I don't believe in evolution... (2)

[Lion Hearted Man]

Meritocracy is essentially Social Darwinism, Z-Man.

 

[Zongerfield]

Meritocracy is essentially Social Darwinism, Z-Man.

Wrong.

Social Darwinism implies that there are innate differences in us. That some races of people are innately superior to others. That different means deficient. There is zero evidence to prove such theories.

Meritocracy implies that those who work harder, those who work smarter get rewarded for their efforts. This is the way it should be.

 

[Zongerfield]

You also neglect to respond to my other question: If your position had any merit whatsoever, why isnt it promoted in the bible? And whats more, why isnt it something we know works in real life?

My position is supported in the bible. God gave us free will. We have a choice whether to love him and accept him as our Lord and Savior, or we can, like some individuals on this forum, spurn him, rebuke him, and hate those who follow his word.

Free will is an essential part of being human. We can actively choose our destiny. We can choose salvation, we can choose hard work, or we can choose to go live in trees on college campuses and worship pagan deities (the God's of the earth, the moon, the stars). The point is, we reap what we sow.

 

[Ampersand]

What free will does the Nameless God give? Love me or get tortured for eternity is not a choice, it's a threat. It's like telling your child either worship me daily or I'll shove you in the basement to get beaten and raped daily.

 

[Nathan Poe]

My position is supported in the bible. God gave us free will. We have a choice whether to love him and accept him as our Lord and Savior, or we can, like some individuals on this forum, spurn him, rebuke him, and hate those who follow his word.

It's funny how people think they're hated for "following his word," when in reality, it's just about their vain attempts to mold the rest of society in their image.

It's not your fault, Zongerfield -- none of us blame you for being this way.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Wrong.

Social Darwinism implies that there are innate differences in us. That some races of people are innately superior to others. That different means deficient. There is zero evidence to prove such theories.

Meritocracy implies that those who work harder, those who work smarter get rewarded for their efforts. This is the way it should be.

The second bullet point in the Wikipedia article on Meritocracy is...wait...I won't spoil the surprise for you...

Meritocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your "those who harder, those who work smarter get rewarded for their efforts" sounds a lot like "survival of the fittest", doesn't it?

 

[Zongerfield]

What free will does the Nameless God give? Love me or get tortured for eternity is not a choice, it's a threat. It's like telling your child either worship me daily or I'll shove you in the basement to get beaten and raped daily.

You can't prove heaven or hell exists. So the choice is up to you. He does provide a fair and emphatic warning in scripture, nevertheless, it might be tempting to live a heathen, unrepentant, care-free lifestyle. In which case, you will burn in the hearth of hell.

I forgive you and I will pray for you.

 

[Ampersand]

Again, where is the choice when there's a sword at your throat?

 

[Zongerfield]

The second bullet point in the Wikipedia article on Meritocracy is...wait...I won't spoil the surprise for you...

Meritocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your "those who harder, those who work smarter get rewarded for their efforts" sounds a lot like "survival of the fittest", doesn't it?

Read this sentence:

Proponents of Social Darwinism argue that the theory justifies social inequality as being meritocratic. Darwin himself only ventured to propound his theories in a biological sense, and it is other thinkers and theorists who have applied Darwin's model to unequal endowments of human ambition.

This is a key difference between social Darwinism and meritocracy, meritocracy doesn't suggest that people are endowed with unequal amounts of human ambition, rather, it posits that everyone was created equal, and some choose to work harder than others. Social Darwinism suggests an innate difference between people and races, whereas a meritocracy simply says those that work harder should be rewarded for their efforts.

 

[Charlie V]

Meritocracy implies that those who work harder, those who work smarter get rewarded for their efforts. This is the way it should be.

And in our capitalist society, that is the way it is not.

Capitalism does not reward the hardest worker. It rewards the richest business owner who pushes the employees to work harder while dodging rewarding their efforts... making sure that that carrot is well out of reach and snatching it away in the end.

My father is proof positive of that, as are millions of others.

We need a new paradigm.

Charlie

 

[Nathan Poe]

You can't prove heaven or hell exists. So the choice is up to you. He does provide a fair and emphatic warning in scripture, nevertheless, it might be tempting to live a heathen, unrepentant, care-free lifestyle. In which case, you will burn in the hearth of hell.

But as you've pointed out, there's no proof whatsoever that any of this should be believed -- so why encode it into the law?

We don't blame you; it's not your fault you're this way.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

And in our capitalist society, that is the way it is not.

Capitalism does not reward the hardest worker. It rewards the richest business owner who pushes the employees to work harder while dodging rewarding their efforts... making sure that that carrot is well out of reach and snatching it away in the end.

My father is proof positive of that, as are millions of others.

We need a new paradigm.

Charlie

This is what [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed me off about the private sector so much in the States. Employers there often pretend like there really is potential for good and hard work to pay off when the vast vast majority of the time it's a bald faced lie.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

This is a key difference between social Darwinism and meritocracy, meritocracy doesn't suggest that people are endowed with unequal amounts of human ambition, rather, it posits that everyone was created equal, and some choose to work harder than others. Social Darwinism suggests an innate difference between people and races, whereas a meritocracy simply says those that work harder should be rewarded for their efforts.

Do you honestly believe that all of us are born with *exactly* the same talents and qualities, in *exactly* the same measure?

But first things first:
I'm not totally averse to the notion that harder work should result in higher pay, or that jobs that require a specialized skill set that takes lots of practice to master shouldn't reap better rewards than tasks that do not require them. Quite the contrary: I'd argue that this is only fair.

HOWEVER, that's not how capitalism as we know it today works. Not anywhere, and ESPECIALLY not in the US. There are jobs that will never lift you out of poverty, no matter how hard you work, no matter how much effort you dedicate to the task. Ironically, they also tend to be jobs that truly HELP society: so if you're a nurse, or a kindergarten teacher, no amount of hard work will make you rich. Ever.
If, on the other hand, you happen to be a banker, a stock broker, or a management consultant, you'll inevitably end up earning more than a hundred times as much as people in the aforementioned professions, even though you do not work more than a hundred times as hard.

And the best part is: given that there's only a limited amount of money to go around, the exorbitant (and utterly unjust) wages of the financial elite virtually DEPEND on the fact that vast portions of the populace remain poor regardless of how much effort they invest into their jobs.

Back to the issue of people being equal: it doesn't take a PhD to figure out that people are not equally intelligent, talented, or ambitious. It's also not much of a secret that a child that's born in a trailer park or an inner city ghetto will never receive the same opportunities as the son of a CEO, regardless of their respective innate abilities. People ought to have equal rights, but with the way things are, we only pay lip service to that tenet. People do not enjoy equal opportunities, especially in the US, where your parents' wallet determines for the most part whether or not you'll be able to go to college, receive medical attention, or hire a legal consultant should you ever need one.

In short: capitalism as it is practiced today is not a meritocracy, but more closely akin to the aristocracies of old - except that the elite does no longer determine its status via titles and land ownership, but primarily via exorbitant monetary wealth. And to even pretend that all of those who are poor DESERVE to be poor while all of those who are rich have earned it - well, that's social Darwinism for you.

 

[TheReasoner]

My position is supported in the bible. God gave us free will. We have a choice whether to love him and accept him as our Lord and Savior, or we can, like some individuals on this forum, spurn him, rebuke him, and hate those who follow his word.

Free will is an essential part of being human. We can actively choose our destiny. We can choose salvation, we can choose hard work, or we can choose to go live in trees on college campuses and worship pagan deities (the God's of the earth, the moon, the stars). The point is, we reap what we sow.

This doesn't make much sense Zongerfield. Not only does it appear that you're not answering my question - which was not about spiritual salvation, but your view of free will is slightly askew. True, we can choose a lot, but we can choose only to a certain degree. If you're born to wealth you are far freer in most of the world than if you're born to poverty. If you want everyone to actually have real free will you need to eliminate extreme poverty. Take the poor in Ecuador for example, which is a country I used to live in. They would often have to work in the traffic trying to get money for food and living expenses. I recall many bringing their children along. The problem is that car exhaust contains lead. (yes yes now it doesn't always, but it did. And probably still does, there) and lead is very dangerous. The pollution, lead in particular, lead to brain damage for many of them. So even if they could get out of their poverty - which is extremely unlikely - they'd be locked into it from their brain damage sustained while trying to survive. And this is only one example. Many children and adults are ruined for life and/or killed from working for their employers in factories as well. Usually for some western company wanting cheap labor.

This is one place where I see a significant mismatch between your capitalist ideology and the bible. The bible is very very clear. Even when it speaks directly to rulers it commands them to take care of and speak the case of the poor and the needy. You don't.

In fact the bible says that to do so is what it is to know the Lord. I've already quoted that verse, and it seems you've ignored it.


I repeat my question's second part though:
If your position had any merit, why do we see it's opposite having a very beneficial effect? If you had been right about your position Norway should be even more oppressive, poorer, and generally broken because we've worked on creating a more equal society for a long time. Instead we're quite rich, we're topping the HDI, and very few nations are freer than us (No, the US is far less free on all but one point: Economic freedom)

So again I ask you, we know from experience that your right wing policies harm the weak. We also know from experience that your right wing policies are not beneficial in the long term, whereas the left wing policies adopted among other places in scandinavia are stabilizing and liberating for the population as a whole.
We also know from the bible that we are supposed to take care of the weak among us, to help one another - even those who don't strictly speaking deserve it.
So again, why do you preach the opposite? Why do you say we aren't obligated to help the poor, when Matthew 25 prescribes eternal damnation for those who don't, and Ezekiel and plenty of others are extremely harsh against those who don't - even as nations, not just individuals.


Also, Zongerfield, I don't think anyone here is arguing that a street sweeper or hot-dog salesman should make the same as a person with a master's degree. Just that the street sweeper's kids should have the same chances at success. And that the street sweeper himself should make enough money to live without need. He shouldn't go homeless or hungry, nor be refused any medical treatment necessary for him due to financial prowess or lack thereof.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Read this sentence:

Proponents of Social Darwinism argue that the theory justifies social inequality as being meritocratic. Darwin himself only ventured to propound his theories in a biological sense, and it is other thinkers and theorists who have applied Darwin's model to unequal endowments of human ambition.

This is a key difference between social Darwinism and meritocracy, meritocracy doesn't suggest that people are endowed with unequal amounts of human ambition, rather, it posits that everyone was created equal, and some choose to work harder than others. Social Darwinism suggests an innate difference between people and races, whereas a meritocracy simply says those that work harder should be rewarded for their efforts.

It would be extremely naive of you to think that everyone is starting from the same place. If that were so, things would be a lot more fair and this sort of meritocracy would make a little more sense. But when you put people against each other in a meritocracy when there are clear discrepancies and disparities between them, guess which one is going to win?

Both meritocracy and Social Darwinism use the concept of survival of the fittest. Do you at least agree on that?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

faith guardian quote

This is one place where I see a significant mismatch between your capitalist ideology and the bible. The bible is very very clear. Even when it speaks directly to rulers it commands them to take care of and speak the case of the poor and the needy. You don't.

Response

This is where I believe you have an incorrect understanding of the Bible.

I believe the Bible (especially the New Testament) requires that only fellow Christians (brothers) be helped, except where the status of a person is unknown as in the Good Samaritan parable.

Also as an act of love, Christians are required to offer Atheists salvation.

Romans 12:18 says, "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

Too often, helping the poor and needy is nothing more than subsidizing sin.

This is where I believe you show that you do not understand the Good Samaritan parable at all.

Abundant evidence has shown that a different interpretation better fits.

 

[TheReasoner]

Charlie V quote

May I assume that Christian Socialists first give a man a fish and then teach him to fish?

Response

You may assume it (or hope for it like the democrats), but what incentive does a person have to fish when you are giving them fish?

He may finally have both had a taste for the fish and have the energy to learn and perform the learned task.

No-one can work overlong on an empty stomach. People can neither learn nor work if they are dying. First deal with the immediate needs, if for no other reasons, then for love for a fellow human. Then other needs and opportunities can follow.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Charlie V quote

May I assume that Christian Socialists first give a man a fish and then teach him to fish?

Response

You may assume it (or hope for it like the democrats), but what incentive does a person have to fish when you are giving them fish?

Not starving to death is a pretty good incentive.

If a man's house is on fire, you have to put the fire out before helping him rebuild.

 

[Charlie V]

Try to talk serious economic issues here, and what do we have.

The fish sideshow!

While the oil companies and the banks and the big corporations impoverish the poor and work us to death so that they can watch their billions turn to trillions... let's talk about FISH!

Holy mackerel.

Charlie

PS. Psst: Here's a hint: My question was rhetorical and intended for humor. I thought that would be clear in the context that I just debunked the whole concept of "Christian" being the opposite of "Socialist." That was before I wised up and decided, let's stop the sideshows and talk about the real issues: How big corporations, oil companies, banks etc. are impoverishing us. The sideshow is the socialists handing out fish, the hula-hoop performers and the clown on stilts. They are not who is impoverishing us. It is the big corporations who are impoverishing us. Follow the money. Don't follow the fish.

PPS. While the big oil companies that are paying NOT ONE DIME in taxes and getting BAILOUTS keep having trillions of dollars in profits while raising prices at the pump, they're also spilling oil in the Gulf, as BP did, so that all the Christians, non-Christians, Socialists, Capitalists, and Other-Paradigmists in the world could learn all the fishing techniques in the world, and all they're going to come up with is an inedible, sludge-filled, rancid dead carp.

 

[TheReasoner]

Try to talk serious economic issues here, and what do we have.

The fish sideshow!

While the oil companies and the banks and the big corporations impoverish the poor and work us to death so that they can watch their billions turn to trillions... let's talk about FISH!

Holy mackerel.

Charlie

YouTube - look at the shiny shiny
(yes, yes, he used a bad word in there. Point is still good. And now you're warned if you're sensitive)