by Petrolheadia » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:14 pm
by Petrolheadia » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:21 pm
Vince Vaughn wrote:No, they're cynics.
by The Batavia » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:23 pm
by Petrolheadia » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:24 pm
The Batavia wrote:Basically the "Only the strongest survive" mentallity, right?
by The Batavia » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:26 pm
by Soldati Senza Confini » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:32 pm
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Olerand » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:32 pm
Free Rhenish States wrote:You're French, without faith, probably godless, liberal without any traditional values or respect for any faith whatsoever
by NewVinlandia » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:37 pm
Petrolheadia wrote:And what do you think? Is Social Darwinism tied to that medical condition?
by Great Nepal » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:38 pm
by Farnhamia » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:38 pm
Petrolheadia wrote:NOTE: I AM NOT TRYING TO INSULT ANYONE, I'M USING THE WORD "PSYCHOPATH" STRICTLY IN MEDICAL TERMS.
Social Darwinism is an ideology, according to which, in general terms, society should be based around competition and nobody should receive entitlements. Those who lose in that model should not be pitied, as they deserved their fate.
However, that lack of contempt for the worse-off is disturbing, as it eerily aligns with some of the main signs of psychopathy, namely, a lack of empathy and remorse.
This leads me to thinking that if even if Social Darwinists aren't psychopaths, they at least show they're close to it.
And what do you think? Is Social Darwinism tied to that medical condition?
by Nulla Bellum » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:10 pm
by Genivaria » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:15 pm
by UniversalCommons » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:15 pm
by Nocturnalis » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:48 pm
UniversalCommons wrote:No, they are just misguided. The strongest don't necessarily survive, the most adaptable and fecund do.
by HMS Queen Elizabeth » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:51 pm
by Liberated Territories » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:04 pm
by Socialist Tera » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:08 pm
Nocturnalis wrote:UniversalCommons wrote:No, they are just misguided. The strongest don't necessarily survive, the most adaptable and fecund do.
They are not misguided, because that is literally what "survival of the fittest" means, as coined first by Herbert Spencer in Principles of Biology and acknowledged by Darwin in the fifth edition of The Origin - the species better suited to the local environment (read: the species better able to adapt to changing conditions) survives or, as it turns out, people better suited to a local environment thrive while those that aren't die out.
That is, of course, unless people are ridiculous enough to allow the unfit thrive by sustaining their existence and reproduction, which is exactly why Social Darwinists oppose welfare and such things: fit populations are artificially weighed down to support the existence of populations that would normally die off.
by Nulla Bellum » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:15 pm
by Empire of Narnia » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:23 pm
by Vegaslovakia » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:30 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Galactic Powers, Hypron, Ineva, Kastopoli Salegliari, Neanderthaland, Sutalia
Advertisement