Do Conservatives Believe In Social Darwinism?

[Agit8r]

It depends person to person, but many do. Typically they don't believe in evolution, so they just call it "fiscal conservatism"

Link?
Most progressives believe in eugenics.

I've never met one who did. Eugenics is a pseudoscience.

Hardly. Healthy people make healthy babies. Bad genetics makes for bad babies. It's not complicated.

That is an oversimplification.

Yep, but the concept is still sound. Don't let the weak and the sick reproduce, and therefore let them die off young, and you will have a healthier population.

And genetic diversity means not fucking the girl next door or your cousin Beth. You don't have to mix up the races to get a healthy population.

And can two very healthy people produce a bad product? Absolutely, and you let that be the end of it. Life unworthy of life. Brutal but true.

Now I understand your profile photo...

 

[Agit8r]

It depends person to person, but many do. Typically they don't believe in evolution, so they just call it "fiscal conservatism"

Do you believe in social darwinism?

Of course not. I'm a secular humanist.

In practical terms, what does that mean to you? Personally?

Secular, meaning I don't have faith in supernatural phenomena. Humanist, as in that ethical concerns should center around human relations and needs.

 

[The Rabbi]

It depends person to person, but many do. Typically they don't believe in evolution, so they just call it "fiscal conservatism"

Link?
Most progressives believe in eugenics.

I've never met one who did. Eugenics is a pseudoscience.

So your argument is they dont because you never met one who did? Seriously?

 

[Agit8r]

It depends person to person, but many do. Typically they don't believe in evolution, so they just call it "fiscal conservatism"

Link?
Most progressives believe in eugenics.

I've never met one who did. Eugenics is a pseudoscience.

So your argument is they dont because you never met one who did? Seriously?

The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation. In this case, that would be you.

 

[The Rabbi]

It depends person to person, but many do. Typically they don't believe in evolution, so they just call it "fiscal conservatism"

Link?
Most progressives believe in eugenics.

I've never met one who did. Eugenics is a pseudoscience.

So your argument is they dont because you never met one who did? Seriously?

The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation. In this case, that would be you.

Thats a laugh given your original post here.
But you can start with Margaret Sanger and go from there.

 

[Ravi]

It depends person to person, but many do. Typically they don't believe in evolution, so they just call it "fiscal conservatism"

Link?
Most progressives believe in eugenics.

I've never met one who did. Eugenics is a pseudoscience.

So your argument is they dont because you never met one who did? Seriously?

The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation. In this case, that would be you.

Thats a laugh given your original post here.
But you can start with Margaret Sanger and go from there.

Now I see your problem. You believe things that aren't true because it makes you feel good.

No one would claim to be a social Darwinist but most republicans ARE social Darwinists.

 

[Agit8r]

It depends person to person, but many do. Typically they don't believe in evolution, so they just call it "fiscal conservatism"

Link?
Most progressives believe in eugenics.

I've never met one who did. Eugenics is a pseudoscience.

So your argument is they dont because you never met one who did? Seriously?

The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation. In this case, that would be you.

Thats a laugh given your original post here.
But you can start with Margaret Sanger and go from there.

Look, I didn't even say that most conservatives supported social darwinism. There are plenty of social-conservatives (yes, I hyphenate it, like with social-democrats) like Sarah Palin, who are about bigger Alaska Permanent Fund checks and redistributionist tax rebates, and funds for the developmentally challenged and whatnot, and bully for them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Link?
Most progressives believe in eugenics.

I've never met one who did. Eugenics is a pseudoscience.

So your argument is they dont because you never met one who did? Seriously?

The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation. In this case, that would be you.

Thats a laugh given your original post here.
But you can start with Margaret Sanger and go from there.

Look, I didn't even say that most conservatives supported social darwinism. There are plenty of social-conservatives (yes, I hyphenate it, like with social-democrats) like Sarah Palin, who are about bigger Alaska Permanent Fund checks and redistributionist tax rebates, and funds for the developmentally challenged and whatnot, and bully for them.

Actually NO conservatives support social darwinism.

 

[Agit8r]

I've never met one who did. Eugenics is a pseudoscience.

So your argument is they dont because you never met one who did? Seriously?

The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation. In this case, that would be you.

Thats a laugh given your original post here.
But you can start with Margaret Sanger and go from there.

Look, I didn't even say that most conservatives supported social darwinism. There are plenty of social-conservatives (yes, I hyphenate it, like with social-democrats) like Sarah Palin, who are about bigger Alaska Permanent Fund checks and redistributionist tax rebates, and funds for the developmentally challenged and whatnot, and bully for them.

Actually NO conservatives support social darwinism.

So it's just the "libertarian" faction?

 

[The Rabbi]

So your argument is they dont because you never met one who did? Seriously?

The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation. In this case, that would be you.

Thats a laugh given your original post here.
But you can start with Margaret Sanger and go from there.

Look, I didn't even say that most conservatives supported social darwinism. There are plenty of social-conservatives (yes, I hyphenate it, like with social-democrats) like Sarah Palin, who are about bigger Alaska Permanent Fund checks and redistributionist tax rebates, and funds for the developmentally challenged and whatnot, and bully for them.

Actually NO conservatives support social darwinism.

So it's just the "libertarian" faction?

No. No conservative, not even a narco-libertarian, believes in social darwinism

 

[Agit8r]

The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation. In this case, that would be you.

Thats a laugh given your original post here.
But you can start with Margaret Sanger and go from there.

Look, I didn't even say that most conservatives supported social darwinism. There are plenty of social-conservatives (yes, I hyphenate it, like with social-democrats) like Sarah Palin, who are about bigger Alaska Permanent Fund checks and redistributionist tax rebates, and funds for the developmentally challenged and whatnot, and bully for them.

Actually NO conservatives support social darwinism.

So it's just the "libertarian" faction?

No. No conservative, not even a narco-libertarian, believes in social darwinism

There are some:

 

[The Rabbi]

Thats a laugh given your original post here.
But you can start with Margaret Sanger and go from there.

Look, I didn't even say that most conservatives supported social darwinism. There are plenty of social-conservatives (yes, I hyphenate it, like with social-democrats) like Sarah Palin, who are about bigger Alaska Permanent Fund checks and redistributionist tax rebates, and funds for the developmentally challenged and whatnot, and bully for them.

Actually NO conservatives support social darwinism.

So it's just the "libertarian" faction?

No. No conservative, not even a narco-libertarian, believes in social darwinism

There are some:

I think "social darwinism" doesnt mean what you think it means.

 

[Agit8r]

Look, I didn't even say that most conservatives supported social darwinism. There are plenty of social-conservatives (yes, I hyphenate it, like with social-democrats) like Sarah Palin, who are about bigger Alaska Permanent Fund checks and redistributionist tax rebates, and funds for the developmentally challenged and whatnot, and bully for them.

Actually NO conservatives support social darwinism.

So it's just the "libertarian" faction?

No. No conservative, not even a narco-libertarian, believes in social darwinism

There are some:

I think "social darwinism" doesnt mean what you think it means.

It's generally a colloquial term, used to disparage. Seldom claimed by it's adherents.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Based on the behavior of MANY so-called Conservatives, you sure as hell could have fooled me.

Why, even the author of the OP once called Obama "Head ****** in Chief". True story. He did.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

No. That is altering a quote. Plain and simple. Every time you do it, it will be reported.
I quoted it to point out your obvious fuck-up.

 

[Agit8r]

Of course the usual excuse for heartless right-wing policies is a licentious interpretation of The Parable of the Talents, or something similarly moronic:

"I am also religious, profoundly religious on the inside, and I believe that Providence weighs human beings. Those who do not pass the trials imposed by Providence, who are broken by them, are not destined by Providence for greater things. It is a natural necessity that only the strong remain after this selection."
-- Adolf Hitler; from Munich Löwenbräukeller (November 8, 1943)

-

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course conservatives believe in social Darwinism. They just normally call it personal responsibility.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Look, I didn't even say that most conservatives supported social darwinism. There are plenty of social-conservatives (yes, I hyphenate it, like with social-democrats) like Sarah Palin, who are about bigger Alaska Permanent Fund checks and redistributionist tax rebates, and funds for the developmentally challenged and whatnot, and bully for them.

Actually NO conservatives support social darwinism.

So it's just the "libertarian" faction?

No. No conservative, not even a narco-libertarian, believes in social darwinism

There are some:

I think "social darwinism" doesnt mean what you think it means.

It means survival of the fittest in a human social context.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Of course conservatives believe in social Darwinism. They just normally call it personal responsibility.

Or we can accept the fake Rabbi at his word and then postulate that, since Conservatives don't believe in social Darwinism, they are actually irresponsible, probably sucking on the big gubbermint tit.

This thread is fun!

 

[NYcarbineer]

An advocate for social Darwinism will oppose something like the welfare state, on the Darwinist's belief that it lifts it up people artificially and allows them to survive despite their not being naturally 'fit' enough to do so.