What are you talking about? No one can decide if evolution applies to anything. Your "question" does not make any sense.
2007-06-16 11:54:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe that every ideology has a fundamental flaw. Which is why no ideology has ever worked. That said, a liberal, I do agree with you. In practice, liberal ideas do require some sort of believe that what is being is noble. Where people do not see an action as noble (or don't value being noble), it doesn't work. However, this is not the basis on liberal thought. Much of what is considered as liberal thought is based on the idea that a whole requires support of all the parts. As opposed to "conservative" thought, which says that the whole does not matter -- only the parts do. Liberal thought says: you can build a house if you can get more people to help, in the ways that they are best able to contribute. Conservative thought says: you can build a house by telling anything that doesn't contribute, in the way that you want (regardless of skill) that if they aren't successful, they need to sleep outside. In effect, killing off the weak.
2016-05-17 11:37:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by lura 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Two forms of Darwinism:
Biological Darwinism - This is a scientific theory used to explain the process of evolution. Possibly the most widely know and respected scientific theory after gravity.
Social Darwinism - A social theory, not widely respected. It is most commonly associated with the Nazi party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism
Social darwinism is flawed because people do not start equally in the social environment. Some people are born into money and education, some people are not. Therefore it is impossible to judge the evolutionary fitness of a person in human society, since the starting blocks are not equal. The only way social darwinism could be valid would be if all people were born with equal shares of resources, with only genetic factors to differentiate us.
2007-06-16 11:56:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think that Darwinism is necessarily associated with liberals first of all.
However that being said, the overall concept behind helping the poor/weak is that our prime advantage over animals such as tigers/lions/gazelles is that we can specialize for different tasks, and therefore the weak/poor, while they may not be the best at a given task still can play some beneficial role in society thereby maximizing our overall chances of survival. The biggest brain in the world isn't going to help you stop a hungry and desperate lion unless you have someone who is willing to help you, and in the most useless case, to be fodder for the lion.
2007-06-16 11:46:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by IamSpazzy 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
While I'm not coming at this from the left, I'll try to answer your question fairly. Natural evolution as described by Darwin isn't very "nice" to individuals. While it resulted in fitter species, individual animals would die quickly and painfully all the time. There's a difference in saying it's true and it's ideal. Just because someone believes this is how we got here today, that doesn't mean it's how we should continue, particularly within our own species.
2007-06-16 11:46:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by Kyrix 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Social Darwinism is a flawed ideology because it mushes together biological evolution and cultural evolution. Biological evolution merely means those genetic lines that reproduce well in their environment edge out less fecund species, while cultural evolution means the "battle of ideas" (memes) "reproducing themselves" in human brains.
Conservatives believe that socialism hurts poor people instead of helping them, since socialism destroys incentives to produce, hence creating an overall poorer society. Socialism also places all economic decisions in the hands of a small government elite who can't possibly know what they need to know to make effective decisions.
A few men can't possibly know what tens of millions of people know.
Liberals are wrong. They're just not wrong in the way you think they are.
Just think of politics as cultural evolution in action.
2007-06-16 11:50:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by SallyJM 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because that is the way almost everyone survived for thousands of years doesn't mean we have not matured. And stealing from the poor is not mature!
That argument is pretty bogus! Let's see who takes care of you when you are in a nursing home. In many cultures they would have left you out in the cold to die!
The only flaw I see is your attempt to rationalize why you think it is OK to take from everyone else, no matter how you get it.
You can also believe in God. I guess you think that isn't possible! Take your rose-colored glasses off!
2007-06-16 11:50:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by cantcu 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
survival of the fitest, thats what it says, no where did I read, take from the fit, give to the unworthy to make them prosporus, but they (liberals) never follow even thier own rules, just like their demands for "seperation of church and state?) unless you are a muslim, now tax payers in Mich. will be paying for footbaths for muslims at the University, and in Cal. they have removed pork form the school menus, and timed in 1 hours for group prayers led by muslims, but i guess that's not a conflict, sience it's not christianity.
San Diego Arab public school implements shari'a - forms taxpayer funded madrassah
June 12, 2007
Carver Elementary - San Diego Public School Bows To Sharia
June 12, 2007 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - Those having doubts that New York Department of Education's proposed Arabic school - Khalil Gibran International Academy - will inevitably turn into a madrassah should consider how a similar experiment in the San Diego Unified School District is turning out.
In September Carver Elementary school [kindergarten - eighth grade] accepted nearly 100 students from a failed charter school which served a Somali Muslim constituency.
The school population now numbers approximately 400.
Though these kids are now being educated within the wall of Carver, they have not been incorporated into the main student population and operate as a school-within-a-school, segregated elite with special privileges.
The controversy became a matter of public record when a substitute teacher Mary-Frances Stevens made a report to the local school board in which she claimed that Carver's Muslim children were being led in Islamic prayer by a teacher's aide. Steven's, who subbed at the school on March 8 stated that the lesson plan she was given included the allotting of one hour for prayer.
The teacher's allegation of religious indoctrination led to an investigation.
In true multicultural fashion, the school has gone to extreme lengths to accommodate its new students; the curriculum features the teaching of Arabic - the language of the Quran - single gender classes for girls as well as organized prayer...for Muslims only.
A new dhimi class schedule - expressly designed to kow tow to Carver's new students - was instituted. It created an extra 15 minute recess period as part of an hour set aside so that Carver's Muslims can pray en-masse while in class. Additionally, the school cafeteria menu no longer serves pork or other foods which conflict with fundamentalist Muslim diet restrictions [halal].
Even Carver's "winter holiday" celebration has not escaped the wrath of this brand of extreme multiculturalism, ripping the heart out of what was formerly the Christmas holiday by injecting extraneous cultural artifacts; as the San Diego Union Tribune notes:
"The school's winter holiday celebration featuring multicultural performances was a big hit. African-American, American, Muslim and other traditions were celebrated.
"Carver has always been sensitive to the different cultures and always looked at the variety of cultures we have as an enrichment, not a problem," teacher Pamela de Meules said." [source "District wants to provide options," by Helen Gao http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20070412-9999-1m12carver.html]
2007-06-20 09:36:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Darwin didn't "advocate" anything - he made observations and formed tentative conclusions based on those observations. A common misperception is "survival of the fittest" = "survival of the best" -- his theory was that traits, characteristics, and behaviors that lend themselves toward survival of a species will eventually dominate and that those that work against survival of the species will eventually die out.
2007-06-16 11:46:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
it's the difference between nature (Darwinism) and man...
do Republicans believe that there is murder in nature, animals killing other animals?
then why do Republicans think it should be illegal to murder others?
it's the exact same style of question your asking....
comparing things that happen in nature to what we do as a society.... it's beyond a weak argument to down right pathetic...
nature has NOTHING to do with the ethics of man....
unless you just want to live like an animal... with no laws or ethics...
of course you are a Republican... so that may be the case...
2007-06-16 11:51:40
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋