Deuce Dropper wrote:
Not about being granular, it is about the big picture, because if we did get granular we could say that social welfare is indeed Darwinian because we are trying to do this to better our communities (that which surrounds us) to ensure we can more easily thrive and procreate in a safe environment (survival of the fittest).
So there is no doubt that the initial premise can be shot down, but the question is why do such diametrically opposed viewpoints go undiscussed or observed when they are so often key components of the rhetoric.
No, it's all about getting 'granular' - that is if you truly want to get to the bottom of your question.
What you are really asking is why do we engage in objectification and making stereotypes and broad generalizations. It's a whole lot easier to bash people when you've turned them into a stereotype and then stripped away their humanity. After all, when a person is no longer a person, and is now an object, it's easy to destroy them.
People manipulate us into engaging in conflict by keeping us from getting down to the human level.
If you're not really interested in resolving the question, and just want to get into a few self-satisfying whacks because you're upset, I understand. It's cathartic. Whack away.
But, let's not confuse this with reasoning and conflict resolution.