Notice to Aboriginal Voters: Globe and Mail Confirms Thomas Flanagan still a

[Bruce Monkhouse]

QUOTE,
As a society?  Why the hell not?  It shouldnt be societys responsibility to take care of children or the elderly in the first place, but that's a different argument altogether, what we're talking about here is a social structure which cannot survive on it's own and has to instead be susidized by a more productive society.

What I'm saying is we need to stop supporting failiure.  If a person is in a vegetative state, pull the damn plug.  If an industry isn't competitive, let it go bankrupt.  If a community cannot afford to support itself in it's current incanrnation, let it evolve, or fall apart.




MOD WARNING: I CAN SEE WHATS COMING, BUT KEEP IT CIVIL FOLKS

OK, LETS ROCK......

 

[48Highlander]

As for the term "survival of the fittest" this was a term describing the ability of an individuals reproductive not economic viability.  Seeing as poor people manage to generate progeny, survival of the fittest as a justification of "screw the poor", seems to be an attempt by certain individuals to cloak thier ideology in what is one of the greater (in terms of impact) scientific theories of the modern age.  Similarily Social Darwinism would be an examination of social factors that contribute to (or deny) an individual's ability to reproduce.  Hence the term used in application to an individuals economic ability, has little bearing on the current discussion.

Don't be silly.  The idea of evulution can be applied to any complex system.  In business, a company either continualy evolves or it stagnates and dies.  In politics, candidates either continualy change their platforms to match what people expect, or they don't survive.  On the world stage, countries either change to exploit new opportunities and meet new threats, or they stagnate and decline.  It's all the same idea; survival and success depend on changing to suit your environment and your opponents.

 

[midgetcop]

As a society?  Why the hell not?  It shouldnt be societys responsibility to take care of children or the elderly in the first place,

Huh??

but that's a different argument altogether,

You're the one who opened this can of worms. Now deal with it.

Really?  How so?

You've basically stated outright that we as a society shouldn't feel compelled to protect those who are weaker than us (i.e. Social Darwinism), which goes WAAAAAAY beyond the original argument in this thread. 

I'm glad that people like you aren't able to make these moral decisions. And I'm sure my autistic nephew is glad that he is alive today, and not left to die because he wasn't deemed "useful".

 

[48Highlander]

Huh??

You're the one who opened this can of worms. Now deal with it.

Nope, Glorified Ape did.  I was talking about the evolution of societies, he chose to perceive it as something else.  The same as you're doing now.

You've basically stated outright that we as a society shouldn't feel compelled to protect those who are weaker than us (i.e. Social Darwinism), which goes WAAAAAAY beyond the original argument in this thread. 

I have now because the two of you started asking about it.  I had no intention to sidetrack this thread into a debate about the pros and cons of taking care of the "weaker members" of our society.  And I suggest we get back to the actual topic of the thread before it ends up getting locked.

I'm glad that people like you aren't able to make these moral decisions. And I'm sure my autistic nephew is glad that he is alive today, and not left to die because he wasn't deemed "useful".

Yippie.

 

[midgetcop]

Nope, Glorified Ape did.  I was talking about the evolution of societies, he chose to perceive it as something else.  The same as you're doing now.

Your direct quote which apparently everyone (including directing staff) has "misperceived":

What I would REALLY like to know is how we as a species have gone from "survival of the fittest" to "the fittest must support the weakest".  Frankly, when ANYTHING, wether it be a society, an ideology, a religion, a technology, or an individual, has reached the end of it's usefulnes....LET IT DIE.  Why the hell do we insist on trying to prop up failiures?  Who decided that it's "morally neccesary" to support things which cannot exist on their own?  And how in the hell are we supposed to improve when so many insist on regressing?

I have now because the two of you started asking about it.  I had no intention to sidetrack this thread into a debate about the pros and cons of taking care of the "weaker members" of our society.  And I suggest we get back to the actual topic of the thread before it ends up getting locked.

You made your bed, now lie in it.

 

[xFusilier]

Don't be silly.  The idea of evulution can be applied to any complex system.  In business, a company either continualy evolves or it stagnates and dies.  In politics, candidates either continualy change their platforms to match what people expect, or they don't survive.  On the world stage, countries either change to exploit new opportunities and meet new threats, or they stagnate and decline.  It's all the same idea; survival and success depend on changing to suit your environment and your opponents.

True, however,there is an explicit difference between evolution in terms of change, and Evolution as a distinct scientific theory.  Those who attempt to place the former in the trappings of the latter, through the coining of phrases such as "survival of the fittest", and "Social Darwinism", are attempting to piggyback onto a valid scientific theory to give legitimacy to their own, a form of intellectual dishonesty if you will.

 

[48Highlander]

True, however,there is an explicit difference between evolution in terms of change, and Evolution as a distinct scientific theory.  Those who attempt to place the former in the trappings of the latter, through the coining of phrases such as "survival of the fittest", and "Social Darwinism", are attempting to piggyback onto a valid scientific theory to give legitimacy to their own, a form of intellectual dishonesty if you will.

Hardly.  The term "survival of the fittest" applies as much to societies as it does to individual organisms in the Darwinist scientific theory.  Just because the term was used once to describe something doesn't mean it can never again be used to describe something else.  Besides which, as I've pointed out, the same general rules that govern the evolution of biological systems apply to the evolution of all other complex systems.  Social Darwinism builds on concepts initialy established by Darwin, so it's rather difficult to talk about it without appearing to "piggyback" on the scientific theory of evolution.

 

[a_majoor]

a_majoor,

You argue that if a contract no longer serves it's purpose, it should be terminated, however you fail to define whose purposes.  My understanding of a contract is that it may not be terminated without the consent of both parties, should aboriginal peoples decide (and it is for them to decide) that the contract should not be terminated, then we are into the relm of, terminating this contract simply because we have the werewithal to do it, I fail to see the difference between that course of action and the Hobbesian "war of all against all".  As such, I must ask what your envisioned plan is for changing the present contractual obligation the Crown has to aboriginal people.

A contract has to be mutually beneficial, or it is of no purpose, and only breeds resentments among one, the other or both parties. In the context of this debate, we are spending something on the order of $7 billion dollars a year in direct payments to the government departments responsible for "First Nations" issues, yet most of the people affected by this live in totally deplorable conditions. It is to the benefit of a small cadre of lawyers, activists and government officials that this charade goes on (They get the benefits of a river of cash, plus they can scream racism when questioned about their activities, diverting the questions and questioner). If this was actually presented as a cost/benefit case to the people of Canada and the aboriginal people affected by this system, I am fairly certain that a majority on both sides would agree it is time to terminate this particular contract and clean house. Parliament can pass laws abolishing the present system, should enough citizens press their representatives to do so, and since people of aboriginal background are citizens who can lobby for change and vote to support their MP, they are already capable of initiating or joining this process.

Once this happened, the Crown's obligations would be the same to aboriginal people as it is to you or I or any other Canadian member of this board.

 

[dutchie]

Hardly.  The term "survival of the fittest" applies as much to societies as it does to individual organisms in the Darwinist scientific theory.  Just because the term was used once to describe something doesn't mean it can never again be used to describe something else.  Besides which, as I've pointed out, the same general rules that govern the evolution of biological systems apply to the evolution of all other complex systems.  Social Darwinism builds on concepts initialy established by Darwin, so it's rather difficult to talk about it without appearing to "piggyback" on the scientific theory of evolution.

Right, but the legitimacy of Darwinism in individual organisms is rarely questioned, and has been accepted almost universally. The same cannot be said of the concept of 'Social Darwinism'. By attaching a widely accepted theory (Darwinism) to a very contentious theory (the one you have illustrated), you are creating a FALSE sense of acceptance to your theory.

 

[TCBF]

So, let's all step back, take a deep breath, and separate "survival of the fitest" from how it applies to individuals and how it applies to cultural structures, programs and policies.


I would say a lot of our current progams should be allowed to wither on the vine because they promote sub-cultural allegiences and 'collective rights' versus the support of an INDIVIDUAL in the greater context of the nation-state.

In other words: No Hyphen-Canadians?

48H: Is this where you thought this thread would head?

Tom

 

[48Highlander]

Right, but the legitimacy of Darwinism in individual organisms is rarely questioned, and has been accepted almost universally. The same cannot be said of the concept of 'Social Darwinism'. By attaching a widely accepted theory (Darwinism) to a very contentious theory (the one you have illustrated), you are creating a FALSE sense of acceptance to your theory.

???

Well, I'm sorry if you see it that way.  Hopefuly most people reading will be intelligent enough to realize that social Darwinism is different than biological Darwinism.

So what would you like me to do?  Put out a warning label every time I use the phrase "survival of the fitest"?

I think you better go have a talk with Mitsubishi too about their choice of name for the Lancer Evolution  ;D  They're creating a FALSE sense of the acceptance of their Automotive Evolution Theory.

I would say a lot of our current progams should be allowed to wither on the vine because they promote sub-cultural allegiences and 'collective rights' versus the support of an INDIVIDUAL in the greater context of the nation-state.

In other words: No Hyphen-Canadians?

48H: Is this where you thought this thread would head?

You got it   Thanks Tom.

 

[xFusilier]

Besides which, as I've pointed out, the same general rules that govern the evolution of biological systems apply to the evolution of all other complex systems.

So what your saying is that all complex systems (companies, countries, cars), have RANDOM (caps for emphasis) changes made to their make up which then determine that complex systems viablility.  If the changes aren't random the same rules don't apply, an organism cannot decide to add an opposable thumb, a board of directors can decide to innovate, a car has a designer that can change its characteristics.  Once again you point out the critical flaw in use of Evolution to give legitimacy to an economic theory, the same rules don't apply.

Just because the term was used once to describe something doesn't mean it can never again be used to describe something else.

Perhaps but if I have a PhD, and someone asks if there's a doctor in the house, and I say "I'm a Doctor" am I telling the truth or commiting a fraud?  The statement in and of itself is truthful, whilst in the context of the situation, I am in fact, knowing full well that in the situation described "Doctor" means a certain specific thing, being fraudulent.

 

[dutchie]

What I don't understand is how a group of people can expect 'fair and equal treatment' when at the core of their status as citizens are special rights and privelidges.

One half of my family ancestory is responsible for the ousting of thousands of civilians in NW Europe. The other half was the victim of that ousting. According to the Canadian theory of 'I was here first', I could claim accestoral land rights one day, and have it removed the next.

???

Well, I'm sorry if you see it that way.  Hopefuly most people reading will be intelligent enough to realize that social Darwinism is different than biological Darwinism.

So what would you like me to do?  Put out a warning label every time I use the phrase "survival of the fitest"?

I think you better go have a talk with Mitsubishi too about their choice of name for the Lancer Evolution  ;D  They're creating a FALSE sense of the acceptance of their Automotive Evolution Theory.

Hey, I don't disagree with your main point, just the way you made it.

 

[48Highlander]

So what your saying is that all complex systems (companies, countries, cars), have RANDOM (caps for emphasis) changes made to their make up which then determine that complex systems viablility.  If the changes aren't random the same rules don't apply, an organism cannot decide to add an opposable thumb, a board of directors can decide to innovate, a car has a designer that can change its characteristics.

You have a point, but depends largely on how you define random.  When societies change is it always the result of massive, deliberate shits in policy?  No, small changes are made to accomodate a segment of the population, which result in largel societal changes that aren't always predictable.  Or conversley, you could also say that the changes in biological systems aren't "random" because some minor part of your body decides to make that change.  You as a biological organism may not make a deliberate decision, but some cell, or collection of cells, or the cells in your parents reproductive system, makes the change for you.

Anyway, this is REALLY off topic, if you want to continue it you're free to PM me, but I suggest we cancel the discussion here.

 

[midgetcop]

What I don't understand is how a group of people can expect 'fair and equal treatment' when at the core of their status as citizens are special rights and privelidges.

That I've never really understood either, in the case of First Nations. But I'm curious as to how their leaders feel on the issue...

 

[TCBF]

"One half of my family ancestry is responsible for the ousting of thousands of civilians in NW Europe. The other half was the victim of that ousting. According to the Canadian theory of 'I was here first', I could claim accestoral land rights one day, and have it removed the next."

I would think most of Canada - Euro/Abo/Eng/Fre/etc - is in the same boat.  My uncle, who spent much of his life working at a district jail, found out - at the age of 87 - that one of his ancestors was an Ojibway from the Manitoulan.  This makes me 1/32 or 1/64 Ojibway, along with the Irish/Scot/Welsh/Norman/Viking/etc. in there.  In Quebec, it is even crazier.  If you could trace the Irish and Indian roots in so-called 'Pure Wool' Quebecers...

So that is why, I think, a lot of race-based programs are scientifically unfair - in our genetic history, we are all Africans.

Now, groups of individuals who have suffered under government policy is another argument, but when does the social 'statute of limitations' run out?  

Tom

 

[dutchie]

So that is why, I think, a lot of race-based programs are scientifically unfair - in our genetic history, we are all Africans.

Or, from a Christian perspective, all of us are descendants of Noah, and Adam & Eve. Either way, the point holds true - why is there some magical distinction between our ancestory when in the end, we all orginated from one person?

Now, groups of individuals who have suffered under government policy is another argument, but when does the social 'statute of limitations' run out?  

Tom

In my book it's the span of one generation - 25 years.

editted for spelling.

 

[Cloud Cover]

As a society?  Why the hell not?  It shouldnt be societys responsibility to take care of children or the elderly in the first place, but that's a different argument altogether, what we're talking about here is a social structure which cannot survive on it's own and has to instead be susidized by a more productive society.

What I'm saying is we need to stop supporting failiure.  If a person is in a vegetative state, pull the damn plug.  If an industry isn't competitive, let it go bankrupt.  If a community cannot afford to support itself in it's current incanrnation, let it evolve, or fall apart.

Really?  How so?

Productivity is linked to economics, not society. Society is about being human and your statements in this thread are those that can only come from a brash, ignorant and bigoted young man with a lot to learn about being human.  Un-fuck yourself before somebody does it for you.   

 

[TCBF]

"Never.  It's constitutionally entrenched."

- For the time being.  After all, the leaders who wrote the Charter of Rights and Freedoms deliberately left out sexual orientation and were against gay marriage.  Never say never in politics.

Tom

 

[a_majoor]

Productivity is linked to economics, not society.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but societal organization is a HUGE factor in economics. The basic laws like supply and demand remain constant, but social organizations, laws, conventions etc. throw friction into the system, and the resulting economic distortions are simply the system attempting to reach equilibrium.

The former USSR was a huge land, filled with resources and incredibly smart people (at least every Russian I ever met), yet the social organization under both the Tsars and Communists resulted in an inefficient command economy where only the few could skim the wealth and the rest were left in a stunted existence.

The United States is also a continental nation, filled with resources and a population that fills the bell curve WRT smarts, but it has a loose social organization which allows people and capital to move to where the rewards are the greatest, hence the United States has the highest GDP on earth.

Canada is a continental nation, rich with resources etc., yet the potential has not been translated into wealth and opportunity for us because our social system inhibits movement of people (welfare traps like EI in the Atlantic provinces or the Reservations) or capital. We talk the talk about productivity, but strip mine the economy of investment capital with high taxes to support "desirable" social programs then wonder why incomes and productivity have been stagnent since 1993.