If animals provided welfare for members of the same species who were in need, how would evolution continue...

Well they do but of course they can’t heal the sick. But they do their best. See

But they are highly hierarchical.

the very link you are pointing to says they dont
they share food, they dont let the weak ones reproduce

I had arguments to back up your point, but I'm completely distracted by this erection from your pic now.

We are actually worse than animals. Did you read it or just picked out some parts you agreed with while discarding the rest?

>how would evolution continue?
It wouldn't.

Don't take wikipedia articles at face value. There's a lot of things that we don't understand from animals, some that don't apply to all, and some we don't even know.
Welfare is bad for societies and even though we've seen how it destroys them we don't learn from it.
State enforced altruism (welfare) is bad, civic altruism (voluntary associations, communities, family) is OK.

stop chasing your own tail and if you have some fact to point out, do point it out
you are rambling on nothing because the shit you linked doesnt disprove what I said

weak ones dont get to reproduce
deal with that

Democracy by definition is to be willing to accept the majority’s rule. This includes welfare.

>rambling on
Please. Look who is rambling on. My fact were pointed out that animals do care for each other perhaps more than we do.

Democracy was a mistake.

you are rambling, you made a whole post trying to demean me without providing anything to justify that

now you are playing silly pointing something you said but ignoring completely what I said
such dishonest behavior in an argument are very common to a certain specific group of parasites

no one is disputing that animals care for each other, what was contested is that I pointed out that despite caring, they still dont let the weak ones reproduce
and you said they do, while pointing to an article that doesnt say such thing

Accept the mob rule by force, yeah. You don't get the option to don't accept democracy so I fail to see your point. Also in democracy you don't always get what you vote for anyway. There are very few countries you can name that they didn't vote for "the lesser of two evils".

True democracy is hard. Doesn’t mean we need to ditch it.

Commies like you would know.

True democracy is utopic and weak, very easy to corrupt.
Realisticly it will always be mob rule. If the 60% of the population want to hang the other 40% that's true democracy. That's a drastic example but you can go down the line and find the same reasoning.
>People vote for A and B policies, A gets elected, B voters feel oppressed.
For democracy to work you'd need a very homogeneous society (and very well educated) in which case democracy wouldn't even be needed. As a matter of fact it would be a risk. People thirsty for power could collude with private companies and be eventually elected through deceit and change the entire framework to allow potential voters in to vote against the local's interests.

Ideally what you want is a strong constitution that reflect the population's values which should be impervious to time. Therefore everybody follows the same rules and you maintain the health of the nation. The rule of the land shouldn't be stablished by men anymore but by ideals to avoid corruption and public workers should serve the people not rule over them.
Certain issues not contemplated in said constitution could be debated in a parliament where the collectives with something at stake could argue with specialized public workers. Like fishermen trying to arrange a deal with certain legislation.

Prepping for the full disclosure I see. Subtle.

I approve this post.

She drives me crazy

Attached: B97CD814-48B7-4C97-83B3-06D082B5818B.jpg (600x833, 111K)

If you can't tell the difference between the two you should kys