Posted on 03/08/2007 7:46:04 PM PST by ofwaihhbtn
The enthusiasm Nietzsche expresses in this passage is for eugenics, a theory of biological determinism invented by Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s first cousin. However extreme Nietzsche’s recommendation might sound today, by the first part of the twentieth century eugenics came to be widely practiced. In 1933, little more than thirty years after Nietzsche’s death, the Hereditary Health Courts set up in Nazi Germany were enforcing a rigorous policy of enforced sterilization; to a lesser degree, similar policies were carried out in societies from the United States to Scandinavia.The full text of the article is here: The Gentle Darwinians - What Darwin’s Champions Won’t MentionIn 1912, in his presidential address to the First International Congress of Eugenics, a landmark gathering in London of racial biologists from Germany, the United States, and other parts of the world, Major Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin’s son, trumpeted the spread of eugenics and evolution. As described by Nicholas Wright Gillham in his A Life of Francis Galton, Major Darwin foresaw the day when “eugenics would become not only a grail, a substitute for religion, as Galton had hoped, but a ‘paramount duty’ whose tenets would presumably become enforceable.” The major repeated his father’s admonition that, though the crudest workings of natural selection must be mitigated by “the spirit of civilization,” society must encourage breeding among the best stock and prevent it among the worst “without further delay.”
Leonard Darwin’s recognition of his father’s role in the formation and promotion of eugenics was more than filial piety.
(Excerpt) Read more at commonwealmagazine.org ...
If you connect the two, then it is by choice and no logical reason.
What connection?
Bottom dollar says Peter Singer subscribes to evolutionary theory.
This is absurd. Natural selection and eugenic principles (at least the kind of forced eugenics to which he refers) are polar opposites. With natural selection, man is not the decision-maker. With forced eugenics, he is. By practicing forced eugenics, a society does not embrace natural selection. It turns it on its head.
No matter how hard people like Quinn try, the fact will remain that Darwin was a very decent man who did not advocate forced eugenics.
Isn't funny how the very evolutionists who refuse to see any distinction between ID and creationism are the first to cry foul when the obvious connections between evolutionism and eugenics are pointed out. Your jig is about up.
Lame logical fallacy.
How pathetic.
Yet, it represents the creationist's lack of understanding pretty well.
BTW, Hitler loved dogs, ergo dog lovers are all nazis.
A good book to read:
The State Boys Rebellion
http://www.simonsays.com/content/content.cfm?sid=33&pid=422319
It’s interesting that Germany looked to the US for it’s ideas on eugenics.
Excerpt from link:
Though they couldn't possible know it, the children of the Fernald State School were the victims of bad science and a newly developed bureaucracy designed to save America from the so-called "menace of the feebleminded." Beginning early in the twentieth century, United States health officials used crude versions of the modern IQ tests to identify supposedly "deficient" children and lock them away. The idea was to protect society from potential criminals and to prevent so-called undesirables from having children and degrading the American gene pool......
...... It reveals the danger in misguided science, the fearsome power of unchecked bureaucracies,
"Bottom dollar says Peter Singer subscribes to evolutionary theory."
"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.
FYI.
Anyway, here's a Toyko dailies take on the debate (see how many characters you can recognize):
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
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.