Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hasn't Mother Nature taught us anything, as we are the most intellectual of all species, that nature will run its coarse, no matter how humans try to manipulate it.
Why are humans so dead set on making our species weaker?
All other species on the earth, in order to not become extinct have a natural evolution where ONLY THE STRONG SURVIVE.
Why has collective mindset, altered that natural trait of all species? Where the strong are forced to carry the weak?
This Nation was founded upon that very principal of the laws of nature, or what is called natural law.
The government collective was not to force the people to carry the weak.
Nothing in the Constitution, grants the government any authority to provide anything material for the people. Only to secure our borders from invasion, and maintain our liberties(both long gone)
By the authority of the Constitution, this would fall under the 10th amendment.
Until the 1900's, there was a reason this nation became the most powerful in the shortest amount of time in history.
I agree with you and have made the same point before, but now I feel compelled to play devil's advocate, for the fun of it.
Generally, when a species becomes so populous that they disrupt the ecosystem, mother nature finds a way to decrease the population of that species and move towards equilibrium of the ecosystem. It can be argued that humanity's recent technological advances have allowed humans to become very populous, by increasing both the birth rate and life expectancy rates. It can also be argued that humans are threatening to destroy the entire ecosystem through overpopulation.
Perhaps mother nature's way of handling this is to find a way to dumb down the human species, so that the technological advances disappear, the birth rates and life expectancy rates decrease, and the population goes back down to a more manageable level.
Nature will run its course. No matter how humans try to manipulate it.
All other species on the earth, in order to not become extinct have a natural evolution where ONLY THE STRONG SURVIVE.
Not the strong, the fit. As in, fit for survival.
Quote:
Why has collective mindset, altered that natural trait of all species? Where the strong are forced to carry the weak?
Children, pregnant women, heck women overall - are all weaker than young men. From an evolutionary standpoint, however, young men (strong) are much more dispensable, as long as the women and children (weak) are kept alive. Once we build larger societies, the evolution of the mind, the aggregation of knowledge, the possibility of organizing concerted efforts becomes much more of a survival factor. You can be the biggest baddest strongest warrior out there, but if you're facing an enemy with better weapons, better intelligence, better tactics and better logistics, being strong only accomplishes so much. Alan Turing killed more Nazis with his mind than any footsoldier did with strength.
Quote:
Until the 1900's, there was a reason this nation became the most powerful in the shortest amount of time in history.
Eh? The US was hardly considered a great power in the 19th century.
Hasn't Mother Nature taught us anything, as we are the most intellectual of all species, that nature will run its coarse, no matter how humans try to manipulate it.
Why are humans so dead set on making our species weaker?
All other species on the earth, in order to not become extinct have a natural evolution where ONLY THE STRONG SURVIVE.
Why has collective mindset, altered that natural trait of all species? Where the strong are forced to carry the weak?
This Nation was founded upon that very principal of the laws of nature, or what is called natural law.
The government collective was not to force the people to carry the weak.
Nothing in the Constitution, grants the government any authority to provide anything material for the people. Only to secure our borders from invasion, and maintain our liberties(both long gone)
By the authority of the Constitution, this would fall under the 10th amendment.
Until the 1900's, there was a reason this nation became the most powerful in the shortest amount of time in history.
I agree, spread the word. Ditch the Constitution, stick with (see bolded above)
I agree, spread the word. Ditch the Constitution, stick with (see bolded above)
Sincerely,
Adolph Hitler
That's a nice way of completely ducking the problem like a typical liberal trying to shutdown the inquiry as quickly as possible. It was hardly imaginative the first time that some decided to dehumanize their enemy by demonizing them as Hitler. After ten thousand times its invariably Nazi like in its cultural monotony. Its very Nazi like to dehumanize the enemy with formulaic efficiency. How ironic.
I just finished another history book today, The History of the Arabs by Hatti. It was in many ways another long list of dynasties created by energetic and intelligent founders which created societies of ease and leisure and then corruption and collapse. So when the Umayyad in Syria, the Abbasid in Baghdad, the Umayyad in Spain and the Fatimid in Egypt. How amusing also to find also the multicultural enrichment they enjoyed when Africans ,Berbers and Turks were freely infighting and destroying the power of the Arabs within yet another dying multicultural empire.
Do you have anything to offer as a solution so that a beneficial environment does not corrupt our individual essence? I am guessing not because you are likely the very agent of such a collapse.
The real issue is not compassion for the weak or the less fit, it is state compulsion of any individual to give unwillingly to specially selected people.
The real issue is not compassion for the weak or the less fit, it is state compulsion of any individual to give unwillingly to specially selected people.
You mean theft at gunpoint for the "betterment" of all is a problem for you?
Why are humans so dead set on making our species weaker?
They aren't.
Quote:
All other species on the earth, in order to not become extinct have a natural evolution where ONLY THE STRONG SURVIVE.
How are you defining strong?
Quote:
Why has collective mindset, altered that natural trait of all species? Where the strong are forced to carry the weak?
It hasn't. The strong carrying the weak isn't uncommon either. However, in desperation, most species will drop the weak to survive. As far as I can tell, this hasn't actually changed. It's just a little more complicated for humans than it is for other animals because we're (well, most of us) are more thoughtful overall.
Quote:
This Nation was founded upon that very principal of the laws of nature, or what is called natural law.
The government collective was not to force the people to carry the weak.
Nothing in the Constitution, grants the government any authority to provide anything material for the people. Only to secure our borders from invasion, and maintain our liberties(both long gone)
By the authority of the Constitution, this would fall under the 10th amendment.
I don't even know why you bothered to bring up the evolution thing when you were going to just go into the same rant that all of your topics are about. They two are virtually unrelated.
But just for fun, I'll play devil's advocate. The argument FOR socialism can use evolution. By granting all humans certain privileges, like access to healthcare and education, the human race collectively gets stronger.
Quote:
Until the 1900's, there was a reason this nation became the most powerful in the shortest amount of time in history.
What the **** are you talking about? America didn't really matter all that much in the grand scheme of things until 1900. Prior to the two world wars, we were mostly an average country. Economically well off and militarily competent.
You mean theft at gunpoint for the "betterment" of all is a problem for you?
Selfish. Pure and simple.
Theft at gunpoint for any reason, is and should be a "problem" for any individual.
Selfish? Am I to understand that you have no qualms allowing your family to be burglarized, as long as it benefits someone else?
Edit: I'm not the best judge of sarcasm, my apologies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
