Darwin's Dystopia

foxfyre wrote:

I'm sorry if you are incapable of integrating more than one thought at a time--maybe it is something in your genes?-

incredible yet consistent.

0 Replies

There's nothing incredible about it. That's why it's consistent.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

There's nothing incredible about it. That's why it's consistent.

incredible= too extraordinary and improbable to be believed, see spendius.

0 Replies

The trouble wuth spendi is that he actually believes that he is being clever, when actually hes like Professor Erwin Correy.

Such a balegoola

0 Replies

I read the thread. It appears that gunga , every so often, likes to have his head beaten in with historical fact. I recall that we stuck this "Hitler was a Darwinist" lie , up gungas ass several times in the past. Obviously to no avail.

Gunga tries to make believe that he is interested in scientific facts and data, yet he insists on continuing quoting other mindless sources with which he agrees from a personal worldview base.

Such a schlameil.

0 Replies

Well at least Gunga has enough on the ball to think certain concepts to be interesting and doesn't seem to follow people around just to post personally directed insults.

0 Replies

spendious, I have, in the past, found your posts to be boring and pretentious, currently I find your posts merely boring and pretentious although the Lady Diane enjoys your smithing of words albeit lacking in meaningful content. For this i applaud you for she is not an easy mark for such glib a tongue (aside from mine) I might indeed find it a pleasure to actually carry on a meaningful conversation with you however, I forsee the impossibility of such an occurence, I'm thinking you might very well be the model for James Joyce's Portrait of an Artist for the early years but certainly not Anthony Burgess's writing of poetry while sitting on the toilet for you all to often forsake wiping before posting.

0 Replies

foxfyre

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well at least Gunga has enough on the ball to think certain concepts to be interesting and doesn't seem to follow people around just to post personally directed insults

Obviously an acute memory is not needed to define "on the ball", in your mind. If you dont wish many (including me) to post insultsat him, then perhaps he should have a greater respect for historical facts and drop his brainless worldview.

0 Replies

foxfyre again

Quote:

To say that there is a parallel between Hitler's eugenic ambitions and Darwin's theory is not to presume that they are alike; only that there is a similarity in concept or appearance

Sort of like the similarity between lightning and a lightning bug?

0 Replies

MONDAY IS BLOOMSDAY

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

foxfyre
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well at least Gunga has enough on the ball to think certain concepts to be interesting and doesn't seem to follow people around just to post personally directed insults

Obviously an acute memory is not needed to define "on the ball", in your mind. If you dont wish many (including me) to post insultsat him, then perhaps he should have a greater respect for historical facts and drop his brainless worldview.

Why not simply post a rebuttal to the facts? I certainly have not seen your posts discrediting the article he posted. I only see an interesting topic for discussion from him and a personaly directed insult from you. I think his approach makes a good discussion more likely.

0 Replies

I dont think that, after several attempts that gunga has used to trot out the very same subject, Im in any mood to play in his court. Hes a liar and he uses false sources quite regularly. Hes just a YEC who searches out silly threads and posts them. If youve not been previously entertained by his drivvel then you missed the several instances wherein he attempts to con the gullible . I dont consider this a valid point of discussion You can read several good examples of counterpoint in Gould or Eldridge, Moore, and Quammen (to mention just a few whove taken the Hitler Darwin connection apart ).

If you wish to go on a journey of discovery in order to learn what many of us already have heard in sufficient quantity then go knock yourself out. Please dont be deluded into thinking that gungas statement is for some intellectual point. Hes a Creationist propogandist who tries to preach this lie every six months or so.

Stop trying to present yourself as an objective arbiter of intellectual pursuits, cuz gunga doesnt recognize scientific inquiry or objective research or even history.

0 Replies

I wasn't trying to arbitrate anything. If anything I was hoping those who don't wish to discuss the topic but just wish to disrupt the thread by targeting somebody to 'punish' wouldn't do that this time. But hope springs eternal doesn't it.

0 Replies

It is interesting that the discussion about Hitler<>Darwin only started when numerous ID supporters have promoted the Darwin-to-Hitler thesis.

Häckel certainly is closer to the root of some of the ideas of leading Nazis (and perhaps Hitler)l than Darwin.

As is Goethe and Schiller.

Which might become the next topic of the fake science of the ID-movement, trying to twist any academic subject to carry out their mission to take down evolution.

0 Replies

dys wrote-

Quote:

spendious, I have, in the past, found your posts to be boring and pretentious, currently I find your posts merely boring and pretentious although the Lady Diane enjoys your smithing of words albeit lacking in meaningful content.

That sounds okay to me. Pleasing men is not on my agenda. Lady Diane is obviously discerning and a lady of fine intelligence and wit. Perhaps she reads better than you.

Nothing is boring and pretentious to a scientific mind. Such solipsism is caused by impatience and a reluctance to give others the benefit of the doubt. Such things make the presumtion that one's own judgment is infallible and, by degrees, through habitual use, create a closed mind. And nothing lacks meaning either. Everything is just as interesting and has "whatness" as much as everything else. I'm just as interested, for example, in bloomers as I am in shouting a winner home on the gee-gees.

"What about the whatness of this fine pint of John Smith's Extra Smooth then? I said to my fellows in the pub the other night.

"Yer what?" Vic said.

"This pint", I said, gesturing expansively at the vision which stood on the bar reflecting a myriad of light patterns and at my complete disposal.

"What does it mean? I asked, feigning impatience...from there we ranged far and wide on beer, bars, broads I've heard you call them, bogs which produce a certain taste-tang redolent of windswept Highland bogs and it is surprising what I discovered. I heard the tale of why Black Sheep beer came to have such a name. I actually tried it as a result. Never again. I suggested to the Landlord, who does put a price on my soul, that he connected the John Smith's Extra Smooth cask to the Black Sheep pump and I would be happy to pay the extra 5p to drink great beer with a great name once you know how it got it. It was a bust-up in the Theakston family and one of the sons went his own way.

He can't brew beer yet. I'm thinking of giving him a ring.

Another thing I was told was that the locals referred to the All Saint's Tavern in Wigan as the C**t and Trumpet.

Pretentiousness has whatness. Veblen discoursed at some length on it's manifestations in actuality and left the causes to others. It's mainly childhood they say.

The only way out of it that I know is to face up to the fact that you're an arsehole which soon leads to the realisation that everybody else is as well and thus everybody is equal in any scientific appraisal of the whatness of arseholes.

Quote:

For this i applaud you for she is not an easy mark

Well- hardly a man will ever admit that his chosen companion was an easy mark. Some will though and most unpretentious they are about it too. "No nonsense" is the John Smith motto. They get that Peter Kay to do their ads. He's the type to view the parade when the time comes, pick one out on the Joycean principle that it might as well be her as anybody and waltz her off, whilst allowing her to think that she played hard to get all the while, and into a life of married bliss, for better or for worse: a phrase Joyce had much fun with.

Quote:

I'm thinking you might very well be the model for James Joyce's Portrait of an Artist for the early years but certainly not Anthony Burgess's writing of poetry while sitting on the toilet for you all to often forsake wiping before posting.

Not at all. Stephen was a prissy, pompous prig. Burgess is a minor figure but a figure nevertheless.

Now- if something is "extraordinary and improbable" (incredible--despite it happening) the probability of its consistency depends inversely upon the extraordinariness and improbabilty of the thing. A sort of literary uncertainty principle. So I still think that saying Foxy's post was incredible and consistent was a solecism. It was ungallant as well.

0 Replies

This is for your benefit foxfyre. Not gunga. Gunga is an ignoramus who wallows in his 1920's untruths. Weve gone over this entire area with him again and again and , when he brings it up each time, someone jumps in to set a record straight so that the kids on line dont think that theres some truth to his "fractured fairy tales" (great line set)

Im paraphrasing from a post of 2005

"Ken HAm and Charles Ware wrote "Darwins Plantation" in 2001. Its within that book that they argue that the theory of natural selection had inspired Nazis beliefs in racial superiority and underpinned STalins own murderous policy. ALso, because of Hams work, the state of Louisiana had (in 2001 ) considered legislation that would promote a twisted factoid that
"Darwin had supported racist ideologies, especially when we consider the very title of his "Origin of SPecies...and favored races".
The misunderstanding of the context of DArwins title led to Hams thesis and Louisianas Legislative Bill (The bill died in 2002)

NAZI eugenics was targeted toward specific groups of people and its basis was clearly Biblical. SOme passages lifted from Mein KAmpf and from Hitlers speeches follows:

Quote:

...Hence, today I believe that I am acting within the Will of the ALmighty Creator. By defending myself against the JEW , I am fighting for the Lord

, from MEin Kampf

Quote:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter...recognizing these JEWS for what they are...(quotes the Bible and the clearing of the TEmple by Jesus)...And HE summoned men to fight against them (JEWS)...How terrific was HIS (Jesus) fight for the world against the Jewish poison

from one of his Beer Hall Putsches.

Stalin, on the other hand had actually come out AGAINST Darwinian mechanisms He claimed that Natural Selection was a"bourgeois belief" as was any biological science that preached evolution by natural selection. So STalin, ever one to blaze new ways of doing things, allowed the rise of Trofim Lysenko as the driver of the entire Soviet research programs into agricultural development and animal husbandry(this based upon a misunderstanding of Michurin genetics). The methodology of Lysenko was clearly LAmarkian and within 20 years of heavy funding, failed miserably, leaving millions of Russians starving.

Now, the next time you wish to accuse me of being openly critical of gunga, perhaps youll understand that my jumping down his throat was merely a sign of frustration of his lame headed "theories and pronouncements" Gunga has an agenda, I dont.
Were what gunga says actually true, Id have to support the facts as they exist. Hes not telling truth, hes a serial liar whose used A2K to brandish his Biblical based worldviews and additionally, by trying to denigrate nat selection, he hoped that , somehow, his own worldview would be defaulted to. (A silly bit of logic really)

Dr Huff said something like
"even if Hitlers policy of racial superiority were Darwinian at its core, that wouldnt invalidate natural Selection. It would simply mean that Darwin could be used by evil men who wish to validate their own policies by applying some root in science."

Ill continue in my criticizing gunga because hes just a fool and a serial liar, and his posings arent worth a pinch of ****.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Another thing I was told was that the locals referred to the All Saint's Tavern in Wigan as the C**t and Trumpet.

The one in the Grand Hotel building in Dorning Street? I asked my GF who is from Swinley and she'd not heard of that. A Google search revealed that it was renamed Riley's Bar and became The Anvil in 2001. I found a 2002 post on a pub names forum thread mentioning "a Wigan pub" being called that.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

As for economic misery as a result of any actions of the victorious powers, that's a load of codswallop.

Erich Fromm wrote-

Quote:

While Fascism could have had an economic function (in Germany but not Italy, he means), Nazism had none. It was the insurrection of the lower middle class, and jobless officers and students, based on the demoralization brought about by military defeat and inflation, and more specifically by the mass unemployment during the depression after 1929.
But it could not have been victorious without the active support of important sectors of financial and industrial capital, who felt threatened by an ever-increasing dissatisfaction of the masses with the capitalist system.

I wrote-

Quote:

The fertile field Hitler ploughed contained national humiliation and economic misery caused by the victorious powers. His ideas would have never sprouted and blossomed but for those nutrients being in the soil.

In a communication to Mr Roosevelt Hitler wrote-

Quote:

I have conquered chaos in Germany, re-established order, enormously increased production. . . . I have succeeded in finding useful work once more for the whole of seven million unemployed. . . . Not only have I united the German people politically, but I have rearmed them. I have also endevoured to destroy sheet by sheet the treaty which in its 448 articles contains the vilest oppression which peoples and human beings have ever been expected to put up with.

Alan Bullock wrote-

Quote:

In Germany, where people now found themselves faced with new sacrifices demanded by the Peace Treaty and Reparations, this condition ( widespread unrest, insecurity and fear) lasted for for five years, until the end of 1923. It was during that restless and distrurbed period that Hitler first made his mark as a politician.

The fertile field I referred to.

Arguments about codswallop are infantile and an insult to the intelligence of A2Kers.

Whether or not Hitler ever mentioned Darwin his actions were in line with the idea of a struggle for existence and (to him and his followers) justified on that anti-Christian principle. Darwinian principles justify unfettered capitalism and sexual relations.

Some think they were got up for that very purpose.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

This is for your benefit foxfyre. Not gunga. Gunga is an ignoramus who wallows in his 1920's untruths. Weve gone over this entire area with him again and again and , when he brings it up each time, someone jumps in to set a record straight so that the kids on line dont think that theres some truth to his "fractured fairy tales" (great line set)

Im paraphrasing from a post of 2005

"Ken HAm and Charles Ware wrote "Darwins Plantation" in 2001. Its within that book that they argue that the theory of natural selection had inspired Nazis beliefs in racial superiority and underpinned STalins own murderous policy. ALso, because of Hams work, the state of Louisiana had (in 2001 ) considered legislation that would promote a twisted factoid that
"Darwin had supported racist ideologies, especially when we consider the very title of his "Origin of SPecies...and favored races".
The misunderstanding of the context of DArwins title led to Hams thesis and Louisianas Legislative Bill (The bill died in 2002)

NAZI eugenics was targeted toward specific groups of people and its basis was clearly Biblical. SOme passages lifted from Mein KAmpf and from Hitlers speeches follows:

Quote:
...Hence, today I believe that I am acting within the Will of the ALmighty Creator. By defending myself against the JEW , I am fighting for the Lord
, from MEin Kampf

Quote:
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter...recognizing these JEWS for what they are...(quotes the Bible and the clearing of the TEmple by Jesus)...And HE summoned men to fight against them (JEWS)...How terrific was HIS (Jesus) fight for the world against the Jewish poison
from one of his Beer Hall Putsches.

Stalin, on the other hand had actually come out AGAINST Darwinian mechanisms He claimed that Natural Selection was a"bourgeois belief" as was any biological science that preached evolution by natural selection. So STalin, ever one to blaze new ways of doing things, allowed the rise of Trofim Lysenko as the driver of the entire Soviet research programs into agricultural development and animal husbandry(this based upon a misunderstanding of Michurin genetics). The methodology of Lysenko was clearly LAmarkian and within 20 years of heavy funding, failed miserably, leaving millions of Russians starving.

Now, the next time you wish to accuse me of being openly critical of gunga, perhaps youll understand that my jumping down his throat was merely a sign of frustration of his lame headed "theories and pronouncements" Gunga has an agenda, I dont.
Were what gunga says actually true, Id have to support the facts as they exist. Hes not telling truth, hes a serial liar whose used A2K to brandish his Biblical based worldviews and additionally, by trying to denigrate nat selection, he hoped that , somehow, his own worldview would be defaulted to. (A silly bit of logic really)

Dr Huff said something like
"even if Hitlers policy of racial superiority were Darwinian at its core, that wouldnt invalidate natural Selection. It would simply mean that Darwin could be used by evil men who wish to validate their own policies by applying some root in science."

Ill continue in my criticizing gunga because hes just a fool and a serial liar, and his posings arent worth a pinch of ****.

I can appreciate that you and Gunga probably don't see eye to eye on many things. Gunga and I certainly don't agree on everything. But if you disagree with another member on a subject, must that member be eternally damned and never be allowed to comment on that subject forever without self-proclaimed judges jumping all over him?

Having said that Gunga has commented on nothing at all so far in this thread. He posted an article by somebody commenting on Ben Stein's book and, whether you agree with the conclusions or not or even whether the analysis is based on valid observations or not, there is a reasoned argument made there that could translate to an interesting discussion by other members.

For instance, is the following (from that article) incorrect? If so how? If you disagree with the conclusions reached, why not say why those conclusions are wrong?

Quote:

most important thing to understand is that the link between Darwin and Hitler was not immediate. That is, nobody is making the case that Hitler had Darwin's eugenic masterpiece The Descent of Man in one hand while he penned Mein Kampf in the other. Darwin's eugenic ideas were spread all over Europe and America, until they were common intellectual coin by Hitler's time. That makes the linkage all the stronger, because we are not talking about one crazed man misreading Darwin but at least two generations of leading scientists and intellectuals drawing the same eugenic conclusions from evolutionary theory as Darwin himself drew.

For me the world is not a simple place and I have long been a student of the psychological conditioning and processes that go into the value system of any society and/or individual. There was a time when segregation was considered a normal policy in this country and a majority of Americans had no problem with it. Now, a tiny tiny minority thinks there is any moral or practical justification for segregation. There was a time when certain words were simply not used in polite society or allowed on the radio or in the movies. Now those words are commonplace and most people don't think of them as unusual anymore. There was a time when you wouldn't see two people in bed on television or in the movies--if they were even ON the bed together, somebody's foot had to be on the floor. Well, as you know all that has change.

The older I get, the more there is to observe of the dynamics and shifts in societal attitudes. Is it necessary to link Darwin's quite innocent observations and theories to what a crazed Hitler might have made of them? Of course not.

Is it interesting? It is to me. And that is not Gunga's fault. Nor do we need to prevent kids from knowing that different points of view are held on any subject--a subject you and I have crossed swords over as well.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The older I get, the more there is to observe of the dynamics and shifts in societal attitudes. Is it necessary to link Darwin's quite innocent observations and theories to what a crazed Hitler might have made of them? Of course not.

Is it interesting? It is to me. And that is not Gunga's fault. Nor do we need to prevent kids from knowing that different points of view are held on any subject--a subject you and I have crossed swords over as well.

It is perhaps interesting. For you and gunga, at least.

The 9/11 terrorists don't believe in Darwin's theories.
Quite interesting, isn't it?

0 Replies

Darwin's Dystopia

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know