I am a rockstar!

[Blaze]

So ... in the interest of "survival of the fittest" natural actions ok justified?

That's horrible English, are you high?  "So ... in the interest of "survival of the fittest" natural actions ok justified?"  Maybe drunk since you're a Southern?  !

(Obligatory (see http://www.x86labs.org/forum/index.php/topic,10925.msg139387.html#msg139387) )

[CrAz3D]

One word .

In the interest of survival of the fittest, natural actions are justified?

[Rule]

One word .

In the interest of survival of the fittest, natural actions are justified?

Not all natural actions are in the interest of the survival of the fittest.

[CrAz3D]

I'm asking, though, in the interest of survival of the fittest, are natural actions justified?

[Rule]

I'm asking, though, in the interest of survival of the fittest, are natural actions justified?

My point is that all actions are natural, even if they seem unusual.  So it is redundant to say are "natural actions" justified.  The "natural" part of the question is irrelevant, and so
your question reads: "are actions justified for being in the interest of survival of the fittest?"

You'll have to be more specific though.  In the best survival interests of the individual who is doing the action, or in the best survival interests of his species?

[CrAz3D]

If an individual cannot act to ensure his survival nor can the species, they go hand in hand.

So, can some one/group/species act in the interest of survival and have that action be justified.

[Rule]

If an individual cannot act to ensure his survival nor can the species, they go hand in hand.

Not necessarily true.  People can do things that further their own survival, but aren't in the best interests of their species on the whole.  There are well known examples in game theory
that relate to this.  Suppose everyone in a classroom is given $10.  You can take that person's $10 by giving their name to the game administrator, so long as no-one else has given that person's name to the administrator.  It is in the overall best interests of the class for no-one to give any names to the administrator, and if everyone gives out names, you are unlikely to be in a good situation.  However, it is, of course, in your own best interests to have no-one gives out names except you, helping yourself as much as you can at the expense of others.

So, can some one/group/species act in the interest of survival and have that action be justified.

It would depend on the situation.  Do you have an example? I think survival can be a good motivation, yes.

[CrAz3D]

mmmmmaybe a pest that attacks pets and farm animals?

[Rule]

mmmmmaybe a pest that attacks pets and farm animals?

Heh, I knew where this was going.  My argument in that thread was more with the mentality behind hunting, and why people find hunting fun. The "fun" part is essentially robbing an intelligent animal of its life.  You wouldn't consider picking up trash "fun", for example.  I also think "dealing" with coyotes by shooting them is morally wrong: whatever good comes from the "pest" control does not make up for killing that animal. 

Judging from the poll, it seems that an overwhelming majority of people here feel that hunting for amusement is morally wrong. 

[iago]

No, society dictates that women are inferior to men, and, as such, saying that a male has female traits is an insult. For example, saying that a man can't drink as much, that he has a vagina, or even that he likes men are ways of assigning female traits to males in order to insult them.

Actually, nature originally dictated it, and society followed. To be honest, I'd like a stay home wife to raise my kids, just because that's been the way of our species even pre-Neanderthal, and I've always believed that sticking to the most natural way of living will be the best for anyone involved. Most species for that matter. I'm not saying women are mentally inferior, I have no idea. I'm just saying that due to survival of the fittest, and men having a greater need for intellect while hunting, there's always a chance that men are in some way mentally superior. We already know we're physically superior (gain muscle mass easier), so why should this be any different?

I haven't read the rest of this thread, between Rule and CrAz3d, but I'll answer this point my way.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman staying home to raise children. But typically men get made fun of if they do the same thing. And it's the same as calling people a fag, or a pussy, or saying they have a vagina. We're supposed to consider female qualities negative.

[trust]

I don't know about you, but I see vaginas as very positive.

[Quik]

I don't know about you, but I see vaginas as very positive.

You don't see vaginas very often. HAH!

[trust]

I don't see vaginas very often. HAH!

[Quik]

I don't see vaginas very often. HAH!

Correct. I don't play around with random girls.

[while1]

Damn.  This thread disappointed me greatly.  The title is very misleading.  I thought it was about the game rockband.  Fuck you Camel.