Syamsu,
Every once in a while I get drawn into arguing with you. On my part, this is purely out of a pathological curiosity to determine what it is you're actually getting at. I have this naive belief that were I to understand your point you were making then I'd be better off for it, even if I disagreed with you.
But then you remind me why this is such a waste of time - and not for the reasons you'd like. After all this time, I still have no idea what your argument actually is.
Is it: "the Nazis would not have existed without the ToE therefore Darwin is culpable for the Holocaust. The Holocaust was wrong therefore the ToE is wrong?"
Is it: "In popular literature the overuse of emotional words and phrases to describe evolutionary ideas is morally bankrupt. Therefore evolution is wrong."?
Is it "Dawkins says that he can explain greed. Only paid-up theologians can explain greed. Therefore Dawkins is wrong."?
or what?
For example, in
post #122 you state:
Syamsu writes:
I think I have succesfully argued for the significance of the relationship between Darwinism and social darwinism / Nazism on this forum
This is a vacuous statement. "Significance" could mean anything. What exactly are you saying here? Are you saying that WWII would not have happened without Darwin? Spit it out, man.
You often talk about morality and moral concepts being "unscientific" but I can't remember you ever going into the consequences of this. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the use of "selfish" is an completelt and utterly unscientific comment. So what? Does this prove the theory wrong, or is it just a poor choice of words?
Then you go on with your deranged argument about how evolutionists' preconceptions prevent them from seeing the necessary evil implicit in evolution, without recognising your own preconceptions and what they may be limiting you from understanding.
In your post to me, you write:
Dawkins talks about explaining greed and loving etc
and you expect me to know what you're talking about. I honestly have no clue as to what your talking about other than your throwaway side comments - and I don't have sufficient interest in this conversation to trawl through the entire thread to see what Dawkins was purported to have said about greed. Why not post it again for me? Is it so difficult to take the time to fuly explain and cogently develop your argument?
In
post #119 you write (to Schraf):
You can't posit your simplistic you can't get an ought from an is, since Dawkins messes things up by for instance talking about explaining greed, and loving etc.
It was me who'd mentioned oughts and isses. What am I supposed to do with this statement of yours? Am I supposed to consider that you've dealt with it by calling it "simplistic"?
You never addressed my query about whether you'd read up on Game theory, which should have been relatively easy to answer, and yet you then accuse me of not addressing your foggy comments on greed and loving. I didn't address them because there was nothing to address.
When pressed on relevance, you keep making these bizarre references to psychologists or paediatricians who might treat people harshly because of the way the ToE is formulated. Is your beef then with the formulation and the words (if so, thats a particularly uninteresting topic) or with the concept itself. Would you accept the ToE if there was a purely mathematical and value free formulation of it, or is mathematics similarly value-laden?
I'm not expecting you to answer any of the questions above btw(especially given your track record of answering my questions), but hopefully they should give you some insight into how I regard conversations with you. I just wanted to get a few things off my chest.
I'm going to give our conversation a rest now as I find it too much hard work to have a productive discussion with you. Feel free to declare victory though. You have, on this occasion, literally bored your "opponent" into submission.
PE
)
™ Version 4.2
