Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
191 online now:
jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), ringo (3 members, 188 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,834 Year: 1,582/23,288 Month: 1,582/1,851 Week: 222/484 Day: 40/105 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is antithetical to racism
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 123 of 238 (424072)
09-25-2007 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by CTD
09-24-2007 9:35 AM


Nietzsche
"What surprises me most on making a general survey of the great destinies of man, is that I invariably see the reverse of what today Darwin and his school sees or will persist in seeing: selection in favour of the stronger, the better constituted, and the progress of the species. Precisely the reverse of this stares one in the face: the suppression of the lucky cases, the uselessness of the more highly constituted types, the inevitable mastery of the mediocre, and even of those who are below mediocrity. Unless we are shown some reason why man is an exception among living creatures, I incline to the view that Darwin's school is everywhere at fault ...

I see all philosophers and the whole of science on their knees before a reality which is the reverse of the struggle for life as Darwin and his school understood it- that is to say, wherever I look, I see those prevailing and surviving, who throw doubt and suspicion upon life and the value of life.- The error of the Darwinian school became a problem to me: how can one be so blind as to make this mistake?"

--- Nietzsche, "Anti-Darwin", The Will to Power

So he was against Darwin, yes, but I don't see where he shows that evolution must lead to racism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 9:35 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 124 of 238 (424075)
09-25-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by CTD
09-24-2007 9:46 PM


Re: objective selection
It is maintained that evolutionism is antithetical to racism because it teaches us how closely we are related to our fellow men. Biology has indeed revealed much along those lines. But evolutionism continually strives to remind us that there should be a struggle for survival, and that some of us must be "more fit" than others.

Of course, this would not lead us to conclude that some races must be "more fit" than others, unless "we" happen to be morons.

Can evolutionism be used to support racism? It clearly has been used for that purpose, and it continues to this very day.

Just like the Bible, then.

So one might ask if the racists are somehow misapplying evolutionism or being hypocritical. If they are, I can't see it.

Well, perhaps you could produce just one argument from evolution to racism, and then we could take a look at that argument and see if it does indeed involve a misapplication of evolution.

Until we see some arguments, we too are going to be unable to see what is wrong with them.

On what basis can one fault their reasoning?

ITS COMPLETE ABSENCE.

Apparently there is no supposed reasoning from evolution to racism that you feel would stand up to public scrutiny.

This suggests that you know as well as I do that any such argument would be rubbish.

Also, it is artificial and nonsensical to claim that 'evolution' can be applied in a manner which restricts consideration to individuals and does not extend to groups.

And I notice that no-one did in fact claim that, and that what you are denouncing as artificial and nonsensical is stuff you made up in your head.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 9:46 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 128 of 238 (424111)
09-25-2007 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by CTD
09-25-2007 4:33 PM


Re: Looks like Game Over
Where exactly in the OP is this mentioned?

Not that I couldn't do it. It may be that I already have. I'm a little drowsy. But the point is: why should I?

* giggles *

I've already demonstrated how false the claim was.

Which claim did you demonstrate was false and where did you demonstrate it?

Does this have anything to do with your lies about Marx and Nietzsche?

Looking over what you have, in fact, already posted, I am not surprised that you don't wish to draw our attention to any particular part of it.

Racists have seen that natural selection doesn't apply to individual humans.

And what racists have "seen" is wrong.

There you go.

I notice, by the way, that when you tell me what racists think, you don't quote any racists. So what I'm wondering is, when you tell me what racists think, is that just something you've made up in your head, y'know, like all the other times on this thread where you've attributed opinions to people?

They have devised and implemented other means to "evolve the species".

Ah, doubtless they have been influenced by the creationist dogma of microevolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by CTD, posted 09-25-2007 4:33 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 132 of 238 (424187)
09-26-2007 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by CTD
09-25-2007 5:02 PM


And I ranted about nothing. I pointed out that several of the evolutionist arguments currently used to support abortion ...

How does the theory of evolution "support abortion"?

Does this involve more Sooper Sekrit Reezuning which you won't actually share with anyone 'cos you know it's bollocks? Just guessing.

And since you don't seem to understand, it is the Darwinists, the racists, and the supporters of abortion who equate poverty with inferiority.

Uh ... there's no point in lying to us about what "Darwinists" think, 'cos we are "Darwinists", remember?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by CTD, posted 09-25-2007 5:02 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 142 of 238 (425095)
09-30-2007 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by CTD
09-26-2007 7:25 PM


Thomas H. Huxley, at the start of "IX" (emphasis added)

What's he talking about?

Eugenics. What do you want to pretend he's talking about? Let me guess ...

He clearly states what the logical result of applying evolutionism would be.

Except that he does not, in fact, state that this would be a "logical result of applying evolutionism".

He says that this would be the logical result of applying the "evolutionary regimentation" that he's denouncing, as we can see by reading the article.

In fact, he has written an attack on eugenics which at no point involves advocating racism, as we can see by reading the article.

I have to wonder whom you hope to fool.

And the "one reason" he gives for not implementing the ideal is "nobody's smart enough".

That is not in fact "the one reason he gives", as we can see by reading the article. Indeed, we can see that from the first snippet you quote, where he says that there are "other reasons".

Whom do you hope to fool?

I agree that it shouldn't be done or attempted. But the "nobody's smart enough" argument will never convince even one single person who would otherwise attempt this that they're not up to it.

It might, however, convince everyone else that they should not invest any individual with such power.

I read enough to see that he offered no alternatives, compatible with evolution or otherwise.

The alternative to practising eugenics is not to practise eugenics. I guess Huxley supposed that everyone who read his article would be smart enough to figure that out for themselves.

I can also tell he's had practice saying nothing with a lot of words.

And yet curiously you have the idea that this "nothing" that he's saying proves you right.

Well, just because nothing supports your beliefs, that doesn't mean that someone saying nothing supports your beliefs.

But I think it rather more probable that Huxley was saying something, and you missed it.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by CTD, posted 09-26-2007 7:25 PM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 8:43 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 144 of 238 (425212)
10-01-2007 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by CTD
10-01-2007 8:43 AM


This is a curious method of "denouncing". Step one: make a carefully thought-out, logically sound argument in favor of something. Step two: make a threadbare, insubstantial argument against it.

If you think that the arguments he mentions for eugenics are logically sound, and that his arguments against it are not, that is your problem. I think that his arguments against it are good.

Whether or not you like his arguments against eugenics, the fact remains that he is arguing against it.

I saw him mention other arguments, but the "one reason" was put in quotes because it's what he said. Guess that slipped past you.

Yes, he said that that was "one reason", implying that there were others. He did not say that that was "the one reason", which would imply that there were no others.

That's okay, the "other arguments" he claimed to make seem to have slipped past both of us.

Speak for yourself. I can read his other arguments. They follow after he says that there are other arguments.

Ah, but if that's the intention, there are dozens of better arguments available against investing an individual with excessive power. He must've just run out of steam about that time. Poor man couldn't seem to muster any of them.

I think you must have run out of steam at this point, because nor can you.

So would the paraphrase apply: "the alternative to practicing evolutionism is not to practice evolutionism"? That seems to be in keeping with what your comrades claimed to advocate.

The phrase "practicing evolutionism" has no meaning, but if it did, the clause you enclose in quotes would of course be true.

Why do you ask?

So eugenics is separate from racism?

Yes.

I always thought of it as a fancy-dress synonym.

And, as so often happens, you're wrong. Why didn't you look it up or something?

Briefly, eugenics is the application of artificial selection to humans. (NB: some early writers use it to include the breeding of humans and of domestic breeds, but in modern usage it tends to refer exclusively to the application of stock-breeding methods to humans.)

(When the thug down the street does it, it's 'racism'. When a 'scientist' does it it's 'eugenics', right?)

No.

It's a very fine distinction to make.

No.

How can one tell from the text which he was talking about, and which (if either) he was excluding?

The fact that he is talking about eugenics but never mentions race.

And please do be so kind as to clarify how this subtle difference has any impact whatsoever on the arguments involved.

Because in this thread we are discussing racism, not eugenics.

The fact that Huxley criticized eugenics using arguments which you find invalid does not mean that the theory of evolution is implicitly racist.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 8:43 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 147 of 238 (425277)
10-01-2007 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by bluegenes
10-01-2007 3:31 PM


Humans would have recognized hereditary features in themselves ever since there were humans.

It's true --- it's obvious --- creationists are incapable of understanding it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by bluegenes, posted 10-01-2007 3:31 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 151 of 238 (425302)
10-01-2007 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by CTD
10-01-2007 5:09 PM


Huxley says otherwise.

But you cannot actually quote him saying otherwise, because this is something you made up in your head.

Were he here, I can't say he'd hesitate to obfuscate, and join those who attempt to muck up the discussion. But he's not here, so he has no opportunity to change his tune.

Translated into English: you are lying about Huxley's opinions, and you know it, and you know that if he was alive he'd say that you were a liar, but because he's dead you can lie about his opinions without him pointing out that you're a liar.

I should advise you that this does not prevent other people from reading what he wrote and observing that you are a liar, which is self-evident. You are lying about Huxley like you lied about Nietzsche and like you lied about Marx. You are a liar. And again, I should like to ask: given that everyone reading this thread knows that you are lying, whom do you hope to decieve?

This leaves you in the position of disputing the teachings of your prophet. Not that that means beans, because you'll be welcome to recant as soon as the discussion ends.

When you made up this jumble of lies, didn't you feel ashamed of yourself at any point?

Let me ask another question. Your whole line of argument seems to involve inventing halfwitted lies about your opponents. Has it not occurred to you that a thesis which can only be supported by halfwitted lies is itself a halfwitted lie, and so not worth supporting?

I really don't understand you people. You must, surely, know that you're lying. Then why don't you do what I did and take up a position that can be defended by telling the truth?

I know that religion is a powerful thing, but I don't ... I just don't understand how you can behave like this.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 5:09 PM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 6:29 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 157 of 238 (425318)
10-01-2007 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by CTD
10-01-2007 6:15 PM


Problem Solved
They argue that "not applying eugenics" is the implied valid alternative to "applying eugenics".

Yup, that's evolutionists for you, always pointing out stuff that is indisputably right.

Yes, the alternative to practicing eugenics is indeed not practicing eugenics. Lie your way out of that one, chum.

And evolutionists have never offered any alternatives since that time, to the best of my recollection.

And we all know that you are a liar, and you know that you are a liar, because I, at least, have pointed out an alternative to practicing eugenics, which is not to practice eugenics, and you know that perfectly well, and you are a liar, and we all know that you are lying.

While they may or may not openly advocate eugenics/racism, they make no small effort to make everyone aware of the hard place, while conditioning everyone they can reach to be prepared to accept their rock.

I have been trying to understand how you could possibly have written that sentence.

That sort of screaming twitching paranoia is not a good sign.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 6:15 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 158 of 238 (425319)
10-01-2007 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by CTD
10-01-2007 6:29 PM


I can't help but speculate that you were jotting down a note to yourself and inadvertently posted it.

As a student of your mental processes, I am interested in your disorder. So may I ask --- why are you unable to keep from daydreaming about an idiotic fantasy which you know to be untrue?

Everyone can indeed see who's been truthful and who has been otherwise, and I hope and pray that they shall.

Of course they can.

You are a liar.

You lied about Huxley.

You lied about Nietzsche.

You lied about Marx.

And every time you're challenged to back up your lies, you run away sobbing and screaming and --- and claiming that you've won.

Here's an example:

In future, I expect they'll understand if I don't pay you too much attention.

Yes, everyone will understand why you're too frightened to answer my posts.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 6:29 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 165 of 238 (425347)
10-01-2007 9:37 PM


CTD Still Whining On
Obviously he can't answer my posts, because I have proved that he's a liar.

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 166 of 238 (425348)
10-01-2007 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by CTD
10-01-2007 9:17 PM


What A Lot Of Lies
Wow, what a lot of lies.

You realise, don't you, that you're lying to evolutionists about what evolutionists think, and that therefore everyone you're lying to knows that you're a liar?

Just checking.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 9:17 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 168 of 238 (425356)
10-01-2007 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by bluegenes
10-01-2007 9:52 PM


Only racists think that eugenics and racism are the same thing.

Well, there's creationists too.

---

MESSAGE TO CREATIONISTS:

JUST BECAUSE EVERY CREATIONIST ARGUMENT IS A STUPID FUCKING LIE DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERY STUPID FUCKING LIE IS A CREATIONIST ARGUMENT. SOME STUPID FUCKING LIES ARE JUST STUPID FUCKING LIES.

Have I made myself clear?

---

Why couldn't we argue about some lies that are even relevant to the subject? Why can't creationists lie about Archaeopteryx? They used to. Why can't they lie about the laws of thermodynamics? Why can't they lie about information theory? Why can't the stupid lying halfwits lie about intermediate forms in the fossil record like they used to before we pwned them? It used to be so much fun watching those bozos pretend to be scientists.

Well, the creationists know damn well why they don't dare lie about any scientific question: we're right, we'd win.

So instead they have to lie about stuff that isn't even relevant to the debate, 'cos it may not be creationism, but at least it's stupid lies. Not creationist stupid lies, but at least they're stupid lies. That's as close as they can get.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by bluegenes, posted 10-01-2007 9:52 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by bluegenes, posted 10-01-2007 10:20 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 174 of 238 (425399)
10-02-2007 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by CTD
10-02-2007 4:52 AM


Re: Evolutionism has struck out
As I've thrice defeated the original nonsense I think that's enough.

But everyone reading this thread can see that despite your declaration of yourself as the winner, you have in fact been exposed as a dirty stupid liar, which is why you are now going to run away ...

If I ever want to be insulted by cowards again, I sure know where to find them. Worse luck next time.

... sobbing and snivelling that we're "cowards" as you take to your legs and run.

Strike 1 If evolutionism were antithetical to racism, it would contribute in a rational, logical manner to arguments against racism while providing no support for racism. It doesn't do this.

Strike 2 The claim that evolutionism doesn't support racism has been handily defeated by history.

Strike 3 The goalposts were moved, and Huxley managed to find the zone with his curveball, demonstrating that evolutionism logically leads to racism.

You know that everyone reading this thread can see that you're lying, right?

Oh yes, and calling me a racist is what I predicted.

Yes, it was. Are you now going to pretend that this has actually happened?

You stinking eugenecists are the racists.

But I must revise my previous equasion: eugenecists = gutter racists. That's more accurate. You're less respectable because you try to hide your racism rather than having the guts to say what you are and face your enemies. You're smaller men than skinheads.

I suppose daydreaming disgusting lies about your opponents makes it easier to hate them. I don't remember Jesus mentioning the advantages of this in the Sermon on the Mount, it must be one of those modern discoveries of this "creation science" we hear so much about.

But could I remind you that when you drool out these dirty lies in public, instead of just fantasising about them in your own mind, then everyone can see that you're a liar, and they know to what degradation, foulness and filth your creationism has led you.

What shall it profit a man if he shall gain a gibble-gabble of halfwitted lies but lose his soul? You seem to be screwed both ways. In return for abandoning morality and decency --- you have succeeded in becoming a bloody fool. This was not a good idea, and if I were you I'd ask Satan Prince of Lies for my soul back.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by CTD, posted 10-02-2007 4:52 AM CTD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by AdminPaul, posted 10-02-2007 8:15 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 177 of 238 (425407)
10-02-2007 7:56 AM


KKK
By the way, I notice that the Ku Klux Klan are OECs. I don't know whether this fits particularly well with their ideology, or whether this just reflects the personal delusions of their Head Guy In Charge Of Being Wrong About Science. Anyone got any ideas?

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020