Stuka69

Good Night Sweet Prince.

Cap.

@ApatheticAvenger said:

He's what Grant Morrison has to say about that!

He's very plutonian in the sense that he's wealthy and also in the sense that he's sexually deviant. Gayness is built into Batman. I'm not using gay in the pejorative sense, but Batman is very, very gay. There's just no denying it. Obviously as a fictional character he's intended to be heterosexual, but the basis of the whole concept is utterly gay. I think that's why people like it. All these women fancy him and they all wear fetish clothes and jump around rooftops to get to him. He doesn't care-he's more interested in hanging out with the old guy and the kid.

Source

Original interview (a great read for Morrison fans)

This.

Garbon Grey...meh...

Awesome, my hat´s off to you, Sir. This post is full of win.

This.

@fodigg said:

This. And anything not written by Kevin Smith.

@Edamame said:

@Alton said:

Do you consider Fascist ideals the same as Darwinian theory? I'm a little confused by the question here.Neo-Cons have embraced a term called Social Darwinism that has nothing to do with Darwin and is just a pseudo scientific cloak for the Fascist bedrock of Neo-Con philosophy.

They certainly aren't the same, but fascism and Darwinian thought (which can include Social Darwinism, the Survival of the Fittest, etc.) can overlap with each other. The best example of this is Nazi Germany. The eugenics programs in both the United States and Nazi Germany are good examples of this. Many people think that Nazism was only about anti-Semitism, but it was much more than that. Even though anti-Semitism was the main focus at the time, Nazism had many other goals. People who had "undesirable" or "weak" genes/traits were either exterminated, sterilized or experimented on. I digress, however.

Fascism and Darwinism (including Social Darwinism) are both incredibly huge and broad categories. So, I could talk about this in great detail, but I don't think that would be a good idea. It is true that Charles Darwin was misunderstood. Darwin stated himself that he did not approve of or agree with the principles of Social Darwinism. If I recall correctly, it was Herbert Spencer who came up with the 'Survival of the Fittest' phrase.

I just did some research on Neoconservatism, and it does appear that there are some fascist elements within this branch.

@gavinification said:

I just want to point out that eugenics is not Darwinian. It is pretty much the opposite of natural selection.

And there are no ideals of natural selection.

I don't see how eugenics isn't Darwinian in nature. From a historical perspective, eugenics programs have mostly been about attacking (and sometimes eliminating) the weak and undesirable and sterilizing those who were deemed undesirable and weak. People who were mentally ill, mentally deficient, physically deformed, diseased, poor, blind, deaf, homosexual, "racially different", etc. were all victims in most eugenics programs (especially those in the United States and in Nazi Germany).

It is my understanding that Natural Selection is, as implied, about Nature selecting and making sure that the strong of a particular species survive and reproduce. The weak of a particular species were forced to adapt, and if that didn't happen, then they would be weeded out. I also assumed that the Survival of the Fittest and Natural Selection were somewhat synonymous. I don't know that much about Natural Selection. So, I could be wrong. lol

I am also not sure what you mean by stating that there are no ideals to Natural Selection, and I don't see how eugenics is the exact opposite of Natural Selection. I would simply say that eugenics is enforced my humans, while Natural Selection is enforced by Nature. *shrugs*

Natural Selection has no ideals because it is not an ideology, it is the way species evolve in Planet Earth. I find your post interesting, but perhaps you should not mix philosophical and political ideologies with the science.

Holy...Terror!