If one cannot provide for themselves/family, they should not populate the future

A couple of things...

1. Constitution of the Unites States
2. Who defines "bottom feeders?"

 

The constitution as worded is irrelevant according to every progressive blogger and mainsteamer. How would you define bottom-feeder? Probably those who cannot provide for themselves and feed on the scraps stolen by the government.

 

you didn't answer anything.

Your reasoning towards your conclusion is flawed.

But like you I do not wish to debate this...ignorance is bliss so enjoy your dance.

 

This projecting is unhealthy. Just say what your own thoughts are and we will discuss... maybe.

 

Lefties define and redefine and redefine the "rich" everytime they need a patsy for their class warfare BS...why can't "bottom feeders" be defined?

 

Two individual psychopaths represent millions of atheists to you?

 

Who said it can't be?

 

Quite a couple of atheists who exterminated millions without the help of others.

Good point you had, Colonel K. Seems that atheists would respect life. But you see, humans are generally idiots. They are worthy of the lives of 5 chickens.

 

If you disagree with my reasoning and it's conclusion, feel free to point out the flaws.

 

Here is another excellent example of how world of politics and all their political terms are all a bunch of political doodoo. trillions on war spending conservatives, extravigant bank bailing out caring for poor liberals, progressives as you briliantly explain, Bush who wanted no nation building in 2000, Obama who promised direct talks with Iran and Syria, etc. etc. etc. I believe it is a crime to support US government, and it is a FACT that I have no freedom in America to say what US politicians really deserve

 

I like both, your post, and OP. would you mind giving some examples of rich taking away all/some of your wealth, so I could pin point the problem more accurately and give you my opinion?

 

Exactly. A logical extension would be that government programs are ANTI-EVOLUTIONARY. Let me repeat that, government programs are ANTI-EVOLUTIONARY. That means that every attempt to "help" the poor is completely anti-Darwinian. In other words, Liberals are complete religious freaks for trying to stop progress. Doesn't that strike anyone as "queer"?

 

I was giving a basic social darwinist argument, and he responded exactly how I expected, with an example, or less an argument, of how elitists were ripping the poor off (through the gov't if he knows it or not).

 

Exactly, I will try to check back for his response. in another thread he was supposed to explain to me how to vote against the pink slip mitt romney, but i never got a response, though I can't blame him for that.

 

what was the motivation behind those regimes? what was the motivation behind the massacres? Atheism isn't the answer for either of those questions. So atheism had nothing to do with it.

"Praise be to science and/or nothingness that we slay these infidels because we do not believe in god."

I'm sure there have been a few murders inspired by the murderers atheism and nothing but, but none of these regimes are it.

 

what was the motivation behind those regimes? what was the motivation behind the massacres? Atheism isn't the answer for either of those questions. So atheism had nothing to do with it.

"Praise be to science and/or nothingness that we slay these infidels because we do not believe in god."

I'm sure there have been a few murders inspired by the murderers atheism and nothing but, but none of these regimes are it.

 

My statement was in a response to Colonel K:

So you see, the issue wasn't whether atheism was the driving force of those murderous regimes, but whether they would value human life more than most, and the evidence, by body count, seems to show that they value it less.

 

oh, my bad, I missed his seriously erroneous comment.

But it doesn't show anything about value, it actually shows that religiosity or the lack thereof doesn't directly tie into the perceived value of life.

 

In other words, your OP is saying that only rich people deserve to live and prosper.

That is not something anyone would agree with.

 

Do only rich people survive or have people much worse off than any welfare-recipient in our nation survived since the beginning of mankind?

 

Distinguishing 'want' from 'need' is a tricky subject.

Aw, can they not afford Apple's latest worthless upgrade? They must be poor. Can't afford new shoes every year? Poor..

Feeding into corporate propaganda and feeding the beast you pretend to want to destroy. Choices built this.

 

Of course the rich survive, money can by them all that they need! And I take your response as a yes.

 

Reading comprehension.

You're doing well with internet and all. Apparently it's not too hard.

 

That is a valid opinion and I can respect the fact that you are entitled to your opinion. I understand you don't share the same values that I have so that is fine. However, because we live in a democracy, if more people share my view than we shall have stricter controlls on how livestock is treated, if more people share your view than we will have fewer laws on the treatmeant of livestock. You can complain all you want about not agreeing with the law, but sometimes you don't get everything you want.