in the human spirit acknowledging the 'spiritual domain' "?Slowvehicle (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on self-professed rational people. Can't you see these Darwinists are selling you all the idea that a choice does not have alternative possible outcomes? Selling you all the idea that in a choice you are forced to a conclusion. The emperor has no clothes indeed.--Syamsu (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The poster should realize that accusations of memesales coupled with catchy slogans violate the standard rhetorical process associated with this type of thoughtworks, and abdication of responsibility is not a functioning supplement assertions of questionable validity vis-à-vis legibility, free will, etc. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 15:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Darwin was basically a liar who pretended love and hate were matters of fact. He forced people to a conclusion in identifying love and hate, where creationism leaves people free to decide whether or not it is love or hate. 1 forced conclusion of a pseudoscientific fact vs 2 or more alternatives to chose from. The article is now in effect promoting social darwinism rather than explaining it, by presenting Darwin's view that love and hate are matters of fact as right. --Syamsu (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Bacon ipsum dolor sit amet andouille short loin ribeye pork belly sirloin meatball pig. Tongue prosciutto turkey sausage tenderloin strip steak ground round corned beef. Shoulder shank flank tri-tip beef ribs. Rump sausage pig, leberkas swine chicken beef ribs meatball tail meatloaf fatback corned beef ribeye jowl.
Capicola flank hamburger, rump ground round meatloaf pork belly prosciutto turkey tongue brisket pig tenderloin cow. Biltong boudin spare ribs hamburger. Frankfurter spare ribs biltong shankle turkey. Chuck chicken shoulder, strip steak andouille pastrami drumstick flank cow rump.
Biltong beef pork chop drumstick ball tip andouille shoulder ham hock bacon short loin strip steak turducken pig. Andouille salami kielbasa short loin swine, turducken shoulder leberkas drumstick pastrami rump spare ribs tenderloin corned beef venison. Shoulder salami filet mignon boudin beef leberkas. Pork chop swine beef ribs pork loin pastrami ham rump brisket short ribs ribeye chicken t-bone.
Pig pancetta prosciutto, tenderloin capicola short loin shankle strip steak pork loin sirloin pork jowl. Ground round boudin chuck tongue meatloaf. Kielbasa shoulder venison tenderloin short loin pork belly filet mignon. Andouille swine corned beef ground round, meatloaf drumstick shankle short loin filet mignon beef ribs jowl chicken chuck. Turducken drumstick tongue leberkas pastrami tail capicola. Tri-tip sausage prosciutto fatback brisket tail t-bone bresaola. Hamburger prosciutto ham, pancetta venison frankfurter beef ribs pig rump shankle boudin shank pork loin strip steak.
Corned beef pancetta tenderloin ground round, sirloin brisket turkey bacon chuck beef venison ball tip jerky. Frankfurter andouille tail biltong tri-tip t-bone pork belly jowl turkey. Venison sausage kielbasa pancetta strip steak ham hock pork fatback, pork belly shoulder brisket pastrami capicola bresaola. Jowl bacon strip steak andouille sausage beef hamburger fatback beef ribs ham hock jerky boudin short ribs pastrami. Swine pork loin filet mignon shoulder. Biltong pork chop beef ribs andouille corned beef chicken tri-tip spare ribs turkey sausage t-bone. Bad Faith (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Dolor sit amet, consectetur. A man will refer to his "dick" or his "rod" or his "Johnson". Vee belief in nossing, Lebowski! Adipiscing elit praesent ac. Magna justo pellentesque ac. Ja, und maybe vee stamp on it und skvush it, Lebowski! Obviously you're not a golfer. Lectus quis elit blandit. Fringilla a ut turpis. My dirty undies. Laundry, Dude. The whites. My art has been commended as being strongly vaginal. Which bothers some men. The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Vagina. Praesent felis ligula, malesuada.
You got the wrong guy. I'm the Dude, man. Suscipit malesuada non, ultrices. I like your style, Dude. Non urna sed orci. …and even if he's a lazy man, and the Dude was certainly that—quite possibly the laziest in Los Angeles County. Ipsum, placerat id condimentum. Rutrum, rhoncus ac lorem. Mein nommen iss Karl. Is hard to verk in zese clozes. Goodnight, sweet prince. Aliquam placerat posuere neque,
At dignissim magna ullamcorper in aliquam. What in God's holy name are you blathering about? Say friend, ya got any more a that good sarsaparilla? Sagittis massa ac tortor ultrices faucibus. Curabitur eu mi sapien, ut ultricies. And I'm talkin' about the Dude here —sometimes there's a man who, wal, he's the man for his time'n place, he fits right in there—and that's the Dude, in Los Angeles.
Ipsum morbi eget risus nulla nullam vel nisi enim, vel auctor. And so, Theodore Donald Karabotsos, in accordance with what we think your dying wishes might well have been, we commit your mortal remains to the bosom of the Pacific Ocean, which you loved so well. Look, Larry… Have you ever heard of Vietnam? Ante morbi id urna vel felis lacinia placerat vestibulum turpis nulla, Vee vant zat money, Lebowski. Viverra nec volutpat ac, ornare id lectus cras pharetra faucibus tristique.
Nullam non accumsan justo nulla facilisi integer interdum elementum nulla, nec eleifend. Okay. Vee take ze money you haf on you und vee call it eefen. Nisl euismod ac maecenas vitae eros velit, eu suscipit erat integer purus. DO YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENS, LARRY? It's a complicated case, Maude. Lotta ins. Lotta outs. And a lotta strands to keep in my head, man. Lacus, pretium vel venenatis eu, volutpat non erat donec a metus ac. Bob Soles (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Why is the poster saying this but not saying that? Or the alternative which should really be explained more (or perhaps) otherwise if some other thing might have been said to explain the matter further to people who are no are not Rationalists? Can you answer this? No you cannot? And why can't you answer this simple question?
Furthermore the poster says that not all things are what the poster says and this is never aliened or explained or upfronted; at least not in any way in which the poster could be consecrated or not. Yet again no answer can be disinterred not referenced to anything else which is not here or there but which should be if the other unanswered question were not reversed in the whole space of things.
So come on so called Rational people! Respond to this if you can! --Weirdstuff (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like dr Spock trying to deal with subjectivity. --Syamsu (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Far far away, behind the word mountains, far from the countries Vokalia and Consonantia, there live the blind texts. Separated they live in Bookmarksgrove right at the coast of the Semantics, a large language ocean. A small river named Duden flows by their place and supplies it with the necessary regelialia. It is a paradisematic country, in which roasted parts of sentences fly into your mouth. Even the all-powerful Pointing has no control about the blind texts it is an almost unorthographic life One day however a small line of blind text by the name of Lorem Ipsum decided to leave for the far World of Grammar. The Big Oxmox advised her not to do so, because there were thousands of bad Commas, wild Question Marks and devious Semikoli, but the Little Blind Text didn’t listen. She packed her seven versalia, put her initial into the belt and made herself on the way. When she reached the first hills of the Italic Mountains, she had a last view back on the skyline of her hometown Bookmarksgrove, the headline of Alphabet Village and the subline of her own road, the Line Lane. Pityful a rethoric question ran over her cheek, then Bad Faith (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Social Darwinian and capitalism[edit]

Our final Social_Darwinism#The_Irony_of_Social_Darwinism irony point - in a fairly horribly written English now states:

  • The irony is that if superior men and countries are bound to rise to the top, then the fact that various Fascist states lost WWII, with only Fascist Spain and Portugal surviving the 1940s, means that Fascism and Social Darwinian views are apparently inferior to democracy and capitalism (oh, and to totalitarian communism, but the point remains because democracy and capitalism won the Cold War).

Presumably Social Darwinists would be in favour of capitalism - not opposed to it.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 14:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

In the 19th century, rich people saw social Darwinism as a vindication of a capitalism. I imagine that bit was written by one of our resident objectivists or some other provocateur--"Shut up, Brx." 14:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
That's the problem with social Darwinism. This would apply to, say, the Nazi biologists, but not other types of "social Darwinists." Many social Darwinists were ardent progressives. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Or in other words, the problem with the term is that it has been divorced from its original meaning and people are prone to use is as a label for various might-makes-right/just world fallacy wankery?--ZooGuard (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The term has not been so much divorced from its original meaning as its original meaning was vague and nebulous to begin with. The term really only came into wide use after Hofstadter popularized it, and he pinned it on the right-wing (both fascism/Nazism and laissez-faire capitalism). I mean to say that it's wrong to associate social Darwinism solely with fascists or hard-line capitalists, contra the edit (and Hofstadter). What could be called "social Darwinism" was also an element of left-wing politics, in the more traditional form in progressive support for eugenics programs during the early 20th c. as well as Kropotkin-style arguments for altruism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

And what the hell has the parenthetical reference to "democracy and capitalism" winning the cold war have to do with the price of fish - or the article?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 15:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing. It should be removed--"Shut up, Brx." 16:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
It's a part of the attempted argument, which goes like this: the Soviet Union (communism) and the West (democracy and capitalism) defeated Nazi Germany (stand-in for a certain type of social darwinism). So, accroding to the logic of that type of social darwinism, (C & D/C) > SD. But because of the cold war, it's D/C > C > SD, so communism is still another failed ideology like social darwinism. The author of the argument probably wrote the original sentence and then they or someone else realised that it gives legitimacy to totalitarian communism (a bad thing), so they added the note. I just moved it to a parenthesis.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I've zapped it. If someone can write it in such a way that it clearly makes sense no doubt they will.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)