<p>ok how about the actual topic, no race admissions are not meritocratic, but ec’s and essays are, they just show different types of merit. a good essay shows the ability to write well, and probably corresponds to a good sat writing section and good language arts grades. extra curriculars can show committment, and depending on the type of ec can show intelligence such as science league, newspaper, and math league. although other ones like chess club don’t show anything.</p>
<p>what’s wrong with chess club?</p>
<p>[Social</a> Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism]Social”>Social Darwinism - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Using Hitler is not a non-sequitur. “social Darwinism became one of the pillars of Fascism and Nazi ideology.” Hitler is valid historical evidence that social darwinism can used (perhaps misused- depending on your interpretation of social darwinism) for the justification of eugenics. And indeed eugenics is a possible consequence of the ideology.</p>
<p>Besides, Darwin was not a proponent of social darwinism. Evolution (creationists call it Darwinism for some reason- probably to attack his outdated original theory) is not social darwinism. It is concerned with why/how something happened. Social darwinism is concerned with what is moral/ethical.</p>
<p>In general: "Social Darwinism’s philosophical problems are rather daunting, and fatal to it as a basic theory (though some have applied similar ideas). First, it makes the faulty assumption that what is natural is equivalent to what is morally correct. In other words, it falls prey to the belief that just because something takes place in nature, it must be a moral paradigm for humans to follow.</p>
<p>This problem in Social Darwinist thinking stems from the fact that the theory falls into the “naturalistic fallacy”, which consists of trying to derive an ought statement from an is statement. For example, the fact that you stubbed your toe this morning does not logically imply that you ought to have stubbed your toe! The same argument applies to the Social Darwinists’ attempt to extend natural processes into human social structures. This is a common problem in philosophy, and it is commonly stated that it is absolutely impossible to derive ought from is (though this is still sometimes disputed); at the very least, it is impossible to do it so simply and directly as the Social Darwinists did." -<a href=“http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml”>http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml</a></p>
<p>There is plenty of historical evidence for the dubious morality of social darwinism.</p>
<p>I don’t know if social darwinism has a basis in hereditary of “success” traits, but if it does, that premise is very weak. It appears that environment plays a large role in success.</p>
<p>And btw <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy</a> I can name fallacies too but it won’t make me right. As far as I can tell no one actually made an argument supporting social darwinism, and instead people attacked one against it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hitler killed between 11 and 17 million people. He killed 6 million Jews. I’d be miffed if Hitler killed my people and everyone forgot about it.</p>