"BTW, Hitler loved dogs, ergo dog lovers are all nazis."
And how many other people like dogs?
How many believe in Eugenics?
OK, let me spoon feed this to you, moron:
The fact that Hitler liked dogs did not distinguish him from the masses. The fact that he believed in eugenics did. And his belief in eugenics was based on evolutionism -- whether you like or not.
You wouldn't know a "logical fallacy" if it bit you on the ass, and you couldn't reason your way out of a wet paper bag if your life depended on it, moron.
Sorry, but I'm just sick and tired of dealing with the mental midgets here.
I was pointing out how stupid your argument was by presenting an equally stupid one.
I'd explain the concept to you, but I don't think you'd get it.
Mental Midgets? Yeah, go talk to "Dr." Hovind and his scholars.
LOL
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.
I heard Mao believed in ID.
The modern "science" of eugenics follows directly from a mistaken notion about heredity on the part of darwinians. This notion is not present in mendelian genetics. 140 years of science education has had almost no effect on this whatever. The darwinian notion of heredity persists, and it is as current today as it was a century ago. Dennett, Dawkins, and most sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists still make a living off this error, despite any attempt at correction. Compare these two notions:
1. Darwinian notion of heredity. If a trait arose in a population by selection, that trait must correspond to something inheritable (something in the germ-plasm). If all traits are adaptations, then all traits must be in some way inheritable.2. Mendelian notion of heredity. The only traits in a population that can be inherited are those that correspond to genetic factors.
You will notice that (2) is roughly the opposite of (1). Here is an example of (1) from a modern darwinian, Gregory Carey. This is from his Intro to Evolutionary Psychology, 1998...
"Now imagine that you and your partner are moths instead of humans. Faced with a bright light on a dark night, both of you would orient and then proceed to the light quite oblivious to the other. There would be no social discourse or give-and-take maneuvering to achieve consensus. There is only a built-in stimulus response connection. So why do humans and moths behave differently? Among the several levels at which this question can be answered is an evolutionary level. Moths have a hardwired response to light because at some point in their evolutionary history moths that oriented and flew toward light reproduced more often than those who did not. We humans followed a different evolutionary path."Here Carey makes the assumption that the moth's behavior is an adaptation, arising by natural selection, and by application of (1) he is led to conclude that there must be a genetic factor corresponding to this behavior, regardless of whether or not there really is such a genetic factor.
It is easy to see that notion (1) leads directly to eugenics, but notion (2) does not. For the instant that one claims traits such as feeble-mindedness, alcoholism, prostitution, poverty, and unemployment are "adaptations", i.e, the result of selection pressure, one is also saying that they are genetically inherited: that they "run in the germ-plasm", regardless of empirical evidence. And from this follows the modern "scientific" justification for sterilizing or gassing alcoholics, the feeble-minded, prostitutes, the unemployed, the poor, etc.
Darwin Medalist Karl Pearson was one of the most prominent British eugenicists. Hiram Caton writes...
" Mendel’s publication enjoyed none of the braggadocio of “revolutionary” enlightenment. Indeed, it had no uptake whatever during his time. Yet eventually biologists rediscovered his work and embarked on a course leading to the discovery of chromosomes, genes, alleles, and sexual replication. It is a lesson worth repeating that Darwinians of the day recoiled in horror from these splendid discoveries. They proudly declared their “faith” in the master while hurling themselves vehemently at the new science. One, the brilliant Karl Pearson, persisted in dogged opposition to genetics until his death in 1936! So much for evidence."