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.
Thank you for making explicit that liberals are Marxists at heart.
I doubt that all "Liberals" would agree with everything Karl Marx wrote.
They may have beliefs which overlap. I'm centrist-tending-left and I wouldn't call myself a Marxist, it is too simplistic to make such a blanket statement.
I don't think Marxism and liberalism are antagonistic at all. They both drink from the same well. Marxists may not think liberals have the courage of their convictions but that's a matter of practice rather than belief.
I went to Wayne State University in Detroit and met many actual Marxists. I doubt you would know a Marxist if one punched you in the face in broad daylight. And I am overwhelmingly certain you have never read a page of Marx, who probably ought to have been confined to a mental hospital.
Unfortunately good ideas in science have a way of creeping over into political theory, sociology and economics, We can find many examples in physics, chemistry and biology.
At which point they might not be good ideas any more!
This is why lawyers usually make better politicians than scientists. Scientists are too empirical, lawyers understand how malleable the truth really is.
Liberals have strongly opposed Christian Ceationist teachings and supported evolution.
If Liberals so strongly believe in Evolution,survival of the Fittest.
Then why do Liberals support Survival of the Weakest through Social Services,food stamps,Section 8 and other entitlement programs???
If social services were scaled back wouldn't only the strong survive in society? Isn't this what evolution's end results are supposed to be?
Also wouldn't evolution eventually take care of or minimize the problems of the weakest and unfit (Darwinism) and those who made poor choices and continuosly do so(Social Dawinism) by drug/alcohol addiction,single mothers with multiple kids,absentee fathers,etc..?
Do you assume that conservatives can't grasp the concept of evolution?
Social services used to be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.
Unfortunately good ideas in science have a way of creeping over into political theory, sociology and economics, We can find many examples in physics, chemistry and biology.
To say nothing of math. I would like to find, and beat senseless, the first person who decided that chaos theory should be allowed to spill over into everyday parlance. It is invariably used by woolly-headed people who thinks that by uttering the words "chaos theory", they can somehow defend not even trying to apply logic or critical thinking.
Liberals and Evolution VS Conservatives and Capitalism
Quote:
Originally Posted by antarez
Liberals have strongly opposed Christian Ceationist teachings and supported evolution.
Not liberals. Anyone who isn't a Bible-thumping literalist.
Quote:
If Liberals so strongly believe in Evolution,survival of the Fittest.
Evolution is a natural process, not an article of faith. It doesn't exist because of anyone's belief.
Quote:
Then why do Liberals support Survival of the Weakest through Social Services,food stamps,Section 8 and other entitlement programs???
If social services were scaled back wouldn't only the strong survive in society? Isn't this what evolution's end results are supposed to be?
Also wouldn't evolution eventually take care of or minimize the problems of the weakest and unfit (Darwinism) and those who made poor choices and continuosly do so(Social Dawinism) by drug/alcohol addiction,single mothers with multiple kids,absentee fathers,etc..?
Conservatives like to think of themselves as capitalists.
Why do conservatives support corporate welfare?
In a capitalist economy, shouldn't those corporations who've made poor decisions and managed their companies incompetently be allowed to fail? Why would the GOP STRONGLY support the consolidation of banks/companies/corporations so that risk is concentrated and we begin to hear the whining phrase, "too big to fail?"
Why do conservatives have as their number one goal the idea that wealth should be privatized but debt should be socialized?
If corporate welfare was abolished, our economy, tax structure, and federal budget would ALL be in much better shape.
It's not a bad question, however if you believe in letting the weak die then you would also be in favor of not finding cures for the diseases which also disproportionately affect the weakest of society.
For example, it is believed that every person in this nation who is of European ancestry carries a genetic mutation which protects us from the plague which almost destroyed Europe in the 12th century. We are the descendant of the plague survivors.
Also, if you look at the broadest sense of survival of the fittest for humans on this planet, then we can assume that it has already happened with the extinction of the homo-habilis, homo-erectus, neanderthal man et al.
Actually I'm in favor of letting the LAZY die.
Those that choose to have hordes of children (Octo mom,etc..) , men who father kids they won't support and women that pump out enough kids to have their own zip code should only get state sponsored sterilization not cash incentives to buy cellphones,Big screen TV's and get their hair and nails done.
If social services were restricted or eliminated unless they showed an effort to actually TRY to support themselves,most would do something instead of starve. Those of able bodies and sound minds deserve nothing.
Instead of enabling them the Government should wean them off welfare.
Welfare should be for war widows,orphans and the disabled,not the lazy.
In regards to finding cures for diseaeses that is a noble task and it would help relieve a lot of pain and suffering, but on the flipside people with diseases in the past that would kill them are now surviving to reproduce at a greater rate,thus ensuring a greater chance of those diseases to be present in the future.
To say nothing of math. I would like to find, and beat senseless, the first person who decided that chaos theory should be allowed to spill over into everyday parlance. It is invariably used by woolly-headed people who thinks that by uttering the words "chaos theory", they can somehow defend not even trying to apply logic or critical thinking.
They really made things chaotic.
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.
Liberals and Evolution VS Conservatives and Capitalism
