Survival of the fittest?

[JACK-2]

I'm not gonna bother explaining in too much detail who many of the people that are going to be mentioned in this thread are because if you don't know then you shouldn't bother. But, in this thread I wanna ask where you stand. That is do you agree with social darwinist like: Francis Galton or Friedrich Nietzsche?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 26, 2013 22:14:26 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

I'm not gonna bother explaining in too much detail who many of the people that are going to be mentioned in this thread are because if you don't know then you shouldn't bother. But, in this thread I wanna ask where you stand. That is do you agree with social darwinist like: Francis Galton or Friedrich Nietzsche?

In terms of what? They had many views and I don't necessarily agree with everything.

[JACK-2]

Dec 27, 2013 4:45:33 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

In terms of what? They had many views and I don't necessarily agree with everything.

Well, what part of their views do you agree with then?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Pretty much what I said before. Life is all about survival of the fittest. We as humans look for the best people to spread our genes with biologically on a hardwired level. If you are unfit, you wouldn't survive. The only reason unfit humans can survive is by living off of the fit. But that doesn't go over too well when it eventually leads to poverty and destruction. The fit will adapt and leave and the unfit will be left behind fighting for scraps.

The free system allows a higher living standard, but the fittest will still live the best. Will still have the best reproductive choices.

One problem is the government intentionally rewards the unfit and punishes the fit in many ways.

[JACK-2]

Nietszche asserted that the advent of Christianity brought about a slave morality where by the weak would brainwash the strong in accepting ideas that benefited the weak: Altruism,Monogamy, and so on. I see why you're against altruism, it would make sense from that pov.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 28, 2013 5:55:37 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Nietszche asserted that the advent of Christianity brought about a slave morality where by the weak would brainwash the strong in accepting ideas that benefited the weak: Altruism,Monogamy, and so on. I see why you're against altruism, it would make sense from that pov.

Well it would be like a friendly Marxism. It's like a parasite finding a new way to take from their host; tell them that they are doing a greater good so they feel "good" about it. And tell them they'll get rewards for doing so. It's much the way society pressures men to "take care of women" and to "man up".

Brilliant man, he. People who talk about sharing and giving tend to be those who benefit from it the most.

[JACK-2]

Well, myths have always been used to get people to give up power. So, it's not surprising. So, I guess your support eugenics as well?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 28, 2013 6:52:16 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Well, myths have always been used to get people to give up power. So, it's not surprising. So, I guess your support eugenics as well?

I think the best genes are designed to come out naturally and that society and laws hurt that progression.

For instance a rich handsome guy has a kid with a woman and she takes the kid and then gets an absurd amount of money, far more than he would pay to normally raise a kid. This makes it risky for a man like that to spread his genes.

If you are a loser and don't have anything, you can knock up all the women you want. You don't have anything so they won't bother going after you. They'll just take the welfare which means I'm paying for someone else's shitty genes. This makes absolutely no sense. The people with the best genes who are able to support their offspring the best should be having them. This would happen naturally without theft.

[JACK-2]

So, why do powerful people form governments to steal from productive people in your opinion?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 28, 2013 16:40:21 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

So, why do powerful people form governments to steal from productive people in your opinion?

Governments will form on their own naturally in some form or another, the key is keeping it limited and from being corrupted, but this hasn't happened yet.

I don't think they're really that powerful, at least not before they get into government. Most of them don't have the potential or the brains to produce their own things, so they go into politics where they sell their influence and buy votes to steal from others. They're glorified welfare recipients.

Politicians used to serve as a duty and had a real job in the private sector. They were entrepreneurs, doctors, etc. Now they go up there as a career and never really work in the private sector, at best they are lawyers who know how to bend the law. Look at Obama. What has he ever done productively? Nothing. So they go to Washington and get their power that way.

[JACK-2]

I see why you're against institutions like government or the church. Because they tend to attract mobs of parasitic people and keep them unproductive. Government when it's good can protect individual rights, churches aren't secular institutions and is optional.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 28, 2013 18:35:16 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

I see why you're against institutions like government or the church. Because they tend to attract mobs of parasitic people and keep them unproductive. Government when it's good can protect individual rights, churches aren't secular institutions and is optional.

I don't really care what people choose to do if it's free. People can go to a church if they want. Government is useful if it is limited like the founding father's intended. What we have is a centralized government that is way out of control.

[JACK-2]

All institutions have proper roles with limitations.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 28, 2013 19:11:32 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

All institutions have proper roles with limitations.

Well I guess what's "proper" is more subjective. I don't think "every" institution serves a necessary purpose for every individual. Some institutions benefit some people though, but a limited government benefits a civilized society.

Religious fellowship is of course a free right, but I wouldn't put it in the same role of government as necessary for a civilized society to function.

[JACK-2]

Dec 28, 2013 19:13:53 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

but I wouldn't put it in the same role of government as necessary for a civilized society to function.

Yeah, often people make that mistake.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 28, 2013 19:43:54 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Dec 28, 2013 19:13:53 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

but I wouldn't put it in the same role of government as necessary for a civilized society to function.

Yeah, often people make that mistake.

Yea, people have a right to associate, as long as they don't force others too.