What this says, in essence, is that Hitler's behavior was bad because it hurt society as a whole. If it is true that Hitler's behavior was bad because it hurt society, then anything else that hurts society would be bad, right? If the objective is societal growth, then anything that prevents or halts that is bad. Your argument for construction v destruction is then just a renaming of good and bad.
I never said evolution demands that this happen
I argued that in the philosophy that would apply if the theory of macroevolution holds true, there would be nothing WRONG with killing off the old 'versions'.
Do you agree?
a natural process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to the environment
You're so full of ****, i can smell it from here. There's nothing more to be said to you. You are hateful, irrational, and not worth giving the time of day.
I recently became aware of the implications of what a pure Darwinist philosophy entails. This is not to say that all Darwinists believe this to be true, but if someone claims to be a Darwinist and does NOT believe these things, then they are not true Darwinists.
I made no assertion that you would go berserk down the street smashing heads.
But such an action is entirely acceptable in a Darwinian philosophy. Your hesitance to agree with this shows me that you are not a pure Darwinist, as Hitler and those others I quoted were.
Let me rephrase a bit. If Darwinian philosophy is TRUE. Why SHOULDN'T we go down the street smashing heads? Rounding up those that are polluting our gene pools with inferior traits and doing away with them. At the very least we should exile them to a remote place where they will haunt us no more.
Using a Darwinian argument, what is right or wrong with doing this?