Leftists like to claim they are the side of "the science" yet they invert every principle of evolution

Variation - We are all the same

Overpopulation - lower birth rates

Inherited traits - social engineering

adaptation - social model of inclusion

survival of the fittest - fittest are taxed to help the weak

Ironically, religious tribalism is the most successful evolutionary survival strategy and the precepts of religions are an adoption of behaviours that allow individuals to act in consonance with the confines of what these laws of nature dictate.

Top | New | Old

VeganYogi · 31-35

The left and right both have their unique limitations in grasping logic. What you pointed out about leftists is 100% correct, but religion, climate change and infinite economic growth are where rightists fall short in logical thinking. The religious rightists don't even believe in evolution.

I'm a right-centrist because I think there's a lot less rational thinking on the left. I acknowledge that men, women and even different races have intrinsic differences. I believe that inequalities are natural and justified. The gender wage gap, for example, is totally justified.

Roundandroundwego · 61-69

There really are two opposing ideologies in politics, and the conservatives hate history, reject facts and need an alternative narrative to keep them united against the left. The left are really history based and always learning.

bijouxbroussard · F

An example of "absolutism" is assuming that all "leftists" (by your definition I imagine) feel one way about all science.

Another example is claiming that "religious tribalism is the most successful evolutionary survival strategy", considering all the different religions that exist among humankind, and what people have done to each other in their names.

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

Human society "inverts" every law of natural evolution. It is why some of us strive for progress, to set us apart from the other apes.

View 1 more replies »

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@Therealsteve Not being ripped apart by the strongest members of the pack. Allowing empathy and the rule of law to govern our base instincts so we have sufficient peace and stability to build on our achievements in science, literature, and the arts.

Therealsteve · 31-35, M

@SunshineGirl I believe in individual property rights, the right to self-determination and the right to freedom from violence. A state should exist to protect those things.

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@Therealsteve And it does. You will not find any of those advantages in a state of nature.

FreddieUK · 70-79, M

Unfortunately, I think your Mormon ideology is peeking through here.

Therealsteve · 31-35, M

@FreddieUK Surprise surprise one joins a group that they feel aligns with their values and one attempts to orientate themselves in a way that they believe is commensurate with the best way to do so in accordance with their understanding of reality.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

View 1 more replies »

BlueVeins · 22-25

@Therealsteve

So, you don't think we should act in accordance with the scientific reality of nature? You would choose instead ideology?

Our actions should be informed by evolution. We shouldn't overprescribe antibiotics because the theory of evolution shows that it creates antibiotic-resistant superbugs. We shouldn't rely on one pesticide too much because insects evolve to resist it if we do. That much is solid.

The values you want us to adopt don't follow from evolution. It's true that in evolution, organisms that are genetically better at propagating their genes tend to propagate themselves more, making those genes more prevalent in the population. There's basically no connection between this and cutting welfare, unless you both believe that poor people are genetically inferior and want them to die of starvation. And even then, everything we know about evolution says that it would take thousands of years to cause any actual noticeable change in human genetics.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

BlueVeins · 22-25

@Therealsteve Babe that doesn't make any fucking sense. If you're in favor of feeding the poor, then how is welfare any more against evolution than that?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Add a comment...