Doesn't that go completely against the concept of a democratic republic, in which the weak are protected by the government from the strong?
2006-12-25 11:30:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by tristanrobin 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
I don't think it is a yes-no answer, and this is just my opinion. Depending on how one views strength and honor in an objective matter may cause a weakness. I'm 35 years of age and the way I see it is that one can be strong and weak at the same time; who is to say that the weak shall perish when there is so much indifference going on. Putting aside religious dogma and politics, I think we as a society should concentrate more on the attitude of the next generation- they don't care. I find that scary and the lack of appreciation for American history.
2006-12-25 11:34:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Is the criminal with the gun stronger than an honest man without one.
Is a man like Stephen Hawkings weak?
It is easy for Criminals to try to justify their crimes as being because they were somehow superior to their victims, but it does not make them less scummy and despicable.
Every society that allows power to outclass merit, devolves into the worst sort of barbarism that no one would care to live in.
On the other hand every society that restrains excessive power and allows every person to live in dignity, becomes the kind of society that almost everyone would want to live in, and a Golden Age for that Society.
It was on these latter ideals (if imperfectly implemented) that this country was founded. Those who would agree with your statement are the enemy of the American Dream and hate what America stands for.
2006-12-25 15:37:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by No Bushrons 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I see what your asserting and partly i agree. no longer that no longer something would stay to tell the tale yet that there is a keeping nurturing instinct. you additionally can look at it because of the fact the off spring of the reliable would be risk-free through the reliable the place *** the offspring of the vulnerable would be difficulty to devouring. you additionally can get into the definition of what's reliable. A bodily vulnerable animal may well be smarter than a great brutish counterpart. In nature there's a dynamic called the "sneaker male" dynamic. as an occasion a great horned beetle beats the crap out of a smaller horned beetle for get right of entry to to a mate. the great horn beetle takes the female places her in his burrow friends and is going off to seek. Later the smaller male "sneaks" to the burrow and without put off friends with the female. now risk is larger that the beetle with the bigger horn will bypass his dna on yet this dynamic supplies the smaller guy a larger risk to bypass his on additionally. in this difficulty the vulnerable nevertheless survived yet consistent with risk the smaller men "sneaky" skills are a genetic benefit additionally to that end would be seen as reliable
2016-12-15 07:56:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Let's see, do we want to live in the U.S. or...Somalia, maybe? Just about anywhere on the African continent, perhaps. Hitler's regime, even. There are lots of examples of such "societies", if you can call them that. Even baboon troops have them. But I don't want to be a baboon or a Nazi, or a native in a poor, beleagured country at the mercy of crazy people with guns. Anyone who thinks that sounds like a fun location, please move there as quickly as possible.
2006-12-25 13:37:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by dragons4me3 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
Boy, whatta loaded question.
Who are "the strong" ? Who are "the weak" ?
Are you talking about economics? Are "the rich" the same thing as "the strong" and "the poor" the same thing as "the weak" ?
Assuming so, .................................. I'm tired of this very, very old and tired argument.
"The rich" do not all have personalities like Ebeneezer Scrooge; "the poor" do not all have personalities like Mr. Cratchet.
2006-12-25 11:48:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
This is already the way things are headed. Reminds me of the Guilded Age.
2006-12-25 15:04:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Children and the elderly are relatively weak, what do you intend to do to them?
2006-12-25 11:34:47
·
answer #8
·
answered by Ringo G. 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
NO . Because this is a stupid question.The normal survive,the drug addict,drop out,lazy,good for nothings perish.Oh well. I don't mean those who can't legitimately care for themselves,that's a different story.If you can work but wont work, to bad.
2006-12-25 11:36:05
·
answer #9
·
answered by Michael 6
·
0⤊
2⤋