Yeah, I’m done here. All I did was bring up a few facts, and everyone tells me to shut the fuck up lol.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
Q1. A man in a racist. He also believes in evolution. Therefore everyone who believes in evolution is a racist.
True/False
Good luk on dem dere IQ tests Sarev0k!
[/quote]
One could argue that he is more than just “a man” in this context since he is the father of the theory itself (at least as far as “natural selection”) and that his ideas seemed to imply that he thought blacks were a stepping stone to “caucasians” as if blacks were the link between apes and the more evolved white man. This idea seemed central to his belief in evolution if you take his own writings above into consideration.
[/quote]
Exactly. I’m glad someone else gets it. Especially if you consider the time period of Britain’s empire, I’m sure that this justified white people being proud of doing whatever the hell they wanted let alone expanding the territories. All because of a racist dude with a beard.[/quote]
I am sure Darwin caused a lot of pain with his writings, but not because people followed his beliefs. It was because they ignored his whole message. The man wrote a book, and you quoted out of that book. As well, you didn’t contextualize it. Good job.[/quote]
Nice post. But I don’t see the point in arguing with someone who could write the following two blatantly contradictory lines…
"3. You can’t cherry pick what you like and dislike about the theory, and at the same time not acknowledge the theory’s creator.
- Hitler’s basis for his beliefs/actions were directly attributed to natural selection and evolution of man. A “Master Race” to rule all the not as evolved races. Disgusting. Repulsive."
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
People get so angry when you point out that the father of their belief was closer to a KKK member than the guy who figured it all out.
-
Never said Races of Man was a book, I said it was FROM his book.
-
My thinking is “fucked up” because you can quote what you learned in 9th grade. You can capitalize NATURAL SELECTION all you want. But you contradict yourself because, according to NATURAL SELECTION, blacks were only SELECTED to be oppressed. This is a disgusting way of thinking.
-
You can’t cherry pick what you like and dislike about the theory, and at the same time not acknowledge the theory’s creator.
-
Hitler’s basis for his beliefs/actions were directly attributed to natural selection and evolution of man. A “Master Race” to rule all the not as evolved races. Disgusting. Repulsive.
I make a conscious effort to not believe in anything that Hitler believed in.
[/quote]
Actually Hitler got his superman theory from Friedrich Nietzsche. Yes, he used Darwin’s work, but very badly “used” it. As he misused it. [/quote]
Hitler referred to anyone lower than the master class as “Lower-Types”. He used Natural Selection as justification for killing every ethic/religious/socail group he saw fit. To dispute this is irresponsible.
You’re full of shit-
lol@from his book! Which one, you moron?
You cite probably straight from some rightwinger christian site.
What line, what page are we talking here about? Please do cite it correctly, so I we all may take a look.
-
makes no sense at all.
Download the frigging book and have someone read it to you. -
I don’t cherry pick. That’s the point. You don’t understand the Theory of Evolution and don’t want to.
And according to Darwin himself in said chapter, the differences in “so-called races” are only minor adaptations. -
Hitler, not exactly the brightest bulb, wrote about a lot of stuff.
They twisted some Nietzsche, raped themelves some “natural selection” (only to lament later that the slav is stronger- sniff sniff!) and bowed to the christian god, above everything else.
Is Nietzsche to blame? Is a christian god to blame?
The idea of a superior race was the ideology du jour among rightwingers back then. Across the globe.
0 to do with the theory of Evolution or it’s creator who was a man of science, reason and compassion.
[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
Q1. A man in a racist. He also believes in evolution. Therefore everyone who believes in evolution is a racist.
True/False
Good luk on dem dere IQ tests Sarev0k!
[/quote]
One could argue that he is more than just “a man” in this context since he is the father of the theory itself (at least as far as “natural selection”) and that his ideas seemed to imply that he thought blacks were a stepping stone to “caucasians” as if blacks were the link between apes and the more evolved white man. This idea seemed central to his belief in evolution if you take his own writings above into consideration.
[/quote]
Exactly. I’m glad someone else gets it. Especially if you consider the time period of Britain’s empire, I’m sure that this justified white people being proud of doing whatever the hell they wanted let alone expanding the territories. All because of a racist dude with a beard.[/quote]
I am sure Darwin caused a lot of pain with his writings, but not because people followed his beliefs. It was because they ignored his whole message. The man wrote a book, and you quoted out of that book. As well, you didn’t contextualize it. Good job.[/quote]
Nice post. But I don’t see the point in arguing with someone who could write the following two blatantly contradictory lines…
"3. You can’t cherry pick what you like and dislike about the theory, and at the same time not acknowledge the theory’s creator.
- Hitler’s basis for his beliefs/actions were directly attributed to natural selection and evolution of man. A “Master Race” to rule all the not as evolved races. Disgusting. Repulsive."
[/quote]
In the case of #3, this is not contradictory. You cant like a book and not know who wrote it.
And I’m not sure what the problem with #4 is. I believe that Hitler and the theory of evolution and all it encompasses are both repulsive and disgusting.
Evolutionist thinking justifies all selfish actions of a man and a nation. The world would be a lot better off embracing a way of life that judges people by their character and not the color of their skin. I will leave it at that.
Edit: The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin, in the chapter “Races of Man”
I’m not angry about this discussion, but everyone else seems to be. Telling people to shut the fuck up because you do not agree with them is not a great way of displaying your intellectual edge.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You’re full of shit-
lol@from his book! Which one, you moron?
You cite probably straight from some rightwinger christian site.
What line, what page are we talking here about? Please do cite it correctly, so I we all may take a look.
-
makes no sense at all.
Download the frigging book and have someone read it to you. -
I don’t cherry pick. That’s the point. You don’t understand the Theory of Evolution and don’t want to.
And according to Darwin himself in said chapter, the differences in “so-called races” are only minor adaptations. -
Hitler, not exactly the brightest bulb, wrote about a lot of stuff.
They twisted some Nietzsche, raped themelves some “natural selection” (only to lament later that the slav is stronger- sniff sniff!) and bowed to the christian god, above everything else.
Is Nietzsche to blame? Is a christian god to blame?
The idea of a superior race was the ideology du jour among rightwingers back then. Across the globe.
0 to do with the theory of Evolution or it’s creator who was a man of science, reason and compassion.
[/quote]
x2 on everything you said.
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
Q1. A man in a racist. He also believes in evolution. Therefore everyone who believes in evolution is a racist.
True/False
Good luk on dem dere IQ tests Sarev0k!
[/quote]
One could argue that he is more than just “a man” in this context since he is the father of the theory itself (at least as far as “natural selection”) and that his ideas seemed to imply that he thought blacks were a stepping stone to “caucasians” as if blacks were the link between apes and the more evolved white man. This idea seemed central to his belief in evolution if you take his own writings above into consideration.
[/quote]
Exactly. I’m glad someone else gets it. Especially if you consider the time period of Britain’s empire, I’m sure that this justified white people being proud of doing whatever the hell they wanted let alone expanding the territories. All because of a racist dude with a beard.[/quote]
I am sure Darwin caused a lot of pain with his writings, but not because people followed his beliefs. It was because they ignored his whole message. The man wrote a book, and you quoted out of that book. As well, you didn’t contextualize it. Good job.[/quote]
Nice post. But I don’t see the point in arguing with someone who could write the following two blatantly contradictory lines…
"3. You can’t cherry pick what you like and dislike about the theory, and at the same time not acknowledge the theory’s creator.
- Hitler’s basis for his beliefs/actions were directly attributed to natural selection and evolution of man. A “Master Race” to rule all the not as evolved races. Disgusting. Repulsive."
[/quote]
In the case of #3, this is not contradictory. You cant like a book and not know who wrote it.
And I’m not sure what the problem with #4 is. I believe that Hitler and the theory of evolution and all it encompasses are both repulsive and disgusting.
Evolutionist thinking justifies all selfish actions of a man and a nation. The world would be a lot better off embracing a way of life that judges people by their character and not the color of their skin. I will leave it at that.
Edit: The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin, in the chapter “Races of Man”
I’m not angry about this discussion, but everyone else seems to be. Telling people to shut the fuck up because you do not agree with them is not a great way of displaying your intellectual edge.[/quote]
Being consistently wrong about all of your “facts” is another great way of displaying your intellectual edge, Scholar0k.
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
Q1. A man in a racist. He also believes in evolution. Therefore everyone who believes in evolution is a racist.
True/False
Good luk on dem dere IQ tests Sarev0k!
[/quote]
One could argue that he is more than just “a man” in this context since he is the father of the theory itself (at least as far as “natural selection”) and that his ideas seemed to imply that he thought blacks were a stepping stone to “caucasians” as if blacks were the link between apes and the more evolved white man. This idea seemed central to his belief in evolution if you take his own writings above into consideration.
[/quote]
Exactly. I’m glad someone else gets it. Especially if you consider the time period of Britain’s empire, I’m sure that this justified white people being proud of doing whatever the hell they wanted let alone expanding the territories. All because of a racist dude with a beard.[/quote]
I am sure Darwin caused a lot of pain with his writings, but not because people followed his beliefs. It was because they ignored his whole message. The man wrote a book, and you quoted out of that book. As well, you didn’t contextualize it. Good job.[/quote]
Nice post. But I don’t see the point in arguing with someone who could write the following two blatantly contradictory lines…
"3. You can’t cherry pick what you like and dislike about the theory, and at the same time not acknowledge the theory’s creator.
- Hitler’s basis for his beliefs/actions were directly attributed to natural selection and evolution of man. A “Master Race” to rule all the not as evolved races. Disgusting. Repulsive."
[/quote]
In the case of #3, this is not contradictory. You cant like a book and not know who wrote it.
And I’m not sure what the problem with #4 is. I believe that Hitler and the theory of evolution and all it encompasses are both repulsive and disgusting.
Evolutionist thinking justifies all selfish actions of a man and a nation. The world would be a lot better off embracing a way of life that judges people by their character and not the color of their skin. I will leave it at that.
Edit: The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin, in the chapter “Races of Man”
I’m not angry about this discussion, but everyone else seems to be. Telling people to shut the fuck up because you do not agree with them is not a great way of displaying your intellectual edge.[/quote]
How is the theory of Evolution repulsive and disgusting when the man that wrote it was writing from an abolitionist bias to free slaves.
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
People get so angry when you point out that the father of their belief was closer to a KKK member than the guy who figured it all out.
-
Never said Races of Man was a book, I said it was FROM his book.
-
My thinking is “fucked up” because you can quote what you learned in 9th grade. You can capitalize NATURAL SELECTION all you want. But you contradict yourself because, according to NATURAL SELECTION, blacks were only SELECTED to be oppressed. This is a disgusting way of thinking.
[/quote]
No, blacks were oppressed because the Dutch, English, German, French, and any other “modern” country (modern in 1600 language) had superior weapons. They had steel for armor, guns and cannons, swords, knives, while the African tribes did not. They were also unified and organized, unlike the African tribes who fought amongst themselves and could then be used to enslave enemy tribes. You need to read the book “Guns, Germs, and Steel” by Jared Diamond, which explains about the Fertile Crescent being the cradle of life and how societies evolved.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
People get so angry when you point out that the father of their belief was closer to a KKK member than the guy who figured it all out.
-
Never said Races of Man was a book, I said it was FROM his book.
-
My thinking is “fucked up” because you can quote what you learned in 9th grade. You can capitalize NATURAL SELECTION all you want. But you contradict yourself because, according to NATURAL SELECTION, blacks were only SELECTED to be oppressed. This is a disgusting way of thinking.
[/quote]
No, blacks were oppressed because the Dutch, English, German, French, and any other “modern” country (modern in 1600 language) had superior weapons. They had steel for armor, guns and cannons, swords, knives, while the African tribes did not. They were also unified and organized, unlike the African tribes who fought amongst themselves and could then be used to enslave enemy tribes. You need to read the book “Guns, Germs, and Steel” by Jared Diamond, which explains about the Fertile Crescent being the cradle of life and how societies evolved.
[/quote]
I’ve heard about the Fertile Crescent being the Cradle of Civilization, but never the Cradle of Life outside of religious writings. But it’s definitely a candidate for the birthplace of modern society.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
No, blacks were oppressed because the Dutch, English, German, French, and any other “modern” country (modern in 1600 language) had superior weapons. They had steel for armor, guns and cannons, swords, knives, while the African tribes did not. They were also unified and organized, unlike the African tribes who fought amongst themselves and could then be used to enslave enemy tribes.
[/quote]
^^Couldnt this be interpreted as natural selection?
I dont care either way cause I think this whole discussion is bullshit. I like the fun possibilities of crazy life on other planets better Im just sayin.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
No, blacks were oppressed because the Dutch, English, German, French, and any other “modern” country (modern in 1600 language) had superior weapons. They had steel for armor, guns and cannons, swords, knives, while the African tribes did not. They were also unified and organized, unlike the African tribes who fought amongst themselves and could then be used to enslave enemy tribes.
[/quote]
^^Couldnt this be interpreted as natural selection?
I dont care either way cause I think this whole discussion is bullshit. I like the fun possibilities of crazy life on other planets better Im just sayin.[/quote]
In a way, possibly. But you also have to look at the different climates of Africa and Europe and Asia. Europe is temperate and is good for growing crops so hunter/gatherers can become farmers. Africa is a desert. You can’t grow crops in a desert, so you have to remain as hunter/gatherers. If the climates of Europe and Africa were reversed, it would be US who couldn’t progress pass hunter/gatherers and Africans who would have evolved into modern societies. People can only adapt so much.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
No, blacks were oppressed because the Dutch, English, German, French, and any other “modern” country (modern in 1600 language) had superior weapons. They had steel for armor, guns and cannons, swords, knives, while the African tribes did not. They were also unified and organized, unlike the African tribes who fought amongst themselves and could then be used to enslave enemy tribes.
[/quote]
^^Couldnt this be interpreted as natural selection?
I dont care either way cause I think this whole discussion is bullshit. I like the fun possibilities of crazy life on other planets better Im just sayin.[/quote]
In a way, possibly. But you also have to look at the different climates of Africa and Europe and Asia. Europe is temperate and is good for growing crops so hunter/gatherers can become farmers. Africa is a desert. You can’t grow crops in a desert, so you have to remain as hunter/gatherers. If the climates of Europe and Africa were reversed, it would be US who couldn’t progress pass hunter/gatherers and Africans who would have evolved into modern societies. People can only adapt so much.
[/quote]
Have you been to Africa? I’ve spent almost a year in Africa and can tell you that there are a lot of different climates in Africa and it is not all desert. Wouldnt the people in those areas of Africa progress past hunter/gatherers? (much as the Europeans and Asians did) Just askin
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
No, blacks were oppressed because the Dutch, English, German, French, and any other “modern” country (modern in 1600 language) had superior weapons. They had steel for armor, guns and cannons, swords, knives, while the African tribes did not. They were also unified and organized, unlike the African tribes who fought amongst themselves and could then be used to enslave enemy tribes.
[/quote]
^^Couldnt this be interpreted as natural selection?
I dont care either way cause I think this whole discussion is bullshit. I like the fun possibilities of crazy life on other planets better Im just sayin.[/quote]
In a way, possibly. But you also have to look at the different climates of Africa and Europe and Asia. Europe is temperate and is good for growing crops so hunter/gatherers can become farmers. Africa is a desert. You can’t grow crops in a desert, so you have to remain as hunter/gatherers. If the climates of Europe and Africa were reversed, it would be US who couldn’t progress pass hunter/gatherers and Africans who would have evolved into modern societies. People can only adapt so much.
[/quote]
Have you been to Africa? I’ve spent almost a year in Africa and can tell you that there are a lot of different climates in Africa and it is not all desert. Wouldnt the people in those areas of Africa progress past hunter/gatherers? (much as the Europeans and Asians did) Just askin[/quote]
It’s all about the monks.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
No, blacks were oppressed because the Dutch, English, German, French, and any other “modern” country (modern in 1600 language) had superior weapons. They had steel for armor, guns and cannons, swords, knives, while the African tribes did not. They were also unified and organized, unlike the African tribes who fought amongst themselves and could then be used to enslave enemy tribes.
[/quote]
^^Couldnt this be interpreted as natural selection?
I dont care either way cause I think this whole discussion is bullshit. I like the fun possibilities of crazy life on other planets better Im just sayin.[/quote]
In a way, possibly. But you also have to look at the different climates of Africa and Europe and Asia. Europe is temperate and is good for growing crops so hunter/gatherers can become farmers. Africa is a desert. You can’t grow crops in a desert, so you have to remain as hunter/gatherers. If the climates of Europe and Africa were reversed, it would be US who couldn’t progress pass hunter/gatherers and Africans who would have evolved into modern societies. People can only adapt so much.
[/quote]
Have you been to Africa? I’ve spent almost a year in Africa and can tell you that there are a lot of different climates in Africa and it is not all desert. Wouldnt the people in those areas of Africa progress past hunter/gatherers? (much as the Europeans and Asians did) Just askin[/quote]
You would think so…and some did, I believe, but why didn’t they progress like the Europeans and Asians did? Does Africa have the large amounts of rock and stone and slate and other materials suitable to building large, tall buildings? I know they have stucco and You can only evolve as far as your natural resources will allow you to, until you have to start importing stuff. Northern Africa, where the Moors were, was pretty civilized, as far as they could.
Monks…they worked and they worshiped. In order to be able to live and worship as they did they became innovative. Western culture progressed quicker because of these people.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
You would think so…and some did, I believe, but why didn’t they progress like the Europeans and Asians did?
[/quote]
I think thats kinda the whole point? Why didnt they progress? I think thats where the mentality of Africans being inferior to Europeans and Asians.
I dont believe this. I am just asking for the sake of discussion. I usually stay away from these types of discussions cause they always just get twisted around and end up in a shit storm. lol
Guns, Germs, and Steel brought up the fact that at the optimal latitude, Eurasia and North America had the most cultivatable land.
More agriculture = Greater population, plus exposure to various diseases from being in close contact with domesticated animals = greater immune system. Somewhat related as well, there was only so many animals that have been able to be domesticated, sheep, goat, cow, pig, horse, Arabian camel, Bactrian camel, llama and alpaca, donkey, reindeer, water buffalo, yak, Bali cattle, and Mithan (gayal, domesticated Gaur). I tihnk chicken should be added to that list but maybe not. This limits food supply as well, which limits potential population.
(source: Diamond (Jared) Guns Germs and Steel Summary)
Another item that I believe was mentioned in the book, was that having winter in Eurasia, man had to be more innovative than in more temperate climates, and time spent indoors during winter allowed for more time to be spent on inventing machines/tools/etc.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
You would think so…and some did, I believe, but why didn’t they progress like the Europeans and Asians did?
[/quote]
I think thats kinda the whole point? Why didnt they progress? I think thats where the mentality of Africans being inferior to Europeans and Asians.
I dont believe this. I am just asking for the sake of discussion. I usually stay away from these types of discussions cause they always just get twisted around and end up in a shit storm. lol[/quote]
Well I’d say it is mostly because of war, lack of democracy/civil society, often times the President solely has huge amounts of power, and maybe most importantly tribalism. This is only a few things though, there is just too much wrong with the place.
That’s good. A concrete reason to invest in the space program so we can make the advances to get there. So we, of course, have somewhere to go once we’ve fucked up this planet once and for all.