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.
I agree. If you subsdize the weak, you will have a society fully of weaklings as they out-procreate the sucessfull. Thinning the herd via competion and success AND failure, is essential.
♫All you need is love, la da da da da
♪All you need is love
That's something I can't answer with specificity. In fact, if there is one thing I would not mind the government spending billions upon billions of dollars on, it is education. My only point, if you read my post, is that some element of survival of the fittest will always be present in society, so it is not an issue of whether or not it is wrong, but how it is balanced with compassion.
I understand now, but surely in the context of this discussion, at first glance your post could be construed as agree with the op. My bad.
I understand now, but surely in the context of this discussion, at first glance your post could be construed as agree with the op. My bad.
Not a problem at all. It's not that I agree with the OP, I don't even have enough information to decide whether or not I do agree with the OP. I do not know his vision for America.
I do however know that any absolute position that "survival of the fittest is always bad" is one based purely on emotion and not logic, in which case the balance I referred to does not exist. That I know I can not agree with.
That combined with the inevitable likening of the OP to Hitler, and I just have to respond.
This is a heavily-armed nation. Do you think that society's "losers" have some obligation to meekly accept their fate, no matter how grim it gets? I would guess that many would not go down quite so quietly. And if you have more than a few of those "rejectionist" individuals, the country could easily become ungovernable.
This is a heavily-armed nation. Do you think that society's "losers" have some obligation to meekly accept their fate, no matter how grim it gets? I would guess that many would not go down quite so quietly. And if you have more than a few of those "rejectionist" individuals, the country could easily become ungovernable.
The poor will go down easily. Poverty in this country is highly correlated to IQ. The poor won't be much of an issue in any type of conflict.
This is a heavily-armed nation. Do you think that society's "losers" have some obligation to meekly accept their fate, no matter how grim it gets? I would guess that many would not go down quite so quietly. And if you have more than a few of those "rejectionist" individuals, the country could easily become ungovernable.
Well, changing society so that "better armed and organized" puts you on top isn't at all at odds with Social Darwinism. (Representative government arguably is.) If the philosophy is allowed to run its course on a national scale, feudalism tends to be the outcome. On a smaller scale - the Crips, the Bloods, some of the harder-core biker gangs - all firmly believe in weeding out the weak.
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.
