Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-15-2012, 07:42 AM
Semjaazah Semjaazah is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 114
"As social Darwinism has many definitions, it is hard for some to be either for or against it; some of the definitions oppose the others.
As The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics states
Part of the difficulty in establishing sensible and consistent usage is that commitment to the biology of natural selection and to 'survival of the fittest' entailed nothing uniform either for sociological method or for political doctrine. A 'social Darwinist' could just as well be a defender of laissez-faire as a defender of state socialism, just as much an imperialist as a domestic eugenist"

Courtesy of wikipedia. Since it seems to be a vague catch-all for many different positions, it's hardly a very good dismissal. I expect a better standard of debate in future, guys.
Old 03-15-2012, 07:52 AM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,483
Originally Posted by Semjaazah View Post
I'm really not going to bother with Mr. 'Your philosophy is bad science lololol' again, because if he can't see the difference between philosophy and science, that is his weakness to deal with. He's never cited anything other than 'this is bad science' to attack my position. No ideas of his own, nor any clear evidence as to what elements of my position are wrong. I've said what I have to.
I recognize the difference between philosophy and science, but I also recognize that your "philosophy" is little more than the "philosophy" of pseudo-scientists. ::: shrug :::

As to citations, you have made gratuitous assertions that I have gratuitously denied. You have entered a debate with nothing more than those gratuitous assertions, "defended" yourself against a charge I never made, demonstrated a serious factual misunderstanding of a point that was raised against you, and have now resorted to accusations of "lololol" that have not been part of this discussion.

So, basically, you have contributed nothing meaningful to the discussion and seem to be upset that you have been called on it.
Old 03-15-2012, 08:42 AM
Semjaazah Semjaazah is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 114
You have conflated my position with the position of pseudo-scientists because of your perception of the qualities that constitute social darwinism. As I noted above, that is a vague label and denotes no singular view, so it's more or less useless as a descriptor. Take issue with with my conception of morality if you wish, I'm happy to debate that matter, but you are derailing it by essentially saying 'that is social darwinism, social darwinism has been debunked ergo you are wrong'.

You have gratuitously denied, but not gratuitously refuted/corrected, any point I've made, but that is no achievement when it consists of dismissing it out of hand with no qualification. It is rather similar to 'you are a nazi, the nazi's were bad, you are bad/wrong'.

I'm not upset, but I am rather irritated that there has been no proper debate of any actual issues. Say what you like about my contribution to the debate, but at least it is a proposition of a position and not simply standing back and judging the contributions of others, as you have done. I have debated issues like this, from my position as regards moral validity and my personal philosophy, countless times, in debate groups, with family and friends and in University seminars. I know what I believe and am comfortable with it - comfortable enough to share it at length and defend my position. What I desire is someone with at least a substantial argument or refutation as to why I am incorrect in their opinion. That was the implication of 'lolol' - that you are simply gaining enjoyment (I can think of no other motive) by standing back and casting your opinion about me being incorrect without putting forward any explanation as to why.

Further, this is a matter of morality - a subjective issue, hence my repeated assertion that this is philosophy and not science - it cannot be proven empirically. One can put forward different views but no-one is in any position to say that they are certain someone else is wrong, unless they can point out actual logical fallacies within the framework of the opposing position. You have not done so, and given that I have put forward my view at length and repeatedly defended it against empty rebuttals, the burden is on you to do so, or simply concede that you don't like my point of view on face value and have nothing useful to contribute.
Old 03-15-2012, 09:45 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,483
Your attempt to assert that morality has no existence or meaning is a hijack of this thread, not a response to it.

You wandered into this thread with your own agenda and did not really even address the topic of the thread, (aside from a lukewarm defense of bullying). I responded to your unsupported hijack with as much effort as it deserved.

If you want to have a discussion regarding morality, per se, then you should open your own thread on that topic rather than trying to hijack this one. If you are just posting to see your name at the top of numerous posts, then I guess you have been successful.
Old 09-11-2014, 09:34 PM
PastTense PastTense is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,237
T. J. Lane has just escaped from prison:
Old 09-12-2014, 02:22 AM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,423
Got him, again -


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to:

Send comments about this website to:

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to:

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

Copyright © 2017