07 May 06
Originally posted by HalitoseYou, of course, did not quote a paragraph but merely a fragment of one. Here's the whole paragraph in its entirety:
It's not like you to go off half-cocked. What does the very concept of "survival of the fittest" imply? The species that didn't survive were obviously "unfit" to survive. For all your blustering I'd have though an intelligent fella like you would have made sense of it.
Racism, of course, long predated Darwin, but allow me to quote a paragraph from his b ...[text shortened]... tions pathetically inappropriate and unsubstantiated. Contrary to the TOE? I think not.
At the period and place, whenever and wherever it was, when man first lost his hairy covering, he probably inhabited a hot country; a circumstance favourable for the frugi-ferous diet on which, judging from analogy, he subsisted. We are far from knowing how long ago it was when man first diverged from the catarhine stock; but it may have occurred at an epoch as remote as the Eocene period; for that the higher apes had diverged from the lower apes as early as the Upper Miocene period is shewn by the existence of the Dryopithecus. We are also quite ignorant at how rapid a rate organisms, whether high or low in the scale, may be modified under favourable circumstances; we know, however, that some have retained the same form during an enormous lapse of time. From what we see going on under domestication, we learn that some of the co-descendants of the same species may be not at all, some a little, and some greatly changed, all within the same period. Thus it may have been with man, who has undergone a great amount of modification in certain characters in comparison with the higher apes. The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
* Anthropological Review, April, 1867, p. 236
Do you still wish to continue to assert that my statements were "pathetically inappropriate and unsubstantiated"? Or will you admit that you read a passage out of context and read into it meanings that were not meant by the author?
08 May 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloWith your diligent policing of the "is-ought" fallacy in these threads, I wouldn't have hoped to get it by you. I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. đ
A 'scientific groundwork' for social philosophy and political theory? How many times are you going to invoke the is-ought fallacy? Take the collection of descriptive claims that constitute a working TOE (actually, take any set of wholly descriptive claims you want), and use these descriptive claims alone to argue in a logically valid way to any n ...[text shortened]... advance and dumb everybody up so that they are more apt to blindly follow the Christian God?
As for solutions... no, I do not assert that a quest for scientific knowledge should be squashed under the heel of morality. Not at all. What I do wish to highlight though, is that purely cerebral knowledge and reasoning is not [necessarily] sufficient for morality -- I going out on a limb here (and contradicting greats minds such as Kant, etc), but it seems like some of the greatest atrocities haven't been committed by the savage, illiterate and unknowledgeable, but rather by learned men and astute scholars of certain ideologies.
08 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderUhm... yes (you can remove "pathetically"; it's a little too emotive). No. The added context doesn't change anything in the meaning.
You, of course, did not quote a paragraph but merely a fragment of one. Here's the whole paragraph in its entirety:
At the period and place, whenever and wherever it was, when man first lost his hairy covering, he probably inhabited a hot country; a circumstance favourable for the frugi-ferous diet on which, judging from analogy, he subsisted. ou read a passage out of context and read into it meanings that were not meant by the author?
08 May 06
Originally posted by HalitoseName one.
-- I going out on a limb here (and contradicting greats minds such as Kant, etc), but it seems like some of the greatest atrocities haven't been committed by the savage, illiterate and unknowledgeable, but rather by learned men and astute scholars of certain ideologies.
08 May 06
Originally posted by HalitoseThen you can't read. The paragraph is a mere explanation of the rarity of fossils of transitional forms (though these are not rare anymore) and has absolutely nothing to do with arguing that one group of men is more "fit" than another.
Uhm... yes (you can remove "pathetically"; it's a little too emotive). No. The added context doesn't change anything in the meaning.
10 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHow, exactly, is the Church spending "millions" to "allow" priests to molest children?
Because they've been spending millions of dollars to allow their priests to molest children in my community instead of spending those same millions to aid in their prosecution.
10 May 06
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerRush Limbaugh just settled a criminal matter monetarily.
How do the legal settlements allow the molesting priests to go unpunished?
AFAIK, you cannot monetarily settle a criminal case - or is US law different?
More typically, a civil settlement agreement entails that the victim will not seek to press criminal charges. The prosecutor can still attempt to pursue a criminal case, but without the victim's active cooperation, it's often futile.
10 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDo you have any examples of this happening with the American Church?
More typically, a civil settlement agreement entails that the victim will not seek to press criminal charges. The prosecutor can still attempt to pursue a criminal case, but without the victim's active cooperation, it's often futile.
10 May 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerHow many do you want? I could probably provide hundreds.
Do you have any examples of this happening with the American Church?
Here's the first thing I found on Google: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week702/perspectives.html
"A major development in Boston, where the Roman Catholic archdiocese agreed to settle the lawsuits brought by victims of sexual abuse by priests. Eighty-five million dollars will be divided among 552 plaintiffs and their families according to the degree of damage done. The awards will run from $80,000 to $300,000."
Imagine what the church could do with $85 million to improve living conditions in India. Look what they've done with it instead.