Hitler Shrine in Walworth County
-
espeir wrote:
Uhhhh...How does evolution work if not through "external intervention". You're just trying to distance the two (because it points to the obviously monstrous behavior that is born from atheism), but they are the same thing. Sorry.
Fine, let's be semantic. External intervention implies: 1. deliberate inbreeding 2. deliberate isolation 3. deliberate artificial selection Sorry, but I'm still right. Your little tirade on "monstrous behavior that is born from atheism" is quite humorous.
I didn't say that Eugenics = Darwinism. I said Eugenics = implemented Darwinism. Just like nuclear fusion != nuclear bomb but nuclear fusion implemented = nuclear bomb. Every single person familiar with this subject agrees with me. In fact, eugenics was a mainstream science back in the 20's and was even advocated in the US by many Americans. Being a Christian nation, however, the grotesqueness of the required acts were saved for other less Christian nations.
-
thealj wrote:
Good for Google. I am still correct when I assert that eugenics is not Darwinism. Darwinism is based on the idea of natural selection. Eugenics is unnatural selection. The two are not equivalent. Natural selection is not pre-selective breeding. It doesn't take a search engine to understand that.
I see the point you're trying to make, but from both a historical and scientific perspective it is false. The concept of Eugenics was born out of natural selection. Eugenics, as I said, is the implementation of natural selection (i.e. determining which characteristics will supposedly be most beneficial to mankind). It's a rudimentary form a genetic engineering that employs the concepts of Darwinism to actively breed out "negative" characteristics. I understand your unwillingness to accept this, since it's probably pretty unpalatable to you. And it's not just Google that disagrees with you...The "define" function points to numerous links from numerous sources that directly state you're incorrect.
thealj wrote:
It's a huge difference and it is not equivalent to the analogy of engineering and science. By canonical definition you cannot implement natural selection. It's as fundamental as the difference between the words "natural" and "pre-selective". Selective breeding implies three concepts: 1. isolation 2. artificial selection 3. inbreeding Not one of those qualifies as "natural selection". I fail to understand why the difference is not clear to you.
I still see no difference. Darwinism clearly implies that humans are natural beings, so if humans kill off certain other creatures/humans, then it is by definition "natural selection". To equate it to another branch of science... Nuclear fusion occurs naturally in the sun. It does not occur naturally on earth. The fact that a fusion reaction can be initiated by man does not imply that it is no longer nuclear physics. Your argument is just absurd.
thealj wrote:
Seeing as you like Google so much, I'll refer you to wikipedia's entry on physicalism[^] where it clearly and directly states
But you just disregarded 20 Google definitions that demonstrated your argument about Eugenics to be incorrect! I'll admit that I'm probably wrong about this. Why? Because I'm a bigger man than you.
espeir wrote:
I see the point you're trying to make, but from both a historical and scientific perspective it is false.
If you think it's false, then falsify it. Write a paper and publish it pointing out your scientific method and how, scientifically, the two are equivalent.
espeir wrote:
The concept of Eugenics was born out of natural selection. Eugenics, as I said, is the implementation of natural selection (i.e. determining which characteristics will supposedly be most beneficial to mankind). It's a rudimentary form a genetic engineering that employs the concepts of Darwinism to actively breed out "negative" characteristics. I understand your unwillingness to accept this, since it's probably pretty unpalatable to you. And it's not just Google that disagrees with you...The "define" function points to numerous links from numerous sources that directly state you're incorrect.
Sure, eugenics was derived from Darwin's ideas, but it was derived incorrectly. Galton interpreted what Darwin wrote with grave errors. It was born out of 19th century ambition to "improve society" - a social policy, nothing more. This comes from the same guy who advocated measuring skull size as an indicator of intelligence. You're free to believe his ideas if you like, but I would advise you against it. The only way it is unpalatable to me is that naive people continue to mistakenly interpret it as a valid offshoot of Darwin's theory without properly understanding the basic concepts.
espeir wrote:
I still see no difference. Darwinism clearly implies that humans are natural beings, so if humans kill off certain other creatures/humans, then it is by definition "natural selection". To equate it to another branch of science.
You need to take an introductory biology class.
espeir wrote:
Nuclear fusion occurs naturally in the sun. It does not occur naturally on earth. The fact that a fusion reaction can be initiated by man does not imply that it is no longer nuclear physics. Your argument is just absurd.
That is not at all what my argument implies.
-
espeir wrote:
I see the point you're trying to make, but from both a historical and scientific perspective it is false.
If you think it's false, then falsify it. Write a paper and publish it pointing out your scientific method and how, scientifically, the two are equivalent.
espeir wrote:
The concept of Eugenics was born out of natural selection. Eugenics, as I said, is the implementation of natural selection (i.e. determining which characteristics will supposedly be most beneficial to mankind). It's a rudimentary form a genetic engineering that employs the concepts of Darwinism to actively breed out "negative" characteristics. I understand your unwillingness to accept this, since it's probably pretty unpalatable to you. And it's not just Google that disagrees with you...The "define" function points to numerous links from numerous sources that directly state you're incorrect.
Sure, eugenics was derived from Darwin's ideas, but it was derived incorrectly. Galton interpreted what Darwin wrote with grave errors. It was born out of 19th century ambition to "improve society" - a social policy, nothing more. This comes from the same guy who advocated measuring skull size as an indicator of intelligence. You're free to believe his ideas if you like, but I would advise you against it. The only way it is unpalatable to me is that naive people continue to mistakenly interpret it as a valid offshoot of Darwin's theory without properly understanding the basic concepts.
espeir wrote:
I still see no difference. Darwinism clearly implies that humans are natural beings, so if humans kill off certain other creatures/humans, then it is by definition "natural selection". To equate it to another branch of science.
You need to take an introductory biology class.
espeir wrote:
Nuclear fusion occurs naturally in the sun. It does not occur naturally on earth. The fact that a fusion reaction can be initiated by man does not imply that it is no longer nuclear physics. Your argument is just absurd.
That is not at all what my argument implies.
thealj wrote:
If you think it's false, then falsify it. Write a paper and publish it pointing out your scientific method and how, scientifically, the two are equivalent.
Uhhh...I don't need to. It's universally accepted (except by people like you who are apparently so fanatical that they're willing to rewrite history and science).
thealj wrote:
Sure, eugenics was derived from Darwin's ideas, but it was derived incorrectly. Galton interpreted what Darwin wrote with grave errors. It was born out of 19th century ambition to "improve society" - a social policy, nothing more. This comes from the same guy who advocated measuring skull size as an indicator of intelligence. You're free to believe his ideas if you like, but I would advise you against it. The only way it is unpalatable to me is that naive people continue to mistakenly interpret it as a valid offshoot of Darwin's theory without properly understanding the basic concepts.
Nuclear weapong were also born out of social policy (to win a war). That doesn't mean that they don't work. Your argument is simply absurd.
thealj wrote:
You need to take an introductory biology class.
So you're saying that humans did not evolve? Are we not natural?
thealj wrote:
That is not at all what my argument implies.
It certainly does. You're stating that if science is implemented, then it nullifies the science. Your argument is simply absurd and I'm beginning to think that you're just being satirical at this point. Note that I'm not stating that Eugenics is "good science" or effective. I'm saying that it was born out of Darwinist/Atheist philosophies and it was. I just find it curious that people bash religion for being so violent, but in the span of a couple decades, atheism lead to the most violent behavior in human history.
-
SOrry, I no longer consider it my responsibility. If a billion muslims can be allowed to shrug off their responsibility, so can I. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
SOrry, I no longer consider it my responsibility. If a billion muslims can be allowed to shrug off their responsibility, so can I.
Fine then you should not open your mouth to advise me or others for the things which you are not cable to do in your own capacity.
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
-
TOWN OF SUGAR CREEK - A man in Walworth County has built a shrine to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler in a building in his backyard. Ted Junker, 87, says history books have it all wrong and Adolf Hitler was really a hero and he's going to hold an open house on June 25th to allow people to tour his Hitler shrine.[^] Subsidiary question: why does the US press systematically mention the Shoah when referring to Nazism and WW2 and not the other persecuted groups or individuals? Why this unique distinction?
It is easier to make war than to make peace. Fold with us! ยค flickr
K(arl) wrote:
Subsidiary question:
It's the same in germany, e.g. Berlin has a huge year-old holocaust memorial - explicitely for remembering the jews killed. But it would be totally anti-semitic to suggest the jewish establishment has certain advantages from monopolizing he holocaust.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
My grandmother, who is German, told me as a child that Hitler was misunderstood. She said 'sure, he didn't treat the JEws too well, but he did amazing things for the roads'. I remember that clearly as the moment I realised she was an idiot. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Headline "Hilter: Not A Very Nice Person, But Good For Roads!"
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
K(arl) wrote:
why does the US press systematically mention the Shoah
What does that have to do with me? I didn't do it. Why are you blaming Americans for our press's behavior? There are 300 million Americans, we all don't write newspapers. Why do you want to hold us all responsible for the behavior of a few? "You get that which you tolerate"
But the US is a free country, the newspaper market is ruled by supply and demand, if there is bias in reporting then because not enough US Americans demand balanced news. So it's all yur fault personally. ;P In related news, it's the same what happens when I'm asked to be grateful towards George W. Bush single-handedly rebuilding the country after WW2.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
He sounds just like a Muslim!
who? hitler or stan?
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
-
But the US is a free country, the newspaper market is ruled by supply and demand, if there is bias in reporting then because not enough US Americans demand balanced news. So it's all yur fault personally. ;P In related news, it's the same what happens when I'm asked to be grateful towards George W. Bush single-handedly rebuilding the country after WW2.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighistpeterchen wrote:
But the US is a free country, the newspaper market is ruled by supply and demand, if there is bias in reporting then because not enough US Americans demand balanced news. So it's all yur fault personally.
Leftists don't care about supply and demand....But Fox News was eventually created in this way.
-
Hitler was an evil that we took care of. We got rid of him. That is how responsible people act. "You get that which you tolerate"
now you will take credit of his death which happened due to some sucidal attempt?everyone has to die like him.what are feeling proud of?
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
-
Just like the KKK, communism and now Mulism extremists. Taking care of leftists has proven to be a long and arduous task, but we're making progress.
CG was right about you.
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
-
thealj wrote:
If you think it's false, then falsify it. Write a paper and publish it pointing out your scientific method and how, scientifically, the two are equivalent.
Uhhh...I don't need to. It's universally accepted (except by people like you who are apparently so fanatical that they're willing to rewrite history and science).
thealj wrote:
Sure, eugenics was derived from Darwin's ideas, but it was derived incorrectly. Galton interpreted what Darwin wrote with grave errors. It was born out of 19th century ambition to "improve society" - a social policy, nothing more. This comes from the same guy who advocated measuring skull size as an indicator of intelligence. You're free to believe his ideas if you like, but I would advise you against it. The only way it is unpalatable to me is that naive people continue to mistakenly interpret it as a valid offshoot of Darwin's theory without properly understanding the basic concepts.
Nuclear weapong were also born out of social policy (to win a war). That doesn't mean that they don't work. Your argument is simply absurd.
thealj wrote:
You need to take an introductory biology class.
So you're saying that humans did not evolve? Are we not natural?
thealj wrote:
That is not at all what my argument implies.
It certainly does. You're stating that if science is implemented, then it nullifies the science. Your argument is simply absurd and I'm beginning to think that you're just being satirical at this point. Note that I'm not stating that Eugenics is "good science" or effective. I'm saying that it was born out of Darwinist/Atheist philosophies and it was. I just find it curious that people bash religion for being so violent, but in the span of a couple decades, atheism lead to the most violent behavior in human history.
Is "strawman" your only means of attack? You remind me of Adnan. But let's go to the horse's mouth and not his ass. Darwin himself rejected eugenics. I will even state that Francis Galton was Darwin's cousine and Darwin himself disagreed with the ideas of his cousin. Eugenics was floating about Europe even before Darwin published his book on the origins of species. It is not Darwinism. Period.
-
now you will take credit of his death which happened due to some sucidal attempt?everyone has to die like him.what are feeling proud of?
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
He committed suicide because allied forces were minutes away from capturing him.
-
CG was right about you.
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
Who's CG and what did he say that you agree with?
-
Not really. What Martin Luther did would match what you're saying. Hitler placed a secular state that oppressed churches of all sorts at the top while adopting a eugenics (Darwinist/atheist) based policy as one of the bases of his government. That's inconsistent with what I would expect from someone who is a theist of any sort.
espeir wrote:
Not really.
Yes really
espeir wrote:
What Martin Luther did would match what you're saying.
You posted the 1 thru 4 of what Hitler did not me. I merely stated that logically those are all actions that would not be contrary for someone that believes his own definition of Christianity and that established religions are wrong. You claim I am wrong but make no attempt to point how any of the 1 thru 4 are NOT logical actions for a person believing in his own definition of Christianity. This is representative of the pseudo-intellectual junk that you post on here all the time, and your phantom voter seems very impressed with your abilities.
-
who? hitler or stan?
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
Hitler.
-
Is "strawman" your only means of attack? You remind me of Adnan. But let's go to the horse's mouth and not his ass. Darwin himself rejected eugenics. I will even state that Francis Galton was Darwin's cousine and Darwin himself disagreed with the ideas of his cousin. Eugenics was floating about Europe even before Darwin published his book on the origins of species. It is not Darwinism. Period.
It's not a strawman argument. It's another identical example of what you so absurdly deny in order to defend your faith. You're ignoring the very definition of eugenics. Seriously, though? Are you just joking about this? Because I find it hard to believe that a non-Muslim could be this fanatical about his faith.
-
espeir wrote:
Not really.
Yes really
espeir wrote:
What Martin Luther did would match what you're saying.
You posted the 1 thru 4 of what Hitler did not me. I merely stated that logically those are all actions that would not be contrary for someone that believes his own definition of Christianity and that established religions are wrong. You claim I am wrong but make no attempt to point how any of the 1 thru 4 are NOT logical actions for a person believing in his own definition of Christianity. This is representative of the pseudo-intellectual junk that you post on here all the time, and your phantom voter seems very impressed with your abilities.
led mike wrote:
Yes really
Great argument. :rolleyes:
led mike wrote:
You posted the 1 thru 4 of what Hitler did not me. I merely stated that logically those are all actions that would not be contrary for someone that believes his own definition of Christianity and that established religions are wrong. You claim I am wrong but make no attempt to point how any of the 1 thru 4 are NOT logical actions for a person believing in his own definition of Christianity. This is representative of the pseudo-intellectual junk that you post on here all the time, and your phantom voter seems very impressed with your abilities.
You're intentionally ignoring #5 (the most important) while claiming that I post pseudo-intellectual junk. He threw away religion as a youth and put atheist doctrines in its place. In your pseudo-intellectual world, this may imply that he's merely against organized religion, but in the real world it strongly indicates that he was an atheist. He certainly adhered to atheist government policies.
-
Is "strawman" your only means of attack? You remind me of Adnan. But let's go to the horse's mouth and not his ass. Darwin himself rejected eugenics. I will even state that Francis Galton was Darwin's cousine and Darwin himself disagreed with the ideas of his cousin. Eugenics was floating about Europe even before Darwin published his book on the origins of species. It is not Darwinism. Period.
thealj wrote:
Darwin himself rejected eugenics.
So? Einstein opposed the nuclear bomb. What's your point?
-
Hitler was a very religious person.
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
Hitler was a very religious person.
Funny. He wanted to replace religious by his ideas. He tried to replace christmas songs and many priests were gassed. He didn't like the churches, in fact he had some special ideas. If you call him religious you shouldn't just quote "Mein Kampf" but you should take a deeper look at the things he did. Then you will see that he tried everything to remove religion from the German minds. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.