|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is antithetical to racism | |||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If you can think of a word that is both polite and accurate to describe someone who calls me a "stinking eugenicist" and a "gutter racist", then I should like to hear it.
Otherwise, I may have to stick with "liar", which at least has the merit of accuracy. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
(And you should know that the use of "liar" is deeply frowned upon here. Even when it is justified). Yes, I had noticed. But what am I to say? In order to tell the truth about whether I am a "stinking eugenicist" and a "gutter racist", I cannot help but reveal that CTD is drooling out dirty stupid lies. I could refrain from absolutely and in so many words calling him a liar, but I cannot tell the truth without revealing that he is in fact a liar, so what's the point in not saying it? He is a liar. Everyone reading this thread knows that. You know that. Why should I not say that? Is the plain and obvious truth to be tabooed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I mention this earlier, and Oh it's a big deal that I don't demonstrate it. We get claim after claim that Marx wasn't racist. Strange, I thought that you annnounced your intention to run away sobbing and screaming. But since you're back, let's have some fun. You claimed that Marx proved that evolution was racist. Please quote his proof.
Then you accuse me of making "false accusations". I haven't done this .... But we all know that you have, in fact, made false accusations. This is why I keep challenging you to produce a shred of a scrap of evidence that what you say is true, and this is why you keep whining and crying and running away.
If it's off topic now, it was just as off-topic when the evolutionists were carrying on about it, now wasn't it? If you believe that your rubbish is off topic, and are willing to say so, then perhaps you're right. Perhaps you are off topic. But so long as the moderators allow you to discuss your delusions, then I don't see why I shouldn't take the piss out of them.
And I don't see that it's very off topic to discuss the founders of evolutionist & racist philosophies. But that's fine. This is kinda beatin' a dead horse anyhow. I was a little concerned that some naive reader might stumble in and mistakenly believe the erroneous portion of your post. Not too much danger of that now. If only this had content.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I never said anything at about getting back into this. When an admin asserts that one has made "false accusations", there's a chance a naive, inattentive person might tend to believe it. Naturally, nobody who's been paying close attention would make this error. The mistake can be explained easily enough. Not everyone has time to read everything carefully, and it may well be that the sheer volume of the slander in combination with time limitations resulted in an error. I hope this is the case, but I lack the grounds to be overly optimistic. If you'd like me back in, give me a post number where I said "Marx proved that evolution was racist." Alternatively, show me some significant benefit I can derive from wading in slanderous spam. What are you babbling about? Your falsehood about Marx is in post #93. Apart from that, I can make little of your post, which appears to be a set of elliptical references to the fantasy world in your head, with which I am, fortunately, unacquainted. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Good job, gutter racist. Some people degrade themselves for the sake of things which are actually worth having, like money or sex or fame or what-have-you. You debase yourself for the sake of hatred. And you do it in public, where we can all watch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I said "advance the discussion". Neither option is of any help. One is dishonest and the other has been deemed "off-topic". Who has told you that it would be off-topic? I am unable to find the post. I think that a demonstration "that racism is a necessary outcome of evolution" would be extremely germane to the topic, and I cannot see where the moderators have said otherwise.
It seems a bit odd to me, this situation. I'm said to have "falsely accused Marx of being racist evolutionist. I've already demonstrated some of his racism, so my great insult against him is calling him an "evolutionist"? That's funny. And I have to wonder what kind of defense you guys were planning... Who told you that you had "falsely accused Marx of being racist evolutionist"? I am unable to find the post. Is this something you made up? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
How can we advance the discussion further? Well, if the real world corresponded to the fantasy world in your head, then you could quote Marx's supposed demonstration "that racism is a necessary outcome of evolution." As he provided no such demonstration, and you know it, then you can't so much advance the discussion as run away from it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Looks like we're done then. So, as I predicted, you're going to run away.
I'm not the one who said it's off topic to discuss the racist evolutionist founders of these philosophies. Given that the phrase "it's off topic to discuss the racist evolutionist founders of these philosophies" appears in your post and not in anyone else's, it does appear that you are in fact the one who said this.
I finished my job, and offered to hang around. So, what's left? You could provide some evidence for your ludicrous assertion that Marx and/or Nietzsche demonstrated that "racism is a necessary outcome of evolution". Or you could pretend that someone has told you that it would be off-topic to do so, as an excuse for running away from a claim which, while on-topic, is also utterly false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Revolution and Counter-Revolution-Ch 4 Don't know why anyone should care to defend these racist evolutionist double-talkers, but I think this evidence will suffice to doom such efforts. The passages which you quote from Marx contain no reference to the theory of evolution, which is profoundly unsurprising given the fact that they were written seven years before the publication of that theory. If this is "gutter racism", then clearly Marx's "gutter racism" cannot be laid at Darwin's door, since it clearly pre-existed the publication of the Origin of Species. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So, you have no argument from evolution to racism, and you declare that you have "no interest" in presenting one, which I must admit is a fairly suave way of running sobbing and screaming from an argument that you have lost.
But you still want to pretend that there is some argument from evolution to racism. You said that Marx had proved that racism followed from evolution, and you were wrong. You said that Nietzsche had proved that racism followed from evolution, and you were wrong. And now you are claiming that your drivel is "Huxley's logic", by which I presume that you mean that your crap has been proven correct by Huxley. Apparently you've given up on Marx, and you've given up on Nietzsche, but you hope that Thomas Huxley will prove that your delusions are right. And guess what ... you're wrong. Huxley's arguments against eugenics are not arguments in favor of racism. No arguments against eugenics are arguments in favor of racism. I myself have argued against eugenics, in public, while also being opposed to racism. Just because someone is against eugenics, that doesn't mean that somehow their "logic" makes them a racist. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Except that it wasn't. It was based on ordinary animal breeding techniques that has been practiced for thousands of years. Remember that CTD is lying, and that the article he quoted from Huxley was rejecting eugenics. Yes, it's true that eugenics is based on animal breeding, while you mention it, but Huxley was arguing against it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'm way ahead of him ... see my article on eugenics.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024