Dave Allen;121755 wrote:
Nazi philosophers might have used vulgar understandings of Darwin or Nietzche to prop up their justifications (though they still burned Darwin's books). However, Hitler himself was a christian creationist
I mainly post to remind myself/practice the real facts of the matter and - possibly - impress the facts upon an observer who isn't so far gone.
As always, we can check or we can take it from Dave. Here's a different kind of finding
If, in the course of a thousand or two thousand years, science arrives at the necessity of renewing its points of view, that will not mean that science is a liar. Science cannot lie, for it's always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar. It's in perpetual conflict with itself.
- Adolf Hitler
In Adolf Hitler, Hugh Redwald Trevor-Roper, translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens, '14 October 1941', Secret Conversations
The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science.
wiki on the understanding of the vulgar
What is very plain is that Hitler and Darwin shared the same premise.
The difference being in the actions. Darwin stated dangers of allowing the inferior to reproduce, and yet he nodded to our human values as being important , possibly transcendent, so that we just have to bear the costs.
Hitler, on the other hand, seems to take the view that such softness, sympathy, and pity was not actually kindness, and not suitable for attaining the destiny of Man.
It is considered not ethically sound, to breed an animal such as a dog that is found to carry the factor for blindness at a young age. It's not really being so kind, either, to produce so many blind dogs - quite apart from the dissatisfaction and costs and grief given to the poor purchaser.
Now the only problem left is if we consider humans to be nothing more than fancy two legged fish which have gut sacks that turned to use for respiration. In that case we can cull mercilessly.
We can see struggles in modern society that bring out this problem.
In the framework of care for the mentally disabled, the municipality run homes allow intercourse between the residents.
Rights of the disabled are protected.
Parents of children under care there, are not permitted information on whether or not their child is being sexually molested. Only the child can tell the parent by volunteering it.
As you may guess, not that much information can be gained directly from someone who answers "Yeth, Tuethday" in reply to any question.
When it comes time to abort, or uphold the rights of the inmates again, it gets sticky, I suppose.
to Darwin, the social customs of the caucasian held this in check (perhaps enough). in that time.
Dr Down, anyone ?
Down Syndrome - Healthy Kids and Pediatrics - Information on Children's Health produced by doctors
In great error, Langdon Down attributed the condition to a "reversion" to the "mongoloid race." He held that evolution had been reversed and there had been a sort of backslide from the superior Caucasian to the inferior Oriental race. Hence, the name Down syndrome smacks of racism.
The disorder was also once called mongolism, a term now considered perjorative, and to be avoided in English. (It is still used in some countries). Other names that have been used over the years include mongol, mongoloid, mongolian imbecile, mongoloid idiot, mongoloid deformity, Kalmuck idiocy, Tartar, unfinished child, Langdon-Down syndrome, Down's anomaly, and Down's deformity.
All of these names should, in our view, be jettisoned. The least controversial and most appropriate name for this syndrome may simply be what causes it: TRISOMY 21.
I would not presume to suppose the Nazis were not into sciences, did not have people who were highly sophisticated in approach to natural sciences, or that they were of vulgar understanding of science.
It's a vulgar understanding of science to think that our kinder medical experiments that do not allow the subject to die, are solid, compared to real studies where fatality may be occurring.
they might have tried to find out lethal dose by dosing. our researchers cannot do that directly.
they might have chosen to try impregnating a woman with chimp sperm, but we don't do that kind of thing
Eugenics is not a science. As it's commonly seen in groups, it's a practice which seeks to apply measures to attain a certain goal, and some science is funded ( somewhat selectively ) and results ( somewhat selectively ) used to justify actions by Eugenicists and the actions they urge government to take.
that being said, it's of interest if Scientists connect with the Eugenicists in professional capacity. Those might be considered of vulgar understanding or the unsophisticated ?