Obama / FICA taxes: "how do you like me now?"

[Dolorous Jason]

No, CBW. It was a statement of fact, not a list of options. The rights of the individual will be sublimated to the needs of the collective. This is true of all evolutionary models. At issue is the evolutionary model to be chosen (that's what a society is, an agreed upon set of behaviors to guide the evolution of the larger superorganism). It's not about the "rights" of the individual, it's about how much of the individual's personal needs society can afford to provide and still compete with other societies, and which of those needs that, by necessity, fall to the individual.

Even a self-congratulatory pseudo intellectual such as yourself must understand that in individual evolutionary competition, one cannot afford to drag around dead weight and still out-compete for the same resources. There just ain't no fat cheetahs, son. The evolutionary model you would guide us towards is a dud, because you simply do not understand the rules.

Really, it is your model that places the rights of the individual above the needs of the collective, to the point where you would endanger the larger superorganism in order to provide for the individual. Furthermore, your folly is grounded in a basic misunderstanding of human nature. The more society provides for the individual without expected reciprocation, the individual adapts and the less they are willing to provide for themselves. Your evolutionary cheetah is not only fat, it is lazy as well. But, hey, if you stamp your foot and point to your charts, maybe evolution will change the rules for you.

Game , set , match.

Chalk up another one in the loss column for Comrade CBW.

[spartan]

No, CBW. It was a statement of fact, not a list of options. The rights of the individual will be sublimated to the needs of the collective. This is true of all evolutionary models. At issue is the evolutionary model to be chosen (that's what a society is, an agreed upon set of behaviors to guide the evolution of the larger superorganism). It's not about the "rights" of the individual, it's about how much of the individual's personal needs society can afford to provide and still compete with other societies, and which of those needs that, by necessity, fall to the individual.

Even a self-congratulatory pseudo intellectual such as yourself must understand that in individual evolutionary competition, one cannot afford to drag around dead weight and still out-compete for the same resources. There just ain't no fat cheetahs, son. The evolutionary model you would guide us towards is a dud, because you simply do not understand the rules.

Really, it is your model that places the rights of the individual above the needs of the collective, to the point where you would endanger the larger superorganism in order to provide for the individual. Furthermore, your folly is grounded in a basic misunderstanding of human nature. The more society provides for the individual without expected reciprocation, the individual adapts and the less they are willing to provide for themselves. Your evolutionary cheetah is not only fat, it is lazy as well. But, hey, if you stamp your foot and point to your charts, maybe evolution will change the rules for you.

Interesting post Illum, never quite thought of it that way. Currently watching the Fal**CENSORED**s, if I don't drink too much maybe I will respond once I have mused about it a bit more. Either way, nice post.

[olafberserker]

No, CBW. It was a statement of fact, not a list of options. The rights of the individual will be sublimated to the needs of the collective. This is true of all evolutionary models. At issue is the evolutionary model to be chosen (that's what a society is, an agreed upon set of behaviors to guide the evolution of the larger superorganism). It's not about the "rights" of the individual, it's about how much of the individual's personal needs society can afford to provide and still compete with other societies, and which of those needs that, by necessity, fall to the individual.

Even a self-congratulatory pseudo intellectual such as yourself must understand that in individual evolutionary competition, one cannot afford to drag around dead weight and still out-compete for the same resources. There just ain't no fat cheetahs, son. The evolutionary model you would guide us towards is a dud, because you simply do not understand the rules.

Really, it is your model that places the rights of the individual above the needs of the collective, to the point where you would endanger the larger superorganism in order to provide for the individual. Furthermore, your folly is grounded in a basic misunderstanding of human nature. The more society provides for the individual without expected reciprocation, the individual adapts and the less they are willing to provide for themselves. Your evolutionary cheetah is not only fat, it is lazy as well. But, hey, if you stamp your foot and point to your charts, maybe evolution will change the rules for you.

Game , set , match.

Chalk up another one in the loss column for Comrade CBW.

Oh please.  He's been working Google for hours to find a link somewhere to refute the post or a word in it.   This is a never ending thing with the clown.

[Chief Joseph]

Personally, I'm expecting a picture of a fat cheetah in a zoo.

[Dolorous Jason]

Personally, I'm expecting a picture of a fat cheetah in a zoo.

LOL

[CBWx2]

Personally, I'm expecting a picture of a fat cheetah in a zoo.

There's no need, because the cheetah metaphor, while unsurprisingly impressive to your "free thinking" buddies who always seem to think just unfree enough to agree with your every word, is a woefully inadequate way of explaining how societal evolution, or competition works. It's also a lazy one. About as lazy as a fat cheetah.

Let me provide you with a better metaphor. A group of three cheetahs hunt together. One cheetah is faster and stronger than the other two. When ever the faster, stronger cheetah catches a gazelle, he eats the entire thing, and doesn't leave anything for the other two cheetahs, so whenever the fastest cheetah catches the gazelle, the other two cheetahs don't eat. What purpose does it serve for those other two cheetahs to continue to hunt with the fastest cheetah? How long before the other two cheetahs begin to gang up on the fastest cheetah and take his killings for themselves?

What you are suggesting is that societies that provide for the least amount of the individual's personal needs are stronger than or more successful than societies that provide for the most amount of the individual's personal needs. That is completely false, and there is no example within the framework of human social evolution that proves otherwise.

The primary problem with your example lies in what it is that you are categorizing as the "fat" on the cheetah. In your scenario, you are suggesting that the have not's that are seeing their needs met "without expected reciprocation" are the fat on the cheetah. What societal evolution has taught us is that to the extent that individual needs are not being met within a society, that is the extent that group cohesiveness begins to deteriorate within that society, and infighting occurs. The social structure is not strengthened by your example, it is weakened by it. The true "fat" on the cheetah is not those in a society that are seeing their needs met "without expected reciprocation", it is those who are not seeing their needs met within the social structure.

The only purpose of living in a society is that there is strength in numbers. The more you strip away the benefits of being part of a social structure, the less reason there is for individuals to want to be a part of that social structure. I am not the one seemingly lacking a basic understanding of human nature. You are.

[Chief Joseph]

All cats are solitary except lions, the only groups are fraternal males. Don't even presume to lecture me about evolution, you **CENSORED**ing poser.

[Chief Joseph]

Here, learn what you are talking about or shut the **CENSORED** up:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/098190498X

[CBWx2]

All cats are solitary except lions, the only groups are fraternal males. Don't even presume to lecture me about evolution, you **CENSORED**ing poser.

"Female cheetahs live alone, except when raising cubs. They rarely associate with other cheetahs, except when ready to mate. Males live in small permanent groups called coalitions, which are usually made up of two to four brothers."

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/africansavanna/fact-cheetah.cfm

[Dolorous Jason]

Here, learn what you are talking about or shut the **CENSORED** up:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/098190498X

Either of those are impossible options for comrade.

[CBWx2]

Here, learn what you are talking about or shut the **CENSORED** up:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/098190498X

I don't need to read that to see that you are full of crap, and are simply hiding behind "evolution" to mask your belief in and support of the concept of rugged individualism. Anyone who suggests that a society can only compete with other societies by being "less social", is a complete hack in regards to their expressed understanding of social evolution. You are trying to use concepts to support your political inclinations that don't support it at all.

History has shown time and time again that what causes societies to collapse is when the social structure no longer meets the expressed needs of the individuals that live within it. As the division of resources within a society becomes less equitable, the more fractured the social structure becomes. Here's a question for you. Since you and your "free thinking" buddies are so fond of the Soviet Union, can you explain to me how and why the Bolsheviks came to power?

[CBWx2]

Here's another question for you. Two groups are vying for supremacy on a deserted island. One group is comprised of two individuals who are fit and well nourished, and two individuals who live off of the scraps that are left by the other two. They only eat the leftovers, and when there are none, they don't eat at all. The other group is made up of four individuals who equally share resources with one another. While none of them are as fit and well nourished as the two leaders of the other group, they are all far more nourished than the other two individuals in the other group. The two groups clash. Who wins supremacy of the island?

[Chief Joseph]

 " Since you and your "free thinking" buddies are so fond of the Soviet Union, "

What the **CENSORED** are you talking about? Since you clearly pulled that out of your ass, I suggest you push the gerbils to one side and put it back where it came from.

[olafberserker]

hey look cbw has diverted the conversion to another mindless debate ..... shocked

[Chief Joseph]

All cats are solitary except lions, the only groups are fraternal males.

Males live in small permanent groups called coalitions, which are usually made up of two to four brothers."

Good God you are an imbecile. Things keep getting worse and worse for you and you just keep digging faster.

fra·ter·nal (fr-tûrnl) adj. 1. a. Of or relating to brothers