ralis

Whether it is Bible toting right wingers or just racists, these two groups are a danger. Right wing nut jobs are claiming that the new 'Miss America' doesn't represent 'American Values'. As if there is a set of narrowly defined values that all must adhere to. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/16/fox-news-host-new-miss-america-nina-davuluri-doesnt-represent-american-values/

The religious fundies won't be satisfied until the U.S. is full of stupid morons. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/13/christians-mad-textbooks-teaching-facts-again/

WWROA, Maybe you should study phrenology to back up your assumptions. It is a wide open field. "Phrenology as Justification for Imperialism": Spring Praxis Docume http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcfzB-bXuuQ

You are twisting what I wrote in terms of what Hobbes called uncivilized. Which means any uncivilized country. You are impossible to discuss this with. Goodnight!

Click on the link to an earlier post and that will give you a place to start. Did you do that? The explanation is right there. Are you versed in critical thinking? I doubt it!

Reread this. http://thetaobums.com/topic/31625-natural-law-and-self-preservation/page-3#entry476835

Since you were so quick to bring Hobbes into the discussion, why not read Hobbes for yourself. I read all that in college. I am not doing your homework for you!

I would suggest reading 'The Republic'. How you interpreted the pictures with racism being endemic to the natural world is how I see your OP. That stands above all commentary you have made in this thread. Hobbes advocated white-supremacy. Self-evident and proof of are two different things. The former needs no explanation and the latter requires extensive validation. That is the contradiction I see. By asserting that racism in the natural world is somehow divine law then aberrant behavior can easily follow. History is replete with examples. That is where 'Social Darwinism' originates.

You started the thread and all I ask is for you is to prove your points as opposed to being evasive.

After you actually prove your point, then I may answer your question. However, you started this thread and I am challenging you to defend your narrative. To answer a question with a question such as what you are doing to deflect the real discussion here, is not what I will participate in. That is a cop out and you know it. Are you going to defend your Hobbes quotes or not?

Who or by what means are those 5 points enforced? Exactly why did you bring Hobbes into the equation when you have not read Leviathan. If you are to regard Hobbes as a source for your narrative, then it is expedient to not quote out of context but to understand the basis for the Hobbes 'social contract'. Who is defining the so called natural laws?

What do you mean by the above quote? That just proves you don't understand what Hobbes was referring to. Hobbes was referring to creating civil order at the expense of individual freedom. You started the OP and I am challenging your premise, So far your narrative is based on faulty logic and cherry picking what you are in agreement with by citing Hobbes et al to prop up faulty reasoning. I would suggest reading Leviathan and get back with us in 1 year!

To quote you "It is just self preservation, true diversity + pursuit of unique evolutionary paths." Self preservation is not individualism? Your narrative is still inconsistent. Have you even read Hobbes? Leviathan? Do you understand it? Why not elaborate as opposed to running off to find a cut/paste that agrees with your assumptions.

Using Hobbes as a reference is contrary to your OP of individualism. Hobbes spoke was speaking for social order as opposed to the absolute right to individualism.

Your narrative is a bit fractured to say the least. You start with Hobbes and end up with Marx to prove what? To quote Hobbes; "the natural state is" bellum omnium contra omnes or ‘war of all against all that the life of man without civilized society should be characterized as ‘solitary, poor, brutish and short." Hobbes professed the view that civilized society can and must be forced up the uncivilized world/primitive cultures. What I take that to mean are persons of other races. E.g. Africans etc. Hobbes also professed that it is a moral duty for the government to impose civilized order upon society via a rigid social contract. Hobbes work in my opinion is more on the order of racial white supremacy which is Hobbes view of a divine natural order. This is not about a preservation of individualism but the group order at the expense of the individual.

Exactly when was the title of this thread allowed to be changed? I thought there was still a 30 min. edit limit. Did I miss something?

Take the case of Communist China which allows Capitalism to function. There is a difference.

When will these people stop brain washing children and any fool that believes in bogus nonsense. The educational system in this country is worse than second rate as it is and will contribute to the further decline. "Texas textbook review panel: Put more ‘creation science based on Biblical principles’ in biology books." http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/10/texas-textbook-review-panel-put-more-creation-science-based-on-biblical-principles-in-biology-books/

What do you mean by a 'true culture'? You are confusing an economic system with a political system. Capitalism/Communism.

The OP is pointless!

Cut/paste without your commentary does not explain your OP WWROA.

Natural selection is about science and evolution which I guess you know nothing about. Furthermore, to characterize nature as racist is a bogus argument.

Is your premise an attempt to justify 'Social Darwinism'? I would like to point out that nature does not conform to any human ideology in regards to natural selection.

Still waiting.

An intelligent discussion in regards to Syria with Andrew Bacevich. Phil Donahue sits in for Bill Moyers. http://billmoyers.com/episode/what-are-we-doing-in-syria/