-face palm-

I agree that economists often misuse the term in a facepalm-inducing way. And they're not the only ones - any time some granola cruncher wrings his hands over how modern medicine and abundance make it possible for the "unfit" to pass on their genes, it makes me want to kick them in the nuts and give them a quick lesson in the concept of Inclusive Fitness, and then to point out that those supposedly "unfit" individuals must, in fact, be fit (adapted), given the environment, or they JUST WOULD NOT BE passing on their genes.

At no point should I use a page number, considering I used digital sources for all my points.

Nightscythe, the phrase "survival of the fittest" doesn't come from Darwin. That's the point. It comes from Spencer.

However, your point (that the author was using 'survival of the fittest' not in a Darwinian sense) is quite correct, and was the logical flaw this paper was designed to prompt the audience to respond to. However, even in your (mostly correct) criticism, it still highlights the real problem the paper is exposing: "survival of the fittest" is not Darwin's, and his arguments generally make more sense when you don't think of them in that context.

+1 points for nightscythe for getting the right response (even if still having some issues)

+1 points to n/a for trying.

-1 points to someone.you.don't.know for failing.

weak arguments are weak. if i can put it so nicely. n/a, your pretty wrong on some of your points, and you're being pretty high-headed about it. the only argument i do agree with you is the lack of substance, and if your being really nitpicky then yes you could say there are minor issues with the quotes in that he forgot to put the page number OH NOES.

Mr.flames, really, the argument you present is pretty weak, in that the phrase, not the actual coining of it, is being used. yes the term "survival of the fittest" did come from darwin, yes he meant it to be different from the plain text meaning, which is where you seem to be getting confused. if i say merely the term "survival of the fittest" i could be referring to the darwinian version, and if that is the case then yes the author should have referred to it when he was quoting the phrase; however had he been using it just as an illustration then the phrase takes on a much more literal context.

and really, arent you going pretty far in making another chapter just to respond to an anonymous jerk? because honestly it looks pretty bad on you and him.

I guess you don't know what the whole topic is about. Go over it and read it aloud. You're just contradicting yourself.

i couldn't decide to laugh or cry when i read this essay in that it's so pathetically wrong in so many different ways.
A. just out of curiosity what the heck is this essay about? for instance are you arguing that words and their meanings (or in this case a phrase) change and now have radically different meanings than at a previous time in history? or are you, in some shape form or fashion arguing against capitalism? or are you arguing against someone using a specific phrase to simplify a point?
B. your use in grammar i'm finding very very lacking, that is to say, your sentences are disjunct (aka fragmented) and has a severe lack of substance.
C. your inability to quote is so repulsive that those around me heard massive amounts of gagging (although at the same time i was sort of laughing at the complete arrogance of "intellectual lightweights").
D. this is the second time ive ever bothered to write a review that critiques the actual argument itself, but you are so utterly wrong (also assuming im able to understand your argument) for now i'm assuming that your argument is against the use of a phrase that has changed. really, in the text you are using it isnt so much that the author is being ignorant as much as the ignorance of the readers. In other words he is DUMBING DOWN an argument so that his readers can better understand his argument.

honestly you did a pretty shoddy job of writing your essay this time around, and personally you should redo this.