Post by Arlon10 on Jul 24, 2018 10:43:42 GMT
Careful study and analysis of The Trump administration and the people who support it can yield different results than a cursory glimpse of the news.
One might think the Trump administration is "religious." It has been associated by numerous journalists with "evangelical" Christians, whatever that is supposed to be.
The actions of Trump and his supporters speak louder than those words. They have more in common with social Darwinism than any religion except perhaps "evangelical" Christians (again whatever that is).
Of the main types of "conservative"; fiscal, social and national, they act in a remarkably nationalistic way to the detriment of fiscal and social conservatism. Being "social Darwinists" doesn't make them "social" conservatives, rather much the opposite. "Social" Darwinists really do not place a high value on society.
In other words is beauty a curse? Do physically attractive people develop in other ways; intellectually or otherwise productively? Do people make success so simple for physically attractive people that they never get a chance to "learn" anything by actually doing anything? Why are there so many "dumb blond" jokes?
It might serve here to carefully examine what is meant by "evangelical" Christian. There might be people, for example, who believe Donald Trump will restore marriage to its former meaning or make abortion more difficult. What evidence is there he will? He mentions his appointment of "conservative" (and indeed they are) judges to fill Supreme Court Justice vacancies. That of course isn't likely to be effective no matter how conservative his appointments are since the Constitution does not have any definition of marriage or when life begins. Many social Darwinists have already noticed that and do not delude themselves that any changes are coming in that regard. They are laughing at social conservatives.
Nor is it likely that a country with such pervasive "no fault" divorce laws and such a lax attitude about divorce will ever restore the traditional meaning of marriage.
Another reason people might think Trump is "religious" is that he moved the American Embassy to Jerusalem. That of course ignores the fact that Arabs have more socially conservative attitudes about marriage, homosexuality and abortion than the secular state of Israel has. The religion of Judaism is of course much more conservative than the secular state of Israel, but Judaism doesn't get pushy with Arab neighbors. Can you see the pattern yet? Trump supporters are not "religious" conservatives." They are social Darwinists.
I'm telling you that you need to bell that cat or it will chew you up and spit you out. Social Darwinism could win big in the midterms. Unless that's what you want, that is. Then congratulations, you might get your wish. I believe we all would like a world with better looking people, just not by declaring war on less attractive people. Diet, exercise, harmony with the environment and other means exist to raise the health and attractiveness of people.
Even if you believe you must depend on Darwinism you can still increase the the number of pretty people without violating traditional marriage. If couples have on average more than approximately 2.1 children then their numbers will increase. People who have less than that will decrease. Social Darwinists do not understand that. Then too, very attractive people often do not have such attractive children.
One might think the Trump administration is "religious." It has been associated by numerous journalists with "evangelical" Christians, whatever that is supposed to be.
The actions of Trump and his supporters speak louder than those words. They have more in common with social Darwinism than any religion except perhaps "evangelical" Christians (again whatever that is).
Of the main types of "conservative"; fiscal, social and national, they act in a remarkably nationalistic way to the detriment of fiscal and social conservatism. Being "social Darwinists" doesn't make them "social" conservatives, rather much the opposite. "Social" Darwinists really do not place a high value on society.
I considered making this a separate topic, but it is very relevant here ...
Is there a link between physical attractiveness and intelligence?
Is there a link between physical attractiveness and intelligence?
In other words is beauty a curse? Do physically attractive people develop in other ways; intellectually or otherwise productively? Do people make success so simple for physically attractive people that they never get a chance to "learn" anything by actually doing anything? Why are there so many "dumb blond" jokes?
It might serve here to carefully examine what is meant by "evangelical" Christian. There might be people, for example, who believe Donald Trump will restore marriage to its former meaning or make abortion more difficult. What evidence is there he will? He mentions his appointment of "conservative" (and indeed they are) judges to fill Supreme Court Justice vacancies. That of course isn't likely to be effective no matter how conservative his appointments are since the Constitution does not have any definition of marriage or when life begins. Many social Darwinists have already noticed that and do not delude themselves that any changes are coming in that regard. They are laughing at social conservatives.
Nor is it likely that a country with such pervasive "no fault" divorce laws and such a lax attitude about divorce will ever restore the traditional meaning of marriage.
Another reason people might think Trump is "religious" is that he moved the American Embassy to Jerusalem. That of course ignores the fact that Arabs have more socially conservative attitudes about marriage, homosexuality and abortion than the secular state of Israel has. The religion of Judaism is of course much more conservative than the secular state of Israel, but Judaism doesn't get pushy with Arab neighbors. Can you see the pattern yet? Trump supporters are not "religious" conservatives." They are social Darwinists.
I'm telling you that you need to bell that cat or it will chew you up and spit you out. Social Darwinism could win big in the midterms. Unless that's what you want, that is. Then congratulations, you might get your wish. I believe we all would like a world with better looking people, just not by declaring war on less attractive people. Diet, exercise, harmony with the environment and other means exist to raise the health and attractiveness of people.
Even if you believe you must depend on Darwinism you can still increase the the number of pretty people without violating traditional marriage. If couples have on average more than approximately 2.1 children then their numbers will increase. People who have less than that will decrease. Social Darwinists do not understand that. Then too, very attractive people often do not have such attractive children.
