Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#157 - themachine
Reply +4
(01/19/2014) [-]
I liked the movie because the furniture could talk!
#117 - cptsweatpants
Reply -1
(01/19/2014) [-]
It's not the way we're brought up, it's genetics. The survival of the fittest and pack mentality is coded into all of us, like it or not.
#118 to #117 - kinginyellow
Reply +4
(01/19/2014) [-]
Survival of the fittest is kicked out of humanity ever since we could rely on others and physical and mental ability didn't decide who lived and who died. That's not an excuse to make for not taking action against a bully.
#187 to #118 - cptsweatpants
Reply -1
(01/20/2014) [-]
Are you saying that that's not true? Then show me, I DARE YOU to show me a sentence where I argument with natural selection or say it means the same as survival of the fittest.
#188 to #187 - kinginyellow
Reply +1
(01/20/2014) [-]
The Galápagos finches provide an excellent example of this process. Among the birds that ended up in arid environments, the ones with beaks better suited for eating cactus got more food. As a result, they were in better condition to mate. Similarly, those with beak shapes that were better suited to getting nectar from flowers or eating hard seeds in other environments were at an advantage there. In a very real sense, nature selected the best adapted varieties to survive and to reproduce. This process has come to be known as natural selection.

Darwin did not believe that the environment was producing the variation within the finch populations. He correctly thought that the variation already existed and that nature just selected for the most suitable beak shape and against less useful ones. By the late 1860's, Darwin came to describe this process as the "survival of the fittest." This is very different from Lamarck's incorrect idea that the environment altered the shape of individuals and that these acquired changes were then inherited.

anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm

Never said you used natural selection as your argument, I interchange them because they're the same. Seriously I said it before, say something smart if you're gonna reply. So now, shut up.
#190 to #189 - kinginyellow
Reply +1
(01/20/2014) [-]
Oh you linked Wikipedia an easily editable source of information that usually has errors, without even quoting any of it. I read it, and it's false. Again, you're a retard and shut the **** up.
#191 to #190 - cptsweatpants
Reply -2
(01/20/2014) [-]
Then provide me with a more reliable source of your own that says otherwise. I'll gladly accept it.
#192 to #191 - kinginyellow
Reply +1
(01/20/2014) [-]
I did, and I'm done with you.
#193 to #192 - cptsweatpants
Reply -2
(01/20/2014) [-]
No you didn't. That's a plain lie.
#127 to #118 - cptsweatpants
Reply -2
(01/19/2014) [-]
You can also observe it on a national scale. Look at Tibet for example.
#126 to #118 - cptsweatpants
Reply -2
(01/19/2014) [-]
No that it really isn't. It's a frowned upon concept in modern society, but it's still there in our DNA. Just look at how communities of kids work before they go through the whole handbook of proper cohabitation.
#167 to #126 - kinginyellow
Reply 0
(01/19/2014) [-]
Neither of those are natural selection, it's social Darwinism, which does not affect us evolutionary wise, but socially as a community.
#168 to #167 - cptsweatpants
Reply -2
(01/19/2014) [-]
What's the difference between darwinism and natural selection?
#169 to #168 - kinginyellow
Reply 0
(01/19/2014) [-]
SOCIAL Darwinism, and the difference is social Darwinism is purely for the growth of certain social groups or individuals, instead of actual physical evolution of a species. It's an excuse to attack a certain group by either race, sex, or any classification because the attacking group believes they should advance. It has nothing to do with struggle for resources or actual evolution, but a phony idea that because a group may be more advanced intellectually, culturally, or militarily, they should be on top.
#170 to #169 - cptsweatpants
Reply -2
(01/19/2014) [-]
What you just described is survival of the fittest.
#172 to #170 - kinginyellow
Reply 0
(01/20/2014) [-]
If you don't get any of the below explanation you're just hopeless.
#171 to #170 - kinginyellow
Reply 0
(01/20/2014) [-]
No it isn't get this through your thick skull. Survival of the fittest is the struggle for any organism to get resources or food based on PHYSICAL ABILITY to gather the resources. In our world, food is not a struggle that we die over, we have readily available resources that we aren't competing for. Social Darwinism is saying that because of a certain characteristic that has NOTHING TO DO WITH PHYSICAL ABILITY, a certain group of people deserve all the food/resources. It's literally just butchering the definition of natural selection to allow racism.

Natural Selection: Nobody in this world would have obesity, glasses, any mental handicap, or any physical condition if natural selection applied, it would've been bred out by them dying.

Social Darwinism: the Holocaust, where Hitler had people purposely killed off based on race, faith, or sexual orientation NOT because of physical ability, but because he believed only the Arian race deserved to live.
#173 to #171 - cptsweatpants
Reply -2
(01/20/2014) [-]
You leave me with the impression that you have read a clever bbok somewhere and didn't quite get it. www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551058/social-Darwinism

Darwinism in any of it's form IS survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest is no theory of evolution of any kind, it is simply a phrase used to describe how other evolutionary theories generally work or it might be applied to many other things. The individual best suited in the current situation will come on top. That's all it says. It doesn't mention how, why and what was the reason this situation has come about.

You have absolutely no idea what natural selection is and how it works. www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/406351/natural-selection

Yes, the Holocaust would be a good idea of social darwinism. Sadly 6 year old children in their first year of school are hardly capable of the reasoning behind social darwinism, even if they knew what that is. And yet they develop their little packs, their little ringleaders and their little outcasts. And they don't even know why. Just because this one is "cool" and this one is "weird". Societies of children are often said to be the most cruel ones and it is exactly because they are the ones most driven with natural instincts.
#174 to #173 - kinginyellow
Reply +1
(01/20/2014) [-]
Ok this is the LAST thing I'll say because you're just so ******* stupid. Social Darwinism has NO ACTUAL NEED because there isn't a food struggle, ergo, survival of the fittest does not apply. It was a misuse of Darwin's theory to support racism and killing off people who a society believed didn't belong, which is GENOCIDE, not survival.

And you obviously didn't read ANY of that definition, just looked up the first result without reading into it. Survival of the fittest is based on evolution, and humans WILL NOT EVOLVE as we have no need to, any "evolution" we make is man-made and artificial. You just sound like an idiot who can't accept he's wrong. One definition is NOTHING, I've actually studied the subject, so go over it in great detail if you want to argue, because you are wrong.

And finally, survival of the fittest has NOTHING to do with who you hang out with, which is why you're full of ********. There isn't a competition for survival, it's the instinct for the child to find compatible friends, and to exclude people who aren't liked by generations of societal pressure. And before you say it, genetics can be molded by society, it's part of nature vs nurture. And none of what you say justifies bullying past the first three grades of school, so a flawed theory. So just stop, you were wrong and can't accept it.
#175 to #174 - cptsweatpants
Reply -2
(01/20/2014) [-]
You need to calm down mate. Honestly, if you did maybe you could actually make some sort of arguments that has any relation to what I've been saying since I haven't said much that you accuse me off, if any of it. You're pulling stuff out of your ass, to put it bluntly.
#176 to #175 - kinginyellow
Reply +1
(01/20/2014) [-]
Ok explain how? All you did was link definitions and say I'm wrong when you didn't read. I'm annoyed because you don't know what you're talking about but pretend you know everything. You even asked the definition between Social Darwinism and actual Natural Selection, so you knew nothing about the subject and jumped into it.
#177 to #176 - cptsweatpants
Reply -2
(01/20/2014) [-]
Asking for the other ones point of view is a common thing to do when you find yourself in argument. I asked you so that I could figure out your viewpoint on the thing and see how it stands in relation to mine.

Oh and how DARE I, to link definitions and say you're wrong based on those. I guess I should have just started spewing hate and insults and said you're wrong based on my mere thoughts. That would make it a much more civilized discussion.

Take a deep breath and read what I said once more from the top, you'll find out many interesting things such as the fact that I never justified the behaviour children show but merely presented it as a fact to support my opinion, or that I have acknowledged Holocaust as an example of social darwinism just as I have acknowledged that social darwinism has nothing to do with genetics but merely the corruption of society. And many more interesting things!
#178 to #177 - kinginyellow
Reply +1
(01/20/2014) [-]
"Darwinism in any of it's form IS survival of the fittest"
This. This is you calling Social Darwinism the same as survival of the fittest, it's not.
"What you just described is survival of the fittest."
That was when I defined Social Darwinism and explained the difference but you claimed they're the same. They aren't.

And I criticized the links because you say I only got my info from a book and didn't quite get it when you butchered the definition of both terms WITH the proper definition. You completely disregarded what you looked up and used the links to prove yourself wrong.

And your above statement says that survival of the fittest coded into us is why the kids act like that, but it's not. That would be Social Darwinism. You used the wrong term and kept insisting you were right when you weren't. I TRIED correcting it but you were acting arrogant over being wrong and refusing the actual answer, and I don't have patience for that level of ignorance.

In the end: your first comment should be Social Darwinism has shaped us, not survival of the fittest, the aren't the same, get over it.
#179 to #178 - cptsweatpants
Reply -2
(01/20/2014) [-]
An interpretation of the phrase "survival of the fittest" to mean "only the fittest organisms will prevail" (a view sometimes derided as "Social Darwinism"). Source is wikipedia.
#180 to #179 - kinginyellow
Reply 0
(01/20/2014) [-]
Wikipedia is not a worthwhile source, not because of misinformation, but lack of useless information.

"ocial Darwinism, the theory that persons, groups, and races are subject to the same laws of natural selection as Charles Darwin had perceived in plants and animals in nature. According to the theory, which was popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the weak were diminished and their cultures delimited, while the strong grew in power and in cultural influence over the weak. Social Darwinists held that the life of humans in society was a struggle for existence ruled by “survival of the fittest,” a phrase proposed by the British philosopher and scientist Herbert Spencer."
All this is from YOUR link, which is why I said you didn't read any of it.

Social Darwinism was misused to kill off certain groups of humans with the belief that social structure and cultural standing makes one individual group more "worthy" of survival when in reality all of these groups can live together. Real Survival of the Fittest means there is an actual struggle for food and water and resources to live. It's an interpretation used to justify racism like in the holocaust, and NOT THE SAME
#181 to #180 - cptsweatpants
Reply -1
(01/20/2014) [-]
Survival of the fittest is a phrase that very inaccurately described natural selection. It's meanings can be many. Stop treating it as a theory and look at it as a phrase and take into account all it can mean. One of it's meanings was also used to justify social darwinism. As long as you're focusing on just one this discussion is going nowhere.
#182 to #181 - kinginyellow
Reply 0
(01/20/2014) [-]
That's because it IS A THEORY. It's Darwinism, and has ONE meaning that people misuse for Social Darwinism. YOU have to stop treating it like it can be interpreted as anything you choose, natural selection is all about GENETICS and adapting GENETICALLY, not about social structure. They aren't the same, and this is why I called you stupid, you can't handle that you're wrong. Just stop taking your own opinion over documented fact, most of which is proven in the links YOU provided but didn't read. If you're gonna continue spewing ********, pleas shut the **** up.
#183 to #182 - cptsweatpants
Reply -1
(01/20/2014) [-]
Then show me a reliable source that says the phrase survival of the fittest can only be interpreted as natural selection. Oh wait, you haven't shown me a single thing to back you narrow-minded views yet.
#186 to #183 - kinginyellow
Reply 0
(01/20/2014) [-]
Nope, I'm done.
#184 to #183 - kinginyellow
Reply 0
(01/20/2014) [-]
Seriously, actually READ what I say.
"natural selection, process that results in the adaptation of an organism to its environment by means of selectively reproducing changes in its genotype, or genetic constitution."
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/406351/natural-selection

The link YOU PUT ON THE COMMENTS, THE LINK I CONSTANTLY REFERENCED. ******* READ IT. It's not narrow minded, it's correct. YOU only call it narrow minded because you're so ******* retarded you can't handle being corrected, so unless you can say something useful, and you have yet to do so, shut the **** up.
#185 to #184 - cptsweatpants
-1
(01/20/2014) [-]
Not one time have I used natural selection in my arguments.
#153 - parcedon
Reply +3
(01/19/2014) [-]
Oh look, another "person" extrapolating the message of a story to fit his ideology

gee, we haven't seen one of these before.
#148 - ozkarmak
Reply +3
(01/19/2014) [-]
you got me thinking, nice one op you are still a faggot
#78 - anon
Reply 0
(01/18/2014) [-]
Except it was a French fairytale published by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve in 1740 before Disney got their hands on it...
Except it was a French fairytale published by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve in 1740 before Disney got their hands on it...
#90 to #78 - TheShinyRawr
Reply +3
(01/18/2014) [-]
If you read it over again, he actually references the original briefly, indicating that, yes, Disney is not the original. I'm pretty sure 90% of Disney movies are reworked fairy tales, especially all the princess ones.
#120 to #90 - kinginyellow
Reply 0
(01/19/2014) [-]
Almost all are from Brothers Grimm, so they were heavily redone to remove the adult parts.
#138 - zusuran
Reply +2
(01/19/2014) [-]
I don't care. The movie is awesome. Who the **** cares about the losers who made it...
#129 - jimthesquirrelking
Reply +2
(01/19/2014) [-]
#107 - chinosquad
Reply +2
(01/19/2014) [-]
Semi-related note, I'm a Disney villain!
I killed Bambi's Mom... ):
But DAMN was she tasty!
#116 to #107 - paranoidzoid
Reply +1
(01/19/2014) [-]
you're doing down
#106 - jkaizoku
Reply +2
(01/19/2014) [-]
Only relevant picture I have
#99 - vixvaporrub
Reply +2
(01/18/2014) [-]
#92 - thelastelephant
Reply +2
(01/18/2014) [-]
I love it when Disney's stories go deeper than fairy tales.
#161 - numbmind
Reply +1
(01/19/2014) [-]
Why wouldn't they want her to read...there are such things as cook books.
#159 - lawrentzz
Reply +1
(01/19/2014) [-]
#145 - pollepolle
Reply +1
(01/19/2014) [-]
Except he didn't write the story. It was written in 1700-something by some french guy
#160 to #145 - hellomynameisbill ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/19/2014) [-]
disney changes stories to be fit for the modern youth.
#144 - sanjuro
Reply +1
(01/19/2014) [-]
pretty obvious. Also there are so many movies with that theme. Hell it's a good film but it's hardly profound.
#130 - thehorrorthehorror
Reply +1
(01/19/2014) [-]
"In the original fairy tale Beast asks Bella to marry him every night"

********. Beauty and the Beast is based off Bluebeard, which is about a guy who owns a castle and marries a young woman, then he leaves on a trip and gives her all the keys to all the doors and the castle while telling her not to go on his own private studio. She does, however, and there she finds torture instruments and the bodies of the guy's former wives, all of whom fell in the trap, just like this new one. He gets to the castle and brutally murders her. Moral of the story: Women, mind your business and obey your man.

That's not my own personal opinion, that's the facts. Fairy tales were originally envisioned to inculcate children social values, and most of them are sexist, racist, or telling girls that they will have to **** men sometime because that's the way to go for a girl.

If you want more updated (sometimes downright feminist) versions of those, go check out Angela Carter's "The Bloody Chamber". It's quite a good read, something different at least.

Source: About to become an English Major. I know dudes, no jobs, I know. I'm also a fairly decent guitar player, so we'll see where that takes me haha
#98 - lolollo
Reply +1
(01/18/2014) [-]
The solution is simple: Don't buy into it. If you think someone's an asshole, don't give them validation, Don't associate when them. Be slightly vocal about how much of an ass they are. If they're well liked, **** it. Just because people like them, it doesn't mean they deserve validation. Be that person who openly hates them, and you'd be surprised how many of their own "friends" will agree with you.
#43 - dalokan
Reply +1
(01/18/2014) [-]
Bla bla bla muh rights
#40 - clamweb
Reply +1
(01/18/2014) [-]
to long didnt read.
#24 - tobloi
Reply +1
(01/18/2014) [-]
I thought this was obvious tbh