Evolution is antithetical to racism

I'd settle for less impolite. More clinical, perhaps. As I say it's more a matter of tone. (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?

It has been decided that the word "liar" is too provocative. So yes, it is "taboo". But pointing out that CTD is engaging in the usual creationist tactic of making false and baseless accusations is quite alright.Please direct further discussion to the Moderation thread.

AdminPaul So pointing out that my "accusations" are anything but false should be alright.Marx' partner, Engels (1864): MECW - The requested resource is no longer available"Revolution and Counter-revolution in Germany" Marx himself: and 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.Note that racists never have been and never will be restricted to the modern meta-race concepts. They can define any group they want as a 'race'. So can the gutter racists.

Pointing out thst some people who believed in evolution also believed in racism in some from does nothing to advance the topic. Such arguments were rightly disposed of at the very start.Perhaps you should try actually discussing the theory of evolution rather than looking for excuses to smear it.

I asked

quote:

---

Can you give an hypothetical eugenics scenario which would clearly not be racist?

---

bluegenes' response from Post #163: Myopia - Wikipedia Good job, gutter racist.

Huh. So, by this reasoning, what isn't racism? By this reasoning, hospitals who only hire people with medical degrees to be doctors will be racist.So now you've reduced the word "racism" to meaninglessness. Good job.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

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.Then you accuse me of making "false accusations". I haven't done this, so I have to guess what in the world you're talking about. Pardon me if I can't read your mind.If it's off topic now, it was just as off-topic when the evolutionists were carrying on about it, now wasn't it?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.

quote:

---

We get claim after claim that Marx wasn't racist.

---

Looking back it seems that what we do have is the assertion that you hadn't shown it.

quote:

---

Then you accuse me of making "false accusations". I haven't done this, so I have to guess what in the world you're talking about. Pardon me if I can't read your mind.

---

That isn't in the post you are replying to. And we have an obvious example in your "BUSTED!" post above.

quote:

---

If it's off topic now, it was just as off-topic when the evolutionists were carrying on about it, now wasn't it?

---

The fact that you tried a fallacious argument earlier in the thread does not make it any less fallacious.

quote:

---

And I don't see that it's very off topic to discuss the founders of evolutionist & racist philosophies

---

Neither Marx nor Engels was a "founder of evolution", so even if your objection were correct it would not apply to the quotes you used. And even if you used Darwin or Wallace instead it would still be inadequate to show the implications of evolutionary theory - especially modern evolutionary theory which has advanced considerably since their time.

You asked for a hypothetical example, and I gave one. Eugenicists, in this case, would select out individuals for breeding on the basis of faulty eyesight only when the origin of that faulty eyesight can be shown to be genetic. If you did this for any particular racial group, you'd end up after some generations with the same racial group, but virtually no people who are genetically inclined to shortsightedness in it. Do it for all the world, and you end up with all the world's racial groups minus shortsightedness.Your quote from the wiki article is selective, and gives me a chance to show how you seem to be attempting to deliberately mislead.I can selectively quote from the same article:

quote:

---

Environmental factors ” It has been suggested that a genetic susceptibility to myopia does not exist.

---

And better, an example of a survey on two racial groups in virtually identical circumstances:

quote:

---

A recent study involving first-year undergraduate students in the United Kingdom found that 50% of British whites and 53.4% of British Asians were myopic

---

Your original quote says vaguely, "has been reported", meaning different surveys with different criteria for how far off 20/20 vision they will call "myopia" done on people living in different circumstances.I'd suggest that people reading down the thread read the article for themselves, and read critically.More importantly, you asked for a hypothetical example. You then want to call someone giving one a "gutter racist".You were not asking people for an example of something that they thought should actually be implicated. So even "gutter eugenicist" would have been silly and childish. Then, as I've explained to you, eugenics and racism are not the same things. Try your dictionary again.In no definition of human racial groups will you find "myopic people" listed as one of them.So, "gutter racist" was worse than childish, wasn't it? So stupid, in fact, that it could be described as typically creationist.

Yep. When you going to do that? You're quoting again instead of making an argument. You could start with such a quote, but then you need to show that it is true to point out that what you are posting isn't false: you have not done that. Nor does this refer to the theory of evolution anywhere, you're just quoting racist writing that is racist -- that proves nothing: we already knew that there were racist people. Why should anyone care to defend them: they were racists making racist remarks. They are NOT saying that it is based on evolution, you will notice, nor can that argument be made from these quotes.So when are you going to start demonstrating that your claim(s) that these relate to evolution theory are in any way true? Your tirades against "gutter racists" and such are still totally irrelevant to:(a) the issue of the thread - demonstrating racism is a logical result of the theory of evolution, or(b) the new issue of your falsehoods - some attempt on your part to demonstrate that they are actually true.You could start with a demonstration that your equating of eugenics with racism is true. Without misusing, misrepresenting or falsely portraying the meanings of those two words. No. The issue is that he said nothing about evolution. Maybe something like saying that Marx's writing was based on the theory of evolution? Such as your claim in Message 93: Neither man quoted wrote about racism resulting from the theory of evolution. Thus your claim in Message 93 is de facto a false claim (with a QED). Talking about what racists say does not show that racism is logically derived from the theory of evolution no matter how many quotes you use and no matter how you insinuate that because they are racist that they must have derived it from the theory of evolution. You need to demonstrate that as fact and you haven't: that is the issue that you consistently dodge and dodge and dodge.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : msg 188Edited by RAZD, : example of a false claim

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

People who go to abortion and fertility clinics or practice voluntary birth control are practicing eugenics. They are artificially modifying reproduction success and failure of individuals for a purpose, and the result is to artificially increase or decrease reproduction by certain individuals ... themselves.They are not a different race from any offspring they may or may not have.Ergo eugenics cannot be racism.Racists can use eugenics, as they can also use water, daylight, money and any anything else, but that use does not make whatever they use racist. Nor does it in any way imply that such use supports racism.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : supportEdited by RAZD, : birth control added

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

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. 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 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. If only this had content.

Dr Adequate 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.