Skip to comments.
The Gentle Darwinians - What Darwin’s Champions Won’t Mention
Commonweal ^
| March 9, 2007
| Peter Quinn
Posted on 03/08/2007 7:46:04 PM PST by ofwaihhbtn
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-193 next last
To: ofwaihhbtn
As much as many who visit this forum would wish it, guilt by association is not a valid argumentative tactic. If you wish to argue against the Theory of Evolution, or even Intelligent Design, attack the idea, not its associations.
21
posted on
03/08/2007 9:47:38 PM PST
by
Boxen
(Branigan's law is like Branigan's love--Hard and fast.)
To: Tribune7
more like this
22
posted on
03/08/2007 9:49:09 PM PST
by
Central Scrutiniser
(Never Let a Theocon Near a Textbook. Teach Evolution!)
To: quietolong
Its interesting that Germany looked to the US for its ideas on eugenics. So? It also looked to the US for its ideas on assembly lines.
23
posted on
03/08/2007 9:49:23 PM PST
by
Ditto
To: ofwaihhbtn
The connection between creationists and blood-thirsty islamicists you always knew was there.....
24
posted on
03/08/2007 9:50:24 PM PST
by
Psycho_Bunny
(I'm holding out hope that at least the DEMOCRATS might accidentally nominate a conservative.)
To: Central Scrutiniser
The problem was not that your "equally stupid" argument was "stupid," the problem was that it missed the point entirely. And I'll bet dollars to dimes you miss the point here again, moron.
25
posted on
03/08/2007 9:58:21 PM PST
by
RussP
To: Ditto
And we looked to Germany for autobahns? :) I think
Godwin is about to make an entrance...
26
posted on
03/08/2007 9:58:28 PM PST
by
WingBolt
To: ofwaihhbtn
You wanna find the Rosetta Stone, download the book
Killer Angel.
27
posted on
03/08/2007 10:03:58 PM PST
by
tang-soo
(Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks - Read Daniel Chapter 9)
To: Boxen
guilt by association is not a valid argumentative tactic
I have noticed a change from last summer and October. But just when specifically, did the evos change their tactics then?
28
posted on
03/08/2007 10:06:16 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(2-1 Cav 1975)
To: RussP
The fact that Hitler liked dogs did not distinguish him from the masses. The fact that he believed in eugenics did. No, eugenics fit right in with what most people believed then --- (and many still do) -- i.e. that you could categorize peoples intelligence, talents, faults or proclivities based upon their race or ethnicity.
Irish are drunks, Italians are lovers, Poles are stupid, Jews are greedy, Blacks are stupid, shiftless and whatever other negative trait you wanted to throw at them.
Eugenics was nothing but blatant racial stereotyping by college graduates instead of racist stumble bums down at the mill.
Yes, they used Darwin and five syllable words, but only to reinforce their own prejudices and to reach the Utopian ends they dreamed of. That's not Darwin's fault.
BTW. Before Darwin, the same people used the Bible to do the same thing.
29
posted on
03/08/2007 10:06:16 PM PST
by
Ditto
To: RussP
moron
Name calling? Is that really necessary? Maybe you should slow down a bit.
30
posted on
03/08/2007 10:06:38 PM PST
by
Boxen
(Branigan's law is like Branigan's love--Hard and fast.)
To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop
Easy enough for a cave man bump...
31
posted on
03/08/2007 10:09:17 PM PST
by
hosepipe
(CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
To: RunningWolf
I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. What is an "evo"? Do they hold local chapter meetings?
Posters from both sides of the debate have argued from association.
32
posted on
03/08/2007 10:15:30 PM PST
by
Boxen
(Branigan's law is like Branigan's love--Hard and fast.)
To: ofwaihhbtn
Darwinism leads a very confused political existence. Most of the "social" and "psychological" Darwinistic literature is seen as rightist, since it is perceived on the left as lining up behind racist ideas on intelligence and European cultural superiority. Indeed, H. G. Wells ( whose History of the World is emphatically liberal in outlook ) thought that Europeans were on the verge of exterminating, or at least numerically dominating, other races.
Of course, various religious viewpoints are wont to vilify Darwinism since it seems to challenge their own foundation.
Arguments such as is presented here always remind me of Plato's Euthyphro, wherein Socrates asks whether the good is what God desires, or whether God desires what is good.
It seems to me that this sort of argument appeals to the latter conception, since Darwinism is held up as leading to bad behavior, as opposed ( implicitly ) to creationism, or some other religious viewpoint, which leads to good behavior. I've always thought that the appeal here is to an innate, or deeply and unconsciously held, sentiment of what is good and what is bad which transcends all doctrine.
33
posted on
03/08/2007 10:22:17 PM PST
by
dr_lew
To: RunningWolf
I have noticed a change from last summer and October. Things heated up last summer with a number of longtime FReepers--one person had a homepage disappear on them with no immediate explanation forthcoming; there was another thread in which one user posted real-life name and other information of another FReeper with whom he disagreed (both ended up banned or suspended--and I only heard of this secondhand, as I was in Alaska when it happened); and things generally got worse for all concerned, until an infamous thread in which the crud generally hit the fan.
Many of the pro-evo folks--but not all--quit or were banned at that point; a large contingent of them went over to another site called Darwin Central.
Quite a shame that things fell out in the fashion that they did : many of the now departed were PhD level and very intelligent and informed on a wide variety of topics.
(If you know where to look, there are still a goodly number of other folks of equal IQ and/or education left on FR: they just don't tend to congregate in crevo threads anymore.)
But I still wish things had been resolved more amicably.
34
posted on
03/08/2007 10:22:24 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: Boxen
35
posted on
03/08/2007 10:23:24 PM PST
by
RussP
To: grey_whiskers
But I still wish things had been resolved more amicably.
Some people take internet arguments a little too seriously.
36
posted on
03/08/2007 10:25:14 PM PST
by
Boxen
(Branigan's law is like Branigan's love--Hard and fast.)
To: grey_whiskers
I still wish things had been resolved more amicably
I share in that
37
posted on
03/08/2007 10:42:51 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(2-1 Cav 1975)
To: Ditto
Eugenics was nothing but blatant racial stereotyping by college graduates instead of racist stumble bums down at the mill
Good point
Yes, the college graduates are subject to the same foibles the stumble bums are, but in their arrogance they do not see it.
38
posted on
03/08/2007 10:46:37 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(2-1 Cav 1975)
To: RussP
Assume:
A, B, C, D are seperate, unrelated objects.
According to RussP:
A=B therefor C=D.
Ada Byron rolls over in her grave while Babbage bursts out laughing and spits coffee onto the keyboard of his Analytical Engine.
39
posted on
03/08/2007 11:00:39 PM PST
by
Jeff Gordon
(History convinces me that bad government results from too much government. - Thomas Jefferson)
To: RunningWolf
I disagree entirely. Eugenics is rationally sound, and certainly does not depend on evolution or Darwinism for its basis. It depends only on a belief in human genetic variability. For example, you could have a eugenic program to improve eyesight, or any number of other traits. I don't think it can be denied that eyesight has degenerated in the human population by "regression towards the mean" due to artificial amelioration of the results of poor phenotypical outcomes, and the social acceptance of these efforts - i.e. the continued sexual fitness of the recipients thereof.
The big hit on eugenics is the offense it gives to our moral sensibilities. We are not willing to "harden our hearts" against those, such as myself, with poor eyesight in favor of the abstract notion of an improved race.
40
posted on
03/08/2007 11:03:25 PM PST
by
dr_lew
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-193 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson