or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Darwin's idea of "Survival of the fittest" debunked...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Darwin's idea of "Survival of the fittest" debunked... - Page 7

post #241 of 450
Yes. Let's see.

The theory of relativity, or simply relativity, encompasses two theories of Albert Einstein: special relativity and general relativity.[1
Wikipedia.org

NO REFERENCE TO SCIENCE THERE, JUST THEORY!

Poor Einstein. Relativity theory is a load of shit. Turn off the nuclear reactors and forget about the atomic bombs. They're just "theories."

'Camp' David. If you don't know what 'theory' actually means to scientists, don't try and prove stupid schoolboy crap to people who do.
post #242 of 450
Oh, I'm in a good mood, 'Camp' David.

Theory of classical mechanics.

Just 'theory'. A load of shit. Poor Isaac Newton.

Atomic theory.

Poor atoms.

Cell theory.

Poor organic life.

Systems theory.

TURN OFF YOUR COMPUTER. There's no 'science' in its development or programming.

post #243 of 450
Are they really back to this again? Words are hard. Especially when there's more than one definition.

Fuck it. The illiterates win. Words may only have one definition now. The definition of "theory" as given here by wikipedia:

Quote:
In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. Such theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.[6]
A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[5]
A major concern in construction of scientific theories is the problem of demarcation, i.e., distinguishing those ideas that are properly studied by the sciences and those that are not.
Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world.

no longer can be used with the word theory. We must kowtow to the ignorant masses who can't handle a word having more than one meaning. The new word that will have the above definition is:

Scientruth.


Now, let's all teach our kids the scientruth of evolution, the scientruth of general relativity, the scientruth of special relativitiy, atomic scientruth, cell scientruth, systems scientruth, et cetera.

English is going to get way more complicated when words can only carry one meaning, but apparently that's what fundies want. Oh, in the spirit of uncomplicating the language, the word "god" was already in use before you guys started that whole christian thing. Sorry, you need a new word. May I suggest "invisifriend"?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #244 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The same for you MJ. Do you believe things like the earth is only 6,000 years old?

Let's hear your position on that.

Well MJ I don't seem to see a reply from you on this question so I thought I'd try again.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #245 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes it's impossible to know everything. That's why science is on a constant quest to find the answers with an open mind but only dealing with what you can be sure of. The facts. And forming theories based on those facts. Some theories are proven wrong. However more largly accepted theories tend to have some merit or just turn out to be right. If we didn't speculate or form theories based on what we already know and go with that we'd still be running around in the tall grass waiting for lightning to strike so we could have a fire.

However there are a few things we can be sure of. One is that the earth is a helluva lot older than 6,000 years!

So you're saying you believe this 0nly 6,000 years old stuff ( come on take a stand you're not a politician )?

No reply from you either Jazzy? You both neatly side stepped this direct question.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #246 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

No reply from you either Jazzy? You both neatly side stepped this direct question.

I addressed your question before you asked it.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=156

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #247 of 450
I love that it's now an article of faith among the left that the Moon Landing was a great thing that defends the country's high tax regime.

Because years ago, leftists used to deride the space race as a waste of money driven by uber-patriotism and the demonization of cold war enemies. They used to say that tax money should be spent on bread and not circuses, that primarily benefitted private contractors in the employ of the country's military-industrial complex.

Nice to see you guys coming around. Tell Cheney I said hi when you see him on the golf course.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #248 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I addressed your question before you asked it.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=156

Well that's refreshing that you don't believe in the literal 6,000 years as some here seem to. Bravo!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #249 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I love that it's now an article of faith among the left that the Moon Landing was a great thing that defends the country's high tax regime.

Because years ago, leftists used to deride the space race as a waste of money driven by uber-patriotism and the demonization of cold war enemies. They used to say that tax money should be spent on bread and not circuses, that primarily benefitted private contractors in the employ of the country's military-industrial complex.

Nice to see you guys coming around. Tell Cheney I said hi when you see him on the golf course.

Quote:
Because years ago, leftists used to deride the space race as a waste of money driven by uber-patriotism and the demonization of cold war enemies

Funny having actually lived through that era ( I was 16 when they landed in 1969 ) I don't seem to remember leftists deriding it. I never felt that way and think the moon landing as one of the most important events of the 20th century. Even if the intial push was partially fueled by competition from The Soviet Union.

I do agree with one thing however that Obama's idea of getting private industry involved is a good idea. Like most things in history space travel won't really take off ( no pun intended ) until that happens in a big way. And yes there's a lot of money to be made out there ( more than just tourists ) we just need to find a less expensive way to do it. That will happen in time.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #250 of 450
Thread Starter 
Sadly this thread turned out very predictable, religious nutjobs mocking science, atheistic nutjobs mocking religion, you are all idiots.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #251 of 450
You were the one who totally jumped the gun and started this ridiculous thread about how a very well established scientific theory is somehow "debunked" by one terribly reported on paper.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #252 of 450
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You were the one who totally jumped the gun and started this ridiculous thread about how a very well established scientific theory is somehow "debunked" by one terribly reported on paper.

No, I didn't state that the theory of evolution was debunked, I merely thought that the concept of "survival of the fittest" was debunked in favour of an evolution triggered by new living spaces..

Now we know at least that both "survival of the fittest" and "the idea of new living space" were pretty much part of Darwin's theory, but that before the first trigger was seen as being the more important aspect while this new study claims that the latter aspect is more important.

So the study, if validated, can change the emphasis of the theory of evolution.


Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #253 of 450
You wrote a very misleading title for the thread and the paper you cited was already debunked as unethical science journalism. As linked to earlier, here's the article: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...utm_medium=rss

Quote:
There has not been an overthrow of Darwin, though I'm sure various creationists will now incorrectly and inappropriately use this press report to suggest that there has been. There has not been the introduction of a new idea regarding macroevolution, though the work here is important and interesting. As is often the case with evolutionary biology, the specific role of natural selection (and in this entire discussion, read "natural selection" when you see "competition") vs. opportunity (read "drift"), and different people with different views will differentially see the role of one or the other as more important as they look at the same data. The realty of the situation is probably simpler: Competitive advantages have a chance of winning out, in the same way that buying a lottery ticket with better odds makes you more likely to win. But you'll probably still lose. But to even buy the lottery ticket, there has to be one of those little gas stations on the corner that sells them.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #254 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by br View Post

you wrote a very misleading title for the thread and the paper you cited was already debunked as unethical science journalism. As linked to earlier, here's the article: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...utm_medium=rss

duh!!!!!

I guess you didn't read the memo @ 217?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

@#001
Darwin's idea of "Survival of the fittest" debunked...
In this new scientific analysis, they come to the conclusion that new living space is the most important thing triggering evolution and not competition:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11063939
Nightcrawler

Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

@#217


Errors of thought in the BBC interpretation of Evolution:

Natural Selection vs. Opportunity in Macroevolutionary Patterning of the Fossil Record
Posted on: August 25, 2010 8:49 AM, by Greg Laden

"But new research identifies the availability of "living space", rather than competition, as being of key importance for evolution." (Space is the final frontier for evolution, study claims--23 August 2010 Last updated at 17:26 ET)

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...utm_medium=rss

THEREFORE THE ONLY THINGS THAT ARE DEBUNKED IS THE BBC ARTICLE AND THIS THREAD---GONE--BYE BYE



GONE AGAIN---BYE BYE
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #255 of 450
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

duh!!!!!

I guess you didn't read the memo @ 217?



[/COLOR]

GONE AGAIN---BYE BYE

Do you even read and understand what you're posting? Sometimes one loses all hope in americans' intelligence and education.

The science-blog criticises the sensational reporting of BBC that gives the impression that Darwin was debunked as well as the idea that something new was found out.

Instead it claims the shifting from "survival of the fittest" to "new living space" is an idea already known for years and this new study merely is the first to demonstrate this concept:

Quote:
The idea of empty niches being filled by the available taxa is not new, nor is the idea that an evolutionary "event" .... like some non-flying taxon developing the power of flight .... results in species radiation. What is new in this paper is that a survey has been done using relatively good available data that demonstrates this concept.

What does that mean you may ask? It means that Darwin's theory is not debunked but the trigger of evolution is found to be more to correlate with available new living space than with competition within a space, in the words of an abstract of the original paper written by the scientists, who did the study:

Quote:
Here we show that the global taxonomic and ecological diversity of tetrapods are closely linked. Throughout geological time, patterns of global diversity of tetrapod families show 97 per cent correlation with ecological modes. Global taxonomic and ecological diversity of this group correlates closely with the dominant classes of tetrapods (amphibians in the Palaeozoic, reptiles in the Mesozoic, birds and mammals in the Cenozoic). These groups have driven ecological diversity by expansion and contraction of occupied ecospace, rather than by direct competition within existing ecospace and each group has used ecospace at a greater rate than their predecessors.

So the point remains: Evolution is supposedly (if the study gets validated) triggered more through spreading to new living spaces than through competition within existing spaces.

The science-blog merely mentions that that idea is not new, that it was known for years, that the study merely demonstrates it, and that it doesn't debunk Darwin's evolution theory, since the concept of living space and its contributing factor to evolution was known to Darwin, though "survival of the fittest" within a space was seen as more important to triggering evolution.


Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #256 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

Sadly this thread turned out very predictable, religious nutjobs mocking science, atheistic nutjobs mocking religion, you are all idiots.

You almost make this sound like it's a problem or something.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #257 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Jurassic Park!

Great comeback.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #258 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Great comeback.

Well at least someone noticed!
post #259 of 450
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

You almost make this sound like it's a problem or something.

Ah, ok, my mistake, I obviously underestimated the entertainment-value of all this.

Well then here is some new tidbit to lead entertaining discussions about: Darwin had a secret garden, New Eden, an artificial ecosystem developed on a volcanic created island:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11137903

Darwin and friends were able to develop an articifical ecosystem within years, decades and centuries that would have taken millions of years in a natural way.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #260 of 450
At this time , unfortunately, I have to agree. Darwin is wrong. If he was right religious people could not exist. They are unfit to further mankind, indeed they are a huge obstacle to intellectual development and should have perished a long time ago.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #261 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

At this time , unfortunately, I have to agree. Darwin is wrong. If he was right religious people could not exist. They are unfit to further mankind, indeed they are a huge obstacle to intellectual development and should have perished a long time ago.

Ahhh yes...one more example of civilized, tolerant, respectful and enlightened discourse from the left.

I need to start a collection...maybe a book someday.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #262 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Ahhh yes...one more example of civilized, tolerant, respectful and enlightened discourse from the left.

I need to start a collection...maybe a book someday.


I'm so heartily sick of reading this sort of stuff about the Evil Uncivilised Left.

It's like you're completely blind to the comments on any Fox News article, or to the people who take signs with pictures of Obama dressed up like Hitler on marches, or any other of the abundant examples you can find in eight seconds on google.

Uncivilised discourse is a problem of the polarity in the American body politic. Right wing people are just as bad. From where I'm watching, actually, they seem worse.

So can this shit about 'the left.' It's just voluntary blindness. Your own 'side' is completely disgusting too.
post #263 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

Darwin and friends were able to develop an articifical ecosystem within years, decades and centuries that would have taken millions of years in a natural way.

Wait, so people living in the nineteenth century could do this, but Christians are derided for believing that an advanced intelligence capable of creating the entire universe, could create the Earth in 6 days?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #264 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

I'm so heartily sick of reading this sort of stuff about the Evil Uncivilised Left.

Well then do your best to bring it to an end.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

It's like you're completely blind to the comments on any Fox News article, or to the people who take signs with pictures of Obama dressed up like Hitler on marches, or any other of the abundant examples you can find in eight seconds on google.

Woooaaa there Sparky! Do you see the mistake you just made? I'll spell it out very clearly for you. You assumed that because I made an observation about idiotic comments from someone apparently on the left that I'm completely unaware of similar kinds of things on the right.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Uncivilised discourse is a problem of the polarity in the American body politic.

I agree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Right wing people are just as bad.

Perhaps so. Perhaps not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

From where I'm watching, actually, they seem worse.

I have no doubt you see it that way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

So can this shit about 'the left.' It's just voluntary blindness.

Only if I was actually saying that this problem was limited to the left.

The real reason I like to point this out from our friends on the left is that those on the left of the "liberal" or "progressive" persuasion often seem to smugly imply they are above this fray and don't lower themselves to such uncivilized and rude rants.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #265 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

The real reason I like to point this out from our friends on the left is that those on the left of the "liberal" or "progressive" persuasion often seem to smugly imply they are above this fray and don't lower themselves to such uncivilized and rude rants.

I'll buy you supper if you write "Obama is not a communist, or a socialist, but a bit of a wimpy centrist in the European social democratic tradition with far more integrity than courage."
post #266 of 450
Obama's integrity is suspect, at best.

He promised to get lobbyists out of Washington D.C. and make government more transparent. Those are both policies I wholeheartedly support, which he has completely ignored.

In addition, he promised not to raise ANY taxes on ANYONE making under $250,000. Then he raised taxes on cigarettes (ironic, since he smokes) and tanning salons.

Is Gitmo closed yet? No.

Are we really out of Iraq? No. So-called "combat operations" have ended (in accordance with Bush's plan), but we still have 50,000 troops in harm's way in Iraq.

The list goes on and on.

Disclaimer: an attack on Obama's policies is not support for George W. Bush's. In just about every way that matters, Obama is expanding upon the big government globalist policies of his predecessor.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #267 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

I'll buy you supper if you write "Obama is not a communist, or a socialist, but a bit of a wimpy centrist in the European social democratic tradition with far more integrity than courage."

I'll buy my own dinner TYVM.

Obama does not appear to be a communist but certainly has both socialist and fascist tendencies (as did Bush BTW) at least so far as his policies are concerned.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #268 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Ahhh yes...one more example of civilized, tolerant, respectful and enlightened discourse from the left.

I need to start a collection...maybe a book someday.

Yeah, the text goes from left to right. So yes it's from the left.

Imitation is flattery, thank you!
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #269 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Yeah, the text goes from left to right. So yes it's from the left.

I wouldn't quit your day job.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #270 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'll buy my own dinner TYVM.

Obama does not appear to be a communist but certainly has both socialist and fascist tendencies (as did Bush BTW) at least so far as his policies are concerned.

Come back to reality.

Your nation needs you.
post #271 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Come back to reality.

Is this your reality in which Obama's policies are not part socialist and part fascist or is it actual reality where they are?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #272 of 450
Obama's policies ARE part socialist. That's what's better about them than policies that are NOT part socialist.

Socialism when effected in conjunction with capitalism is an entirely GOOD thing. When you neoMcCarthyists start to understad thet, we can finally start to see progress toward a higher level of global standard of living. Which is the point. Standard of living. Not lopsided "wealth". Not GNP. But happiness.
post #273 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Obama's policies ARE part socialist. That's what's better about them than policies that are NOT part socialist.

Socialism when effected in conjunction with capitalism is an entirely GOOD thing.

Bzzzt! Wrong. Try again.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

When you neoMcCarthyists



Who is a neo-McCarthyist? Who is hauling people before special committees to testify? Who is using the threat of government action to ruin people's lives?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Which is the point. Standard of living. Not lopsided "wealth". Not GNP. But happiness.

As long you continue to make these false and arbitrary and undefinable distinctions between "wealth" and "standard of living," we're never going to make any progress in your education.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #274 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

When you neoMcCarthyists...

Are you going to report us to that special email address Obama set up?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #275 of 450
"wealth" IS "standard of living"
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #276 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

"wealth" IS "standard of living"

Shhhh. Don't tell tonton. He still thinks they are different things.

I don't know, but I suspect that his thinking is based in the idea that "wealth" is all about little green pieces of paper with portraits of dead presidents on them.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #277 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Is this your reality in which Obama's policies are not part socialist and part fascist or is it actual reality where they are?

Will you please think for a moment about what you're actually saying.

The president of the world's largest economy and the world's most expensive, advanced military is a fascist? (Or 'has fascist policies', in the formula you seem to prefer.)

This notion is utterly preposterous. It is embarrassing to discuss it seriously.

One would think that the idea of the president of the world's largest economy and the world's most expensive, advanced military being a fascist would raise

-some discussion outside of America
-some alarm outside of America
-some protests outside of America

in the press, among the people, among governments, and cause

-a fundamental re-structuring of global political alliances, from the United Kingdom onwards.

Please. Think.

Alliances between the USA and the UK, and Russia, and the EU, and India, and countries in sub-Sahahran Africa are BETTER than they were before under George Bush. There is no fear for Americans. No-one is writing articles discussing the plight of American citizens under the new fascist regime, or what this fascist regime means for global politics, and the fear and danger it has brought.

That is because the notion is retarded.

No-one outside a pants-pissing right wing minority in America believes the Barack Obama is a fascist, or "has fascist policies", or whatever formula of words you may like to use that lets you call your president a fascist and get away with it.

If he were, the geo-political world would be in total uproar. It isn't. Everyone really likes Obama. Even Medvedev. Even our right wing government here in the UK. Even Angela Merkel, the centre-right president of Germany.

The idea is retarded. It makes no sense at all. It is the kind of nonsense you're supposed to say around election time to frighten people who don't know what "fascism" actually is. You're not supposed to believe this embarrassing, ridiculous notion yourself.
post #278 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

"wealth" IS "standard of living"

No, wealth is not "standard of living."

The standard of living in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, for example, exceeds that of the United States. They have longer holidays. They have far more generous benefits. The unemployed are paid at 100% of their usual salary for the first few months of their unemployment. There is zero poverty in these nations.

And yet they are not wealthier than the United States. Their economies are smaller.

This is because they spend their revenue differently, and invest in public programmes differently, and tax differently, and the wealth is spread around more by evil communist-fascist-Nazi-Jihadi-Stalinist-Hitlerian-Bolshevik-atheist-yogic-eco-fascist-America-hating-socialist-sterilise-retards-and-white-people economic policy. There is greater equality in wealth. No poverty, no street crime, excellent social support and public amenities, and so on, make for a better standard of living.

Wealth and "standard of living" are not the same thing.
post #279 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Will you please think for a moment about what you're actually saying.

I have.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

The president of the world's largest economy and the world's most expensive, advanced military is a fascist? (Or 'has fascist policies', in the formula you seem to prefer.)

Economically speaking, yes he is. Partly. When he's not being a socialist.

Let me put it into a term that might make it easier for you to understand: Corporatist.

Economically-speaking, fascism is the "merger" or "partnering" of corporations and government. It usually involves the socialization of losses while retaining the privatization of profits. It is one side of the so-called "third way." Sometimes though it looks more like "corporate socialism" (and it is.) These are different terms to describe basically the same things. Fascism retains the appearance of private ownership with the interlocking control of government.

With this understanding, you cannot seriously watch all of the shenanigans that have happened with Wall Street, the auto industry, the health care and health insurance industry, etc. and not see that he (and Bush before him) is (economically) part fascist and part socialist. As is this entire country's economic structure: part fascism, part socialist, still some free-market left too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

This notion is utterly preposterous. It is embarrassing to discuss it seriously.

No it isn't, and if you would think, you would realize that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

That is because the notion is retarded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

[SIZE="4"][SIZE="2"]No-one outside a pants-pissing right wing minority...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

The idea is retarded.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

It isn't. Everyone really likes Obama. Even Medvedev. Even our right wing government here in the UK. Even Angela Merkel, the centre-right president of Germany.

So? You actually consider this a valid argument that he isn't?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

It makes no sense at all.

OK


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

It is the kind of nonsense you're supposed to say around election time to frighten people who don't know what "fascism" actually is.

I don't think you actually know what fascism is, economically-speaking. I suspect you don't know what socialism is, economically-speaking either which is why you don't think he is also part socialist.

P.S. The reason I formulated the statements the way I did (i.e., "fascist policies" and "socialist policies") was to actually be more precise in what I was saying. It is the actions (in the form of policies), regardless of how he might feel or what he might think or how he (or you or others) might label himself or what he says...that make the difference.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #280 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

No, wealth is not "standard of living."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Wealth and "standard of living" are not the same thing.

<sigh> Another one. \

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Darwin's idea of "Survival of the fittest" debunked...