Do Conservatives Believe In Social Darwinism?

[SwimExpert]

The short answer here is no. Mainly because there is no such thing as social darwinism, outside of progressive fantasies about what conservatives believe. In fact no conservative ever used the term, unless referring to charges made by progressives.
Another myth blown up.

Oh wow that was really clever.
Do you have any actual evidence that I am wrong here? Or is knee jerk the best reaction you can come up with?

You should first try posting something that makes actual sense, as opposed to some self righteous God-complex decree about what ideas and concepts exist. So there's no such thing as social darwinism, eh? The entire concept just doesn't exist, is that right? Well, while we're at it why don't we decree that pink doesn't exist either? Let's just scrub out hot too while we're tapping your Godly powers. There's no such thing as hot, it's really just a high level of absence of cold and "hot" was made up by people who wanted to pretend they know how Eskimos think.

If you want to debate the merits, or lack thereof, of social darwinism, or whether one or another group of people can accurately be described as such, then well enough. But it's absolutely ridiculous to base any argument on the insane notion that social darwinism doesn't exist. Even if you wan to argue that the class of social darwinists is an empty class with not a single person fitting that definition, such a claim would still be the equivalent of saying that the number zero doesn't exist.

 

[sealybobo]

The short answer here is no. Mainly because there is no such thing as social darwinism, outside of progressive fantasies about what conservatives believe. In fact no conservative ever used the term, unless referring to charges made by progressives.
Another myth blown up.

Ayn Rand. Says right there in wiki She has been a significant influence among libertarians and American conservatives

Nope.
And Wiki is hardly an unbiased source. She me where she says anything like that.

That's it? NOPE? We just gotta take your word for it?

Schmuck.

 

[bripat9643]

There's a lot of folks who try to change the definitions of words to suit their purposes. Like those who changed the definition of "assault rifle" in order to get semi-automatic weapons included into an "assault weapons ban."

Now, some folks are trying to do that with "conservative" because apparently they are embarrassed about the actions of some conservatives.

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

"Racist" isn't part of the definition of conservative, numskull.

 

[BluesLegend]

61,000 federal workers were ADDED during the Reagan administration. To contrast, 373,000 federal workers were trimmed from the system under that Liberal Bill Clinton.

I think you left out important facts, DEMOCRAT CONGRESS under Reagan, REPUBLICAN CONGRESS under Bill Clinton was this on purpose?

It is against USMB rules to alter a member's quote. This is a major transgression. You are aware of this, right?

I did not alter a word you said, I added some relevant clarity, honestly if this bothers you why did you quote it? Here happy now.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There's a lot of folks who try to change the definitions of words to suit their purposes. Like those who changed the definition of "assault rifle" in order to get semi-automatic weapons included into an "assault weapons ban."

Now, some folks are trying to do that with "conservative" because apparently they are embarrassed about the actions of some conservatives.

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

"Racist" isn't part of the definition of conservative, numskull.

Racism is human. In conservatives it is especially so.

 

[bripat9643]

Practice and get just as good as they are.

It doesn't work that way.

Practice will make someone the best they can be - but innate talent pushes some to be in another league. Nothing I do will make me Eric Clapton - we are not born equal.

Good point. Nothing will make you a rational human either.

 

[bripat9643]

There's a lot of folks who try to change the definitions of words to suit their purposes. Like those who changed the definition of "assault rifle" in order to get semi-automatic weapons included into an "assault weapons ban."

Now, some folks are trying to do that with "conservative" because apparently they are embarrassed about the actions of some conservatives.

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

"Racist" isn't part of the definition of conservative, numskull.

Racism is human. In conservatives it is especially so.

Likewise with stupidity, hypocrisy and you.

 

[bripat9643]

If you have a mortgage interest deduction that is a form of Federal Welfare.

Wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

61,000 federal workers were ADDED during the Reagan administration DEMOCRAT CONGRESS. To contrast, 373,000 federal workers were trimmed from the system under that Liberal Bill Clinton. REPUBLICAN CONGRESS

I think you left out important facts, was this on purpose?

It is against USMB rules to alter a member's quote. This is a major transgression. You are aware of this, right?

Sue him.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There's a lot of folks who try to change the definitions of words to suit their purposes. Like those who changed the definition of "assault rifle" in order to get semi-automatic weapons included into an "assault weapons ban."

Now, some folks are trying to do that with "conservative" because apparently they are embarrassed about the actions of some conservatives.

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

"Racist" isn't part of the definition of conservative, numskull.

Racism is human. In conservatives it is especially so.

Likewise with stupidity, hypocrisy and you.

There's a lot of folks who try to change the definitions of words to suit their purposes. Like those who changed the definition of "assault rifle" in order to get semi-automatic weapons included into an "assault weapons ban."

Now, some folks are trying to do that with "conservative" because apparently they are embarrassed about the actions of some conservatives.

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

"Racist" isn't part of the definition of conservative, numskull.

Racism is human. In conservatives it is especially so.

Likewise with stupidity, hypocrisy and you.

You wish my little infant however you can never prove wrong what I say, and that's because you are a know-not-a-goddamn-thing shit-for-brians.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

conservatives believe in science so of course they believe in Darwin. Imagine a society that promoted survival of the least fit!! Case closed.

 

[The Rabbi]

And didn't Reagan later say agreeing to the tax hikes (e.g. trusting Democrats) was a big mistake of his presidency?

Oh, so Ronald Reagan is not responsible for things he did? Ok, got it.

Ahaha look who's talking, Obama could eat a kitten on live tv and you people would blame it on Bush.

And this is what passes for logic on the Right these day, what?

They lost it when Magic Underpants did.

You mean Romney?

Magic Underpants.... lol....

Its funny with libs. They are so constricted in their ability to think that they cannot do it beyond a word or phrase. So Romney is "Magic Underpants." Palin is "See Russia from my living room." Cruz is "Canadian". As though there was nothing else at all about any of these people besides a one word summation.
Pitiful really.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

conservatives believe in science so of course they believe in Darwin. Imagine a society that promoted survival of the least fit!! Case closed.

Darwin didn't believe in Social Darwinism. He would have thought those who do to be a bunch of immoral selfish children. He, unlike you lot, had morals.

 

[squeeze berry]

And didn't Reagan later say agreeing to the tax hikes (e.g. trusting Democrats) was a big mistake of his presidency?

Oh, so Ronald Reagan is not responsible for things he did? Ok, got it.

Ahaha look who's talking, Obama could eat a kitten on live tv and you people would blame it on Bush.

And this is what passes for logic on the Right these day, what?

They lost it when Magic Underpants did.

You mean Romney?

Magic Underpants.... lol....

yep. and you are sniffin' em too

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Oh, so Ronald Reagan is not responsible for things he did? Ok, got it.

Ahaha look who's talking, Obama could eat a kitten on live tv and you people would blame it on Bush.

And this is what passes for logic on the Right these day, what?

They lost it when Magic Underpants did.

You mean Romney?

Magic Underpants.... lol....

Its funny with libs. They are so constricted in their ability to think that they cannot do it beyond a word or phrase. So Romney is "Magic Underpants." Palin is "See Russia from my living room." Cruz is "Canadian". As though there was nothing else at all about any of these people besides a one word summation.
Pitiful really.

When you run these fringe assholes that's what you get, snide remarks that they deserve.

 

[squeeze berry]

conservatives believe in science so of course they believe in Darwin. Imagine a society that promoted survival of the least fit!! Case closed.

Darwin didn't believe in Social Darwinism. He would have thought those who do to be a bunch of immoral selfish children. He, unlike you lot, had morals.

how do you support the poor?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And didn't Reagan later say agreeing to the tax hikes (e.g. trusting Democrats) was a big mistake of his presidency?

Oh, so Ronald Reagan is not responsible for things he did? Ok, got it.

Ahaha look who's talking, Obama could eat a kitten on live tv and you people would blame it on Bush.

And this is what passes for logic on the Right these day, what?

They lost it when Magic Underpants did.

You mean Romney?

Magic Underpants.... lol....

Yep, the Man from Cult.

 

[The Rabbi]

The short answer here is no. Mainly because there is no such thing as social darwinism, outside of progressive fantasies about what conservatives believe. In fact no conservative ever used the term, unless referring to charges made by progressives.
Another myth blown up.

Oh wow that was really clever.
Do you have any actual evidence that I am wrong here? Or is knee jerk the best reaction you can come up with?

You should first try posting something that makes actual sense, as opposed to some self righteous God-complex decree about what ideas and concepts exist. So there's no such thing as social darwinism, eh? The entire concept just doesn't exist, is that right? Well, while we're at it why don't we decree that pink doesn't exist either? Let's just scrub out hot too while we're tapping your Godly powers. There's no such thing as hot, it's really just a high level of absence of cold and "hot" was made up by people who wanted to pretend they know how Eskimos think.

If you want to debate the merits, or lack thereof, of social darwinism, or whether one or another group of people can accurately be described as such, then well enough. But it's absolutely ridiculous to base any argument on the insane notion that social darwinism doesn't exist. Even if you wan to argue that the class of social darwinists is an empty class with not a single person fitting that definition, such a claim would still be the equivalent of saying that the number zero doesn't exist.

Do you have any evidence anyone believes in social darwinism other than liberals claiming people do? You seem unable to rise to any challenge here.

 

[SwimExpert]

Do you have any evidence anyone believes in social darwinism other than liberals claiming people do? You seem unable to rise to any challenge here.

Didn't even bother paying attention, did you? I'm not going to sit here and debate the existence of the number zero.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

conservatives believe in science so of course they believe in Darwin. Imagine a society that promoted survival of the least fit!! Case closed.

Darwin didn't believe in Social Darwinism. He would have thought those who do to be a bunch of immoral selfish children. He, unlike you lot, had morals.

how do you support the poor?

Taxes, tax reform, training, education, childcare, public healthcare, charity, and decency if at all possible. Exactly one of those you would probably agree with.