Hitler Shrine in Walworth County
-
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.
-
Did you get that rumor from Indiana Jones?
Look at the Nazi symbols and their festivities - there are many Germanic rites in them. And he had specialists for Germanic, and - well even that is true - some where searching for Germanic occult objects. Perhaps he didn't searched those things from the Indiana Jones Movies, but you can see many parallels. :) Regards, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
thealj wrote:
Darwin himself rejected eugenics.
So? Einstein opposed the nuclear bomb. What's your point?
espeir wrote:
So? Einstein opposed the nuclear bomb. What's your point?
The question is: "what's your point?" My point: Darwinism != eugenics. Your point: Darwinism = eugenics One of these two statements is erroneous. Now, let's see if we can figure out which one it is. I observe a group of pigs in the wild and leave them to breed amongst themselves. In the other scenario, I select 2 of them from the wild and subsequently isolate the ones of my choosing and "let" them breed. Which scenario is Darwinism and which one is eugenics? Oh wait. I forgot. For you Darwinism = eugenics. I apologize for the trick question because in your view where Darwinism = eugenics both scenarios are correct. Consequently, seeing as you can't distinguish between the two statements and consider them equivalent, you should have no problem declaring me the victor. Thank you, I'm honoured.
-
espeir wrote:
So? Einstein opposed the nuclear bomb. What's your point?
The question is: "what's your point?" My point: Darwinism != eugenics. Your point: Darwinism = eugenics One of these two statements is erroneous. Now, let's see if we can figure out which one it is. I observe a group of pigs in the wild and leave them to breed amongst themselves. In the other scenario, I select 2 of them from the wild and subsequently isolate the ones of my choosing and "let" them breed. Which scenario is Darwinism and which one is eugenics? Oh wait. I forgot. For you Darwinism = eugenics. I apologize for the trick question because in your view where Darwinism = eugenics both scenarios are correct. Consequently, seeing as you can't distinguish between the two statements and consider them equivalent, you should have no problem declaring me the victor. Thank you, I'm honoured.
thealj wrote:
The question is: "what's your point?" My point: Darwinism != eugenics. Your point: Darwinism = eugenics
Absolutely wrong. I clearly stated numerous times that Eugenics is the implementation of Darwinism. Just like a nuclear bomb is the implementation of nuclear physics. Why you can't follow that and why you reject the very definition of eugenics is beyond me.
thealj wrote:
Now, let's see if we can figure out which one it is. I observe a group of pigs in the wild and leave them to breed amongst themselves. In the other scenario, I select 2 of them from the wild and subsequently isolate the ones of my choosing and "let" them breed.
This depends on humans being non-natural. You're suggesting that our interference in other life forms is different (which suggests that we are exempt from Darwinism...which I'm sure is not something you want to suggest). Here's another example: 1) A lion does not eat a gazelle so it is allowed to breed. 2) A lion eats the gazelle so it is now allowed to breed. So apparently the lion is Darwinistic even though it separates the gazelle from breeding whereas when a human separates a pig from breeding, it is mysteriously exempt from the rules.
-
thealj wrote:
The question is: "what's your point?" My point: Darwinism != eugenics. Your point: Darwinism = eugenics
Absolutely wrong. I clearly stated numerous times that Eugenics is the implementation of Darwinism. Just like a nuclear bomb is the implementation of nuclear physics. Why you can't follow that and why you reject the very definition of eugenics is beyond me.
thealj wrote:
Now, let's see if we can figure out which one it is. I observe a group of pigs in the wild and leave them to breed amongst themselves. In the other scenario, I select 2 of them from the wild and subsequently isolate the ones of my choosing and "let" them breed.
This depends on humans being non-natural. You're suggesting that our interference in other life forms is different (which suggests that we are exempt from Darwinism...which I'm sure is not something you want to suggest). Here's another example: 1) A lion does not eat a gazelle so it is allowed to breed. 2) A lion eats the gazelle so it is now allowed to breed. So apparently the lion is Darwinistic even though it separates the gazelle from breeding whereas when a human separates a pig from breeding, it is mysteriously exempt from the rules.
espeir wrote:
Absolutely wrong. I clearly stated numerous times that Eugenics is the implementation of Darwinism. Just like a nuclear bomb is the implementation of nuclear physics. Why you can't follow that and why you reject the very definition of eugenics is beyond me.
I am still absolutely right. If eugenics is "implemented Darwinism", then it is Darwinism in practice which is still Darwinism. Of course, if we accept your definition, then "going to church" is an implementation of Christianity and so really isn't Christianity at all. Good job defending your religion, heathen.
espeir wrote:
This depends on humans being non-natural. You're suggesting that our interference in other life forms is different (which suggests that we are exempt from Darwinism...which I'm sure is not something you want to suggest). Here's another example: 1) A lion does not eat a gazelle so it is allowed to breed. 2) A lion eats the gazelle so it is now allowed to breed. So apparently the lion is Darwinistic even though it separates the gazelle from breeding whereas when a human separates a pig from breeding, it is mysteriously exempt from the rules.
No, it depends on the process being non-natural. It has nothing to do with humanity. Again, you divert the argument from the main point. The point is not that humans are exempt from Darwinism, the point is that eugenics is directed "evolution" which is not Darwinism. It's called selective breeding. The English language even has a word to distinguish this particular characteristic under certain circumstances. It's called "domestication". Domestication is not Darwinism. Your example only reinforces my point. Lions will preferentially hunt the weakest individuals from a group. Hence weakness is eliminated thereby increasing the "fitness" of the population. Conversely, I am free to choose two related pigs and force them to breed repeatedly - inbreeding. I could repeat this experiment on a large scale and over a large number of generations. This is not Darwinism. It is you who do not accept the definitions of the concepts we are discussing.
-
espeir wrote:
So? Einstein opposed the nuclear bomb. What's your point?
The question is: "what's your point?" My point: Darwinism != eugenics. Your point: Darwinism = eugenics One of these two statements is erroneous. Now, let's see if we can figure out which one it is. I observe a group of pigs in the wild and leave them to breed amongst themselves. In the other scenario, I select 2 of them from the wild and subsequently isolate the ones of my choosing and "let" them breed. Which scenario is Darwinism and which one is eugenics? Oh wait. I forgot. For you Darwinism = eugenics. I apologize for the trick question because in your view where Darwinism = eugenics both scenarios are correct. Consequently, seeing as you can't distinguish between the two statements and consider them equivalent, you should have no problem declaring me the victor. Thank you, I'm honoured.
thealj wrote:
I am still absolutely right. If eugenics is "implemented Darwinism", then it is Darwinism in practice which is still Darwinism. Of course, if we accept your definition, then "going to church" is an implementation of Christianity and so really isn't Christianity at all. Good job defending your religion, heathen.
I've previously said that religion is implemented Christianity (which is an abstract concept). But, just as eugenics retains the principles of Darwinism, Christian religions retain the principles of Christianity.
thealj wrote:
No, it depends on the process being non-natural. It has nothing to do with humanity. Again, you divert the argument from the main point. The point is not that humans are exempt from Darwinism, the point is that eugenics is directed "evolution" which is not Darwinism. It's called selective breeding. The English language even has a word to distinguish this particular characteristic under certain circumstances. It's called "domestication". Domestication is not Darwinism.
Your argument falls apart because it requires humans to be non-natural. If you accept this assertion, then you reject Darwinism in entirety. Domestication and the breeding of animals is a form of eugenics that was practiced without an underlying theory for millenia.
thealj wrote:
Your example only reinforces my point. Lions will preferentially hunt the weakest individuals from a group. Hence weakness is eliminated thereby increasing the "fitness" of the population. Conversely, I am free to choose two related pigs and force them to breed repeatedly - inbreeding. I could repeat this experiment on a large scale and over a large number of generations. This is not Darwinism.
I hate to break it to you, but we're talking about the holocaust here. I think it fits the definition you just gave perfectly. You tripped when you forgot what we were talking about and decided to apply your argument to domesticated animals instead of removing "weakest individuals from a group".
-
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
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
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.
Sorry, but my capacity is not my responsibility. That responsibility belongs to someone else. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
thealj wrote:
I am still absolutely right. If eugenics is "implemented Darwinism", then it is Darwinism in practice which is still Darwinism. Of course, if we accept your definition, then "going to church" is an implementation of Christianity and so really isn't Christianity at all. Good job defending your religion, heathen.
I've previously said that religion is implemented Christianity (which is an abstract concept). But, just as eugenics retains the principles of Darwinism, Christian religions retain the principles of Christianity.
thealj wrote:
No, it depends on the process being non-natural. It has nothing to do with humanity. Again, you divert the argument from the main point. The point is not that humans are exempt from Darwinism, the point is that eugenics is directed "evolution" which is not Darwinism. It's called selective breeding. The English language even has a word to distinguish this particular characteristic under certain circumstances. It's called "domestication". Domestication is not Darwinism.
Your argument falls apart because it requires humans to be non-natural. If you accept this assertion, then you reject Darwinism in entirety. Domestication and the breeding of animals is a form of eugenics that was practiced without an underlying theory for millenia.
thealj wrote:
Your example only reinforces my point. Lions will preferentially hunt the weakest individuals from a group. Hence weakness is eliminated thereby increasing the "fitness" of the population. Conversely, I am free to choose two related pigs and force them to breed repeatedly - inbreeding. I could repeat this experiment on a large scale and over a large number of generations. This is not Darwinism.
I hate to break it to you, but we're talking about the holocaust here. I think it fits the definition you just gave perfectly. You tripped when you forgot what we were talking about and decided to apply your argument to domesticated animals instead of removing "weakest individuals from a group".
espeir wrote:
Your argument falls apart because it requires humans to be non-natural. If you accept this assertion, then you reject Darwinism in entirety. Domestication and the breeding of animals is a form of eugenics that was practiced without an underlying theory for millenia.
It requires no abnormal behaviour that causes me to deviates from the course of human evolution. Again, you introduce irrelevant topics. I simply stick two pigs in a pen and force them to breed and subsequently inbreed their offspring. That is eugenics. That is not Darwinism. It has nothing to do with rejecting Darwinism whatsoever. I even said that domestication was eugenics.
espeir wrote:
I hate to break it to you, but we're talking about the holocaust here. I think it fits the definition you just gave perfectly. You tripped when you forgot what we were talking about and decided to apply your argument to domesticated animals instead of removing "weakest individuals from a group".
Domestication is still eugenics and not Darwinism. I have not tripped up on anything. As far as I'm concerned we're debating Darwinism vs. eugenics. And I agree that Hitler was practicising eugenics. That is clear. My point is that Hitler's ideology was incorrectly and perversely derived from Darwinism and ceased to fall under the umbrella of Darwin's theory. Hitler instituted a social policy of racial purification. Again, not Darwinism. -- modified at 14:39 Wednesday 14th June, 2006
-
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.
espeir wrote:
Great argument.
The argument followed, you didn't seem to miss it. :zzz:
espeir wrote:
You're intentionally ignoring #5
Thank you captain obvious. How does that disprove my point or the original question, that Hitler considered himself a Christian by "his" own definition and considered Christ to be his "Lord and Savior"?
-
Are you implying that ideological dissent is now a hate crime? Do you see why we want to ensure that your ideology is effectively countered and destroyed?
espeir wrote:
Are you implying that ideological dissent is now a hate crime?
Are you implying that comparing all of the United States leftists to KKK Communism and Muslim Extremists is "ideological dissent"? Please point to my use of the word "crime". You do not discuss ideology, you use hysterics to excuse and promote hate just like your hero Ann Coulter. If only you could support the trash you post on here. Of course you will find it easier to slow down the speed of light.
-
espeir wrote:
Great argument.
The argument followed, you didn't seem to miss it. :zzz:
espeir wrote:
You're intentionally ignoring #5
Thank you captain obvious. How does that disprove my point or the original question, that Hitler considered himself a Christian by "his" own definition and considered Christ to be his "Lord and Savior"?
led mike wrote:
Thank you captain obvious. How does that disprove my point or the original question, that Hitler considered himself a Christian by "his" own definition and considered Christ to be his "Lord and Savior"?
Because you're merely quoting a political speech in which he was trying to bring the crowd to him while ignoring the numerous facts that he threw out religion as a youth in favor of atheism! You've decided to ignore the facts of his entire life and his stated and implemented beliefs in favor of something he stated in a speech! Are you familiar with Hitler's style? Are you aware that he frequently appealed to the ethos of the crowd by saying things like this? You're willing to throw out ALL the facts in favor of something he said in a political speech?? I suppose that means you also agree that jews are a scourge on mankind! In fact, I remember you stating that you were a Christian in order to gain an edge on an argument you were having with me. Does that mean you're a Christian? No...Like Hitler, it means you're a liar. -- modified at 16:28 Wednesday 14th June, 2006 Oh...And are you really dumb enough to believe for one second that Hitler would worship a Jew?
-
espeir wrote:
Are you implying that ideological dissent is now a hate crime?
Are you implying that comparing all of the United States leftists to KKK Communism and Muslim Extremists is "ideological dissent"? Please point to my use of the word "crime". You do not discuss ideology, you use hysterics to excuse and promote hate just like your hero Ann Coulter. If only you could support the trash you post on here. Of course you will find it easier to slow down the speed of light.
led mike wrote:
Are you implying that comparing all of the United States leftists to KKK Communism and Muslim Extremists is "ideological dissent"?
That makes no sense in this context.
led mike wrote:
Please point to my use of the word "crime". You do not discuss ideology, you use hysterics to excuse and promote hate just like your hero Ann Coulter.
I didn't claim you did. I was asking you a question. However, by making wild accusations like this, you're behaving quite similarly to Ann Coulter.
led mike wrote:
If only you could support the trash you post on here. Of course you will find it easier to slow down the speed of light.
I slow light every time I flip a light switch.
-
led mike wrote:
Thank you captain obvious. How does that disprove my point or the original question, that Hitler considered himself a Christian by "his" own definition and considered Christ to be his "Lord and Savior"?
Because you're merely quoting a political speech in which he was trying to bring the crowd to him while ignoring the numerous facts that he threw out religion as a youth in favor of atheism! You've decided to ignore the facts of his entire life and his stated and implemented beliefs in favor of something he stated in a speech! Are you familiar with Hitler's style? Are you aware that he frequently appealed to the ethos of the crowd by saying things like this? You're willing to throw out ALL the facts in favor of something he said in a political speech?? I suppose that means you also agree that jews are a scourge on mankind! In fact, I remember you stating that you were a Christian in order to gain an edge on an argument you were having with me. Does that mean you're a Christian? No...Like Hitler, it means you're a liar. -- modified at 16:28 Wednesday 14th June, 2006 Oh...And are you really dumb enough to believe for one second that Hitler would worship a Jew?
espeir wrote:
It's not known with any certainty.
so is that still true? If so you are just arguing what you "believe", and of course that I should believe it also. Ok whatever, my original question was only what you "know". So all this arguing you did means what?
espeir wrote:
Does that mean you're a Christian? No...Like Hitler, it means you're a liar.
You seem to have a proclivity for making authoritative statements for which you have no authoritative basis.
-
led mike wrote:
Are you implying that comparing all of the United States leftists to KKK Communism and Muslim Extremists is "ideological dissent"?
That makes no sense in this context.
led mike wrote:
Please point to my use of the word "crime". You do not discuss ideology, you use hysterics to excuse and promote hate just like your hero Ann Coulter.
I didn't claim you did. I was asking you a question. However, by making wild accusations like this, you're behaving quite similarly to Ann Coulter.
led mike wrote:
If only you could support the trash you post on here. Of course you will find it easier to slow down the speed of light.
I slow light every time I flip a light switch.
espeir wrote:
I slow light every time I flip a light switch.
That is humor right?
espeir wrote:
That makes no sense in this context.
So that was not what you meant when you asked me the question about "Ideological dissent"? Then I don't know what you meant.
-
So it's not enough that the poor people were being gassed...You think they should have been bombed, too? I don't know what's more offensive...That comment, or the fact that your nation willingly permitted Germany to enter your country and round up your Jews.
Dman you are so stupid. Karl stated that the railways were not bombed by the US thereby permitting the transport by train of Jews to the camp. He did not state that the train itself containing Jews was not bombed by the US. Neither did he advocate the bombing of the trains.
espeir wrote:
your nation willingly permitted Germany to enter your country
What? Didnt you ever hear of the second world war? You know, the one where Germany invades France? Nunc est bibendum