Your thoughts on this quote?

[Quantum Windbag]

I've also quoted Gandhi before. What's your point?

You are incapable of thinking for yourself, which is why you need other people to explain why you should, or should not, live your life by a quote.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The who is less important than the what.


If 0bama or Rdean or Ravi came to Portland today and said "It is raining." It would not change the fact that it is raining. Truth lies outside the authority, and even the devil can cite scripture.

The who is it least as important as the what.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The strong has always triumphed… All of nature is a constant struggle between power and weakness, a constant triumph of the strong over the weak.

Wrong again.

David and Goliath.

This is like the idiocy spouted about the survival of the fittest.

It is the survival of those most able to adapt, not the strongest or the fittest that is highlighted by scientific observation.

What did you think was meant by 'fittest'?

It isn't about what I think somebody else means when they say 'fittest' it is about what they think the term means. Too often the fittest has been used to describe the strongest, the toughest, the smartest, the fill in the blank.

I have an idea you are lost here, so I'll throw you a lifeline...

The fittest in any given scenario and with any definition might just not be the most able to adapt.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong again.

David and Goliath.

This is like the idiocy spouted about the survival of the fittest.

It is the survival of those most able to adapt, not the strongest or the fittest that is highlighted by scientific observation.

What did you think was meant by 'fittest'?

It isn't about what I think somebody else means when they say 'fittest' it is about what they think the term means. Too often the fittest has been used to describe the strongest, the toughest, the smartest, the fill in the blank.

I have an idea you are lost here, so I'll throw you a lifeline...

The fittest in any given scenario and with any definition might just not be the most able to adapt.

Funny thing, evolution doesn't select for the strongest, the smartest, or even the most able to adapt. It selects for the average.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What did you think was meant by 'fittest'?

It isn't about what I think somebody else means when they say 'fittest' it is about what they think the term means. Too often the fittest has been used to describe the strongest, the toughest, the smartest, the fill in the blank.

I have an idea you are lost here, so I'll throw you a lifeline...

The fittest in any given scenario and with any definition might just not be the most able to adapt.

Funny thing, evolution doesn't select for the strongest, the smartest, or even the most able to adapt. It selects for the average.

really? Funny, I think people always get it wrong. A few years back, observations by scientists showed that many types of birds on the Galapagos that survived extreme environment changes adapted to change in one generation. It was not the average that adapted and survived by having the size of their beaks changed in order to take advantage of the scarce food resources.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It isn't about what I think somebody else means when they say 'fittest' it is about what they think the term means. Too often the fittest has been used to describe the strongest, the toughest, the smartest, the fill in the blank.

I have an idea you are lost here, so I'll throw you a lifeline...

The fittest in any given scenario and with any definition might just not be the most able to adapt.

Funny thing, evolution doesn't select for the strongest, the smartest, or even the most able to adapt. It selects for the average.

really? Funny, I think people always get it wrong. A few years back, observations by scientists showed that many types of birds on the Galapagos that survived extreme environment changes adapted to change in one generation. It was not the average that adapted and survived by having the size of their beaks changed in order to take advantage of the scarce food resources.

Evolution does not happen in one generation. My guess is that if you go back and check your source you will either find that you remember it wrong, or that what actually happened is that different species of birds moved onto, and off, the islands as weather changed. Statistically, the average always survives, because the outliers get killed off. The outliers are both the fittest, and the opposite of whatever fittest means.

Computer modeling is even proving that the age old adage of the survival of the fittest doesn't work the way common sense tells us it should. When multiple species compete for the same niche, the stronger species often manage to damage each other so much that the weakest speicies is actually the one that survives.

Survival Of The Weakest? Cyclical Competition Of Three Species Favors Weakest As Victor

This should come to a surprise only to people who do not understand that thermodynamics applies to everything, even evolution.

 

[Intense]

I came across this quote some time ago and was just wondering what everyone's first reaction would be to it. I'll tell you who said it later.

My first reaction is to disagree with it. Right is Right, it is a bearing as much as a means, as much as an end. It is a part of the formula, that may indeed fuel the device or mechanism for carrying out it's goal. Principle, fuels the means to carry out the objective. That brings one to Purpose and plan, timing, effect, competence are also part of the equation.

I believe whom ever said that was frustrated at the time. I personally believe that many Great Concepts have started out like the little engine that could.

How can a supposedly thinking man agree or disagree with the quote without a context? We have 3 statements:

1) Decisive [in history] is the power that the peoples have within them...

2) From history one sees that the right by itself is completely useless, if a mighty power does not stand behind it.

3) Right alone is of no use to whomever does not have the power to impose his right.

take any one statement, and by itself tell me how you know what is being discussed

1. Peoples being plural, Idea, thought, springs from the Individual mind, not the Collective. Each development or advancement, again is born of an Individual. There are different kinds of Strength, Power, both recognized and unrecognized. Just because someone or group does not act on your terms or according to your expectations, does not mean that there is not the ability to respond now or later. Right is Right, whether one acts on it or not. Will, Circumstance, timing, necessity, are factors in the equation too.

2. To what end????? Like looking at life through a prism, this perspective is extremely limited. It implies a great frustration in not being able to motivate. How much great power is required to lower a toilet seat, walk to a trash container rather than litter, help someone in need, or just show consideration?????

3. Power to accomplish is no more than a part of the function. Whatever the task, there is a measured response. A means to an end. There are usually multiples of choices to accomplish a goal, some of which, as dictated by circumstance, may require no action at all.

I gave an honest first reaction to JB's question. That is on point, and clearly stated, before I even knew who the quote came from. Your challenge is an insult to your intelligence Dante. I will generally alway's value the contribution of the Individual to the group, over the Tyranny of the group every time.

 

[Bill Angel]

I came across this quote some time ago and was just wondering what everyone's first reaction would be to it. I'll tell you who said it later.

Decisive [in history] is the power that the peoples have within them...From history one sees that the right by itself is completely useless, if a mighty power does not stand behind it. Right alone is of no use to whomever does not have the power to impose his right.​

The strong has always triumphed… All of nature is a constant struggle between power and weakness, a constant triumph of the strong over the weak.

It's been established that the statement under discussion was made by Hitler.
I believe that Mao Zedong was asserting essentially the same thing when he stated that:
"Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

 

[AVG-JOE]

I came across this quote some time ago and was just wondering what everyone's first reaction would be to it. I'll tell you who said it later.

The strong has always triumphed… All of nature is a constant struggle between power and weakness, a constant triumph of the strong over the weak.

It's been established that the statement under discussion was made by Hitler.
I believe that Mao Zedong was asserting essentially the same thing when he stated that:
"Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

And that is the reason that democracies must never loose sight of their obligation to protect the rights of the weak - no one knows who is going to be among the weak next week.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Evolution does not select for average, it selects for the critters best able to survive in that particular environment. Polar bears are great in Alaska. In Kenya, not so good. Cheetahs are great in Kenya however. But not so great in Alaska. the environment opens up lots of really cool nieces, and there is an animal who will adapt to that niche. Of course, the environment changes really fast sometimes too. We get ice ages and warm periods changing back and forth pretty frequently. Sea levels change, we get new mountains, old ones wear away, the continents move around. Some critters are good fits because they are so adaptive. One particular species of great ape that mostly lived along lakes and rivers in east africa has gone from a small population in africa to colonize the whole world in 6000 years and is now numbered in the billions. Mostly because it is so adaptive.

Biology's idea of "fittest" is not our idea of "fittest"

 

[Intense]

The strong has always triumphed… All of nature is a constant struggle between power and weakness, a constant triumph of the strong over the weak.

It's been established that the statement under discussion was made by Hitler.
I believe that Mao Zedong was asserting essentially the same thing when he stated that:
"Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

And that is the reason that democracies must never loose sight of their obligation to protect the rights of the weak - no one knows who is going to be among the weak next week.

The real question here is is it an obligation or a disguise?????

 

[AVG-JOE]

Evolution does not select for average, it selects for the critters best able to survive in that particular environment. Polar bears are great in Alaska. In Kenya, not so good. Cheetahs are great in Kenya however. But not so great in Alaska. the environment opens up lots of really cool nieces, and there is an animal who will adapt to that niche. Of course, the environment changes really fast sometimes too. We get ice ages and warm periods changing back and forth pretty frequently. Sea levels change, we get new mountains, old ones wear away, the continents move around. Some critters are good fits because they are so adaptive. One particular species of great ape that mostly lived along lakes and rivers in east africa has gone from a small population in africa to colonize the whole world in 6000 years and is now numbered in the billions. Mostly because it is so adaptive.

Biology's idea of "fittest" is not our idea of "fittest"

And humanity is the only animal to survive and thrive in every environment. Just one more reason to claim 'hope' for our species.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's been established that the statement under discussion was made by Hitler.
I believe that Mao Zedong was asserting essentially the same thing when he stated that:
"Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

And that is the reason that democracies must never loose sight of their obligation to protect the rights of the weak - no one knows who is going to be among the weak next week.

The real question here is is it an obligation or a disguise?????

If a government does not see it as an obligation, in spirit and in practice, I would question the credentials of that organization as a 'democracy'.

 

[Intense]

And that is the reason that democracies must never loose sight of their obligation to protect the rights of the weak - no one knows who is going to be among the weak next week.

The real question here is is it an obligation or a disguise?????

If a government does not see it as an obligation, in spirit and in practice, I would question the credentials of that organization as a 'democracy'.

Orwell liked the term Oligarchy.I truly believe Hamilton preferred it too. Madison was the true Federalist. He is a good compass.

 

[JBeukema]

I've also quoted Gandhi before. What's your point?

You are incapable of thinking for yourself, which is why you need other people to explain why you should, or should not, live your life by a quote.

Hence the repeated times I've presented my own thoughts and writings

 

[JBeukema]

Wrong again.

David and Goliath.

This is like the idiocy spouted about the survival of the fittest.

It is the survival of those most able to adapt, not the strongest or the fittest that is highlighted by scientific observation.

What did you think was meant by 'fittest'?

It isn't about what I think somebody else means when they say 'fittest' it is about what they think the term means. Too often the fittest has been used to describe the strongest, the toughest, the smartest, the fill in the blank.

I have an idea you are lost here, so I'll throw you a lifeline...

The fittest in any given scenario and with any definition might just not be the most able to adapt.

It is but it might not be?

You seem confused.

 

[JBeukema]

What did you think was meant by 'fittest'?

It isn't about what I think somebody else means when they say 'fittest' it is about what they think the term means. Too often the fittest has been used to describe the strongest, the toughest, the smartest, the fill in the blank.

I have an idea you are lost here, so I'll throw you a lifeline...

The fittest in any given scenario and with any definition might just not be the most able to adapt.

Funny thing, evolution doesn't select for the strongest, the smartest, or even the most able to adapt. It selects for the average.

Actually, it selects for the most successful- the most fit.

 

[JBeukema]

I believe that Mao Zedong was asserting essentially the same thing when he stated that:
"Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Unfortunately, Mao was right on that note.

Hence the Second Amendment.

 

[JBeukema]

The strong has always triumphed… All of nature is a constant struggle between power and weakness, a constant triumph of the strong over the weak.

It's been established that the statement under discussion was made by Hitler.
I believe that Mao Zedong was asserting essentially the same thing when he stated that:
"Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

And that is the reason that democracies must never loose sight of their obligation to protect the rights of the weak - no one knows who is going to be among the weak next week.

And why they must not allow themselves to be robbed of the power to act upon that obligation.

 

[JBeukema]

Evolution does not select for average, it selects for the critters best able to survive in that particular environment. Polar bears are great in Alaska. In Kenya, not so good. Cheetahs are great in Kenya however. But not so great in Alaska. the environment opens up lots of really cool nieces, and there is an animal who will adapt to that niche. Of course, the environment changes really fast sometimes too. We get ice ages and warm periods changing back and forth pretty frequently. Sea levels change, we get new mountains, old ones wear away, the continents move around. Some critters are good fits because they are so adaptive. One particular species of great ape that mostly lived along lakes and rivers in east africa has gone from a small population in africa to colonize the whole world in 6000 years and is now numbered in the billions. Mostly because it is so adaptive.

Biology's idea of "fittest" is not our idea of "fittest"

And humanity is the only animal to survive and thrive in every environment. Just one more reason to claim 'hope' for our species.

If we can keep from blowing ourselves all to hell...