I completely disagree with you about being inspired by her is like being inspired by Hitler. Hitler's philosophy was a complete sham on every level, and contradicts itself numerous times. Objectivism's foundation works well on many levels. Personal aspiration, bettering yourself, valuing logic and knowledge over emotions, those types of things are valuable to an extent.

Objectivism is ultra-logical in the end, very much the same as Social Darwinism. Fundamentally, those ideas have value in some situations and settings. A business for example, in the end, if an employee is not doing his or her job, it's not necessarily the business's job to figure out why unless it's within their self-interest to do so, and they shouldn't have to think that stuff through in every single instance. They should have the flexibility to fire someone in that instance without a second thought about the social ramifications.

It ultimately is a societal problem though that this employee be taken care of as a member of society, which is where Objectivism falls on its face, among other areas. Another one is Objectivism really has terrible implications in many aspects of parenting, to put it mildly.

I was personally inspired by Ayn Rand in high school quite honestly. She made me care about philosophy, about achieving the most I could achieve via hard work and self-determination, to learn how to critically think and use reason, to be OK to not conform necessarily to group think, etc. Just like every ideology, it's not perfect, and following it to a T just doesn't work, just like any other ideology and philosophy we may encounter and blend into our own as we age and grow. But it made me want to learn more, achieve more, and think more.

You can do a lot worse than that, IMO, you know, like Fascism. :-)

So many holes in your argument.

You're cherry picking the parts of Nazism to fit your anti-religious views. You even made the argument that Russia was dogmatically atheist, which isn't a true characterization of Russia then, either.

The simple fact of the matter is racial supremacy had what was seen as extremely scientific underpinnings with a foundation of Darwin, which then was applied to Social Darwinism, etc.

You had Nazi scientists who were going around the world literally measuring people's skulls, with the assumption that Germans had bigger brain pans, and that must explain why they're the master race.

Those ideas sure as hell weren't religious.

The simple fact of the matter is that there were secular and religious arguments against Nazism, as there also were secular and religious arguments in favor of it at the time.

It's very difficult to argue that the evil of Nazi Germany rose due to the level of dogmatic behavior within Germany. Prior to Hitler's rise, Germany was considered a Western European modernized, industrialized country, and for the time well educated, as was France and Britain. It was far more like Britain and France than it was to Russia.

An even better counterargument - who was the most modernized, secular, educated people in Southeast Asia, and therefore should have been the least likely to instigate war according to your logic? Japan, yet they became an imperial, aggressive power.

The rise of Nazi Germany is something I studied quite a bit of, and boiling it down to how dogmatic the people were is not only overly simplistic, it's not remotely historically accurate. It completely factors out the god awful mistake the Treaty of Versailles from WWI was, the common particular disdain for Jews at the time (some due to religious conflict, for Nazis it was more about race), the dependency of Germany on US loans, which dried up when the Great Depression began, the scientific trends in thought at the time, etc.

Those all converged.

And the reality is that "Muslim" countries are more likely to subject women to numerous horrors simply because more Muslim countries have not modernized their economies yet. Hey, just like every other religion. The reason we treat women well is we've had an industrialized economy far longer, and even then, the speed of it was often circumstantial. Women's rights in the US took a quantum leap forward because of women being needed for labor in WWII (same reason the Civil Rights Movement started so relatively soon after WWII as well).

His Darwin/Wallace descriptions is rather unfair on Darwin, Darwin had been working for 20 years on what became "The Origin of Species" when he received Wallace's letter, He already had his theory of natural selection worked out, he just hadn't actually published yet. This is a pretty well known historical fact, based on extensive documentation(Darwins notes/letter etc, see http://darwin-online.org.uk/ .

Also the jump to "nazi Germany" is complete bullshit. If natural selection looks like any political system it would have to be unregulated capitalism or total anarchy. Both of which might turn out to be very bad, but why should you base a political system on natural selection anyway? He confuses Darwinism with "social Darwinism" which really has nothing to do with Darwin or his theory. At best, it was a complete misreading of the theory, confusing strength/looks/class with fitness and using it as an excuse to sterilize and or kill the "unwanted" and "weak". But even social darwinism really had nothing to do with "nazi germany", As the extermination of the jews were largely based on religiously inspired resentments and superstitions, combined with an exploitation of the frustrated german people, looking to place the blame for their post WW1 plight.

Seems like this guy also misunderstands why Darwin/Wallace is credited with "discovering evolution". Its correct that they didnt, but neither did Lamarck, really, as it was obvious for some time that animals seemed to have looked differently in the past, and that something had changed over time. What Darwin and Wallace discovered was the mechanism: How evolution actually works, why it works, and so on. Lamarck also presented a mechanism (inheritance of acquired traits), but it turned out to be wrong.

I understand perfectly well what he was saying, and again, it is social darwinism, whether they are going to die in agony or not. If you listen to the rest of it, what they are talking about is removing the ethical barrier that is present due to our being created in the image of God. They would like to see that removed and have human life be regarded on the same plane as animal life. When you do that, suddenly things like infanticide become more palatable, because after all, there are billions of us..what is one less? A lot of people want to reduce the population of the planet by 80 percent or so (so long as they're not on the 80 percent side of the equation). It's classic social darwinism, in all its repugnant splendor.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Dawkins is supporting infanticide in cases where babies have incurable diseases.
Ok, this is the last time I explain this to you. Dawkins is talking about "supporting infanticide in cases where babies have incurable diseases" that meant it was going to die in agony. That is a direct quote from the video. He is not supporting infanticide in the case of:
- curable diseases
- deformities
- disabilities
- down's syndrome, etc.
Once again, the world is not black and white. Context matters.

Again, nuance, context. These things matter. If I kill someone out of mercy, it is different to killing them because they are "not fit to live". Yes, the outcome is the same, but intention matters. Even the legal system recognises this.

He isn't talking about an isolated incident. Dawkins is supporting infanticide in cases where babies have incurable diseases. So, if there was a general policy in society of killing off babies who would die early, according to his own words he would be in favor of that. No matter how you want to dress it up, it's still social darwinism.

Besides in the context (there's that word again) of this video, he is talking about children that will die before they reach puberty anyway, so a true social darwinist would just let nature take it's course.

No, a true social darwinist would kill them off so they wouldn't consume unnecessary resources.

It's great that these kids were saved (by science, I might add). Do you really think that Dawkins is implying that they should be killed with no attempt to cure them? You're really grasping at straws here.

No, I am saying that they would have both would have been selected for death under dawkins morality, even though they would have both lived given the circumstances. I am showing the idea of infanticide being morally permissible is actually morally repugnant, and that many children would die who would have otherwise survived.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What,is implying that they should be killed with no attempt to cure them? You're really grasping at straws here.

>> ^shinyblurry:

What, because it's a "compassionate" murder of infants, it isn't social darwinism? Of course it is. He is still saying that they should be selected to die because of their infirmities, regardless of what the stated motivation is.

Again, nuance, context. These things matter. If I kill someone out of mercy, it is different to killing them because they are "not fit to live". Yes, the outcome is the same, but intention matters. Even the legal system recognises this.

Besides in the context (there's that word again) of this video, he is talking about children that will die before they reach puberty anyway, so a true social darwinist would just let nature take it's course.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's a good thing these two don't have Dawkins as their Father:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Miracle+drug+
saves+Aussie+baby+in+world+first%3A+doctors-a01612048752
http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/ellerycase

It's great that these kids were saved (by science, I might add). Do you really think that Dawkins is implying that they should be killed with no attempt to cure them? You're really grasping at straws here.

What, because it's a "compassionate" murder of infants, it isn't social darwinism? Of course it is. He is still saying that they should be selected to die because of their infirmities, regardless of what the stated motivation is. It is making an arbitrary determination on the value of a life is, and when someone doesnt meet that criteria, that they are better off dead. And that we would be morally justified in murdering them even out of the womb.

It's a good thing these two don't have Dawkins as their Father:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Miracle+drug+saves+Aussie+baby+in+world+first%3A+doctors-a01612048752

http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/ellerycase

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Ahh yes, there can be no nuance, no context to what anyone says. In this case, clearly Dawkins feels that murdering a child is absolutely fine, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with alleviating the suffering a horrible disease is causing it.
Oh, and as to your video description? Dawkins has stated on many occasions that he does not believe in social darwinism. Troll harder, little fool.

Ahh yes, there can be no nuance, no context to what anyone says. In this case, clearly Dawkins feels that murdering a child is absolutely fine, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with alleviating the suffering a horrible disease is causing it.

Oh, and as to your video description? Dawkins has stated on many occasions that he does not believe in social darwinism. Troll harder, little fool.

I'm gonna try to keep this short. I'm not trying to change your minds, just set the record straight. When someone makes a comment like "He wants to shut down the Department of Education? Fuck that!" I think that is purposely trying to paint the man as "anti-education".

It is not "social-Darwinism" to believe that state and local governments can do things better and more efficiently then the Federal gov. by being more accessible to the actual people their policies effect. BTW, also more in line with how the founding fathers setup the rules via the Constitution.

Yes, there are a lot of things that RP does not want the "Federal" government involved with. That is not the same as saying "RP doesn't want govt to do any of these things"....just that they should be done at the state and local levels of government if that is what the people want.

About Big Business running rampant...just how much easier (and cheaper) it is for Big Business to lobby a single "Federal DOE" as opposed to having to lobby 50 separate "State DOE"?

@Grimm - At the risk of stating the obvious, don't you think it's more logical to believe that Reagan's loyalty to big money (and ALL of his predecessors) might have played a dominant role in the degradation of American public education, rather than the fact that a Department of Education exists? Boise laid out a number of deliberate poison pills in his comment. You've merely asserted your claim without any rational other than an arbitrary number of trips around the sun.

Let's say you buy a new car, and I tell you I hate it and intend to pop the tires, break the windows and light it on fire after you go to sleep. If the next morning you wake up to find your car on fire, with popped tires and broken windows, would you take it back to the dealer and claim the car was faulty? This, in essence, is what you are doing here.

If I were you, the logical counter argument would be, "well there you go, you've made my case, a malicious or subservient (take your pick) president was able to have a hugely negative effect on education nationally. Had it been left to the states, our educational system would be a utopic wonderland."

To which I would respond, "If big money can compromise a huge government, what makes you think they couldn't eat a state house for champagne brunch?"

The problem with libertarians is that they are unwitting allies of the corporate state. They believe that getting rid of government would end authoritarianism, completely failing to understand that the kind of authoritarianism that haunts our country would prefer to be unrestrained by government too. Right libertarianism, if enacted, would indeed provide more liberty to a handful of wealthy and powerful people, but it would come at the cost of liberty to the vast majority. 1% vs 99% if you will. Sound familiar? I see no clear difference between libertarianism and social Darwinism. If you respond to any of this, I'd most like to know how you differentiate libertarianism from social Darwinism.

I think a vast amount of people would prefer the liberty of healthcare, education, roads, fire departments, police departments, schools and libraries to the liberty to dominate a labor force, the liberty to pollute the environment with impunity, the liberty to manipulate the banking system or the liberty to build bloody corporate empires on foreign shores. What makes you think the business men that took us to war in the middle east wouldn't be twice as brutal without a single shred of oversight or transparency? What makes you think deregulated labor markets wouldn't revert back to pre-regulation era slavery if given the option?

If social Darwinism is what you truly desire, then we have nothing more to say to each other. However, if you want to stop authoritarianism, then stop trying to make it easier for authoritarians to thrive. Ron Paul is a nice fella and all - an adorable little grandfatherly gnome even - and I take him at his word when he says he believes his economic hypothesis would create liberty. Unfortunately, reality begs to differ. And, sincerity is no excuse for bad ideas.

Good debate. Peace.

You can join the convo too if you like @GeeSussFreeK

>> ^marbles:

Chomsky: "Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way underestimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something.
Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now."
I'm looking forward to the documentary, but Chomsky is just a willing dupe with the same agenda as the "rich and powerful" he preaches against.


Uh huh...having followed his career and actually UNDERSTOOD his arguments, I'd have to call you a fucking idiot.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
*quality


thanks man!

>> ^Trancecoach:

Paul Krugman in today's NY Times.
And now that the Democracy has been sold to the highest bidders, the Corporate persons can determine policy based on their bottom lines. The Oligarchs can take their place at the throne and Social Darwinism can run its course. Caviar and refreshments will be served in the sunroom.


OMG! I've never been in a Sunroom!

Paul Krugman in today's NY Times.

And now that the Democracy has been sold to the highest bidders, the Corporate persons can determine policy based on their bottom lines. The Oligarchs can take their place at the throne and Social Darwinism can run its course. Caviar and refreshments will be served in the sunroom.

Upvote for the last 10 seconds alone. He is spot on right there. It's a kind of social darwinism to just assume the market knows best. It's the age-old mistake of making an ought from an is. The entire reason we have a society in the first place is so we can strengthen our good qualities and regulate the bad ones.