or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Liberals against evolution
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Liberals against evolution

post #1 of 48
Thread Starter 
Evolution is nasty. In a sense, evolution is too "conservative." It's not very liberal to kill and eat and rape and let the weakest die off and all that. I'd rather see artificial selection than natural selection. Isn't the whole point of liberalism (in the American sense of the word) basically to oppose all those nasty evolutionary pressures?

My New Year's resolution is to refuse to evolve. Who's with me?
post #2 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
My New Year's resolution is to refuse to evolve. Who's with me?

I can think of some not a million miles from here who are way ahead of you....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #3 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
My New Year's resolution is to refuse to evolve. Who's with me?

Ummm...the entire Democratic Party?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #4 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Ummm...the entire Democratic Party?

Nick

BWAHAHAHAHA.

But to be serious for a moment, it's just the DNC and the DLC who are on that train. These days, I'm arguing that the Democratic party desperately needs some insurgents.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #5 of 48
We can only hope that BRussell will be wiped out by food poisoning at a liberal anti-evolutionary conference, thus confirming the horrid fact that even men, with purpose and insight into our own inept being, cannot fail to fall underneath the muscle powered steam roller that is evolution.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #6 of 48
Moving to P.O....
post #7 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
BWAHAHAHAHA.

But to be serious for a moment, it's just the DNC and the DLC who are on that train. These days, I'm arguing that the Democratic party desperately needs some insurgents.

If only that were the case...the phrase "I didn't leave the party, the party left me" becomes more true by the day. The Democratic Party has declared anyone who won't buy into their orthodoxy 100% to be evil incarnate.

100% Evil Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #8 of 48
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
We can only hope that BRussell will be wiped out by food poisoning at a liberal anti-evolutionary conference, thus confirming the horrid fact that even men, with purpose and insight into our own inept being, cannot fail to fall underneath the muscle powered steam roller that is evolution.

OK, I give in, I'm going out to rape women and murder my rivals like a good little gene carrier.
post #9 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
OK, I give in, I'm going out to rape women and murder my rivals like a good little gene carrier.

Sweet. The universe will look well upon you...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #10 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
If only that were the case...the phrase "I didn't leave the party, the party left me" becomes more true by the day. The Democratic Party has declared anyone who won't buy into their orthodoxy 100% to be evil incarnate.

100% Evil Nick

If you want to see what I'm talking about, check out any of the daily kos or atrios threads about the DNC chair hunt. Clinton and the DLC types have triangulated the Democratic party to the edge of the abyss, and unless the real democrats quit falling in line behind the conservative in democrat clothes jokers or the people, like Kerry, who run like hell away from being called "liberal," the party will continue to sink into utter irrelevance.

We need insurgents.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #11 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Ummm...the entire Democratic Party?

Nick

The "Democratic" Party might as well call it a day. They have abandoned their roots, and they have no direction. At least with the GOP one is abundantly aware of the program, but the Dems are weasly, wimpish washouts, the 'other' party of big corporate, pretending to have a cursory interest in people, while doing homage on their kneepads to the armies of (K)orruption Street lobbyists.

Evolution... more like the road to extinction and redundancy.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #12 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
The "Democratic" Party might as well call it a day. They have abandoned their roots, and they have no direction. At least with the GOP one is abundantly aware of the program, but the Dems are weasly, wimpish washouts, the 'other' party of big corporate, pretending to have a cursory interest in people, while doing homage on their kneepads to the armies of (K)orruption Street lobbyists.

Evolution... more like the road to extinction and redundancy.

Insurgents. The stupid DNC/DLC is looking at the Republicans' successes and thinking about it in terms of policy, when what they need to be doing is looking at the strategy, not the policy. Liberal democrats need to stick to their guns and quit falling in line behind these lackluster candidates and demand better. Dems need to make it clear that jackasses like Lieberman need to go ahead and defect.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #13 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
If you want to see what I'm talking about, check out any of the daily kos or atrios threads about the DNC chair hunt. Clinton and the DLC types have triangulated the Democratic party to the edge of the abyss, and unless the real democrats quit falling in line behind the conservative in democrat clothes jokers or the people, like Kerry, who run like hell away from being called "liberal," the party will continue to sink into utter irrelevance.

We need insurgents.

The point is that you really can't claim to be for the little guy and then stand for a bunch of special interests. A great example is how the pro-choice faction has basically tossed all the Catholics out of the party. Sure they aren't literally thrown out, but what is the point of being in a political party where the foundations of your belief and many of the conclusions of that foundation are mocked outright.

Another example is easily immigration, free trade and as a result, weak unions. Unions are a core Democratic constituency and yet they have no clout despite spending millions for the party. The Democrats have so cloaked themselves in racial politics and a "no one should experience happiness while suffering exists in the world" attitude that they cannot deal with immigration as they should. I related the story here about a mother of a student of mine while I worked in South Central Los Angeles. She had worked for ten years sewing oven mitts but could never get off that bottom step because there were a flood of illegal immigrants behind her that would be willing to take her place. You discuss immigration and you are racist. You bring up the inability of recent immigrants to advance and they complain about how fair trade will harm finances in other countries and so we should suffer here instead. It is nonsense. The result is an open door immigration policy that makes unionization impossible, doesn't allowed certain minority groups to advance, and keeps insures cheap labor.

But the thing keeping them from addressing this is not DLC groups because members of that group can be pulled left when good arguments like above are given. It is the racists in the Democratic party who cannot be moved even with sound reasoning. The hatred of white men benefiting from those unions, also possibly coming back to the Democratic party is enough to insure they take no rational position on immigration. Also the fact that America would benefit from it is just unacceptable to a group that keeps lying to the general public. They cannot win while really believing that America is just the "rich" taxpayer that should suffer for the rest of the world. That won't work. I remember Nader repeatedly being asked about immigration. He would go off about cheap corn flooding Mexico. Trade and immigration do not have to be yoked together. You are not going to win votes by telling people suffering must continue here until we can eliminate it everywhere outside our borders first. No one will vote for or buy such nonsense.

True levels of child support would be a great position for the Democratic party. The large majority of men behind on their child support payments (90%) earn less than $20,000 a year. Also true laws to prevent move aways, prevent alienation and insure visitation. California has wisely moved to drug treatment instead of drug criminalization for casual users who get caught. Anyone who supports jailing almost exclusively men for not making and turning over enough money, basically for being poor, is full of sexist hatred and should have no place in a future Democratic party.

Yet giving up said policies would supposedly harm Democrats with their groups of women or the two-fers, black and hispanic women. That is nonsense. Stand for some principles and give up the wedge politics of seperating men from women. The talk is about triangulation, but the reality is that for as long as Democrats have been pursuing and forcing the gender gap, they have been losing elections. That is because no matter how progressive those single women are, most of them marry a man at some point in their lives. If they are the second wife, they see what the family courts and ex have done to their husband. If they are the wife of say a skilled, union representitive who should be earning the type of money to give her the types of choices she wants in life (like the option of not working, going to school, having children, etc.) she sees the results of the massive immigration and union alienation policies.

None of these require ejection of the DLC or even semi-conservative Democrats. What they require is purging the party of reverse racism, reverse sexism and religious intolerance. That purging is considered by some to be "triangulation" but the reality is that it could be considered the next progressive step. They will never win in the future while simply tossing out so many groups of people for wedge and single issue politics.

Most of these issues would get them winning within a couple years, but they refuse to consider them. They make sense from a progressive perspective. They are a unifying perspective that allows decision making that tha masses understand. That way labels like "flip-flopper" won't stick.

They should be pursued.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #14 of 48
The DNC has turned its back on the people who once made it great. And no, I am not talking about the far left M Moore's of the world. I am talking about the everday blue collar working person. The Common Man needs to take the DNC back from the extremists if the Dems are to be more than a symbolic protest party.
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
post #15 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by Common Man
The DNC has turned its back on the people who once made it great. And no, I am not talking about the far left M Moore's of the world. I am talking about the everday blue collar working person. The Common Man needs to take the DNC back from the extremists if the Dems are to be more than a symbolic protest party.

CM, I know that wingnuts like you just hate MM because, well, I'm not sure. But just so you know, just because you hate him doesn't make him "far left." I don't know if you've ever bothered to watch any of his movies, but, um, with the exception of Columbine and F9.11, they're all about average working stiffs getting shafted by large companies. Just a point of clarification.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #16 of 48
What kind of movies Moore makes has little to do with the base of my post. The Dems have aligned themselves with an agenda that more voters than not reject. That is their business, but they are marginalizing themselves to irrelevance.
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
post #17 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by Common Man
What kind of movies Moore makes has little to do with the base of my post. The Dems have aligned themselves with an agenda that more voters than not reject. That is their business, but they are marginalizing themselves to irrelevance.

CM, that's the entire point of the latter part of this thread: the dems have triangulated themselves to the edge of the abyss, and now they face, for the first time, a truly modernized RNC which is able to point out the ways that the DNC strategies, policies, and alignments are hopelessly at odds with one another. The party has abandoned its traditional bases (laborand especially abandoned it under Clintonminorities, and the poor) and has instead apparently shot for "Republican Lite" as a strategy, which the Republicans rightly shoved down the Dems throats in '04...and unless the DNC realizes that folks ain't buying what they're selling with "Republican Lite" and get back to fundamentals and purge their ranks of some people, they will continue to get the teeth kicked in. And if they go the way it looks like they're going to go (with a RIGHT of center moderate dem as DNC chair), I hope they do get their teeth kicked in in '06 and '08.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #18 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by Common Man
What kind of movies Moore makes has little to do with the base of my post. The Dems have aligned themselves with an agenda that more voters than not reject. That is their business, but they are marginalizing themselves to irrelevance.

No, the US is marginalizing themselves in the world to irrelevance by accepting the current administration's agenda.
post #19 of 48
Indeed this all about evolution and the Dems have not evolved well.

1. The workingman: The Dems need the working man (and woman). These people have been the heart and soul of the Dems forever. This group of people has changed over the years as jobs go oversees. We are not the assembly line factory economy we used to be. Regardless, there is still a need for leaders who respect these people. You will not, however, court these people with the homosexual agenda and the partial birth abortion agenda. These people have migrated away from the Dems because the Dems have insulted their value system.

2. Minorities: The Dems have depended on minorities for support. In today's America, however, many minorities have found that that are free to cut out their own piece from the pie. They no longer want to trade votes for Twinkies with the Dems. The Dems need for minorities to be dependant. Minorities arent buying it anymore.
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
post #20 of 48
Outsider you think that Bush is so horrid, but the opposition could not find a way to beat him. Don't tell me that that is because the American people are stupid. It is because the opposition could not produce a viable alternative. Many Americans were ready to vote against Bush had they been given someone else to vote for. Shame on the Dems for making such a poor effort.
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
post #21 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by Common Man
Outsider you think that Bush is so horrid, but the opposition could not find a way to beat him. Don't tell me that that is because the American people are stupid. It is because the opposition could not produce a viable alternative. Many Americans were ready to vote against Bush had they been given someone else to vote for. Shame on the Dems for making such a poor effort.

It is because they're stupid. They were dumb enough to do it twice! They were in effect taken in. Now they have to learn the hard way.
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 #22 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by Common Man
Indeed this all about evolution and the Dems have not evolved well.

1. The workingman: The Dems need the working man (and woman). These people have been the heart and soul of the Dems forever. This group of people has changed over the years as jobs go oversees. We are not the assembly line factory economy we used to be. Regardless, there is still a need for leaders who respect these people. You will not, however, court these people with the homosexual agenda and the partial birth abortion agenda. These people have migrated away from the Dems because the Dems have insulted their value system.

2. Minorities: The Dems have depended on minorities for support. In today's America, however, many minorities have found that that are free to cut out their own piece from the pie. They no longer want to trade votes for Twinkies with the Dems. The Dems need for minorities to be dependant. Minorities arent buying it anymore.


There you guys go again. Acting like this was a landslide.
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 #23 of 48
For all practical purposes it was a landslide. The Dems have lost the people.
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
post #24 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by Common Man
For all practical purposes it was a landslide. The Dems have lost the people.

What is above is an example of what's wrong with conservative thinking today. Twisting the truth, the reality, to fit a lie.

This was not even close to a landslide in any way, shape, or form. This is one of the main reasons I don't side with conservatives. The rest is wishful thinking.
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 #25 of 48
Nick:

Quote:
The point is that you really can't claim to be for the little guy and then stand for a bunch of special interests. A great example is how the pro-choice faction has basically tossed all the Catholics out of the party

Yes its actually a great example but for the opposite. The freedom of the little "guy" (to have control over her body) is given higher priority than what a special interest group think about the issue (here I am going from the assumption that most americans still think as a minimum that abortions are bad and should be avoided if possible but the decision is ultimate only for the woman to take) (and I don´t want this to turn into an abortion debate. If my assumption is wrong then disregard the above).

A good example of special interests, stolen from Fareed Zakaria, is the Cuban lobby. A small group of people whose opinion goes against most of the population but who are willing to vote on it. Not in itself undemocratic but it erodes the system if too many of those groups exists.

And with regard to the democrats. "The party left me". Sure. The problem is that people can´t make up their mind if it went left or right. Just another good reason to make away with a system that foster only two influential parties.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #26 of 48
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Dems need to make it clear that jackasses like Lieberman need to go ahead and defect.

...purge their ranks of some people...

I'm not sure how getting rid of people would bring in more people. Let the Republicans do that. Do we really need more ideological purity? What good would that do? Why would it help?
post #27 of 48
I love it when loyalist Republicans wax poetic about the state of the Democratic party.

Also, since when is compassion and social structure not advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint?
The idea that nature is brain-dead violence and "might makes right" down to the individual is the brain-child of religious philosophies that pit dogma against man's basic nature.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #28 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Nick:

Yes its actually a great example but for the opposite. The freedom of the little "guy" (to have control over her body) is given higher priority than what a special interest group think about the issue (here I am going from the assumption that most americans still think as a minimum that abortions are bad and should be avoided if possible but the decision is ultimate only for the woman to take) (and I don´t want this to turn into an abortion debate. If my assumption is wrong then disregard the above).

The pro-abortion factions of the Democratic party don't believe abortion is anything like you mentioned. There are actually many that think abortion no different than getting a wart removed and would even advertise or proudly proclaim that they had gotten one. Your position is pretty much exactly Bill Clinton's position. That abortion is something that is tolerated, but something that you work to minimize and hope is relatively rare. I think most Catholics could and did tolerate this position. Especially when they believe it still allows them to be part of a coalition that helps the downtrodden and poor. All people realize this world isn't perfect and make concessions. My own personal example is drug criminalization for example. However Clinton is the exact type of DLC candidate that Midwinter, (I imagine but am not 100% sure) BRussell and others are claiming should be tossed from the party.

Plus even if you are pro-choice there is still lots of room for agreement and understanding with Catholics. For example even if you believe in abortion, you don't have to advocate public funding of abortion. You don't have to advocate partial birth or third trimester abortions at pretty much will. (Most health exceptions that strident abortion advocates argue for include "mental health" exceptions which means the woman can basically abort in the third trimester by claiming mental hardship.) Lastly you can support unborn victims laws like the Laci and Conner law in which when a pregnant woman and wanted child are killed, the law is allowed to treat the loss of the wanted child as something that can be prosecuted.

All three of those positions are ones which Bush took and used to beat the holy hell out of John Kerry. They are positions he likely could not have used against a modern day candidate Clinton. (Clinton did fight the partial birth abortion argument but was much more articulate (read probably a better liaron the health exemption) than Kerry and came across far less strident)

Clinton for example realized he was getting smacked around on homosexual rights and came up with don't ask, don't tell. Maybe it kept a few serving homosexuals in the closet, but it also kept all the Catholics in the party. (It is sort of the precursor to civil unions) I'm not making this up as careful fact checking will show that Bush and Republicans won a majority of Catholics for the first time
ever.

The point is that the modern Democratic party has several ideological litmus tests that must be passed. The unwillingness by most Catholics, Hispanics, larger percentages of blacks, married women, and white men to go along with them gives them a distinct minority.

Almost all the positions I posted still give maximum rights. Yet they recognize the limits of individual rights with regard to the other persons nose. Tell me I have to tolerate abortion is one thing. Telling me I have to pay for it is another. Telling me it isn't a person when it could easily live outside the womb is again another. Telling me that I have to support immigration is one thing. Telling me I have to support unlimited illegal immigration until my neighbors in other countries feel justice is done to me is not. Telling me I have to support myself and my children is one thing. Telling me that I'm a feminist sacrifice to engender all the choices of my former spouse at risk of jail is not acceptable. (Most family courts spend their time trying to equalize the two household living standards even if one households desire to keep things as they were (not working, not getting any skills) while basically tossing the former spouse))

Advocate maximum rights, but realize that when you start hitting other people's noses and wanting them to pay for your version of justice while having an ideology dictated to them, they will flee and they have.


Quote:
And with regard to the democrats. "The party left me". Sure. The problem is that people can´t make up their mind if it went left or right. Just another good reason to make away with a system that foster only two influential parties.

If the Democrats got back to supporting working folks instead of arguing what degree of depravity and support of it is a "right", arguing for infrastructure instead of income redistribution, arguing for America instead of treating as the world's imperialist original sin, they would do a lot better.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #29 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
My own personal example is drug criminalization for example. However Clinton is the exact type of DLC candidate that Midwinter, (I imagine but am not 100% sure) BRussell and others are claiming should be tossed from the party.

Well, as I've said to you privately, I actually believe that the Democratic party needs a schism quite badly. I wouldn't mind a centrist/DLC/Clintonian party and a "Liberal Democrat" party for Kucinich, et al. But at the moment, there are hard lefties, right-leaning moderates, and even soft Republicans like Lieberman and Clinton whose prominence and power force the rest of the party to fall in line when there's an election. In '06 at the midterms, I'd like to see NO FALLING IN LINE from the lefties.

Ideologically, the party is utterly screwed. "We value labor and minorities!" "We lurve the kid-tested, Clinton-approved NAFTA, even though it destroys labor!" "We lurve regular folks! But we'll ignore the South like they're all lepers!" "We value religious diversity! Unless it's Christianity!"

Education. Labor. Education. Minority rights. Education. Poverty. And, finally, education. That's it. Ignore the guns. Ignore gay rights. Ignore abortion. State party bases, especially in the South, are where change will have to be effected for the '06 elections. Win back state congresses and governorships; win back a few house and senate seats at a time. And crack the whip like Newt Gingrich reincarnated. Step out of line? You're fucked. Embarass the party? You're more fucked than Trent Lott on a date with Barney Frank.

Quote:
All three of those positions are ones which Bush took and used to beat the holy hell out of John Kerry. They are positions he likely could not have used against a modern day candidate Clinton. (Clinton did fight the partial birth abortion argument but was much more articulate (read probably a better liaron the health exemption) than Kerry and came across far less strident)

Well, Clinton and Kerry are two entirely different political animals. Bush wouldn't have been able to beat the holy hell out of Clinton on most of this because Clinton would've triangulated the hell out of everything and dragged the party so far to the right that Kucinich would be sitting in the lap of Tom Coburn. And that's how the Dems got in this mess to begin with.

Quote:
The point is that the modern Democratic party has several ideological litmus tests that must be passed.

Right. And I think you agree with me that those litmus tests are the wrong ones

Quote:
If the Democrats got back to supporting working folks instead of arguing what degree of depravity and support of it is a "right", arguing for infrastructure instead of income redistribution, arguing for America instead of treating as the world's imperialist original sin, they would do a lot better.

Actually, the Dems need to become relevant to working folks and unions. The idea that my step-father, a life-long union man and beneficiary of much union help during the fallout of the Bell/AT&T/NCR layoffs, would vote republican is case in point. As for "income redistribution"...yes. It's infrastructure. it's about crime, not income redistribution. It's about your personal safety, not income redistribution. It's about better schools. It's about safer streets. It's about doing unto others.

I disagree with the "arguing for America" bit, though. The line is simply that George Bush has realized America's status as reluctant Empire and is attempting to use it to re-make the world in the image he wants. The cost of this action is already catastrophic (two intractable wars and tens of thousands dead in just one term). It is precisely about America as an Empire. But it's also about responsibility and diplomacy, two things this administration seem to use as a last resort.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #30 of 48
"Common Man" should change his handle to "Corporate Weasel".
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #31 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by Common Man
Outsider you think that Bush is so horrid, but the opposition could not find a way to beat him. Don't tell me that that is because the American people are stupid. It is because the opposition could not produce a viable alternative. Many Americans were ready to vote against Bush had they been given someone else to vote for. Shame on the Dems for making such a poor effort.

I don't think the general public is 'stupid' but most people are very sensitive to the fear being pushed out of Washington these days. WMD in Iraq is just one example. And I agree, it is shameful that the Democrats could not nominate someone that would be a cinch to get elected.

And remember most of America didn't vote for bush. Just over half of the voting public, or about 1/6th of the population of the US.
post #32 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
"Common Man" should change his handle to "Corporate Weasel".

And how does that post add anything to the discussion? At least people normally dress their insults and name callings in semi or pseudo argumenting posts.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #33 of 48
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Also, since when is compassion and social structure not advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint?
The idea that nature is brain-dead violence and "might makes right" down to the individual is the brain-child of religious philosophies that pit dogma against man's basic nature.

Well this is really what I wanted this thread to be about, although I know there haven't been nearly enough threads about party politics...

I do think a liberal society works against the natural pressures of evolution. Lots of people who might otherwise die or at least fail to reproduce are given a greater chance in a liberal society.

If you look at other species, they're mostly "conservatives" . They kill each other over resources, they don't provide for each other, and they don't have social security or medicare.
post #34 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Well this is really what I wanted this thread to be about, although I know there haven't been nearly enough threads about party politics...

I do think a liberal society works against the natural pressures of evolution. Lots of people who might otherwise die or at least fail to reproduce are given a greater chance in a liberal society.

If you look at other species, they're mostly "conservatives" . They kill each other over resources, they don't provide for each other, and they don't have social security or medicare.

Indeed. Compassion and natural selection are antithetical.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #35 of 48
Just an example how no one is self made. You always play your odds in a system that give you some possibilities and limits others.

Each time I see someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs being presented as self made men I think "yeah right. You would never have made it past childhood 1000 years ago without glasses"
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #36 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Indeed. Compassion and natural selection are antithetical.

Which is why natural selection in the most crude sense isn't a part of evolutionary theory currently -- social societies/symbiosis wouldn't make sense in terms of the every animal for themselves... but communal preservation of "genes" does make sense in the long term, evolution forces liberal societies...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #37 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Well this is really what I wanted this thread to be about, although I know there haven't been nearly enough threads about party politics...

I do think a liberal society works against the natural pressures of evolution. Lots of people who might otherwise die or at least fail to reproduce are given a greater chance in a liberal society.

If you look at other species, they're mostly "conservatives" . They kill each other over resources, they don't provide for each other, and they don't have social security or medicare.

Actually I hit on this subject a time ago. It might have been some sort of the Pat Buchanan thread where the death of the west was discussed. You are essentually correct that if we take many of our western ideals and evaluate them according to their natural "fitness" they fall apart because not only do people get to reproduce who otherwise wouldn't, but many western style democracies have stopped producing period. The reproductive rate of countries like Japan and Italy are 1.2 children per couple. It is estimated that the population of Europe will fall by over 50 million people while the populations of other countries like India continue to rise.

I don't remember the exact context that I brought it up under. I remember mentioning as just a thinking exercise evaluating if our ideals really are above natural law. Many of these Islamic countries have for example would think nothing of denying a woman an education, forcing her into an arranged marriage and having that arranged marriage produce say 10 or so offspring. I don't think it a conservative or liberal ideal to oppose such moves within the context of our current party system, but the point is that the Europe's population is declining, and the United States is only at reproductive levels in part because of Hispanics.

If your ideal dies with you, is it the best ideal? It is an interesting notion. I've even heard people mention, as a sort of tongue in cheek quip that Democrats haven't convinced any fewer people of their ideals, just that they've had fewer children or aborted the future of the party and thus their ideals have genetically failed.

Pretty interesting things to consider. Especially when you consider it in the context of more than just our own society.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #38 of 48
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Which is why natural selection in the most crude sense isn't a part of evolutionary theory currently -- social societies/symbiosis wouldn't make sense in terms of the every animal for themselves... but communal preservation of "genes" does make sense in the long term, evolution forces liberal societies...

Can you provide any additional information on this idea that "crude" natural selection isn't a part of current evolutionary theory? It certainly seems apparent in most other species. Of course society can have evolutionary advantages too, through kin selection. But I doubt liberal society was somehow selected for. I think it's a mistake to take every human behavior and say that it must have been selected through evolutionary mechanisms and therefore must be adaptive in some way. Some behaviors may just be by-products of other selected traits.

For example, perhaps complex cognition was adaptive, but then complex cognition led to compassion. In that way, compassion needn't be adaptive at all.
post #39 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Can you provide any additional information on this idea that "crude" natural selection isn't a part of current evolutionary theory? It certainly seems apparent in most other species. Of course society can have evolutionary advantages too, through kin selection. But I doubt liberal society was somehow selected for. I think it's a mistake to take every human behavior and say that it must have been selected through evolutionary mechanisms and therefore must be adaptive in some way. Some behaviors may just be by-products of other selected traits.

For example, perhaps complex cognition was adaptive, but then complex cognition led to compassion. In that way, compassion needn't be adaptive at all.

Isn't the deal now with evolutionary theory that they've jettisoned Darwin's notion of these changes taking place over massive periods of time (part of the Victorian preoccupation with "deep time") and have instead begun to think that the changes happen rapidly but not very often?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #40 of 48
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Isn't the deal now with evolutionary theory that they've jettisoned Darwin's notion of these changes taking place over massive periods of time (part of the Victorian preoccupation with "deep time") and have instead begun to think that the changes happen rapidly but not very often?

I think you're talking about Gould's punctuated equilibrium. It makes sense, but how does that dovetail onto what hardeehar wrote about crude natural selection?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Liberals against evolution