The reason why the Left wing ultimately always loses

[Aggrophobic]

The OP seem confused. It's like he knows nothing of the world around him.

[Seezer]

Every time evolution gets mentioned and some SJW denies it would be a good start.

Evolution is by very core, racist. It is fact that evolution produces superior organisms better suited to their surroundings than others.

It is an SJW's worst nightmare, so they simply choose to ignore and ban (Endus does) anyone who tries to rationally talk about it.

And you're showing yourself to be an SJW yourself. You're just on the other side of the issue. Most of the people that cry about how easily offended everyone is gets easily offended by things they don't like. And the people that cry about everyone being "too PC" are the same ones that cry when someone says something tthey don't like. And people crowing about "SJW's" are SJW's themselves. They make thread after thread about the left and bleh and blah and try to keyboard champion the fight.

And "Evolution" can't be racist. That's like saying a spoon is racist.

[PC2]

And "Evolution" can't be racist. That's like saying a spoon is racist.

Exactly, neither is true.

[Rassium]

You sir fail in life. Those were all implemented by the democratic party. Our first republican president ended slavery and established the 13th amendment. Democrats were the party of the KKK, and Jim Crow laws.

Republicans, at least the conservative wing of the party believes everyone is equal, and government should stay the fuck out of the way. All mass atrocities that were caused in life were by government. People who suck off the government tit or think government is going to grant more freedoms, are fucking leeches, and parasites, and deserve everything they get. Too bad they take the people who understand that down with them.

Gee, that's funny. I didn't mention the Democratic party at all.

[Thepersona]

Exactly, neither is true.

this is what i was searching about evolution
http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/ev...IBladder.shtml

[TITAN308]

That's interesting. I had the impression that the right wing always loses in the end. Because, you know, History.

I don't think this generally has anything to do with one side being smarter than the other, I believe a lot has to do with left wingers are outbreeding right wingers.

Remember, who runs our country has nothing to do with how smart one side or the other is, it is determined by which side has more bodies they can get to the voting booth.

[Kraenen]

That's interesting. I had the impression that the right wing always loses in the end. Because, you know, History.

Reality is ultimately right-wing. People are unequal by nature and by necessity. That's why the left is always a struggle and more a movement based on feelings than cold, logical rationality.

[Fencers]

Do people know that Lincoln was not a Republican in the manner of the modern day Republican party?

[PosPosPos]

Reality is ultimately right-wing. People are unequal by nature and by necessity.

This is true, when it comes to quality of life. Everything else, like knowledge, is left wing, because it's based on correctness.

That's why the left is always a struggle and more a movement based on feelings than cold, logical rationality.

But this isn't.

It were purely about cold, logical rationality, then understanding and accepting that shafting the majority for the minority is always going to end up in suffering for the minority at some point.

- - - Updated - - -

Do people know that Lincoln was not a Republican in the manner of the modern day Republican party?

Obviously not, else why do you see all the extreme right wingers on this site conflate the republicans of the past with the republicans of today?

[Thepersona]

Reality is ultimately right-wing. People are unequal by nature and by necessity. That's why the left is always a struggle and more a movement based on feelings than cold, logical rationality.

Raybourne. Marx said, from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. communism does not say everyone is equal, it says that there's not extraction of plusvalue, and no more classes.

[Kraenen]

Everything else, like knowledge, is left wing, because it's based on correctness.

I'm sorry what? Your measure of left-wing means something based on "correctness"? Then some ideas are more correct than others, some scientific theories win out, some lose. Left-wing knowledge is essentially just relativism.

It were purely about cold, logical rationality, then understanding and accepting that shafting the majority for the minority is always going to end up in suffering for the minority at some point.

The elite are usually aware of this.

Anyway none of this really disproves what I said or proves otherwise. People are by nature unequal, it's always been a left-wing project to equalize things. Maybe in the very distant future we could control genetics, resources, and all that. Even then positions of power would never be equal.

- - - Updated - - -

Raybourne. Marx said, from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. communism does not say everyone is equal, it says that there's not extraction of plusvalue, and no more classes.

Communism is something which tried to push us more left, it doesn't define left. Go back further in your history.

[Underverse]

Reality is ultimately right-wing. People are unequal by nature and by necessity. That's why the left is always a struggle and more a movement based on feelings than cold, logical rationality.

It's easy to say that the right or the left is largely driven by feelings, because there are emotion-based populist arguments on both sides. But these arguments are not unique to one side or the other. The left whines about social inequality, while the right whines about social change.

But I think it's important to note that left wing ideology isn't just about equalizing the field. Social liberalism plays a large part as well, as do cautionary economic policies. It's a bit unfair of you to judge an entire denomination of political ideology by a few misguided populist arguments.

[Kraenen]

It's easy to say that the right or the left is largely driven by feelings, because there are emotion-based populist arguments on both sides. But these arguments are not unique to one side or the other. The left whines about social inequality, while the right whines about social change.

Right wingers aren't necessarily conservatives. It only has to do with equality/inequality.

But I think it's important to note that left wing ideology isn't just about equalizing the field. Social liberalism plays a large part as well, as do cautionary economic policies. It's a bit unfair of you to judge an entire denomination of political ideology by a few misguided populist arguments.

Social liberalism would then be a mix of left and right. And I did no such thing.

[Darththeo]

The problem is that rich people sit on money ... most modern currency has no backing besides that of the government. So there is no gold, silver or anything with value besides the word of the government. Rich people sit on money, the cost of goods increases as the value of money decreases. The idea raising wage is the problem is silly, you have banks and wealthy individuals sitting on millions of dollars and not spending a dime of it.

The Left isn't a losing side. The Right isn't the losing side. There is no losing side. Things advance. People are in general selfish but we don't survive a species by being selfish. A selfish race dies ... a selfless race dies. There is a balance in all things.

[Underverse]

Anyway none of this really disproves what I said or proves otherwise. People are by nature unequal, it's always been a left-wing project to equalize things. Maybe in the very distant future we could control genetics, resources, and all that. Even then positions of power would never be equal.

Protecting the weak is part of our evolutionary heritage. Unfortunately, we have social systems in place that divide people into uniform units and make natural distribution of resources difficult (monogamy, binary sexuality, nuclear family, etc), so it's actually more adherent to our nature to enforce broad social policies that uplift those in need.

[PC2]

Everything else, like knowledge, is left wing, because it's based on correctness.

So if we choose only left wing "correct" choices do we get a utopia?

[Release]

It's easy to say that the right or the left is largely driven by feelings, because there are emotion-based populist arguments on both sides. But these arguments are not unique to one side or the other. The left whines about social inequality, while the right whines about social change.

But I think it's important to note that left wing ideology isn't just about equalizing the field. Social liberalism plays a large part as well, as do cautionary economic policies. It's a bit unfair of you to judge an entire denomination of political ideology by a few misguided populist arguments.

Why is it "misguided"? to equalize the field and by that I mean reduce it significantly? There still seems to me deeply ingrained in the American psyche from the Cold War this massive fear that a reduction between the rich and poor is somehow communist and would result in your society losing to Russia or some shit.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I think we've seen it folks. A one post Gish Gallop.

And he's apparently someone who failed history as well.

[Kallisto]

JFK was giving blank checks to NASA at a time when there was a space race.
Now...NASA is a pale copy of its former glorious self.

While yeah it is a pale copy of its former self. I wouldn't say maximum of 5% of the national budget is throwing blank checks (For reference sake NASA right now gets 0.4% of the entire US budget). Even then NASA brings in a profit to the US, patents and inventions are running so much around the world that it rakes in money.

[GennGreymane]

Abortion is legal, gays can marry, and most places handle universal healthcare rather well

/popcorn