Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 94 of 94

Thread: Nazis, Darwin And Evolution

  1. Top | #91
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    6,553
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    11,592
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    In other news, Darwin had the same number of nostrils as almost every Nazi. It's a disgrace.
    The nazis were baptized christians. Racism, bigotry and christianity have always been in bed together.

    It isn't surprising that something authoritarian like religion favors fascism over secularism and atheism. Religion is about power. It's why Bishop Wilberforce was so opposed to Darwin's discoveries.

  2. Top | #92
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,174
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    8,971
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    It isn't surprising that something authoritarian like religion favors fascism over secularism and atheism. Religion is about power. It's why Bishop Wilberforce was so opposed to Darwin's discoveries.
    Curiously, Wilberforce was an abolitionist too. But then Christianity's never been big on consistency...

  3. Top | #93
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,174
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    8,971
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Cheerful Charlie is trying to defend Darwin[ism] and keep him/it out of the hands of the Third Reich in the same way as I might try to argue that the bible doesn't support slavery.
    That's not really the same thing unless you can produce explicitly pro-Nazism quotes from Darwin.
    D'Souza doesnt need to show pro-Nazism quotes from Darwin.
    D'Souza isn't the issue here. You made an analogy. I pointed out what you need to supply in order for your analogy not to have been a bad analogy.

    He simply needs to show pro-Darwinism quotes from Nazis.
    Can you produce any that he showed? Quotes that are specifically pro-Darwinism and not pro-{some competing evolution theory}? As noted upthread, Nazism arose during the Eclipse of Darwinism.

    The irony here is that a Darwinian concept of natural selection would be morally neutral. Neither pro-Nazi nor anti-Nazi. Evolution - survival of the strongest/luckiest - doesn't care if the predator is a Nazi and the prey is a....[a Jew, a negro, a disabled person.] Evolution sheds no tears at the extinction of a species/race.
    Also sheds no tears if the prey escapes and the predator starves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    The Bible actually contains explicitly pro-slavery passages.
    No it doesn't.
    Leviticus 25:44-46...


    "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

    Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

    And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    The question is, did the Nazis expropriate Darwinian ideas about natural selection and survival of the strongest to justify their cause?
    Why is that the question?
    Because ppl are losing their minds at the thought that Darwinian natural selection makes a useful justification for racial supremacy.
    By "losing their minds", you mean "disagreeing with you"?

    They wanna rush to the defense of Charles Darwin and evolutionTM because they have a misplaced loyalty to Darwin himself rather than Darwinian evolution.
    Well, in the first place, what's misplaced about loyalty to Darwin? People should be loyal to and rush to the defense of everyone who's the target of unfair accusations. And in the second place, pointing out errors in someone's criticism of a theory isn't about loyalty to the theory; it's about loyalty to truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Why is that the question? Suppose the answer is yes. What of it?
    If the answer is yes, nothing changes AT ALL.
    Nazism is what it is. Racism is what it is. History cant be changed. Darwin's science isn't good or bad depending on how people try to get an 'ought' from an 'is'.
    Well then why do you think "did the Nazis expropriate Darwinian ideas" is a question worth focusing on?

    The bible is canon of OUGHTS and moral imperatives. (Thou shalt not steal... Thou shalt not covet... Thou shalt not lie.... The love of money is the root of all evil.... for God so loved the world - the whole world. All nations. God wants everyone to be saved...)
    "It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies." - Mark Twain

    Contrast that with the Darwinian science of evolution and natural selection which has no moral compass and confers no innate worth or moral value on... the Jew, or the negro or the disabled person.
    Darwinian science, like all science, has a moral compass. What it confers innate worth on is truth. In scientific ethics, wrongfulness does not lie in being strong or in being weak, but in falsifying your data.

  4. Top | #94
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,174
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    8,971
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Now, no doubt there were some people who felt that having foreigners run their countries was the same thing as being flogged for not working for somebody else; but that's a mistake a person who has been flogged for not working for somebody else is unlikely to make.
    That explains the lack of all those popular uprisings that didn't eventually lead to the collapse of the British colonial system.
    Um, you know Americans collapsed the British colonial system here with a popular uprising, don't you? You know our uprising was orchestrated by a bunch of rich white landowners ticked off about taxes and British soldiers being quartered in their houses and the lack of Americans in Parliament, don't you? So by your reasoning, the fact that we had a popular uprising shows that being an underrepresented rich white landowner must be equivalent to being flogged. Can you produce any example of a black slave in 18th-century America who thought rich white landowners were enslaved by the British?

    And the reason you are telling me this, as though it had bearing on the point in dispute, is in order to try to draw attention away from the false claim you made that I corrected you on.
    What?
    You wrote "Darwin was in favour of the British empire enslaving countless millions of people across the globe." That's a false claim. You don't have a reason to believe it. You've been suckered into spouting politically correct drivel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Yes, he was an abolationist. Because he had double standards.
    No, because slavery is evil and he knew it.
    That's not an argument against slavery... or anything. I can win any argument by simply labelling my oponents opinion as evil. So easy. Saves me the trouble of constructing a cogent attack on it.
    I wasn't offering that as an argument against slavery. Why would I waste all our time arguing against slavery when nobody here is in favor of slavery? I was correcting your foolish misstatement of Darwin's psychology. It's not a double standard to see slavery as evil and oppose it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Like most other Brits of his generation. They thought it was barbaric and uncivilised. They didn't oppose slavery because they thought highly of those enslaved or saw them as equals.
    And in your mind that invalidates his opposition to slavery because his reasons don't satisfy your 21st-century standards for purity, thus making him undeserving of even bare truthfulness from you, thus legitimizing your libel against him. Let me remind you, you didn't say "Darwin was in favour of the British empire not seeing countless millions of people across the globe as their equals." You said "Darwin was in favour of the British empire enslaving countless millions of people across the globe." That was libelous. You said it because, apparently, you don't give a damn whether the things you say about other people are true or not.
    What? All I'm saying is that Darwin was for the most part a regular British chap, with regular British chap opinions. That's not libel.
    No, "Darwin was in favour of the British empire enslaving countless millions of people across the globe." is libel. Why do you keep trying to change the subject from what you actually wrote to incorrect purported paraphrases of it? Regular British chaps with regular British chap opinions weren't in favor of the British empire enslaving countless millions of people across the globe either. Slavery was a settled issue in Britain by the time Darwin was publishing. If imperialism and slavery are the same thing in your mind, well, stop projecting your own error onto regular British chaps. They're allowed to have supported imperialism and opposed slavery at the same time, your false premises notwithstanding.

    (Funny story -- Japan had a civil war at roughly the same time the U.S. did. It was fought between the Imperialists and the Samurai. The Samurai lost. And about the first thing the Imperialists did after they disarmed the Samurai was abolish slavery.)

    That's just the reality of the British colonial rule and their attitudes about it. No ... their attitudes they held back then doesn't satisfy my 21st-century standards for purity.
    And in the 21st century the woke customarily consider impurity to be grounds to treat someone as fair game for untruthfulness. Seriously, dude, what's up with you? You go back and forth between condemning political correctness in one post and being among the board's most enthusiastic practitioners of it in the next.

    I think colonialism, as it was practiced, was evil. Darwin was clearly a supporter of the British empire. He was progressive for his day. But the goalposts have shifted dramatically since he was around.
    Sure. And none of that qualifies as a reason to think he wanted the British empire to enslave anyone. The goalposts had shifted past slavery when he was around. He was one of the people who shifted them!

    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    They thought it was beneath white people to own slaves. He thought that was something brown people are up to. He thought it was the duty of white people to prevent brown people from enslaving eachother.
    Yeah. That's not a double standard. That's a single standard. No enslavement by white people, no enslavement by anyone. A double standard would be "It's beneath white people to own slaves, but if that's something brown people are up to, our culture has no right to judge theirs."
    While they simultaneously enslaved entire peoples using draconian methods. Your argument against his double standard is weak.
    Oh, for the love of god, do you even listen to yourself? Are you in favor of abolishing the police? You aren't? But sometimes the police kill unarmed suspects. Therefore, going by the inference rule you're using, you're in favor of the police killing unarmed suspects.

    You haven't even shown that Darwin believed that the British empire was enslaving entire peoples using draconian methods, let alone that he was in favor of it doing so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Let me draw your attention to the fact that "civilise" does not equal "enslave". That's why they're spelled differently.
    Well... that's what they did. I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings.
    How old are you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    And you have evidence Darwin was in favor of that?
    He had his head up his arse.
    I see, so your theory is that anybody who has his head up his arse must necessarily disagree with you about absolutely everything, like one of those natives on the island where everyone always tells the truth or always lies?
    I think white supremacists sitting on white stallions passing moral judgements on others is full of <expletive deleted>... yes. I think it's double standards.
    So that's a "No". You don't have evidence, just an ad hominem argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    I find your attempt to spin this horrendous chapter of British history into something positive offensive.
    Your attempt to spin what I said into your own false narrative, in which you make trumped-up accusations against me, in payback for my horrendous misdeed of pointing out that what you said was idiotic, is pathetic. I did not attempt to spin this horrendous chapter of British history into something positive. That's a figment of your imagination. You simply made that up about me. You did it because apparently, see above, you don't give a damn whether the things you say about other people are true or not.
    Yes, you did.
    So when you put words in my mouth and I correct you, you just double down and try to put your words back in my mouth again instead of going back and fact-checking your own claim. Why do you think that's an acceptable way to behave? Is your reading comprehension problem really that severe?

    Person A: Torquemada got himself off by raping the altar boys.
    Person B: You have no evidence for that.
    Person A: You're trying to spin the Spanish Inquisition into something positive!

    Stop thinking like Person A. Person A is an imbecile.

    Oh, look. You did it again. It's not a false accusation against Darwin. It's an accurate description of his values and beliefs.
    "It"? In the singular? What, you think you made only one description of Darwin's values and beliefs? You made two. You described him as a regular British chap, and you also described him as pro-enslavement. That's two contradictory descriptions.

    Based on the available evidence.
    Well, go ahead, produce some evidence that Darwin was in favor of the British empire enslaving countless millions of people across the globe.

    I can turn it around... why are you so desperate to portray him as a person with modern 21st century beliefs?
    Why haven't you stopped beating your wife?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •