Elitism

[The Summoner of Leviathan]

As a Social Darwinist, I believe in the benefit of self, or the collaboration of the group, over the indominant traits of those who are simply not gifted with what we are. Socialists would argue that some people can be helped out of their situations, that society helps to make people poor and turn to criminal acts to survive. While this is generally true, I don't think it requires change, but rather, people should be more cut-throat about making it in life and surviving and getting to the top. Survival of the fittest and the most elaborate. I don't believe the top of the ladder is required to take care of the bottom wrung, and what is wrong with that? They achieved their ranks and kept it through hard work and determination, why should they be expected to share.

It is obvious that you acknowledge the necessity of change, yet ironically you deny it. You suggest a reinforcement of current socio-economic situations by promoting you are actually multiplying the problem. A more cut-throat society would create more fierce competition which would actually lead to more violence, more crime. Crime is not only caused by a necessity to survive, so you are not really addressing the whole problem. Also, sure you got to where you are now, but does the method justify the means? For me, the means is much more important, for you must live with the ramifications of your actions.

I am a believe of infantcide, a practice used as late as the 1960's. It was used by parents who did not want to bring infants into the world because they had severe mental and physical traits that hindered them in the world. Why should anyone have to suffer and be put through a life and why should we, as a society, have to help them out. We didn't cause their flaws, nature did, and as such, we know that they cannot survive on their own as they mature.

One, I have the highest respect for all life. No matter, if you think it is flawed, it is still a gift from Nature. You may see it as a flaw, but I like to think that every life is precious, and who are we to be the arbritators of life? Can we actually be so impietous to actually try to reign power in realms beyond our own? The taint of murder is not something I desire on my hands. You ask about suffering too, but that is a part of life. No matter how hard you try to will eventually suffer. This is not a bad thing. From it we gain knowledge of ourselves, and learn to understand and appreciate what we do have. Even though they might suffer themselves, and cause trouble on the part of others, they are still humans. Also they can major impacts on the world. Terry Fox for one. Though he was not born physically disable, because of cancer I think it was, he became physically disabled, yet he raised much awareness about cancer research.

I believe in the exploitation of those too weak to help themselves. In a capitalist society, the poor serve a delicate purpose in order to sustain the balance. Poor people are required so that someone is forced to take the jobs no one else wants. No one literally forces them, but because of the situation set up, they have no choice, unless they find a loop hole or an in to get by and work their way through the socio-economic ladder and into the rungs of the middle - upper class levels. They then are good examples of the Social Darwinism.

Though I agree that social conditions do force them into these jobs, I do not believe in exploiting people. Again this returns to a moral issue. Exploiting someone for your own needs, is a selfish act, and I believe that the mere fact you use people shows a lack of morals on the manipulator's own part. In the end I think they are weak, for they cannot accomplish what they want without using people.

The other people, the people who leech off of society, the vagrants, the homeless who have no hope in the world, as heartless as this sounds, have no reason to be in this world. The poor populate and generate more people than the wealthier, and thus, it is natural that when you are born into poverty, you will stay in poverty. That is their own flaw, and rightfully so that you stay where you are born into unless you work to counter-act it.

Yet people who manipulate others are any better? You are kidding right. To exploit people is too leech off of them, to make them do your own work. Also before you mentioned that if someone arises higher out of their social situation then they are a good example, yet here you say it not possible. Also it not someone's fault to be born into a socio-economic situation. They were born into it. If you have a chance to gain more in life, why shouldn't anyone else? Just because people get a head start in the race of life does not mean they will win. Returning to another point, you have no right to say someone should not be born. Interesting fact is that even though the poor do generate more population, it is the wealthy, the minority that produces the majority of the pollution. You are trying to convince me their advantages?

I have no sympathy for the individuals who simply waste away without fighting. Some say that not everyone is born with the strength to fight, that their personality types prevent them from having strength. Well, then they are not meant for survival according to Darwinism. Is it so bad that they should suffer the fate they have determined for themselves? The will to survive and prosper should always be above the personality traits you're disposed with.

Personalities can change with the wind. People are able to overcome their situations and rise above it. You talk about strenght, but according to Darwin, not the strongest survives, it is the most adapted.

You see life as a hedonistic and materialistic view, which limits yourself to see the true potentials in humans. Also you completely ignore morality, and the fact of higher powers. You present an interesting ideas, yet ones that are just amplifications of our phallocentric Western culture. You put a value on the large, tall, and strong. You are stuck in a priapism. It would appear you are trying to advocate progression, yet it is still bound to our current power structures. Soceity is already, for the majority, like this. Not in the extreme case as you, but the apathy and hedonism of the current situation is causing the deterioration of humanity. The way I see it, is Social Darwinism will actually catalyze our end.

Sorry if I lost track while typing this. I became distracted often.

[FFGuevara]

Hitler's execution of his idea was flawed. He went after the wrong groupings of people. Jews had controlled the wealth of Germany. He should have eliminated those who were just too weak, or born into an unfortunate situation (which they didn't get out of), and use them as scape goats.

Let me get this straight you are gay and you are a Nazi also? Thats a smurfing oximoron, thats like someone saying they support Marxism and Nazism. You know how many homosexuals that son of a killed? Men who were just like you, who's only mistake according to your ideology was being gay.

About the homosexuality clause. Homosexuals aren't automatically third class citezins. In many cases, we're the most fashionable, we have good jobs, and while we don't have the rights that heterosexuals do, that doesn't mean we aren't working to achieve them. Your arguement is void and negligible.

You think in a elitist society they would give you guys rights? Do you like being descriminated and humilated by homophobes? Do you enjoy being considered below a group of people because of your sexuality? I dought you do, so dont promote hate against other people hypocrite. Why dont you live in a elitist society like the one they have in Iran, where homosexuals are hanged and stoned to death and sometimes put to slavery. Would you of enjoyed that if you were ether born into a lower class or because of your sexuality?

Exactly, Hitler focused on the Jews. It was just the wrong population majority. I don't discriminate ethnicity, I discriminate personality.

GREAT you descriminate people for who they are . How nice especially since you have the rainbow in your sig which symbolizes diversity.

[Meat Puppet]

I don't understand. First you think it's "wrung", but then, greedily, you think it's "rung"?

[Dignified Pauper]

I have a lot of quarrels that I shall quell here and now.

It is obvious that you acknowledge the necessity of change, yet ironically you deny it. You suggest a reinforcement of current socio-economic situations by promoting you are actually multiplying the problem. A more cut-throat society would create more fierce competition which would actually lead to more violence, more crime. Crime is not only caused by a necessity to survive, so you are not really addressing the whole problem. Also, sure you got to where you are now, but does the method justify the means? For me, the means is much more important, for you must live with the ramifications of your actions.

I don't deny change, I implore the greater achievements of the extreme ideals of a Utopian society, which those who will not benefit, will consider it as Dystopian.

In great books such as Brave New World or 1984, their society works to the advantage of the individual. No questions asked, you know your role from day one. No confusions. Though, I believe I would like society to give people the oppurtunity, if they are strong enough of mind to take it, to advance up through the wrungs of the socio-economic ladder.

The ramifications of actions, such as this, where the end is, indeed, more important than the means, do not matter. It is the end goal that inspires the actions. If done illegally, then by all means, the perpetrator deserves to be punished. I'm not talking about killing to get to the top. I'm talking about doing what it takes. If you have to step on people and use people to do it, then so be it. Murder goes to far.

One, I have the highest respect for all life. No matter, if you think it is flawed, it is still a gift from Nature. You may see it as a flaw, but I like to think that every life is precious, and who are we to be the arbritators of life? Can we actually be so impietous to actually try to reign power in realms beyond our own? The taint of murder is not something I desire on my hands. You ask about suffering too, but that is a part of life. No matter how hard you try to will eventually suffer. This is not a bad thing. From it we gain knowledge of ourselves, and learn to understand and appreciate what we do have. Even though they might suffer themselves, and cause trouble on the part of others, they are still humans. Also they can major impacts on the world. Terry Fox for one. Though he was not born physically disable, because of cancer I think it was, he became physically disabled, yet he raised much awareness about cancer research.

I have a high respect for life as well, because of that, I believe that some should simply not be forced to live through life because of their defections. You say every life is precious, and who are you to decide? Some people simply don't have lives. Some people simply are told what to do, where to go, how to behave. I don't encourage this. I encourage people to fight and think for themselves in order to better their situation. The poor of this world, the majority, simply take their situation, the one they are born into, and do not fight for it. This is where their character flaws, which are innate characteristics which are born to them, block them on true progression. Terry Fox was merely an advocate for Cancer Research. Without him, we still would have just as much research and cancer treatment. He was just a way to the means, had he never been born, we still would have investigated it, as it has become a major problem with health.

Though I agree that social conditions do force them into these jobs, I do not believe in exploiting people. Again this returns to a moral issue. Exploiting someone for your own needs, is a selfish act, and I believe that the mere fact you use people shows a lack of morals on the manipulator's own part. In the end I think they are weak, for they cannot accomplish what they want without using people.

Exploitation is a natural human action. We exploit eachother for emotional security, humour, or other reasons. Dating is a co-exploitation both people share, using eachother to create joy for themselves. All actions are completely self-motivated. Philanthropists do what they do because it makes them feel good. If they didn't feel good about it, they wouldn't do it. It's a selfish reason in the end. Without clever manipulation, you can't reach the top of the ladder.

Yet people who manipulate others are any better? You are kidding right. To exploit people is too leech off of them, to make them do your own work. Also before you mentioned that if someone arises higher out of their social situation then they are a good example, yet here you say it not possible. Also it not someone's fault to be born into a socio-economic situation. They were born into it. If you have a chance to gain more in life, why shouldn't anyone else? Just because people get a head start in the race of life does not mean they will win. Returning to another point, you have no right to say someone should not be born. Interesting fact is that even though the poor do generate more population, it is the wealthy, the minority that produces the majority of the pollution. You are trying to convince me their advantages?

People take advantage of the system all the time. They mooch because of people's weakness to give out what others have worked hard for. I, for one, am glad of the social welfare changes made in 1996, allowing only five years of federal aid to a family and after than, then it is decided that family is unfit to get anymore help because they are unable to help themselves. TANF is a great and new revolutionary idea to help people force themselves to take temporary help, knowing it will end. It forces them to attempt to get better jobs, to go and try to move up. Those who fail, they are simply unfit for advancement. They are not strong enough to adapt the way they need to for their success and survival.
You're right in saying that just because someone was given a headstart, that doesn't mean they will win. I agree, someone can surpass them from the bottom wrung, however, they have to work harder for it. It's not their fault they were born into their plight, but because they are, they must be forced to work out of it or remain in it and slowly let themselves spoil and rot.

Personalities can change with the wind. People are able to overcome their situations and rise above it. You talk about strenght, but according to Darwin, not the strongest survives, it is the most adapted.

You see life as a hedonistic and materialistic view, which limits yourself to see the true potentials in humans. Also you completely ignore morality, and the fact of higher powers. You present an interesting ideas, yet ones that are just amplifications of our phallocentric Western culture. You put a value on the large, tall, and strong. You are stuck in a priapism. It would appear you are trying to advocate progression, yet it is still bound to our current power structures. Soceity is already, for the majority, like this. Not in the extreme case as you, but the apathy and hedonism of the current situation is causing the deterioration of humanity. The way I see it, is Social Darwinism will actually catalyze our end.

Personalities aren't easy to change. They don't change like the wind. Personality is as genetic as hair color, but it also relies on child welfare. The core elements are imprinted with genetic code, but they are skewed with upbringing. Someone with a bad temper can learn to control it through childhood or never learn how and have it always flaring up everytime something goes wrong. Also, i believe you used the word priapism completely wrong. Actually, I'm positive you did.
The way I see it, humans are adaptable creatures. We are the most adaptable creatures to walk this planet. Our adaptations are our strengths. However, some people aren't strong enough to adapt to their situation and they fail and falter all through their lives. I for one have no care for these people.

Let me get this straight you are gay and you are a Nazi also? Thats a smurfing oximoron, thats like someone saying they support Marxism and Nazism. You know how many homosexuals that son of a killed? Men who were just like you, who's only mistake according to your ideology was being gay.

I would like to state that I am not a Nazi. I am not anti-semetic. I don't believe that gays, jews, blacks, mexicans, and people of different races should be killed, tortured, etc. I don't believe in torture.
You're confusing what I am talking about. I agreed with Hitler's intentions on making a Utopian society by ridding all of those who were deemed unfit. It just so happens that the people he deemed unfit were the exact people who had been in success of their country during that time. He merely had a skewed perception of reality when he viewed who and what he saw as fit. He was insane after-all.

You think in a elitist society they would give you guys rights? Do you like being descriminated and humilated by homophobes? Do you enjoy being considered below a group of people because of your sexuality? I dought you do, so dont promote hate against other people hypocrite. Why dont you live in a elitist society like the one they have in Iran, where homosexuals are hanged and stoned to death and sometimes put to slavery. Would you of enjoyed that if you were ether born into a lower class or because of your sexuality?

An elitist society does not discriminate to the straight, white male majority. You simply don't understand the term elitism. An elitist society favors those who can work the system and climb the ladder, despite what position they were born into. Iran is not an elitist society. I'll leave that statement at that. They are a dystopia, a tyranny. It is completely different.

GREAT you descriminate people for who they are . How nice especially since you have the rainbow in your sig which symbolizes diversity.

My sig is merely for humor purposes. As is part of this debate.


let me acknowledge that I am not against helping people. I will help the people I care about, because as a person, i am unable to simply not care about anyone else. It's strangers that I don't care for and why should I. Leviathan, you spoke of higher power, or something more divine, and I say that you can't incorporate your beliefs into society. You harp about morals, and I have morals. The very structure of society that I suggest is based on nothing but a strong foundation in the moralistic implications that the society presents. Work, or die. Achieve victory or fail. Black and white. These are our options.
Why should I pay taxes so the unfit can live five more years without having to work. I know some people work and get out of this, and I acknowledge those people as the people who make my society work. It is the people who abuse systems and remain lazy, but all the while complain about their place in society.
Out of desperation, vagrants turn to drugs for their problems. It is the socio-economic status that causes crime, and it is the fault of the system that pretends to favor the poor. Social Welfare should be non-existent. A Government is there to provide the rules and regulations that one must follow in order to attain success all the while protecting the rights of those that follow it. It is not here to fund those individuals who can't or simply refuse to help themselves. Those people are merely unfit individuals and deserve their fate.

I don't understand. First you think it's "wrung", but then, greedily, you think it's "rung"?

You, my good friend, are nothing short of a genious.

[escobert]

I grasp your concepts I just think you're a <!--dick.-->[leeza]*snip*

Bert, even if you are correct, you do not say things like this about or to another member because it is considered flaming. You may think what you want, but when you say it, you must rephrase yourself or you end up with an in-thread warning. ~ Leeza[/leeza]

[The Summoner of Leviathan]

I used priapism in the sense of your constant reference of going up the socio-economic ladder. More substance is apart of phallocentrocism, which thrives on the maintaining more, of climbing higher, or being more powerful. All reflect this constant need to be bigger, hard, taller, and stronger. In that sense it is priapism, always erect, never placid. Everything in life is not based around our social-economica position. To me happiness is not found in "climbing of the ladder" rather it found in the simplicities of life. My Middle School's moto is apt in this "Journey is the reward" It is what you do along the way that is important, not what you get in the end. That is what I believe, and that is at my fundamentals, and is something I choose and will not divert from.

Also personalities change. Our environment changes us, not only as children but as adults. I am not saying people make 180's in personalities, but still the is change.

To say love and kindness are in the end acts of selfishness shows an over-simplification of them. A sense of well-being after being kind, is just a consquence of your actions. When I do things, I do not think about it, merely do it. For example, holding a door open for someone whose hands are filled. What kind of selfish act is that? How do a benefit when I do it without even hesitation. All I get a smile or a thank you. I sure did not intend for gratitude. But I do not deny it.

Social programs are there for in times of need. Sure you may be well off now, but cruel can be the hand fate deals, and eventually you could find yourself in that position, where you need that money. Sure it is exploited, and there needs to be changes, but it still there.

I think every life is prescious because it is apart of my beliefs. My personal beliefs tie in closely in with the reverance of Nature. To be honest, what is there a greater gift than life? You say to live with defection. Well that is just a bad way to look at a situation. You are just making their situation seem bad because it suits your argument, conversly I will try to find good points to suppport mine. A say someone was born blind, even though they cannot see they can live fulfill lives. Just because you are different, and experience life differently is no reason to not let them live. Sure they might suffer more than a person with sight, but sometimes the blind can see what we do not. Often other senses compensate. Just because you think they might not be able to live a life, does not mean they can't.

I discriminate personality.

Discrimination in itself, is inherently wrong (Note: To me it is). Just because you use different parameters, does not make it any better than racism, homophobia, sexism, etc...To say it does, to me appears just a denial of reality.

In the end, we will continue to go back and forth, neither of us moving. We are fundamnetally different in our views. Sure we can go on trying to open new doors, but I think this about as much as I like to comment. So unless my interest is picked I will just remain a reader.

[Dignified Pauper]

most people do, but they like me just because i'm fun to be around. Really, i'm not that bad. I help my friends out all the time, and I pay for dinners, etc. I'm actually a nice guy, i just don't believe I should have to help those I have no connection with.

[Sasquatch]

...i just don't believe I should have to help those I have no connection with.

I agree with you there. Should help, maybe. Should be forced to, no.

[FFGuevara]

I would like to state that I am not a Nazi. I am not anti-semetic. I don't believe that gays, jews, blacks, mexicans, and people of different races should be killed, tortured, etc. I don't believe in torture.

You qualify as a Nazi just so you know. You seem to believe in genocide and you believe in supremacy, which i believe is sick and disturbing.

You're confusing what I am talking about. I agreed with Hitler's intentions on making a Utopian society by ridding all of those who were deemed unfit.

Why are they unfit? Why cant they better themself's if their drug addict's or prostitutes? Dont kill them help them. Why is it so nessasary to kill them?

It just so happens that the people he deemed unfit were the exact people who had been in success of their country during that time. He merely had a skewed perception of reality when he viewed who and what he saw as fit. He was insane after-all.

Everyone who's extreme right winged is.

An elitist society does not discriminate to the straight, white male majority.

According to history almost every elitist society does. Unless the "elites" are homosexuals themselfs you will be oppressed and dehumanized.

You simply don't understand the term elitism. An elitist society favors those who can work the system and climb the ladder, despite what position they were born into.

No... they favor those who qualify as elite. In a elitist society it would require the right ethnic background, sex , social class or religious belief's to climb the ladder, if you dont fit the profile of any of those things no matter how much you can "work the system" you will be oppressed. What you describe is not elitism.

Iran is not an elitist society. I'll leave that statement at that. They are a dystopia, a tyranny. It is completely different.

A elitist society is tyranny and oppression, in Iran a male, arabic born muslim are the elite's in their society. Unless you are not a male who is muslim from birth you are considered below them. That is elitist, if you dont believe me check the definition.

My sig is merely for humor purposes. As is part of this debate.

Just so you know your sig and this debate is NOT FUNNY. Would you of like it if some homophobe made a topic about how much "Homosexuals should die"?

Leviathan, you spoke of higher power, or something more divine, and I say that you can't incorporate your beliefs into society.

Thats what always happens in a elitist society. If it's a religion then you are forced to follow that religion or your killed, if it's racial supremacy then the members of the "inferior" race would be killed or would have very little rights.

You harp about morals, and I have morals.

What morals? You believe in killing people because of who they are, or because of their position. You are a very sick person if you consider that moral.

The very structure of society that I suggest is based on nothing but a strong foundation in the moralistic implications that the society presents. Work, or die. Achieve victory or fail. Black and white. These are our options.

You already have that in Western Society.

Why should I pay taxes so the unfit can live five more years without having to work. I know some people work and get out of this, and I acknowledge those people as the people who make my society work. It is the people who abuse systems and remain lazy, but all the while complain about their place in society.

You dont notice much do you? Social welfare doesnt helped that much, Bush's Administration cut down on college scholarships by over 25 billion and 10 billion in Social welfare to increase military budgets. In reality it has never helped just look at the Katrina victims.

Out of desperation, vagrants turn to drugs for their problems. It is the socio-economic status that causes crime,

Actually its capitalism that causes the crime's. People cant find job's so they resort to crime.

and it is the fault of the system that pretends to favor the poor.

What do you expect? They dont want a revolution, so they do something to prevent a revolution.

Social Welfare should be non-existent.

It pretty much doesnt exist since not alot of people have it. And in the US for you to get Social Welfare you need to be holding a job.

A Government is there to provide the rules and regulations that one must follow in order to attain success all the while protecting the rights of those that follow it. It is not here to fund those individuals who can't or simply refuse to help themselves. Those people are merely unfit individuals and deserve their fate.

That is already going on in the US, if you havent noticed you guys have a poverty problem. 17% of Americans live under the poverty level and they recieve no social welfare. So what are you complaning about?

[Yooniece]

Heh. You remind me of one of my friends. Except she has very profound, deep-seeded beliefs against... er... "ugly yucky fat people procreating."

I know that a lot of people will attack your beliefs, but like many theoretical societies, they're supposed to create something positive, as hard as that may be. I've often wondered why it was my responsibility to pay the government my hard-earned dollars to pay for someone else's AIDS medication or a prisoner's cable TV. Those questions don't make a person selfish... to be honest, they're logical questions to ask, and often only answered by idealistic "moral" responses such as "because we're supposed to be good people!" Which is a relative, relative word.

[Bulldog]

EoFF never cease to entertain me, when I'm down.

Please, people, read up on anthropology, sociology and ethnology before you brand a social theory as whatever social belief you might have. Darwin and Spencer would die (if they weren't already dead that is), if they read all these beautifully entertaining posts.

I know a guy who would slash the throat of Dig pamper without hesitation, for wasting time posting on gaming boards on the internet, instead of doing something for society.

And just for the record, Adolf Hitler did in fact eradicate a lot of handicapped(weak) people. Not just jews and roma people.

[Light Mage]

Maybe life would be easier if we just slaughtered all the bigots.

<hr>

Light Mage's Happy Abattoir
"Where we put the laughter into slaughter!"

<hr>

[Rusty]

It's funny how you made that post and the poor are "unfit" yet, you call yourself 'Dignified Pauper'

[Dignified Pauper]

You qualify as a Nazi just so you know. You seem to believe in genocide and you believe in supremacy, which i believe is sick and disturbing.

You're wrong. Nazi's are exclusive to anti-semitism and racism and sexism. I am not a Nazi. Supremecy was a nazi idealogy, but it's also found in Tyrannies. I'm not suggesting a tyranny, I'm suggesting a society that values these aspects. Genocide is the mass and organized extinction of a people based on race or ethnicity. I'm doing it because they are simply unfit. It's a favor for Earth.

Why are they unfit? Why cant they better themself's if their drug addict's or prostitutes? Dont kill them help them. Why is it so nessasary to kill them?

I have known many drug addicts within my own family, and they can't be helped. We've tried. Not everyone can be helped, furthermore, not everyone wants help. If they are going to be worthless to society, they are worthless as people,

Everyone who's extreme right winged is.

I'm a moderate and lean to the left.

According to history almost every elitist society does. Unless the "elites" are homosexuals themselfs you will be oppressed and dehumanized.

You are confusing what elitism is. Elitism is a grouping and caste system where the strongest in power are at the top. Homosexuals can hold power. This isn't elitism in the sense of the procreation of race, but rather the benefit of the society. There are plenty of heterosexuals to ensure the procreation of race, such that an elitist society would not need to harm homosexuals. Homosexuals can be part of the elites. You can't look to history for elitism, because that was more fascism and racism. I'm talking pure elitism. Those who are fit to be at the top will be. Those who can lead and gather power, they will be at the top.

No... they favor those who qualify as elite. In a elitist society it would require the right ethnic background, sex , social class or religious belief's to climb the ladder, if you dont fit the profile of any of those things no matter how much you can "work the system" you will be oppressed. What you describe is not elitism.

No, you're descibing tyrannical oppression. Elitism is all about those who can reach power and keep it. It's not about ethnicity, sex, or social class. They may hinder you, but they don't keep you down, you can always advance, despite these things, you just may have to work harder, and rightfully so. If you weren't granted the appropriate traits, then you should have to work harder anyways.

A elitist society is tyranny and oppression, in Iran a male, arabic born muslim are the elite's in their society. Unless you are not a male who is muslim from birth you are considered below them. That is elitist, if you dont believe me check the definition.

Iran is a tyranny, not an elitism. You're skewing what elitism is and I believe I've deftly made it clear. Iran is tyrannical and fascist. Elites can be any gender, and race, any religion or sexuality. It all depends on who is in power. And even those in power can be manipulated by those who are not seen as elites by them until they grant enough recognition and support to where they actually join in or completely overthrow the elites.

Just so you know your sig and this debate is NOT FUNNY. Would you of like it if some homophobe made a topic about how much "Homosexuals should die"?

What's wrong with that idea? It's their opinion, and if I could sway them, then I would earn a spot as an elite. If not, then I'd merely go and find a different loop hole, assuming he's an elite. Then again, that would also just be a display of ignorance. Homosexuals are perfectly capable human beings. People born with mental retardation or mental illness are not. They have severe limitations.

Thats what always happens in a elitist society. If it's a religion then you are forced to follow that religion or your killed, if it's racial supremacy then the members of the "inferior" race would be killed or would have very little rights.

that's called a theocracy or a tyranny, once again. Elitism supports those capable of surviving. The alpha human vs. the beta and the gammas and the omegas. Like in Brave New World. I just don't think people should be engineered as such. Human perseverence can allow them to overcome themselves and jump the caste level they are in.

What morals? You believe in killing people because of who they are, or because of their position. You are a very sick person if you consider that moral.

I believe it because it is a benefit to society. We waste million helping the mentally disabled or ill, and why? I have no connection to them, I would like to keep that money in my pocket. There's no reason that I should pay for their welfare. If they can't support themselves, they are unfit for life here on this Earth.

You already have that in Western Society.

Western Society pretends to care too much about others, rather then themeselves and those who they are close with. Facades are just no fun.

You dont notice much do you? Social welfare doesnt helped that much, Bush's Administration cut down on college scholarships by over 25 billion and 10 billion in Social welfare to increase military budgets. In reality it has never helped just look at the Katrina victims.

I do notice, and I said that I was glad it has cut down. Not so much for education, but for the social welfare system, I am all for its disposal. Instead of helping people who are sick or unable to help themselves, we should help those who are perfectly able to get the education needed in order to advance and become better members of society. I'm all for college scholarships because it requires someone to take initiative to apply for it and to work for it to achieve it. It requires them to work through highschool.

Actually its capitalism that causes the crime's. People cant find job's so they resort to crime.

It's not capitalism's fault that these people don't have jobs. They don't have jobs because they haven't searched well enough. Also, there are an abundance of the poor and they should fight for jobs because it weens out who should and should not have jobs. If you want a job, you can find one if you're desperate enough. Crime doesn't come because of capitalism, it comes from desperation and weakness to keep yourself in line with the code society presents. Drugs aren't because people can't find jobs, drugs are because people are weak.

What do you expect? They dont want a revolution, so they do something to prevent a revolution.

A people can only help themselves if they go for a revolution. The people in Iraq should have staged a revolution before we got involved.

It pretty much doesnt exist since not alot of people have it. And in the US for you to get Social Welfare you need to be holding a job.

Isn't that how it should be. Why should we help people if they aren't trying.

Also, about TANF. You have five years max you are allowed to be on it. You can only be unemployed for two years, if any longer, they take your help away. So you have two years to find a job while on TANF. I think that is MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME.

That is already going on in the US, if you havent noticed you guys have a poverty problem. 17% of Americans live under the poverty level and they recieve no social welfare. So what are you complaning about?

Rightfully so and these are steps in the right direction.

It's funny how you made that post and the poor are "unfit" yet, you call yourself 'Dignified Pauper'

This is just for the humorous purpose of the screen name.

[GhandiOwnsYou]

I'm trying to figure out how big a moron you have to be to confuse Hitler's genocidal tendencies with Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism states that those naturally more gifted or able will remain or move towards the top of the social ladder. Hitler decided to make himself the default top dog by killing anybody that opposed him. That's not social darwinism, thats a moron with an army.

you say weeding out the "less able" or those with unfit personalities and all manner of other crap, would be a positive idea?it would be self defeating and pointless. Since, as a Social Darwinist, you claim to believe that they will naturally and inevitably sink to the bottom of the social classes, your active effort in removing them from the populus would be a waste of manpower and energy, ironically making you less fit as a productive member of society.

And for the record, your view on capitalism is screwed. Capitalism proclaims that all people should be equally able to freely market whatever skill or product they wish to market, and that the competition between such laissez faire business and tradesmen would force more and better products to come forth, at cheaper prices and with more efficient labor. A side effect of this would be that the naturally more able managers would be able to attract the naturally more gifted analysts, skilled tradesmen, inventors, and grunt labor workers into the positions that would best fit them. essentially, an economic system such as this would streamline itself. it does not "Force" people into jobs no one else wants, it puts them in a position which naturally befits their ability and training, and a properly aligned company would have executives that, when they heard of a fantastically bright worker who was unable to keep up with the speed of the grunt work, would recognize his higher level talent and move him into a position that befits it. in this manner, the top crust isn't exalted at all, but rather everyone is given compensation for the work that they are qualified to do and excel at, and those that do not choose positions that befit them will suffed the consequences.

In Essence, next time you want to make a bold political statement, at least take the time to know what you're talking about. You're not a social Darwinist, you aren't a capitalist. You're a person with a raging ego and what borders on a sociopathic tendency towards others. So don't try to make what are literally Psychological Social disorders look like profound but controversial intellectual stances.