Originally posted by @freakykbh
[b]1, there is NO evidence that Darwin approved of genocide.
I challenge you to show a single credible reference to the contrary...
There is NO evidence that anyone claimed Darwin approved of genocide.
I challenge you to show a single credible reference to the contrary...
2, even if, purely hypothetical, Darwin DID approve of genocide, that ...[text shortened]... lk a load of irrelevant rubbish.
Let’s not mince words; we both know you’re crazy about me.[/b]
There is NO evidence that anyone claimed Darwin approved of genocide.
I challenge you to show a single credible reference to the contrary...
" ...
Originally posted by @freakykbh
[b]I am questioning the logic that what was written in the Origin of Species justifies genocide. ..."
This seems to imply you think he did as you couldn't have been talking about any other kind of 'logic' other than his, right? Unless the 'logic' you refer to is 'observation and reason' or perhaps more specifically 'scientific method', which clearly does NOT justifies genocide?
-either way, you are clearly wrong and make no sense.
What kind of 'logic' are you referencing here if not his?
Wait a tic!
I think I found the person who appears to be claiming Darwin approved of genocide...
No moron; look up the word "hypothetical" in the dictionary and come back to us.
Nothing in the theory of evolution implies we should morally approve of genocide because evolution is not a theory of morality.
Just because ToE does its mightiest to avoid any discussion of morality doesn’t mean it doesn’t say something about morality.
Clearly false; evolution says/implies nothing about morality. I challenge you to explain how evolution implies something about morality...
Originally posted by @humyYou're just a complete slobbering mess right now.There is NO evidence that anyone claimed Darwin approved of genocide.
I challenge you to show a single credible reference to the contrary...
" ...
Originally posted by @freakykbh
[b]I am questioning the logic that what was written in the Origin of Species justifies genocide. ..."
This seems to imply you think he did as you couldn't ...[text shortened]... ing about morality. I challenge you to explain how evolution implies something about morality...
Calm down, get yourself squared away and then come back to "us" with some better thinking.
Seems you can't tell straight up from down currently.
Originally posted by @wildgrassIt is perhaps worth noting that FreakyKBH is (or claims to be) a Pizzagate flat-Earther, so your wait for evidence-based arguments might be a lengthy one indeed.
Jeez I was almost asleep. Thanks for your admission that your original statement was tripe.
Feel free to wake me up when you figure out how to make a proper evidence-based argument.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraEvidence is something of which you are unclear: either what it is or what to do with it.
It is perhaps worth noting that FreakyKBH is (or claims to be) a Pizzagate flat-Earther, so your wait for evidence-based arguments might be a lengthy one indeed.
Somewhat fuzzy is why you would draw attention to the thing which most undermines your position, but I'm sure in your mind you have a legitimate reason to do so.
Originally posted by @freakykbhRight.
Going to play those silly games?
Play with yourself.
Rob: I heard one time from this dude on the internet that Hitler was inspired by Darwin to empty hospitals and commit genocide. He said it was "beyond refute simply because of the sheer quantity of established research papers". So, that's pretty rock solid.
Bob: Cool. What's the evidence?
Rob: Well I asked him that but he just said it was in the books. I don't know if he read them or not.
Bob: Wait what? Presumably those books have words in them, fashioned into sentences. There should be something substantial he could have quoted or clearly articulated that established a link between the two. Also, didn't both Darwin and Hitler write their own books?
Rob: You know what Bob. I don't know. I guess I'll have to retract my statement that Darwin inspired Hitler, since I don't have anything to support the argument. It's clearly not beyond refute.
Originally posted by @wildgrassIf Rob and Bob are just now hearing on the internet how Hitler's Germany was informed by Darwin's theories on natural selection, then Rob and Bob are woefully uninformed.
Right.
Rob: I heard one time from this dude on the internet that Hitler was inspired by Darwin to empty hospitals and commit genocide. He said it was "beyond refute simply because of the sheer quantity of established research papers". So, that's pretty rock solid.
Bob: Cool. What's the evidence?
Rob: Well I asked him that but he just said it was ...[text shortened]... red Hitler, since I don't have anything to support the argument. It's clearly not beyond refute.
I'd think you could find better playmates to spend your time with, don't you agree?
Let's take the rest of today in the pursuit of playmates who won't help keep you in the dark, okay?
Remember: bad company corrupts good character!
Originally posted by @freakykbhRob: Well now he's just saying the Nazis were "informed by" a theory, rather than the initial claim that Hitler's euthanasia programs were "inspired by" or "depended on" Darwin's existence. So I guess that means that some Nazis might have read his book Origin of Species? Yet there's nowhere in that book or in Hitler's writings that suggests anything about how natural selection inspires genocide.
If Rob and Bob are just now hearing on the internet how Hitler's Germany was informed by Darwin's theories on natural selection, then Rob and Bob are woefully uninformed.
I'd think you could find better playmates to spend your time with, don't you agree?
Let's take the rest of today in the pursuit of playmates who won't help keep you in the dark, okay?
Remember: bad company corrupts good character!
Bob: Pretty weak sauce, not really worth talking about. No wonder I haven't heard of this before. It's silly. It kind of sounds like he's trying to blame Darwin for random atrocities committed around the world.
Originally posted by @wildgrassSee?
Rob: Well now he's just saying the Nazis were "informed by" a theory, rather than the initial claim that Hitler's euthanasia programs were "inspired by" or "depended on" Darwin's existence. So I guess that means that some Nazis might have read his book Origin of Species? Yet there's nowhere in that book or in Hitler's writings that suggests anything about ...[text shortened]... ind of sounds like he's trying to blame Darwin for random atrocities committed around the world.
Those two douche bags can't even get the facts they are allegedly arguing against straight!
How is anyone supposed to take them seriously if they can't read the posts in this thread, let alone any information available to them--- for free--- outside this thread?
Time to move on, son!
Originally posted by @wildgrassWas it considered pseudoscience back then?
I dunno. The article says that pseudoscience rationalizations were used to convince doctors to get on board with a pre-existing program.
Originally posted by @freakykbhRob: He's still talking. Thinks we should move on.
See?
Those two douche bags can't even get the facts they are allegedly arguing against straight!
How is anyone supposed to take them seriously if they can't read the posts in this thread, let alone any information available to them--- for free--- outside this thread?
Time to move on, son!
Bob: We already moved on. I hope he added something substantial to whatever he was saying before.
Rob: Yeah now he's got this new thing where he thinks we're arguing against incorrect facts.
Bob: We're not arguing against anything. Does he know what an argument is? There needs to be reasoning and an explanation. There's no substance to his argument except "Books exist".
Rob: Well he's got us there. The existence of books is beyond refute.
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarI was just paraphrasing the article. It doesn't really explain what the scientific/pseudoscientific argument was or what it would consist of. The economic argument, while insanely immoral, is pretty straightforward though.
Was it considered pseudoscience back then?
Originally posted by @wildgrassWithout the visual aid of sock puppets, your act is just one guy acting like two guys, thus an unwelcome increase of ass "wholes" when the existing amount was more than warranted.
Rob: He's still talking. Thinks we should move on.
Bob: We already moved on. I hope he added something substantial to whatever he was saying before.
Rob: Yeah now he's got this new thing where he thinks we're arguing against incorrect facts.
Bob: We're not arguing against anything. Does he know what an argument is? There needs to be reasoning and ...[text shortened]... t except "Books exist".
Rob: Well he's got us there. The existence of books is beyond refute.
Originally posted by @wildgrassAre you really that dense or is it that you have some ideological belief that blinds you?
I was just paraphrasing the article. It doesn't really explain what the scientific/pseudoscientific argument was or what it would consist of. The economic argument, while insanely immoral, is pretty straightforward though.
As for the pseudoscience, how much of today's science will be considered pseudoscience a hundred years from now?
Originally posted by @joe-shmoThat question implies that good and evil are discerned visually. OK so it's a metaphor, but framing the question in a non-metaphorical way might help us get somewhere without begging the question.
Well, that begs the question; What exacly is "good" and "evil" in the eyes of science?
Originally posted by @js357When it comes to evolution it is only natural that humans becoming a stronger, smarter and disease resistant race would be good.
That question implies that good and evil are discerned visually. OK so it's a metaphor, but framing the question in a non-metaphorical way might help us get somewhere without begging the question.