64
   

You can go back in time and prevent a great catastrophe. Which one would you prevent?

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 10:37 pm
@BillRM,
David wrote:
If I read a record (public or private) then I know what it SAYS.
I do not know whether it is true.
BillRM wrote:
It is not a normal comment to state you do not know if it true
That 's a fact, Bill.
I lack that information, tho I 've heard differing allegations.



BillRM wrote:
where a public figure at the level of a US president was born.

If I had stated for example that George Washington was
born in the state of Virgins
He was born in the Colony of Virginia,
by consensus, which remains undenied, so far as I understand.





BillRM wrote:
somehow I can not see you posting that you have a question concerning his birthplace or that if you did have such a question it would not had been put to rest at once by the postings of links to pubic records on Washington Birthplace.

This Obama silliness concerning his birth is an insult to everyone intelligent that you seem to wish to support to the degree you can do so without seeming to be a complete fool.

Shame on you………
I have no shame for not knowing
where obama was born. I have no duty to KNOW that.

Where were u born, Bill ?





David
0 Replies
 
XL1200
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2011 09:31 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
The assasination of JFK 11-22-1963
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2011 09:34 pm
You could probably prevent both world wars and most of the grief involving ideological doctrines and movements based on them of the last hundred years or so by shooting Chuck Darwin through the head ten minutes after he was born. The idea of viewing your fellow man as a meat byproduct of random events rather than as a fellow child of God is at the bottom of all of that kind of ****.

raprap
 
  3  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2011 11:19 pm
@gungasnake,
Wouldn't do any good. Have you ever heard of Alfred Russel Wallace? His name would be attached to the same valid theory.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2011 04:12 am
@gungasnake,
No; I don 't think Marx or Engels cared about THAT,
nor did Gavrilo Princip; he cared about geografy and who owns it.

Note that the absence of Darwin b4 his birth
did not stop wars.





0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2011 04:17 am
@XL1200,
XL1200 wrote:
The assasination of JFK 11-22-1963
That might have been good,
in that it woud have resulted in the election of Barry Goldwater,
who was beating him very badly in the polls as of 11/21/63.





David
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2011 09:47 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
You could probably prevent both world wars and most of the grief involving ideological doctrines and movements based on them of the last hundred years or so by shooting Chuck Darwin through the head ten minutes after he was born


I thought this was the most disconnected from reality statement until I read this:
Quote:
The idea of viewing your fellow man as a meat byproduct of random events rather than as a fellow child of God is at the bottom of all of that kind of ****.


I would guess, that like okie, you have a chart pasted to your closet door that explains to you how you should put your clothes on.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2011 11:39 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
The idea of viewing your fellow man as a meat byproduct of random events rather than as a fellow child of God is at the bottom of all of that kind of ****.

But at what would you and your yahoo friends use for pointing fingers ?
plainoldme
 
  3  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2011 12:30 pm
@farmerman,
The one positive thing I can say about spendi is that he is in love with the look and sound of words. When he finally catches on their meanings, we will all have an easier time.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  4  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2011 12:30 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
The idea of viewing your fellow man as a meat byproduct of random events
rather than as a fellow child of God is at the bottom of all of that kind of ****.
Let us note that Darwin was NOT an atheist
and that those who accept his concept are NOT all atheists.

When men strive among themselves,
thay r usually concerned with their own material advantages,
NOT with the religious or metaphysical beliefs of their adversaries.

plainoldme
 
  3  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2011 12:36 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Alright. I voted david up for that post. Take it to heart, gunga. In this instance, david is right.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2011 12:44 pm
@plainoldme,
STOP agreeing with me.
It makes me nervous n tends to undermine my confidence.
plainoldme
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2011 01:34 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
You shouldn't have confidence except when I agree with you. I am known as a very fair minded and patient person. I also have a reputation for being extremely lady-like.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2011 01:58 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
You shouldn't have confidence except when I agree with you.
I am known as a very fair minded and patient person. I also have a reputation for being extremely lady-like.
In your own DELUSIONS, be thay LSD or natural psychosis.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 03:09 pm
For many weeks, I had no answer to this question. Basically, I am not certain that "preventing" a single catastrophe does anything other than delay the changes it would have brought about.

As I looked through my posts this afternoon, I was struck by an idea. What would I have prevented? Saul's trip to Damascus. However, Christianity would have become what it is today with or without Saul.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 03:22 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Let us note that Darwin was NOT an atheist


He was an atheist enabler, which is worse.



Newt Gingrich once stated the problem of evolutionism and morality about as succinctly as is possible in noting that the question of whether a man views his neighbor as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of random processes simply has to affect human relationships.

Basically, every halfway honest person with any brains and talent who has taken any sort of a hard look at evolution in the past 60 years has given up on it and many have denounced it. A listing of fifty or sixty such statements makes for an overwhelming indictment of that part of the scientific community which goes on trying to defend evolution and they (the evolosers) have a favorite term ("quote mining") which they use to describe that sort of argument.

My own response to that is to note what I view as the ultimate evolution quote by the noted evolutionist (actually, FORMER evolutionist) Jeffrey Dahmer:

Quote:

"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…"

Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.




Dahmer converted to Christianity before he died. The basic tenets of true religion appear to be inprinted upon most of us biologically which is the only reason that Islammic societies and "secular humanist" societies like Britain and Canada function at all. A psychopath like Dahmer is basically somebody on whom that imprint did not take. For those guys, it has to be written down somewhere, and it has to be written down accurately; the bible does that. Telling somebody like Dahmer that we all evolved from "lucky dust" is a formula for getting people killed.

Evolution was the basic philosophical cornerstone of communism, naziism, the various eugenics programs, the out of control arms races which led to WW-I and WW-II, and all of the grief of the last 150 years. Starting from 1913, Europe had gone for a hundred years without a major war. They didn't even have to think. All they needed to do was act cool, go to church, have parades, formal balls, attend board meetings, and they'd still be running the world today; they'd be so fat and happy they'd not know what to do with themselves. Instead, they all got to reading about Darwinism, fang and claw, survival of the fittest and all the rest of that nonsense, and the rest as they say is history.


The most interesting analysis of that sad tale is probably Sir Arthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics"



Keith apparently viewed belief in evolution as some sort of duty of the English educated classes, nonetheless he had a very clear vision of the problems inherent in it and laid it out in no uncertain terms:

From Sir Srthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics:




Chapter 3

The Behavior of Germany Considered from an Evolutionary Point of View in 1942

VISITORS TO GERMANY IN 1934 FOUND AN emotional storm sweeping through masses of the people, particularly the more educated. The movement had much in common with a religious revival. The preacher in this case was Adolf Hitler; his doctrine was, and is, tribalism; he had stirred in the emotional depths of the German people those long-dormant tribal feelings which find release and relief in mutual service; men and women who had been leading selfish lives or were drifting aimlessly were given a new purpose in life: service to their country the Third Reich. It is worth noting that Hitler uses a double designation for his tribal doctrine National Socialism: Socialism standing for the good side of the tribal spirit (that which works within the Reich); aud Nationalism for the ethically vicious part, which dominates policy at and outside the German frontiers.

The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front"; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people. He has brought into

10.

modern life the tribal and evolutionary mentality of prehistoric times. Hitler has confronted the statesmen of the world with an evolutionary problem of an unprecedented magnitude. What is the world to do with a united aggressive tribe numbering eighty millions!

We must not lose sight of the purpose of our visit to Germany; it was to see how far modern evolutionary practice can provide us with a scientific basis for ethical or moral behavior. As a source of information concerning Hitler's evolutionary and ethical doctrines I have before me Mein Kampf, extracts from The Times covering German affairs during the last twenty years, and the monthly journal R.F.C. (Racio Political Foreign Correspondenee), published by the German Bureau for Human Betterment and Eugenics and circulated by that bureau for the enlightenment of anthropologists living abroad. In the number of that journal for July 1937, there appears in English the text of a speech given by the German Fuhrer on January 30, 1937, in reply to a statement made by Mr. Anthony Eden that "the German race theory" stood in the way of a common discussion of European problems. Hitler maintained his theory would have an opposite effect; "it will bring about a real understanding for the first time." "It is not for men," said the Fuhrer, "to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation." I may remark incidentally that in this passage, as in many others, the German Fuhrer, like Bishop Barnes and many of our more intellectual clergy, regards evolution as God's mode of creation. God having created races, it is therefore "the noblest and most sacred duty for each racial species of mankind to preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it." Here we have expounded the perfectly sound doctrine of evolutionary isolation; even as an ethical doctrine it should not be condemned. No German must be guilty of the "greatest racial sin" that of bringing the fruits of hybridity into the world. The reproductive "genes" which circulate within the frontiers of Germany must be kept uncontaminated, so that they may work out the racial destiny of the German people without impediment. Hitler is also a eugenist. Germans who suffer from

11.

hereditable imperfections of mind or of body must be rendered infertile, so that "the strong may not be plagued by the weak." Sir Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, taught a somewhat similar evolutionary doctrine namely, that if our nation was to prosper we must give encouragement to the strong rather than to the weak; a saving which may be justified by evolution, but not by ethics as recognized and practiced by civilized peoples. The liberties of German women are to be sacrificed; they must devote their activities to their households, especially to the sacred duty of raising succeeding generations. The birth rate was stimulated by bounties and subsidies so that the German tribe might grow in numbers and in strength. In all these matters the Nazi doctrine is evolutionist.

Hitler has sought on every occasion and in every way to heighten the national consciousness of the German people or, what is the same thing, to make them racially conscious; to give them unity of spirit and unity of purpose. Neighborly approaches of adjacent nations are and were repelled; the German people were deliberately isolated. Cosmopolitanism, liberality of opinion, affectation of foreign manners and dress were unsparingly condemned. The old tribal bonds (love of the Fatherland, feeling of mutual kinship), the bonds of "soil and blood," became "the main plank in the National Social program." "Germany was for the Germans" was another plank. Foreign policy was "good or bad according to its beneficial or harmful effects on the German folk now or hereafter." "Charity and humility are only for home consumption" a statement in which Hitler gives an exact expression of the law which limits sympathy to its tribe. "Humanitarianism is an evil . . . a creeping poison." "The most cruel methods are humane if they give a speedy victory" is Hitler's echo of a maxim attributed to Moltke. Such are the ways of evolution when applied to human affairs.

I have said nothing about the methods employed by the Nazi leaders to secure tribal unity in Germany methods of brutal compulsion, bloody force, and the concentration camp. Such methods cannot be brought within even a Machiavellian system of ethics, and yet may be justified by their evolutionary result.

12.

Even in that result we may harbor a doubt: can unity obtained by such methods be relied on to endure?

There are other aspects of Nazi policy which raise points which may be legitimate subjects of ethical debate. In recent years British men of science have debated this ethical problem: an important discovery having been made a new poison gas, for example is it not the duty of the discoverer to suppress it if there is a possibility of its being used for an evil purpose? My personal conviction is that science is concerned wholly with truth, not with ethics. A man of science is responsible for the accuracy of his observations and of his inferences, not for the results which may follow therefrom. Under no circumstances should the truth be suppressed; yet suppression and distortion of the truth is a deliberate part of Nazi policy. Every anthropologist in Germany, be he German or Jew, was and is silenced in Nazi Germany unless the Hitlerian racial doctrine is accepted without any reservation whatsoever. Authors, artists, preachers, and editors are undone if they stray beyond the limits of the National Socialist tether. Individual liberty of thought and of its expression is completely suppressed. An effective tribal unity is thus attained at the expense of truth. And yet has not the Church in past times persecuted science just in this Hitlerian way? There was a time, and not so long ago, when it was dangerous for a biologist to harbor a thought that clashed in any way with the Mosaic theory of creation.

No aspect of Hitler's policy proclaims the antagonism between evolution and ethics so forcibly as his treatment of the Jewish people in Germany. So strong are the feelings roused that it is difficult for even science to approach the issues so raised with an unclouded judgment. Ethically the Hitlerian treatment of the Jews stands condemned out of hand. Hitler is cruel, but I do not think that his policy can be explained by attributing it to a mere satisfaction of a lust, or to a search for a scapegoat on which Germany can wreak her wrath for the ills which followed her defeat of 1918. The Church in Spain subjected the Jews to the cruelty of the Inquisition, but no one ever sought to explain the Church's behavior by suggesting that she had a

13.

lust for cruelty which had to be satisfied. The Church adopted the Inquisition as a policy; it was a means of securing unity of mind in her flock. Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions. When the Huguenots fled to Germany they mingled their "genes" with those of their host and disappeared as an entity. The Jews are made of other stuff: for two thousand years, living amid European communities, they have maintained their identity; it is an article of their creed, as it is of Hitler's, to breed true. They, too, practice an evolutionary doctrine. Is it possible for two peoples living within the same frontiers, dwelling side by side, to work out harmoniously their separate evolutionary destinies? Apparently Hitler believes this to be impossible; we in Britain and in America believe it to be not only possible, but also profitable.

It must not be thought that in seeking to explain Hitler's actions I am seeking to justify them. The opposite is the case. I have made this brief survey of public policy in modern Germany with a definite object: to show that Dr. Waddington is in error when he seeks to place ethics on a scientific basis by a knowledge of evolutionary tendencies and practice.

Chapter 4

Human Life: Its Purpose or Ultimate End

IN THE COURSE OF GATHERING INFORMATION concerning man's morality and the part it has played and is playing in his evolution, I found it necessary to provide space for slips which were labeled "Life: Its Ultimate and Proximate Purposes." Only those who have devoted some special attention to this matter are aware of the multitude of reasons given for the appearance of man on earth. Here I shall touch on only a few of them; to deal with all would require a big book. The reader may exclaim: Why deal with any of them! What has ultimate purpose got to do with ethics and evolution! Let a man with a clearer head and a nimbler pen than mine reply. He is Edward Carpenter, who wrote Civilization: Its Cause and Cure (1889).

14.

It is from the sixteenth edition (1923) I am to quote, p. 249:

If we have decided what the final purpose or Life of Man is, then we may say that what is good for that purpose is finally "good" and what is bad for that purpose is finally "evil."

If the final purpose of our existence is that which has been and is being worked out under the discipline of evolutionary law, then, although we are quite unconscious of the end result, we ought, as Dr. Waddington has urged, to help on "that which tends to promote the ultimate course of evolution." If we do so, then we have to abandon the hope of ever attaining a universal system of ethics; for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy. Dr. Waddington has not grasped the implications of Nature's method of evolution, for in his summing up (Nature, 1941, 150, p. 535) he writes "that the ethical principles formulated by Christ . . . are those which have tended towards the further evolution of mankind, and that they will continue to do so." Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me, that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed. Clearly the form of evolution which Dr. Waddington has in mind is not that which has hitherto prevailed; what he has in mind is a man made system of evolution. In brief, instead of seeking ethical guidance from evolution, he now proposes to impose a system of ethics on evolution and so bring humanity ultimately to a safe and final anchorage in a Christian haven.



djjd62
 
  3  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 03:27 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
Newt Gingrich once stated the problem of evolutionism and morality about as succinctly as is possible in noting that the question of whether a man views his neighbor as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of random processes simply has to affect human relationships.


given the way Newt has treated his former wives, i'm not sure he i'd trust his view of anyone as a fellow child of god
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 04:52 pm
@djjd62,
I don't really know how much of that story to believe.
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 04:56 pm
@gungasnake,
let's face it, he's a politician, so he's already a huge bucket of scum
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 08:44 pm
@gungasnake,
You take advice on science from Newt Gingrich? Well, I guess there is nothing more to say, is there?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 11:59:04