[goMac]

Tires being slashed at Democratic ralies, dead bear cub deposited on a campus with Obama signs all over it, people getting death threats over yard signs...

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.co...ash-obama.html

Obama supporters have traditionally been sterotyped as the more rabid, aggressive voters (messiah talk and all). I think we're starting to see that it's actually the McCain supporters who are so emotionally involved they've started to loose common sense.

Does anyone else here find the "messiah" remarks unfair in light of this?

[RAILhead]

Well, some wacko in your "group" made this:

[goMac]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Well, some wacko in your "group" made this:

Sure, I've seen stuff like that as a joke. Obama even made a joke about it..

"Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger. I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father, Jor-el, to save the planet Earth," - Barack Obama

Shooting a bear cub in the head and threatening to kill people? Not so much a joke.

[ort888]

Nope, someone made a candle so killing bears is the only natural response.

They were left with no choice. Can you not see that?

[Shaddim]

And, of course, all conservatives are like that. Surely Democrats aren't that stupid, are they? You're not loosing [sic] your common sense, are you?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

And, of course, all conservatives are like that. Surely Democrats aren't that stupid, are they? You're not loosing [sic] your common sense, are you?

I believe that just as many conservatives condone those sorts of things as there are liberals that talk about Obama seriously as some sort of messiah.

[Shaddim]

So, it's about zero on both counts. Makes threads like this so valuable...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Surely Democrats aren't that stupid, are they?

Of course they are. If they weren't that stupid, they wouldn't be Democrats.

[besson3c]

People are stupid, the left nor the right have a monopoly on stupidity. However, much of the Republican rationale (particularly the faith based one) sort of thumbs its nose at reason and science, but this doesn't mean that there aren't sober Republicans who can put together a logical rationale to substantiate their beliefs.

Take Christopher Hitchens, for instance!

Edit: Hitchens is endorsing Obama now... Wow, how come we haven't been talking about him?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Of course they are. If they weren't that stupid, they wouldn't be Democrats.

As conservatives, we disagree with the left's ideas, but respect them as people. The ideas may not be well thought out, and we can oppose the ideas.

[Big Mac]

I have to agree with Doofy to an extent there. I have utterly no respect for the radical left that has taken over the Democratic party. I have utterly no respect for those who wish to turn the United States into an imitation of France.

[subego]

Well, I have to agree with vmarks. It's a garbage in, garbage out problem.

So, nyah.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

As conservatives, we disagree with the left's ideas, but respect them as people.

Sorry V but I simply don't respect the left as people.

There's various reasons for this:

- They take my freedom off me.
- They take my money off me.
- They try to tell me what to think.
- They have no logic.

Let's look at that last one. Most will agree that the left has its fair share of atheists, preferring Darwin to another other explanation. Most will agree that the left believes in government handouts. So how do they combine these two standpoints? How is it possible for the human race to evolve if "survival of the fittest" isn't allowed to happen because the fittest are expected to drag the others along with them? It's simply not logical.

People get my respect when they earn it, not automatically. And it's not possible to earn my respect if those people have no logic or reasoning beyond what they've heard off their hive cell leader.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I have to agree with Doofy to an extent there. I have utterly no respect for the radical left that has taken over the Democratic party. I have utterly no respect for those who wish to turn the United States into an imitation of France.

What has taken over the right, in your opinion, if any?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Let's look at that last one. Most will agree that the left has its fair share of atheists, preferring Darwin to another other explanation. Most will agree that the left believes in government handouts. So how do they combine these two standpoints? How is it possible for the human race to evolve if "survival of the fittest" isn't allowed to happen because the fittest are expected to drag the others along with them? It's simply not logical.

What? Because I believe that Darwinian evolution explains the origin of species doesn't logically mean that I should want humanity to evolve any further. Evolution is a scientific theory to explain natural phenomena, not a way of life.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What has taken over the right, in your opinion, if any?

The left.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

What? Because I believe that Darwinian evolution explains the origin of species doesn't logically mean that I should want humanity to evolve any further.

Wait. Doesn't the left constantly bang on about improving the world, ending poverty, etc.? How are you going to do this without humanity evolving further?

And why would you not want humanity to evolve further? In itself, that's simply not logical.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Sorry V but I simply don't respect the left as people.

There's various reasons for this:

- They take my freedom off me.
- They take my money off me.
- They try to tell me what to think.
- They have no logic.

Let's look at that last one. Most will agree that the left has its fair share of atheists, preferring Darwin to another other explanation. Most will agree that the left believes in government handouts. So how do they combine these two standpoints? How is it possible for the human race to evolve if survival of the fittest isn't allowed to happen if the fittest are expected to drag the others along with them? It's simply not logical.

People get my respect when they earn it, not automatically. And it's not possible to earn my respect if those people have no logic or reasoning beyond what they've heard off their hive cell leader.

This is not logical.

What evidence do you have that supports the notion that are societies are built from individuals solely looking out for themselves, competing with each other for scraps of food, and doing whatever it takes to survive? What species does this?

Parts of our society are competitive, including parts of our marketplace, but we are basically just an overpopulated wolf pack that tends to look out for others in our pack above other species at the subconscious level in a way that benefits the pack as a whole. This is why we cooperate to do things like build roads, hospitals, and churches. The way our society is structured, it is literally impossible for somebody that is wealthy to create that wealth independently without anybody enabling this wealth (this includes staff, people who provide food for this individual to purchase either in a restaurant or in a grocery store, people that clean, provide clothing that the individual purchases, etc.)

If we were really about survival of the fittest, why don't we simply kill whomever poses a threat to us in anyway? Why have a system of laws? We are clearly greater as a whole than we are as individuals. This doesn't mean I support all forms of wealth redistribution, that I don't value the power of the free market, etc. This is just simple logic.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The left.

Physically?

You mean the ideas of the left, correct? Aren't we a society that is setup based on competing ideas and free choice?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What evidence do you have that supports the notion that are societies are built from individuals solely looking out for themselves, competing with each other for scraps of food, and doing whatever it takes to survive?

History.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Wait. Doesn't the left constantly bang on about improving the world, ending poverty, etc.? How are you going to do this without humanity evolving further?

And why would you not want humanity to evolve further? In itself, that's simply not logical.

That's my point -- I don't know why you would suppose that "evolution" on the level of poverty reduction is logically connected with biological evolution, unless altruism is a favorable heritable trait.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Wait. Doesn't the left constantly bang on about improving the world, ending poverty, etc.? How are you going to do this without humanity evolving further?

And why would you not want humanity to evolve further? In itself, that's simply not logical.

The way I look at this sort of evolving premise is similar to how I look at an economy.

If the free market is the engine of our economy, any engine needs some sort of governor to prevent it from running at 100% 24/7. Engines that run at, say 90 or 95% last longer and require less drastic maintenance. To me, it is the role of the government to *facilitate*, but *not supplant* that engine to make sure it is basicallly running and doing its job efficiently, is properly lubricated (to follow the engine analogy), etc. That engine cannot run on its own without some sort of collapse or failure, despite our best romantic notions to the contrary.

As far as humanity goes, it also involves, invents, creates, and operates on its own. To some, their God is that person that sort of keeps that engine in check, but to most people it is a combination of their God or personal beliefs (where they exist), and the basic structure and greater purpose that binds us together. We cannot truly evolve without this. If this wasn't the case, we would have killed ourselves with our own nuclear weapons.

The debate involves the best way to facilitate the best of humanity understanding that we are greater as a whole than we are as individuals.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

History.

How so? How could we even be having this conversation without people cooperating, and the structures existing for supporting this conversation? Why would you even want to change minds? Wouldn't it be easier to simply kill people that pose a threat to you?

[subego]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

That's my point -- I don't know why you would suppose that "evolution" on the level of poverty reduction is logically connected with biological evolution, unless altruism is a favorable heritable trait.

It's almost as if Doofy is arguing that wealth's utility with regards to countering a hereditary disease (for example) somehow improves the gene pool.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Physically?

You mean the ideas of the left, correct?

No, the people. The GOP and the UK Tories are crawling with them.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Aren't we a society that is setup based on competing ideas and free choice?

No we're not Bess. If we had free choice, you'd be able to elect to pay taxes.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

That's my point -- I don't know why you would suppose that "evolution" on the level of poverty reduction is logically connected with biological evolution, unless altruism is a favorable heritable trait.

The poor (those who need handouts) here are, in general, a bunch of chavs who really shouldn't be contributing to the gene pool. But the socialist government actually pays them to stop home and pop kids out.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The debate involves the best way to facilitate the best of humanity understanding that we are greater as a whole than we are as individuals.

Incorrect. Nothing of worth in this world was ever invented by committee.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How so? How could we even be having this conversation without people cooperating, and the structures existing for supporting this conversation?

So, all the staff at vBulletin work for free, do they?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Wouldn't it be easier to simply kill people that pose a threat to you?

Yes. Unfortunately, they don't let us do that.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's almost as if Doofy is arguing that wealth's utility with regards to countering a hereditary disease (for example) somehow improves the gene pool.

Which of these people are more likely to require government handouts, and which are more likely to improve the gene pool?

[ort888]

We should round up poor people in camps and require them to be neutered or put down. That's real Darwinism. It's the only solution. The final solution.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Which of these people are more likely to require government handouts, and which are more likely to improve the gene pool?

[Doofy]

Am I elitist in this train of thought?

Damn right.

I believe it's everyone's duty to buy a Ferrari as soon as it's possible for them to do so, and then drive it around all the time. This encourages a percentage of those in the general population who aren't chavs to think "wow, gonna get me one of those one day", which encourages the individual to do well at school and maybe start their own business. Which in turn generates employment and innovation and consequently drives society/mankind forwards.
Public sector aside, probably the only reason anyone has jobs is because their employer decided s/he wanted a Ferrari some day.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

We should round up poor people in camps and require them to be neutered or put down. That's real Darwinism. It's the only solution. The final solution.

I wouldn't go as far as that. But if that's what you want to do Ort, then you carry on.

[Chongo]

Darwin Award recruits?

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I wouldn't go as far as that. But if that's what you want to do Ort, then you carry on.

Well, since I'm a lot richer then you, I'm going to need you to report to internment camp 144D.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The poor (those who need handouts) here are, in general, a bunch of chavs who really shouldn't be contributing to the gene pool. But the socialist government actually pays them to stop home and pop kids out.

If there was a "chaviness" gene I might agree with you (I suspect you may think there is, actually), but I don't think it's possible to reduce the mix of socioeconomic factors to something that would itself be a favorable or unfavorable heritable trait in modern society.

When I say that I "believe in evolution," I'm saying that I believe there is a scientific explanation for speciation. It doesn't logically follow that evolution as driven by natural selection should be a prescription for social change within a species. In fact, natural selection is pretty harsh. There are winners and losers, and the losers lose big time. Because there would always be losers, but the incentives to not lose would be so great, one could argue that relative poverty, social unrest, and violence would be higher if we lived according to "social Darwinism."

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If there was a "chaviness" gene I might agree with you (I suspect you may think there is, actually)

It's not so much a gene as an inherited lifestyle or inherited choice - "my father was Labour, and his father before him, we're a Labour family so I'm voting Labour". The poor are their own worst enemies, since they keep themselves down and keep each other down in some kind of false solidarity. Note the amount of times some celeb or other (particularly in the urban dance music scene) has said "keeping it real" or "remembering my roots".

I was poor once. I said "screw that for a lark, I ain't keeping it real, I want a fsking Ferrari" and broke the chains. Most people don't break the chains because they don't want to - as Trent once said, "slave screams, but he's glad to be chained to that wall".

So it's not really genes. It's social attitudes and the self-oppression inherent in the lower class cultures which perpetuates the chavdom and slows the progression of humankind.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well this thread is going places.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's not so much a gene as an inherited lifestyle or inherited choice - "my father was Labour, and his father before him, we're a Labour family so I'm voting Labour". The poor are their own worst enemies, since they keep themselves down and keep each other down in some kind of false solidarity. Note the amount of times some celeb or other (particularly in the urban dance music scene) has said "keeping it real" or "remembering my roots".

I was poor once. I said "screw that for a lark, I ain't keeping it real, I want a fsking Ferrari" and broke the chains. Most people don't break the chains because they don't want to - as Trent once said, "slave screams, but he's glad to be chained to that wall".

So it's not really genes. It's social attitudes and the self-oppression inherent in the lower class cultures which perpetuates the chavdom and slows the progression of humankind.

I certainly agree with you that people tend to stay in their comfort zones -- geographically, economically, socially, intellectually, etc. On the scale between absolute socialism and absolute "social Darwinism" I suspect that we agree more than we disagree. As I explained though, I think saying that belief in a scientific biological process should logically make one support a particular social process doesn't wash (as an interesting aside, the relevance of natural selection for the evolution of colony (socialist?) insects like ants was disputed even until recently). If the losers of a social Darwinist society received no government assistance, for example, with all of the implications that would entail (if you think the chavs are bad now...), I don't think you can say that society would actually "evolve" to be better than the present state of affairs. Where we probably disagree is the level of government assistance that is required, but here we have already departed from orthodoxy to a "natural selection" process.

[goMac]

This thread has been case and point...

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by doofy 

let's look at that last one. Most will agree that the left has its fair share of atheists, preferring darwin to another other explanation. Most will agree that the left believes in government handouts. So how do they combine these two standpoints? How is it possible for the human race to evolve if "survival of the fittest" isn't allowed to happen because the fittest are expected to drag the others along with them? It's simply not logical.

WARNING: Woeful misunderstanding of darwinism alert
REMINDER: Social darwinism != darwinism

[- - e r i k - -]

I say we use eugenics to breed out those poor. Agreed Doofy?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

WARNING: Woeful misunderstanding of darwinism alert
REMINDER: Social darwinism != darwinism

I think he forgot poor people still have children.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The poor (those who need handouts) here are, in general, a bunch of chavs who really shouldn't be contributing to the gene pool. But the socialist government actually pays them to stop home and pop kids out.

There are just as many conservatives/Republicans that take government hand outs as there are liberals/Democrats that do so.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

There are just as many conservatives/Republicans that take government hand outs as there are liberals/Democrats that do so.

Most people take what they can get.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

WARNING: Woeful misunderstanding of darwinism alert
REMINDER: Social darwinism != darwinism

So what you're basically saying is that we're not becoming taller or longer lived in the last few centuries due to advances in society such as organised agriculture and medicine?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I say we use eugenics to breed out those poor. Agreed Doofy?

Planned Parent is is on it already

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So what you're basically saying is that we're not becoming taller or longer lived in the last few centuries due to advances in society such as organised agriculture and medicine?

No, just that they don't have much at all to do with Darwinian evolution. The ability to receive medical care is not a favorable heritable trait. If our children were forced to live on an ancient Egyptian's diet, they would be likely to turn out to be pretty short, too.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Which of these people are more likely to require government handouts, and which are more likely to improve the gene pool?

And which would more likely to attending an Obama rally and which would more likely be attending a McCain rally?

Ok, they're in the UK. Which would more likely be attending a Conservative/Labour rally and which would more likely be attending a BNP rally?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Ok, they're in the UK. Which would more likely be attending a Conservative/Labour rally and which would more likely be attending a BNP rally?

I think you mean:

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Which would more likely be attending a Conservative rally and which would more likely be attending a Labour/BNP rally?