CreateDebate


Debate Info

63
77
Justin Beiber No
Debate Score:140
Arguments:34
Total Votes:245
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Justin Beiber (15)
 
 No (14)

Debate Creator

FactMachine(432) pic



Does wealth and social status equate to superiority in a darwinian sense?

1) Justin Beiber though.
2) Wealth often has a dysgenic effect for similar reasons that Millennials have undergone a dysgenic process, they become lazy and spoiled and this is why wealthy families tend to deteriorate.
3)Throughout history humans have glorified and even deified certain individuals because they are part of some hereditary bloodline. These people are often inbred, deformed, sickly and/or insane, in no condition to rule anything and certainly not "superior" specimens. The social constructs and the stupidity of the masses are responsible for their esteem, not natural selection. Examples include King Charles VI of france, the one who the one who thought he was made of glass, then there is this fine darwinian specimen of the same bloodline
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHa6xRojKZg
There are countless hereditary "elites" who are mentally ill and deformed from all over the world, and their families tend to pass down these traits through generations, from Pharoahs to chinese emperors the wealthy and powerful dynastic rulers of the world have a disturbing tendency to be hideously insane, inbred, and genetically inferior.
4)there is no such thing as "superiority" in a general sense, in other words, superiority and inferiority are always relative to a specific standard or evolutionary condition. For example, you can't say that black skin or white skin is superior or inferior because black skin is an adaption to a more tropical climate and white skin is an adaption to a less sunny climate, since they are adapted to different environments they both function best in their respective environments, however you could view intelligence in terms of superiority and inferiority to an extent, but then again, some people are reeeeally smart when it comes to business and are able to make way more money than Einstein ever did but if they tried to understand his space time equations they would drool on themselves and have a seizure. Which type of intelligence is more valuable and which one does society reward the most? Wealth doesn't mean you are superior, it means you or your ancestors adapted to an environment which favors those that make money, but NOT NECESSARILY THOSE THAT ARE TRULY INTELLIGENT.


Justin Beiber

Side Score: 63
VS.

No

Side Score: 77
2 points

Wealth and social status facilitates getting laid and getting laid is absolutely necessary for procreation and procreation is absolutely necessary to pass on your genes and the more you spread your genes, the more superior you are... in a Darwinian sense ;)

Side: Justin Beiber
1 point

Hello j:

As I posted, I've seen BOTH sides of wealth.. It's absolutely true, that I was MUCH more desirable when I had a few shekels in my pocket..

That's genetics at work..

excon

Side: Justin Beiber
1 point

Are you saying that as hard as it is to believe, you got laid ;)

Side: Justin Beiber

And this is why we need left wing policies to protect the poor from the predatory nature of rich psychopaths.

Side: Justin Beiber

Darwinian Theory wouldn't care how you survived, but only that you did survive. If Justin Beiber types are what survives, Beiber offspring is what will be left.

Side: Justin Beiber
0 points

Hello F:

I started out very INFERIOR.. Then I started a business, made money, and, of course, became very SUPERIOR.. Then I lost everything, and became humongously INFERIOR once again.. Then I started another business, made a LOT of money, and became so stupendously SUPERIOR, I couldn't even talk to the peons. And, yes, I lost it all again, and dropped a 100 notches on the superior/unsuperior meter..

That was several business's ago, and right now, I'm kinda medium superior..

excon

Side: Justin Beiber
FactMachine(432) Disputed
4 points

Obviously it's not your "superiority" that's changing but your socioeconomic status, it's not as if your intelligence or physical fitness actually went up and down along with your wealth and success, if anything it was the opposite because you managed to become successful from a place of "inferiority" but once you where "superior" you managed to royally fuck up everything that you built for yourself as an inferior poor person multiple times.

Side: No
-2 points
xMathFanx(1749) Disputed
2 points

@Nomenclature

Wealth and social status do not exist in the natural world.

This is completely wrong (as usual). Both wealth and social status have deep roots in animal behavior (for 100's of millions of years) and definitely is the case with primates and Homo Sapiens as well

Side: No
6 points

Nomenclature, I just caught you using your Quantumhead account to downvote Mathfan and upvote the politically biased bullshit

Side: No
4 points

4)...however you could view intelligence in terms of superiority and inferiority to an extent, but then again, some people are reeeeally smart when it comes to business and are able to make way more money than Einstein ever did but if they tried to understand his space time equations they would drool on themselves and have a seizure. Which type of intelligence is more valuable and which one does society reward the most?

I don't see any reason to suppose that people like Einstein could not have been highly wealthy (at least much more than they were) if they had wanted to. They simply don't tend to care about money after a certain point because intellectual pursuits are infinitely more important/valuable. An example of this is high rates of MIT Math/Physics majors are often recruited into top Wall Street businesses rather than going into the academic subject matter.

Also, what you touched on is correct and tends to be a huge source of confusion for the general public. That is, the general public seems to think that Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, ect. ect. are the most intelligent type of people around (which is not even close to true) due to their tech savvy and high level of wealth. Rather, the truly elite intellectuals tend to be of much more modest means (e.g. University Professors, independent research institutes, ect.) and they accept this financial level due to their much greater interest in their area of study (rather than superficial pursuits)

Side: No
xMathFanx(1749) Clarified
3 points

In fact, this reveals that the general population is so far out of touch with intellectualism that they do not even know what a highly intelligent, educated person would look like

Side: Justin Beiber
1 point

I don't see any reason to suppose that people like Einstein could not have been highly wealthy (at least much more than they were) if they had wanted to.

That's because you're a halfwit. Read about what happened to Nikola Tesla.

Side: Justin Beiber
FactMachine(432) Disputed
5 points

Einstein was no Nikola Tesla. His theories where contoversial at the time but they didn't threaten the "robber baron" type people or the governments control over the people.

Side: No
xMathFanx(1749) Disputed
4 points

That's because you're a halfwit. Read about what happened to Nikola Tesla.

Ironically, the case of Nikola Tesla bolsters my argument

Side: No
2 points

No. Jesus stodd for the poor and disabled......................................................................................................................

Side: No
2 points

It is only adopted by racists. When they want to feel superior to black, jew, hispanic persons. They insert politically twisted theories.

Adolf Hitler used it well.

Side: No
1 point

IN a Darwinian sense whatever results in more successful mating (and raising of offspring so that they can successfully mate, etc) is superior. Wealth and social status could lead to this.

Side: No
1 point

The problem with that is this

Imagine a fat jew with hairs sticking out of his nose and ears, hair on his back, he smells like a fish and has a dick limper than a wet noodle, he has skin like 100 year old leather that was dragged through the sahara desert, he has a nose the size of an anchor with just as much hook like curvature and ears like an elephant etc...

Do you think that if NATURAL SELECTION ran it's course that this individual would reproduce?

Do you think that if BEING FILTHY RICH ran it's course that individual would be able to reproduce?

I rest my case. The monetary system as well as class can allow you to bypass natural selection and allow inferior specimens to pass on their genes because of a social construct when they would never reproduce in nature.

And another thing, wealth and social class are not a trait you inherit genetically, they are a social construct, so it shouldn't be viewed as a successful darwinian trait, it is something entirely separate from natural selection that is IMPOSING IT'S INFLUENCE on who reproduces REGARDLESS of who is more physically and mentally fit on a genetic level and would actually survive without being sheltered and protected in their mansion and given top quality nutrition and health care.

And just in case you try to play semantics like Nomenclature I understand that things "impose their influence" all the time when it comes to natural selection...these are usually environmental conditions that organisms must adapt to in order to survive, the problem with the social constructs that humans have invented is that they actually promote traits that are detrimental to survival, because when you have money and status you don't have to brave the elements or work hard for your food, what you are adapting to is specifically laziness and being spoiled and sheltered, it is the opposite of natural selection, it is a CRUTCH that helps certain individuals genes keep chuggin' along while it at the same time allows them to prevail over superior people.

Side: No
Mack(536) Disputed
1 point

"I rest my case. The monetary system as well as class can allow you to bypass natural selection and allow inferior specimens to pass on their genes because of a social construct when they would never reproduce in nature."

I agree with this and nothing I said before goes against this.

"And another thing, wealth and social class are not a trait you inherit genetically, they are a social construct, so it shouldn't be viewed as a successful darwinian trait, it is something entirely separate from natural selection that is IMPOSING IT'S INFLUENCE on who reproduces REGARDLESS of who is more physically and mentally fit on a genetic level and would actually survive without being sheltered and protected in their mansion and given top quality nutrition and health care."

This is true, but I'd argue that since surviving without being sheltered isn't as important as it used to be, and that other things can be more relevant to natural selection now.

Natural selection isn't all about survival, it's also about carrying on traits which encourage successful breeding. You have to survive to breed, but nowadays most people can survive so other things come into play more often.

Side: Justin Beiber
0 points

Imagine a fat jew with hairs sticking out of his nose and ears, hair on his back, he smells like a fish and has a dick limper than a wet noodle

@FactMachine

Do you think anybody in the world wants to read rubbish like this? You're an idiot. It is little wonder that your only friend here is xMathFanx.

Side: Justin Beiber