Utopia Talk / Politics / dumbest quote ever

WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 13:09:30 "Also evolution ceases without some sort of social darwinism. " sam the scientist. Note how I posted a real quote from him, and note how he'll reply with a pretend one (well, now he'll have to think of some other way of replying to a true quote from him with a "yo mama is fat" surrender).
mexicantornado Member	Wed Nov 16 13:10:23 You know you are falling off the rails when you start making new accounts.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 16 13:11:42 oddfish making up new accounts and posting fake quotes. thats how much I own oddfish.
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 13:12:43 sam, why do you lie so much? About things everyone can verify in seconds? are you hotrod? http://www...hread=49519&time=1321469590613
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 16 13:13:57 perhaps if you could read and think and remember correctly you wouldnt be so fucking retarded, oddfish. too easy.
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 13:14:36 answer the question, hotrod. why do you lie so much? About things everyone can verify in seconds? http://www...hread=49519&time=1321469590613
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 16 13:15:19 ^can't even read or think! lmfao
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 13:17:00 ^ just cannot face a true quote without lying about something it takes everyone here about 1-2 seconds to verify...rofl sam, you have shown everyone you lie as stupidly and badly, when faced with truthful facts as hotrod...do you alos like small boys?
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 16 13:18:59 Now oddfish, I have to go to campus to discuss intelligent things with intelligent people, a group to which you definitely do not belong. So I will leave you to wallow in your own stupidity with this recap of your failure in the other thread. Enjoy! oddfish: "there is no correlation between race and crime" tumbleweed: *posts evidence showing perfect correlation.* sam: lulz pwnt! oddfish: massive wall of butthurt.
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 13:26:00 Another utterly retarded lie, verifiable in seconds, in answer to truthful facts! ROFL! Youre disgraced for ever, sam the scientist lmao "WilliamtheBastard Member Wed Nov 16 13:00:30 there is exact correlation between race and crime, just as there is exact correlation between one shoe size and crime over another. "
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 13:26:29 "I have to go to campus " ahahhaaa another retarded lie! lmao
how it is Member	Wed Nov 16 13:29:45 Sam I don't know how you managed to get "there is no correlation between race and crime" from the topic. What I got from that topic was that the correlation is irrelevant, just as the correlation between shoe size or hair style and crime is irrelevant. For someone who claims to think like a scientist you seem to have a constant problem with the fact that correlation is not causation. Also deleting accounts of those who disagree with you just shows how butthurt you are. What is with all these unelected mods with insane powers they don't deserve?
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 13:29:56 "Note how I posted a real quote from him, and note how he'll reply with a pretend one" rofl
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 13:31:57 I didnt mean it was irrelevant, I did mean, though, as you say, that confusing correlation with causation is horrible science. Its anti-science, in fact.
NeverWoods Member	Wed Nov 16 14:16:29 Monkey can't think.
cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Wed Nov 16 15:16:57 Social Darwinism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Social Darwinism is a term commonly used for theories of society that emerged in England and the United States in the 1870s, seeking to apply the principles of Darwinian evolution to sociology and politics.[1] It especially refers to notions of struggle for existence being used to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves. The most prominent form of such views stressed competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism but it is also connected to the ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism,[2] fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.[3][4] In sociology it has been defined as a theory of social evolution which asserts that "There are underlying, and largely irresistible, forces acting in societies which are like the natural forces that operate in animal and plant communities. One can therefore formulate social laws similar to natural ones. These social forces are of such a kind as to produce evolutionary progress through the natural conflicts between social groups. The best-adapted and most successful social groups survive these conflicts, raising the evolutionary level of society generally (the 'survival of the fittest')."[5] Because of the negative connotations of the theory of social Darwinism, especially after the atrocities of the Second World War (including the Holocaust) the term is generally seen as pejorative,and few people would describe themselves as Social Darwinists.[6] Opponents of Darwinian evolution have often maintained that Social Darwinism is a logical entailment of a belief in evolutionary theory, while defenders of evolutionary theory generally maintain that it is rather a perversion of Darwin's ideas. While most scholars recognize the historical link between Darwin's theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that Social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution,[7] and that using biological evolution as a justification for policies of inequality amounts to committing the naturalistic fallacy. Contents [hide] 1 Origin of the term 2 Theories and origins 3 Social Darwinists 4 Darwinism and hypotheses of social change 5 United States 6 Japan 7 China 8 Criticism and controversy 9 Nazi Germany 10 See also 11 References 11.1 Primary sources 11.2 Secondary sources 12 Further reading 13 External links [edit] Origin of the term The term first appeared in Europe in 1877,[8] and around this time it was used by sociologists opposed to the concept.[9] The term was popularized in the United States in 1944 by the American historian Richard Hofstadter who used it in the ideological war effort against fascism to denote a reactionary creed which promoted competitive strife, racism and nationalism. Hofstadter later recognized (what he saw as) the influence of Darwinist and other evolutionary ideas upon those with collectivist views, enough to devise a term for the phenomenon, “Darwinist collectivism.” [2] Before Hofstadter's work the use of the term in English academic journals was quite rare.[10] In fact, ...there is considerable evidence that the entire concept of "social Darwinism" as we know it today was virtually invented by Richard Hofstadter. Eric Foner, in an introduction to a then-new edition of Hofstadter's book published in the early 1990s, declines to go quite that far. "Hofstadter did not invent the term Social Darwinism," Foner writes, "which originated in Europe in the 1860s and crossed the Atlantic in the early twentieth century. But before he wrote, it was used only on rare occasions; he made it a standard shorthand for a complex of late-nineteenth-century ideas, a familiar part of the lexicon of social thought." —Jeff Riggenbach[11] The term "social darwinism" has rarely been used by advocates of the supposed ideologies or ideas; instead it has almost always been used (pejoratively) by its opponents.[6][12] The term draws upon the common use of the term Darwinism, which has been used to describe a range of evolutionary views, but in the late 19th century was applied more specifically to natural selection as first advanced by Charles Darwin to explain speciation in populations of organisms. The process includes competition between individuals for limited resources, popularly but inaccurately described by the phrase "survival of the fittest", a term coined by sociologist Herbert Spencer. While the term has been applied to the claim that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to understand the social endurance of a nation or country, social Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species. Others whose ideas are given the label include the 18th century clergyman Thomas Malthus, and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who founded eugenics towards the end of the 19th century. [edit] Theories and origins The term Darwinism had been coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in his April 1860 review of On the Origin of Species,[13] and by the 1870s it was used to describe a range of concepts of evolutionism or development, without any specific commitment to Charles Darwin's own theory.[14] The first use of the phrase "social Darwinism" was in Joseph Fisher's 1877 article on The History of Landholding in Ireland which was published in the Transactions of the Royal Historical Society.[8] Fisher was commenting on how a system for borrowing livestock which had been called "tenure" had led to the false impression that the early Irish had already evolved or developed land tenure;[15] These arrangements did not in any way affect that which we understand by the word " tenure," that is, a man's farm, but they related solely to cattle, which we consider a chattel. It has appeared necessary to devote some space to this subject, inasmuch as that usually acute writer Sir Henry Maine has accepted the word " tenure " in its modern interpretation, and has built up a theory under which the Irish chief " developed " into a feudal baron. I can find nothing in the Brehon laws to warrant this theory of social Darwinism, and believe further study will show that the Cain Saerrath and the Cain Aigillue relate solely to what we now call chattels, and did not in any way affect what we now call the freehold, the possession of the land. — Fisher 1877.[15] Despite the fact that social Darwinism bears Charles Darwin's name, it is also linked today with others, notably Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics. In fact, Spencer was not described as a social Darwinist until the 1930s, long after his death.[16] Darwin himself gave serious consideration to Galton's work, but considered the ideas of "hereditary improvement" impractical. Aware of weaknesses in his own family, Darwin was sure that families would naturally refuse such selection and wreck the scheme. He thought that even if compulsory registration was the only way to improve the human race, this illiberal idea would be unacceptable, and it would be better to publicize the "principle of inheritance" and let people decide for themselves.[17] In The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex of 1882 Darwin described how medical advances meant that the weaker were able to survive and have families, and commented on the effects of this, while cautioning that hard reason should not override sympathy, and considering how other factors might reduce the effect: Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. ... We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.[18] [edit] Social Darwinists Herbert Spencer Herbert Spencer's ideas, like those of evolutionary progressivism, stemmed from his reading of Thomas Malthus, and his later theories were influenced by those of Darwin. However, Spencer's major work, Progress: Its Law and Cause (1857) was released three years before the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, and First Principles was printed in 1860. Although Spencer's writings were never described as 'social Darwinist' in his lifetime, some authors describe him as such. In The Social Organism (1860), Spencer compares society to a living organism and argues that, just as biological organisms evolve through natural selection, society evolves and increases in complexity through analogous processes.[19] In many ways, Spencer's theory of cosmic evolution has much more in common with the works of Lamarck and Auguste Comte's positivism than with Darwin's. Lamarck was "an earlier advocate of evolution who believed organisms could pass on acquired characteristics to their offspring. In the case of humans, Spencer's view was that culture and education made this process possible. Also, Spencer was a proponent of private charity."[11] Thomas Malthus Spencer's work also served to renew interest in the work of Malthus. While Malthus's work does not itself qualify as social Darwinism, his 1798 work An Essay on the Principle of Population, was incredibly popular and widely read by social Darwinists. In that book, for example, the author argued that as an increasing population would normally outgrow its food supply, this would result in the starvation of the weakest and a Malthusian catastrophe. According to Michael Ruse, Darwin read Malthus' famous Essay on a Principle of Population in 1838, four years after Malthus' death. Malthus himself anticipated the social Darwinists in suggesting that charity could exacerbate social problems. Another of these social interpretations of Darwin's biological views, later known as eugenics, was put forth by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, in 1865 and 1869. Galton argued that just as physical traits were clearly inherited among generations of people, so could be said for mental qualities (genius and talent). Galton argued that social morals needed to change so that heredity was a conscious decision, in order to avoid over-breeding by less fit members of society and the under-breeding of the more fit ones. Francis Galton In Galton's view, social institutions such as welfare and insane asylums were allowing inferior humans to survive and reproduce at levels faster than the more "superior" humans in respectable society, and if corrections were not soon taken, society would be awash with "inferiors." Darwin read his cousin's work with interest, and devoted sections of Descent of Man to discussion of Galton's theories. Neither Galton nor Darwin, though, advocated any eugenic policies such as those that would be undertaken in the early 20th century, as government coercion of any form was very much against their political opinions[citation needed]. Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy addressed the question of artificial selection, but it was built against Darwinian theories of natural selection. His point of view on sickness and health, in particular, opposed him to the concept of biological adaptation, forged by Spencer's "fitness". He criticized Haeckel, Spencer, and Darwin, sometimes under the same banner. Nietzsche thought that, in specific cases, sickness was necessary and even helpful.[20] Thus, he wrote: Wherever progress is to ensue, deviating natures are of greatest importance. Every progress of the whole must be preceded by a partial weakening. The strongest natures retain the type, the weaker ones help to advance it. Something similar also happens in the individual. There is rarely a degeneration, a truncation, or even a vice or any physical or moral loss without an advantage somewhere else. In a warlike and restless clan, for example, the sicklier man may have occasion to be alone, and may therefore become quieter and wiser; the one-eyed man will have one eye the stronger; the blind man will see deeper inwardly, and certainly hear better. To this extent, the famous theory of the survival of the fittest does not seem to me to be the only viewpoint from which to explain the progress of strengthening of a man or of a race.[21] The publication of Ernst Haeckel's best-selling Welträtsel ('Riddle of the Universe') in 1899 brought social Darwinism and earlier ideas of racial hygiene to a wider audience, and its recapitulation theory (since heavily refuted on many fronts[22]) became famous. This led to the formation of the Monist League in 1904 with many prominent citizens among its members, including the Nobel Prize winner Wilhelm Ostwald. By 1909, it had a membership of some six thousand people.[citation needed] The simpler aspects of social Darwinism followed the earlier Malthusian ideas that humans, especially males, need competition in their lives in order to survive in the future, and that the poor should have to provide for themselves and not be given any aid, although most social Darwinists of the early twentieth century supported better working conditions and salaries, thus giving the poor a better chance to provide for themselves and distinguishing those who are capable of succeeding from those who are poor out of laziness, weakness, or inferiority. [edit] Darwinism and hypotheses of social change Further information: Social evolution "Social Darwinism" was first described by Oscar Schmidt of the University of Strasbourg, reporting at a scientific and medical conference held in Munich in 1877. He noted how socialists, although opponents of Darwin's theory, nonetheless used it to add force to their political arguments. Schmidt's essay first appeared in English in Popular Science in March 1879.[23] There followed an anarchist tract published in Paris in 1880 entitled "Le darwinisme social" by Émile Gautier. However , the use of the term was very rare — at least in the English-speaking world (Hodgson, 2004)[24]— until the American historian Richard Hofstadter published his influential Social Darwinism in American Thought (1944) during World War II. Hypotheses of social evolution and cultural evolution were common in Europe. The Enlightenment thinkers who preceded Darwin, such as Hegel, often argued that societies progressed through stages of increasing development. Earlier thinkers also emphasized conflict as an inherent feature of social life. Thomas Hobbes's 17th century portrayal of the state of nature seems analogous to the competition for natural resources described by Darwin. Social Darwinism is distinct from other theories of social change because of the way it draws Darwin's distinctive ideas from the field of biology into social studies. Darwin, unlike Hobbes, believed that this struggle for natural resources allowed individuals with certain physical and mental traits to succeed more frequently than others, and that these traits accumulated in the population over time, which under certain conditions could lead to the descendants being so different that they would be defined as a new species. However, Darwin felt that "social instincts" such as "sympathy" and "moral sentiments" also evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies in which they occurred, so much so that he wrote about it in Descent of Man: The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable- namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man. For, firstly, the social instincts lead an animal to take pleasure in the society of its fellows, to feel a certain amount of sympathy with them, and to perform various services for them.[25] [edit] United States Spencer proved to be a popular figure in the 1880s primarily because his application of evolution to areas of human endeavor promoted an optimistic view of the future as inevitably becoming better. In the United States, writers and thinkers of the gilded age such as Edward L. Youmans, William Graham Sumner, John Fiske, John W. Burgess, and others developed theories of social evolution as a result of their exposure to the works of Darwin and Spencer. Sumner never fully embraced Darwinian ideas, and some contemporary historians do not believe that Sumner ever actually believed in social Darwinism.[26] The great majority of American businessmen rejected the anti-philanthropic implications of the theory. Instead they gave millions to build schools, colleges, hospitals, art institutes, parks and many other institutions. Andrew Carnegie, who admired Spencer, was the leading philanthropist in the world (1890–1920), and a major leader against imperialism and warfare.[27] H. G. Wells was heavily influenced by Darwinist thoughts, and novelist Jack London wrote stories of survival that incorporated his views on social Darwinism.[28] [edit] Japan See also: Eugenics in Japan Social Darwinism has influenced political, public health and social movements in Japan since the late 19th and early 20th century. Originally brought to Japan through the works of Francis Galton, Ernst Haeckel and German orthodox mendelian, United States, British and French Lamarkian eugenical written studies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries,[29] eugenism as a science, was hotly debated at the beginning of the 20th, in Jinsei-Der Mensch, the first eugenics journal in the empire. As the Japanese sought to close ranks with the west, this practice was adopted wholesale along with colonialism and its justifications.[30] [edit] China Social Darwinism was formally introduced to China through the translations by Yan Fu of Huxley, in the course of an extensive series of translations of influential Western thought. By the 1920s, it found expression in the promotion of eugenics by the Chinese sociologist Pan Guangdan. [edit] Criticism and controversy A social Darwinism has many definitions, it is hard for some to be either for or against it; some of the definitions oppose the others. As The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics states Part of the difficulty in establishing sensible and consistent usage is that commitment to the biology of natural selection and to 'survival of the fittest' entailed nothing uniform either for sociological method or for political doctrine. A 'social Darwinist' could just as well be a defender of laissez-faire as a defender of state socialism, just as much an imperialist as a domestic eugenist.[31] Therefore, Fascist and National Socialist ideology subscribed to a different form of social Darwinism than the laissez-faire version because they were not advocates for an individualist order of society, rather they advocated racial and national struggle where the state planned and controlled human breeding through science and Eugenics—a program that no proponent of laissez-faire could consistently endorse.[32] Darwinist Collectivism or Reform Darwinism, rather than the individualist form of Darwinism, are more accurate terms for these ideologies.[2] Some pre-twentieth century doctrines subsequently described as social Darwinism appear to anticipate state imposed eugenics [2] and the race doctrines of Nazism. Critics have frequently linked evolution, Charles Darwin and social Darwinism with racialism, nationalism, imperialism and eugenics, contending that social Darwinism became one of the pillars of Fascism and Nazi ideology, and that the consequences of the application of policies of "survival of the fittest" by Nazi Germany eventually created a very strong backlash against the theory.[33][34] As mentioned above, Social Darwinism has often been linked to nationalism and imperialism.[35] During the age of New Imperialism, the concepts of evolution justified the exploitation of "lesser breeds without the law" by "superior races."[35] To elitists, strong nations were composed of white people who were successful at expanding their empires, and as such, these strong nations would survive in the struggle for dominance.[35] With this attitude, Europeans, except for Christian missionaries, seldom adopted the customs and languages of local people under their empires.[35] [edit] Nazi Germany This poster (from around 1938) reads: "60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from a hereditary disease costs the People's community during his lifetime. Comrade, that is your money too. Read '[A] New People', the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP." Nazi Germany's justification for its aggression was regularly promoted in Nazi propaganda films depicting scenes such as beetles fighting in a lab setting to demonstrate the principles of "survival of the fittest" as depicted in Alles Leben ist Kampf (English translation: All Life is Struggle). Hitler often refused to intervene in the promotion of officers and staff members, preferring instead to have them fight amongst themselves to force the "stronger" person to prevail - "strength" referring to those social forces void of virtue or principle.[36] The argument that Nazi ideology was strongly influenced by social Darwinist ideas is often found in historical and social science literature.[37] For example, the Jewish philosopher and historian Hannah Arendt analysed the historical development from a politically indifferent scientific Darwinism via social Darwinist ethics to racist ideology.[38] In the last years the argument has increasingly been taken up by opponents of evolutionary theory. The creationist ministry Answers in Genesis is especially known for some of these claims.[39][40] Intelligent design supporters have promoted this position as well. For example, it is a theme in the work of Richard Weikart, who is a historian at California State University, Stanislaus and is a senior fellow for the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute.[34] It is also a main argument in the 2008 movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. These claims are widely criticized within the academic community.[41][42][43][44][45][46] The Anti-Defamation League has rejected such attempts to link Darwin's ideas with Nazi atrocities, and has stated that "Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry."[33] Weickart himself writes in his book "From Darwin to Hitler": "The multivalence of Darwinism and eugenics ideology, especially when applied to ethical, political, and social thought, together with the multiple roots of Nazi ideology, should make us suspicious of monocausal arguments about the origins of the Nazi worldview". Similar criticisms are sometimes applied (or misapplied) to other political or scientific theories that resemble social Darwinism, for example criticisms leveled at evolutionary psychology. For example, a critical reviewer of Weikart's book writes that "(h)is historicization of the moral framework of evolutionary theory poses key issues for those in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, not to mention bioethicists, who have recycled many of the suppositions that Weikart has traced."[44] Another example is recent scholarship that portrays Ernst Haeckel's Monist League as a mystical progenitor of the Völkisch movement and, ultimately, of the Nazi Party of Adolf Hitler. Scholars opposed to this interpretation, however, have pointed out that the Monists were freethinkers who opposed all forms of mysticism, and that their organizations were immediately banned following the Nazi takeover in 1933 because of their association with a wide variety of progressive causes including feminism, pacifism, human rights, and early gay liberation movements.[47] Ludwig von Mises argued in his book Human Action that social Darwinism contradicts the principles of liberalism, however this conclusion was based on the definition of social Darwinism as "that individuals or groups achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority". He addresses this definition of social Darwinism by stating "Darwinism does not in any way invalidate the liberal creed; on the contrary, the traits conducive to social cooperation (rather than the allegedly "natural" instincts of aggression) are precisely those that maximize one's offspring in the current environment. Far from being unnatural, reason is the foremost biological mark of homo sapiens." [edit]
earthpig GTFO HOer	Wed Nov 16 15:21:02 It took a decade and we finally broke HR of the tenancy to do that, and now you pick up the habit cthulhu. Fuck off.
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 15:28:14 sam the supreme scientist has proven that he understands evolution exactly as bad as grrryd. This one cant be lived down ever rofl
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 16 17:11:44 hey oddfish, remember that one time you got totally trashed by tumbleweed, and then I laughed at you, and then you got so butthurt you created a new multi to agree with yourself? lmfao! I proudly call myself a social darwinist. Trying to bridge the gap between science and fuzzy studies.
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 17:14:30 wow, this is killing the super scientist rofl "Note how I posted a real quote from him, and note how he'll reply with a pretend one "
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 16 17:16:09 ^owning himself with his own quote. This is really too easy. If this is the limit of your trolling ability, then please fuck off and kill yourself.
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 17:16:27 Why are you such a retarded, stupid fake sam? Why? Dont answer, since you cant answer without making up hotrod retardation levels of lies, just think about why you are such a stupid, lying fraud.
kargen Member	Wed Nov 16 17:17:56 "Also deleting accounts of those who disagree with you just shows how butthurt you are. What is with all these unelected mods with insane powers they don't deserve?" Sam is mod of the sports forum. He can't do shit but post like the rest of you assclowns in the political forums.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 16 17:18:20 that made a lot of sense and was on topic. bwahahahahahah
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 17:18:40 "Also evolution ceases without some sort of social darwinism." sam the scientist. Classic. Forever, The End of sams lies about being a super scientist rofl
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 17:18:55 "Note how I posted a real quote from him, and note how he'll reply with a pretend one"
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 16 17:19:34 oddfish thinks I am deleting his posts? Lmfao! what a fucking retard!
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 17:21:52 ^ "Note how I posted a real quote from him, and note how he'll reply with a pretend one" again and again.I dont think Ive ever seen anyone own themselves this badly, including hot the guardian rod who bought a pc at a yard sale rofl
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 16 17:22:53 ^bwahahahahahaha oddfish=my personal property
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 17:26:14 awwwwww, yo mama is fat is all sam has left after getting caught publicly lying really stupidly and posting the stupidest misunderstanding of evolution since grrryd lol. sam, youre a complete lying, unscientific fake and you proved it in front of the entire board. the end.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Nov 16 17:26:25 He thinks that rejecting the accounts he's trying to make is the same as being able to delete any existing account. Considering he's the reason we have this system with his several hundred multis that were used to go on an extremely long spam run, I've got to say my sympathy is limited.
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 17:28:14 Thats not me camaban. Also, there were 3 people spamming hotrod, to my knowledge.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 16 17:31:13 oddfish is butthurt because he got owned and can't make 1800 new multis to try and change his name to something not associated with being owned? lulz!!!!!!
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Nov 16 17:32:25 http://www...hread=49510&time=1321407034027 You're not oddfish or you weren't creating multitudes of accounts and spamming?
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 16 17:41:17 why did you change your name anyway? did you think your legacy of stupidity would not follow you?
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 17:41:36 Its completely off topic, of course Im oddfish, of course Im not so what, Ive never had the slightest interest in the sports board, and of course I and at least 2 others spammed hotrod. back to topic. Sam caught trying to lie his way out of of one of the stupidest misunderstandings of evolution Ive ever seen. Super Scientist Sam has actually managed to publicly become a mix of hotrod and grrryd and its killing him...rofl
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Nov 16 17:44:24 Oh you're not that's how it is or whatever the presumably rejected poster was. Fair enough.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 16 17:51:07 of course oddfish is how it is. He even admitted to it, in his retarded sort of accidental way, when he accused me of "deleting" it.
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 17:53:13 ^ "Note how I posted a real quote from him, and note how he'll reply with a pretend one" good god, youre practically dead at UP after this pwnge, sam the offspring of grryd and hotrod lol
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 16 17:54:24 go away oddfish. you are too stupid.
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 17:55:15 Do you have anything but lies in response to a real live utterly retarded quote from you, sam the pretend scinetist?
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 16 17:56:43 oddfish, stop making up stuff. its stupid. Seriously, this is why you are so bad of a troll that even hamas rod destroys you.
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 17:59:16 ^ "Note how I posted a real quote from him, and note how he'll reply with a pretend one "
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 16 18:00:37 I replied with a quote? fucking retard can't even read. godamnit how did you get so fucking stupid oddfish?
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 18:04:39 its fun seeing you so pissed at getting so destroyed sam...and I do it with the truth, while you stamp your little foot and try to lie your way out of it lol...
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 16 18:05:59 ^now he is copying my line. are you a chink?
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 18:10:56 wow, you actually lie more than hotrod...lol...you dont usually lie this much, so this reveals how redfaced furious you are right now, sam "evolution cannot exist without social darwinism" rofl
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 16 18:11:54 you said all of that 5 times already. dumbass
WilliamtheBastard Member	Wed Nov 16 18:13:48 You can lie and stamp your foot and shout at your mom to come and go purple in the face with rage, but you cant escape how everyone saw you try to lie your way out of "evolution ceases without some sort of social darwinism" rofl
Nekran Member	Wed Nov 16 22:07:23 While I wouldn't agree with "dumbest quote ever", it certainly is a pretty stupid thing Sammy did in fact post. Also lol @ cthulhu's HR impression.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 16 22:39:07 nekran beleives that giving handouts does not make people dumber, acting the opposite of natural selection? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
WilliamtheBastard Member	Thu Nov 17 01:53:50 ttt
Sam Adams Member	Thu Nov 17 02:16:41 oddfish: "there is no correlation between race and crime" tumbleweed: *posts evidence showing perfect correlation.* sam: lulz pwnt! oddfish: massive wall of butthurt.
WilliamtheBastard Member	Thu Nov 17 02:26:47 ^dying here lol
Nekran Member	Thu Nov 17 07:38:09 "nekran beleives that giving handouts does not make people dumber, acting the opposite of natural selection?" 1) If giving handouts made people genetically dumber, that would be lamarckism. Assuming you mean over the generations though, by keeping the genes in the gene pool, I would still say no. Mostly because the intelligence people display as adults may have a genetically predisposed upper limit, but the environment when growing up is what makes most people as stupid as they are. They may well have genes that predispose them to brilliance, it won't matter if they're never nurtured. 2) Handouts are part of natural selection. It's not because you don't like how the selection is going, that selection isn't happening. I've already said it in the other thread, but I'll say it again. Evolution doesn't move in one direction. It has no purpose. If you were right (which I'm pretty sure you're not, just to be clear) and humanity was evolving to become more stupid, that would still be natural selection. If stupidity is better for breeding, natural selection will favor stupidity.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Nov 17 12:38:57 "Handouts are part of natural selection." no. Everyone lives, even if they are not supposed to, under the leftist system. "If stupidity is better for breeding, natural selection will favor stupidity." but its not. Intelligence was in part required, because human intelligence has been increasing constantly thorough history and prehistory. Until now. Leftists fucking it all up.
Nekran Member	Thu Nov 17 12:43:05 You don't seem to understand what natural selection means. The way you manage to breed seriously don't matter... if you live to breed, you are evolutionarily fit. It's like claiming cuckoos destroyed natural selection by making other birds raise their young instead of doing it themselves. It's just wrong. You may not like it, but it is still evolution and natural selection.
WilliamtheBastard Member	Thu Nov 17 12:45:14 rofl
Sam Adams Member	Thu Nov 17 12:52:18 nekran, this is about modern policy changing(for the worse) what is fit for survival. Right now the simple act of being alive makes leftists give you enough handouts to keep you alive(and probably breeding). For the other 99% of human history, and all of prehistory, this is not the case. That is stupid and you know it.
Nekran Member	Thu Nov 17 16:44:42 I don't know that at all. In fact I dispute it. When considering evolution, you're considering genetic value... it's hard to say how much "genetic worth" is inside people. I highly doubt you would be able to find a high correlation between genetic differences and social status. And then a diversified genepool is quite an advantage to have, even if there is one. I really don't see any proof for saying socialist programs are bad for the gene pool. Apart from that, I was just pointing out the fact that doing so definitely doesn't hinder natural selection in any way.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Nov 17 18:28:25 so letting weaker genes survive when they should have died is not bad for the gene pool? Intelligence is not genetic?
Nekran Member	Thu Nov 17 21:44:37 "so letting weaker genes survive when they should have died is not bad for the gene pool?" Show me proof of "weaker" genes. "Intelligence is not genetic?" Boundries for intelligence get set by genes. There's no proof for anything more than that.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Nov 17 22:20:03 Show me proof of "weaker" genes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit
WilliamtheBastard Member	Thu Nov 17 23:06:29 you really have no scientific education at all, do you?
Sam Adams Member	Thu Nov 17 23:09:19 ^proof of weaker genes oddfish you walked right into that one, huh dumbass?
WilliamtheBastard Member	Thu Nov 17 23:22:59 you have no concept or understanding of the term proof, not even a childs understanding of it. You have, and this is deadly serious btw, not trolling like you, the same scientific thinking as grryd and hotrod
Sam Adams Member	Thu Nov 17 23:33:22 ^is so stupid he doesnt even realize his existence is proof of stupidity. lulz. now watch oddfish get all butthurt and make 8000 posts about me again and use a bunch of multis to agree with himself.
Nekran Member	Fri Nov 18 07:33:56 I did not ask for proof of stupidity. I asked for proof of genetic inferiority of people on welfare. You know you have none, so you make some lame jokes. Fact is, you were completely wrong about evolution. Social darwinism has not a single real connection to the actual theory of evolution. The name 'darwinism' was simply hijacked for a theory that has no relationship at all with real darwinism. You may still hold your views, of course, but you should stop pretending that the theory of evolution supports them.
Nekran Member	Fri Nov 18 07:35:27 On a btw, if any case can be made based on actual darwinism, it would be for genetic superiority of poor people, considering they tend to produce way more offspring.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Nov 18 11:20:39 "I asked for proof of genetic inferiority of people on welfare." the genetic inferiority is certainly there. It is tied somewhat to intelligence, and we know the intelligence of the lower class is quite low. But you have to keep in mind that social darwinism is a blend of genetics and social constructs. The social inferiority of the lower class is equally obvious. Combine the two, and you have a group that should be allowed to die, instead of being continuously propped up by leftist policies *most would actually start working instead of dieing. The human world needs punishment for failure and reward for success. Right now there is no punishment for failure in the lower class, because welfare will keep them alive, in a quality of life only slightly worse than their mindless lower class jobs.
mexicantornado Member	Fri Nov 18 11:53:24 lol, did fagfish really admit to making hundreds of multis to support his claims?
Sam Adams Member	Fri Nov 18 12:15:58 yup. tardfish and new account circle jerk eachother. tardfish: "why did you block my account?"
Sam Adams Member	Fri Nov 18 12:19:57 and now under his new account, which he claims is one of us, he is posting quotes from memories only he would have. oddfish outsmarting you is so easy.
WilliamtheBastard Member	Fri Nov 18 12:20:43 yes its true, sam did admit to wanting to suck mexitards cock. "Ill gurgle if you let me" - sam
mexicantornado Member	Fri Nov 18 12:23:29 Fagfish, are you making up quotes?
WilliamtheBastard Member	Fri Nov 18 12:27:35 puddle of mexitardation, are you pretending to take sams made up quotes which you know are made up as possibly real?
mexicantornado Member	Fri Nov 18 12:29:46 Where did I say I was agreeing or disagreeing with SA at all? I specifically asked you a question in direct response to your naming me in your previous post. I will ask again. Are you making up quotes?
Sam Adams Member	Fri Nov 18 12:30:54 bwahahahaha oddfish just got outsmarted by MT.
WilliamtheBastard Member	Fri Nov 18 12:31:22 I will ask you again: are you pretending to seriously ask sam something you know is made up?
mexicantornado Member	Fri Nov 18 12:33:39 ^ the fuck?
WilliamtheBastard Member	Fri Nov 18 12:35:20 ^the cunt?
WilliamtheBastard Member	Fri Nov 18 12:36:14 lol, this is what happens when you disprove adhd's incredible misunderstanding of basic science with logical arguments in debate on a debate forum...screaming tantrums and spamming multis...rofl
Sam Adams Member	Fri Nov 18 12:36:43 ^owned himself badly.
WilliamtheBastard Member	Fri Nov 18 12:37:50 ^almost shot himself last night
Sam Adams Member	Fri Nov 18 12:38:10 In the last day oddfish has been outsmarted by: tumbleweed me gary hamas rod camaban and MT 0-6, your almost as worthless as the colts!
WilliamtheBastard Member	Fri Nov 18 12:40:39 in the last 15 years, adhd has been owned by nature intelligence reality debate logic aids
mexicantornado Member	Fri Nov 18 12:42:11 Implosion.
WilliamtheBastard Member	Fri Nov 18 12:43:59 we dont need to hear about the state of your asshole, puddle of mexitardation
fucking retard Member	Fri Nov 18 12:49:19 oddfish: "there is no correlation between race and crime"
Sam Adams Member	Fri Nov 18 13:12:00 which is more pathetic, the implosion of tardfish or the implosion of the jets over the last couple days?
mexicantornado Member	Fri Nov 18 13:19:46 fagfish, but only until the Jets change their name.
WilliamtheBastard Member	Fri Nov 18 13:27:38 mexitardation, every time you post in support of adhd, he cringes in embarrassment; adhd, everytime you post mexitard's sphincter puckers in anticipation. I think adhd is the one losing out on the deal lol
Nekran Member	Fri Nov 18 13:36:29 "the genetic inferiority is certainly there." For someone who claims to be a scientist, you certainly have no qualms with making very unscientific claims. "But you have to keep in mind that social darwinism is a blend of genetics and social constructs." I have just explained to you that genetics have 0 to do with social darwinism. It just hijacked the term. As I explained to you before, the only measure for genetic superiority from an evolutionary point of view is amount of offspring. Yes, you're vastly inferior to ye avg starving african in the evolutionary sense. Deal with it.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Nov 18 18:06:32 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ how do you now know that genetics and intelligence are partly related? This is pretty low level science, nekran... "I have just explained to you that genetics have 0 to do with social darwinism." wrong. Stupid people tend to have stupid babies. This is basic science fact. "the only measure for genetic superiority from an evolutionary point of view is amount of offspring" well its not the only measure, certainly not the only measure under social darwinism. It is a measure though. and thus the poor and stupid classes should be discouraged from having kids.
Nekran Member	Fri Nov 18 21:53:04 "how do you now know that genetics and intelligence are partly related?" Derp... I've actually said this myself several times in this thread. Did I ask you to prove this? No... no I didn't. "Stupid people tend to have stupid babies. This is basic science fact." Nature and nurture debate mixes in heavily though... still not a single shred of proof for the ToE supporting social darwinism in any way. Especially considering intelligence isn't exactly the only important thing that genes effect. "well its not the only measure, certainly not the only measure under social darwinism." But it is th only measure from the evolutionary point of view. Which is what I said. "and thus the poor and stupid classes should be discouraged from having kids." Waaaaaaaa evolution isn't favouring superior me. Grow up, you're not special.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Nov 19 00:04:15 enjoy living in your dumbed down society, the result of letting stupid people live and pass on their genes. and yes, that is the definition of evolution, or in this case the lack of it.
Nekran Member	Sat Nov 19 04:08:47 You either don't understand the theory of evolution, either you are unwilling to understand it simply because it contradicts your views on genetic superiority. Kind of sad for a self-proclaimed scientist. I mean... you could keep your beliefs and just accept that the theory of evolution doesn't support them.
WilliamtheBastard Member	Sat Nov 19 04:13:43 the trouble is, the modern US conservatism doctrine cannot survive without ignoring the massive contradictions its based on. The massive contradictions are a necessary foundation of it, because it is entirely about complete exceptionalism for those on your team, e.g., this is what is morally right for us and we should be rewarded for it, but if you do it, its morally wrong, and you should be punished for it.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Nov 19 11:35:58 nekran, you think that the unfit dieing and the fit surviving is not part of evolution? Natural selection is not part of evolution? wow. don't be as stupid as oddfish. You are smarter than this.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Sat Nov 19 11:36:43 Stop writing "dieing" and "lieing".
	show deleted posts