• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Nazis, Darwin And Evolution

No he wasn't! Darwin was an abolitionist. Well-known for it. The circumstance that you come from a culture saturated in political correctness and consequently you've probably heard about ninety million woke people equate having a country's government staffed by foreigners with having that country's people prevented from quitting their jobs by means of flogging does not make those situations equivalent. Imperialism is not slavery. Lack of "self-determination of peoples" is not the same thing as lack of self-determination of people. The average (West) German was a lot better off when his country was ruled by Britons and Frenchmen and Americans than a few years earlier when it was ruled by Germans.

I'm pretty sure the colonised people's felt themselves enslaved. Colonial rule was horrendous. Also overtly racist. The British colonial governement treated the white colonialists a hell of a lot different than the native Americans.

Yes, he was an abolationist. Because he had double standards. Like most other Brits of his generation. They thought it was barbaric and uncivilised. They didn't oppose slavery because they thought highly of those enslaved or saw them as equals. They thought it was beneath white people to own slaves. He thought that was something brown people are up to. He thought it was the duty of white people to prevent brown people from enslaving eachother. He thought it was the duty of white people to civilise the brown people. A very common opinion in Great Britian back then.

Forced labour was common all over the empire.
And you have evidence Darwin was in favor of that?

He had his head up his arse. Like most Brits back then. He thought the colonised people were greatful for the gifts of civilisation Britain bestowed upon them. The fact that the British colonial governments gamed the jobs market to force the natives to take horrible jobs wasn't something he thought much about. He thought Britain were the good guys.

Worth noting is that the British colonies didn't have a free press. That was only something for the British press and press directed for a white audience. They didn't believe the natives were intelligent enough to handle free thought. This was a standard opinion in Darwins day. He never objected to it. There's no comment from him.

I think the only thing he would have objected about what the Nazis did was the fact that they were German.
The Germans didn't just conquer other countries; they also rounded up civilians and used beatings and murder to make them work in their factories. You have evidence Darwin was in favor of Britain doing that?

The Nazi government also lied to their citizens about the brutality of the regime. They regularly wrote pieces about the concentration camps in the press making them out to be like holiday camps. Anybody released and caught being honest about it would be arrested and sent back.

I'd say both governments were very similar in this regard. The British government killed 3 million Indians during WW2 while Hitler was killing Jews. They squeezed maximal taxation from peasant farmers at the peak of a famine. As they did all over the empire.

A bit like trying to prevent bullys from picking on the handicapped kid at school. That's what the poem "white man's burden is about".
The thing to keep in mind about the "white man's burden" is that it's intended to be a burden on the white man.

I find your attempt to spin this horrendous chapter of British history into something positive offensive. Are you really this damn ignorant about colonial history or what the meaning of "the white mans burden" really means?
 
I'm pretty sure the colonised people's felt themselves enslaved.
Nope. Peoples don't have feelings; people have feelings.

Now, no doubt there were some people who felt that having foreigners run their countries was the same thing as being flogged for not working for somebody else; but that's a mistake a person who has been flogged for not working for somebody else is unlikely to make.

Colonial rule was horrendous. Also overtly racist...
And the reason you are telling me this, as though it had bearing on the point in dispute, is in order to try to draw attention away from the false claim you made that I corrected you on.

Yes, he was an abolationist. Because he had double standards.
No, because slavery is evil and he knew it.

Like most other Brits of his generation. They thought it was barbaric and uncivilised. They didn't oppose slavery because they thought highly of those enslaved or saw them as equals.
And in your mind that invalidates his opposition to slavery because his reasons don't satisfy your 21st-century standards for purity, thus making him undeserving of even bare truthfulness from you, thus legitimizing your libel against him. Let me remind you, you didn't say "Darwin was in favour of the British empire not seeing countless millions of people across the globe as their equals." You said "Darwin was in favour of the British empire enslaving countless millions of people across the globe." That was libelous. You said it because, apparently, you don't give a damn whether the things you say about other people are true or not.

They thought it was beneath white people to own slaves. He thought that was something brown people are up to. He thought it was the duty of white people to prevent brown people from enslaving eachother.
Yeah. That's not a double standard. That's a single standard. No enslavement by white people, no enslavement by anyone. A double standard would be "It's beneath white people to own slaves, but if that's something brown people are up to, our culture has no right to judge theirs."

He thought it was the duty of white people to civilise the brown people. A very common opinion in Great Britian back then.
Let me draw your attention to the fact that "civilise" does not equal "enslave". That's why they're spelled differently.

And you have evidence Darwin was in favor of that?

He had his head up his arse.
I see, so your theory is that anybody who has his head up his arse must necessarily disagree with you about absolutely everything, like one of those natives on the island where everyone always tells the truth or always lies?

A bit like trying to prevent bullys from picking on the handicapped kid at school. That's what the poem "white man's burden is about".
The thing to keep in mind about the "white man's burden" is that it's intended to be a burden on the white man.

I find your attempt to spin this horrendous chapter of British history into something positive offensive.
offended9.jpg


Your attempt to spin what I said into your own false narrative, in which you make trumped-up accusations against me, in payback for my horrendous misdeed of pointing out that what you said was idiotic, is pathetic. I did not attempt to spin this horrendous chapter of British history into something positive. That's a figment of your imagination. You simply made that up about me. You did it because apparently, see above, you don't give a damn whether the things you say about other people are true or not.

You are applying three-valued logic: true, false, evil. The purpose of three-valued logic is to get people to vet a proposition for permission to be believed before they will allow themselves to consider evidence for its truth or falsity. If you can bully me and/or our readers into classifying "Colonialism is not the same thing as slavery" as evil, then we'll decide we don't have permission to believe it, so we won't consider it true even though it transparently is true. And if you can keep us from considering it true, then your libelous false accusation against Darwin will not be held against you.
 
Nope. Peoples don't have feelings; people have feelings.

Now, no doubt there were some people who felt that having foreigners run their countries was the same thing as being flogged for not working for somebody else; but that's a mistake a person who has been flogged for not working for somebody else is unlikely to make.

That explains the lack of all those popular uprisings that didn't eventually lead to the collapse of the British colonial system.

And the reason you are telling me this, as though it had bearing on the point in dispute, is in order to try to draw attention away from the false claim you made that I corrected you on.

What?

Yes, he was an abolationist. Because he had double standards.
No, because slavery is evil and he knew it.

That's not an argument against slavery... or anything. I can win any argument by simply labelling my oponents opinion as evil. So easy. Saves me the trouble of constructing a cogent attack on it.

Like most other Brits of his generation. They thought it was barbaric and uncivilised. They didn't oppose slavery because they thought highly of those enslaved or saw them as equals.
And in your mind that invalidates his opposition to slavery because his reasons don't satisfy your 21st-century standards for purity, thus making him undeserving of even bare truthfulness from you, thus legitimizing your libel against him. Let me remind you, you didn't say "Darwin was in favour of the British empire not seeing countless millions of people across the globe as their equals." You said "Darwin was in favour of the British empire enslaving countless millions of people across the globe." That was libelous. You said it because, apparently, you don't give a damn whether the things you say about other people are true or not.

What? All I'm saying is that Darwin was for the most part a regular British chap, with regular British chap opinions. That's not libel. That's just the reality of the British colonial rule and their attitudes about it. No, shit their attitudes they held back then doesn't satisfy my 21st-century standards for purity. I think colonialism, as it was practiced, was evil. Darwin was clearly a supporter of the British empire. He was progressive for his day. But the goalposts have shifted dramatically since he was around.

They thought it was beneath white people to own slaves. He thought that was something brown people are up to. He thought it was the duty of white people to prevent brown people from enslaving eachother.
Yeah. That's not a double standard. That's a single standard. No enslavement by white people, no enslavement by anyone. A double standard would be "It's beneath white people to own slaves, but if that's something brown people are up to, our culture has no right to judge theirs."

While they simultaneously enslaved entire peoples using draconian methods. Your argument against his double standard is weak.

He thought it was the duty of white people to civilise the brown people. A very common opinion in Great Britian back then.
Let me draw your attention to the fact that "civilise" does not equal "enslave". That's why they're spelled differently.

Well... that's what they did. I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings.

And you have evidence Darwin was in favor of that?

He had his head up his arse.
I see, so your theory is that anybody who has his head up his arse must necessarily disagree with you about absolutely everything, like one of those natives on the island where everyone always tells the truth or always lies?

I think white supremacists sitting on white stallions passing moral judgements on others is full of shit... yes. I think it's double standards.

A bit like trying to prevent bullys from picking on the handicapped kid at school. That's what the poem "white man's burden is about".
The thing to keep in mind about the "white man's burden" is that it's intended to be a burden on the white man.

I find your attempt to spin this horrendous chapter of British history into something positive offensive.
offended9.jpg


Your attempt to spin what I said into your own false narrative, in which you make trumped-up accusations against me, in payback for my horrendous misdeed of pointing out that what you said was idiotic, is pathetic. I did not attempt to spin this horrendous chapter of British history into something positive. That's a figment of your imagination. You simply made that up about me. You did it because apparently, see above, you don't give a damn whether the things you say about other people are true or not.

Yes, you did.

You are applying three-valued logic: true, false, evil. The purpose of three-valued logic is to get people to vet a proposition for permission to be believed before they will allow themselves to consider evidence for its truth or falsity. If you can bully me and/or our readers into classifying "Colonialism is not the same thing as slavery" as evil, then we'll decide we don't have permission to believe it, so we won't consider it true even though it transparently is true. And if you can keep us from considering it true, then your libelous false accusation against Darwin will not be held against you.

Oh, look. You did it again. It's not a false accusation against Darwin. It's an accurate description of his values and beliefs. Based on the available evidence.

I can turn it around... why are you so desperate to portray him as a person with modern 21st century beliefs?
 
The people who put the Nazis in power - and let them stay in power - embraced Darwinism. Nuff said.

What is "Darwinism" anyway? Darwin was describing how things work, not advocating anything.

It's like blaming Newton because you were hurt in a fall.


I agree, its a nebulous word. But that's the thing.
Cheerful Charlie is trying to defend Darwin[ism] and keep him/it out of the hands of the Third Reich in the same way as I might try to argue that the bible doesn't support slavery.

That's not really the same thing unless you can produce explicitly pro-Nazism quotes from Darwin.

D'Souza doesnt need to show pro-Nazism quotes from Darwin. He simply needs to show pro-Darwinism quotes from Nazis. The irony here is that a Darwinian concept of natural selection would be morally neutral. Neither pro-Nazi nor anti-Nazi. Evolution - survival of the strongest/luckiest - doesn't care if the predator is a Nazi and the prey is a....[a Jew, a negro, a disabled person.] Evolution sheds no tears at the extinction of a species/race.

The Bible actually contains explicitly pro-slavery passages.

No it doesn't.
But I agree that many Nazis slave traders used Darwin the bible to try and justify their immoral actions.

The question is, did the Nazis expropriate Darwinian ideas about natural selection and survival of the strongest to justify their cause?
Why is that the question?

Because ppl are losing their minds at the thought that Darwinian natural selection makes a useful justification for racial supremacy. They wanna rush to the defense of Charles Darwin and evolutionTM because they have a misplaced loyalty to Darwin himself rather than Darwinian evolution.

Suppose the answer is yes. What of it?
If the answer is yes, nothing changes AT ALL.
Nazism is what it is. Racism is what it is. History cant be changed. Darwin's science isn't good or bad depending on how people try to get an 'ought' from an 'is'.


The Communists expropriated Christian ideas about the rich and the poor to justify their cause; do you think that reflects negatively on Christianity?

Nope. Not in the least.
But Cheerful Charlie is bothered by the fact claim as to Nazis embracing Darwinism.


The Nazis can use Darwinism to justify actions which Darwin would not automatically agree with in the same way as people use the bible to justify actions Jesus wouldn't agree with.
But do you have evidence that Jesus wouldn't have agreed with slavery? The OT endorses slavery and Jesus famously said not a jot or tittle shall pass from the law. Jesus appears to have been more concerned with saving slaves' souls than with freeing them.

You're wasting your time trying to bait me into a bible versus slavery debate because;
a) The bible doesn't support slavery.
b) I don't dispute the fact that a pro-slavery, pro-empire, pro-racism, pro-privilege, Master Race mindset will quotemine the bible to justify its immoral greed.

The bible is canon of OUGHTS and moral imperatives. (Thou shalt not steal... Thou shalt not covet... Thou shalt not lie.... The love of money is the root of all evil.... for God so loved the world - the whole world. All nations. God wants everyone to be saved...)

Contrast that with the Darwinian science of evolution and natural selection which has no moral compass and confers no innate worth or moral value on... the Jew, or the negro or the disabled person. Economic scarcity is a law of Darwin's jungle, and coveting what another species/race/animal has is, at best, morally neutral, and at worst, a justifiable necessity - an entitlement.
 
No he wasn't! Darwin was an abolitionist. Well-known for it.
Correct. Anyone versed in Charles Darwin's writings and life knows this. He was an abolitionist of the highest order.

He was also christian. The Nazis were also christian. Lion's hole just gets deeper and deeper.
 
a) The bible doesn't support slavery.

You have a different Bible than the one I grew up with. I recall several of the laws describing how a slave could be treated even to limitations on how severely the owner could beat them without repercussions to the owner.

As I recall, the Bible did allow owning slaves from other peoples but did forbid enslaving fellow Israelites.
 
You're wasting your time trying to bait me into a bible versus slavery debate because;
a) The bible doesn't support slavery.
b) I don't dispute the fact that a pro-slavery, pro-empire, pro-racism, pro-privilege, Master Race mindset will quotemine the bible to justify its immoral greed.

Lol. It's not quotemining. The Bible is written in context. It's written for a world where slavery was assumed to be natural and normal. As well as moral. Denying the Bible supports slavery is absurd.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

The bible is canon of OUGHTS and moral imperatives. (Thou shalt not steal... Thou shalt not covet... Thou shalt not lie.... The love of money is the root of all evil.... for God so loved the world - the whole world. All nations. God wants everyone to be saved...)

Contrast that with the Darwinian science of evolution and natural selection which has no moral compass and confers no innate worth or moral value on... the Jew, or the negro or the disabled person.

It's no suprise that Darwinian science has no oughts or moral imperatives since that would violate the core principals of what science is. Science is supposed to be dispassionate and purely descriptive. Philosophers can take a scientific theory and run with it. But if scientific papers would start telling people what they ought to do, they should be ostracised by the scientific community for being charlatans.


Economic scarcity is a law of Darwin's jungle, and coveting what another species/race/animal has is, at best, morally neutral, and at worst, a justifiable necessity - an entitlement.

But Christianity and the Catholic church is a product of evolution. Evolution gave rise to humans who invented the concept of God and created the Catholic church. If you argue that evolution is amoral you are arguing that the Catholic church, is by necessity, amoral. They are intrinsically linked in a causal relationship.

So what's it going to be? Can evolution lead to moral behaviours or not?

Evolution isn't a teaching. It's not a grand plan. It's simply a (true) description of a mechanic in nature. That can give rise to all manner of cooky, weird and wondrous things, your church among other things. Which did happen.
 
The people who put the Nazis in power - and let them stay in power - embraced Darwinism. Nuff said.

No, they embraced Christianity and the Bible and the widespread white supremacy in the Christian world, supported by Biblical passages such as the Curse of Ham created to justify subjugation and inhumane treatment of the Canaanites by the Israelites, and then used for centuries up to this day by many Christians as a basis for racism, slavery, and white supremacist ideology.

Like conservative Christians do today, the Christian Nazis selectively took from the theory of evolution what they wanted to fit with their pre-existing religious based bigotries. And since Darwin himself was raised within the bigoted Christian tradition, attending religious Anglican schools, even studying theology in preparation to become a clergyman, he therefore imported it's unscientific bigotries into his scientific thinking, even after he had shed some of the more overt trappings of the religious mindset.
 
The people who put the Nazis in power - and let them stay in power - embraced Darwinism. Nuff said.

No, they embraced Christianity and the Bible and the widespread white supremacy in the Christian world, supported by Biblical passages such as the Curse of Ham created to justify subjugation and inhumane treatment of the Canaanites by the Israelites, and then used for centuries up to this day by many Christians as a basis for racism, slavery, and white supremacist ideology.

Like conservative Christians do today, the Christian Nazis selectively took from the theory of evolution what they wanted to fit with their pre-existing religious based bigotries. And since Darwin himself was raised within the bigoted Christian tradition, attending religious Anglican schools, even studying theology in preparation to become a clergyman, he therefore imported it's unscientific bigotries into his scientific thinking, even after he had shed some of the more overt trappings of the religious mindset.

Well waddya know? Darwin and the Nazis had something in common - racism, bigotry and the naturalistic fallacy
 
The people who put the Nazis in power - and let them stay in power - embraced Darwinism. Nuff said.

No, they embraced Christianity and the Bible and the widespread white supremacy in the Christian world, supported by Biblical passages such as the Curse of Ham created to justify subjugation and inhumane treatment of the Canaanites by the Israelites, and then used for centuries up to this day by many Christians as a basis for racism, slavery, and white supremacist ideology.

Like conservative Christians do today, the Christian Nazis selectively took from the theory of evolution what they wanted to fit with their pre-existing religious based bigotries. And since Darwin himself was raised within the bigoted Christian tradition, attending religious Anglican schools, even studying theology in preparation to become a clergyman, he therefore imported it's unscientific bigotries into his scientific thinking, even after he had shed some of the more overt trappings of the religious mindset.

Well waddya know? Darwin and the Nazis had something in common - racism, bigotry and the naturalistic fallacy

Traits they shared with only almost every single person who ever lived. Shocking! :eek:

In other news, Darwin had the same number of nostrils as almost every Nazi. It's a disgrace.
 
In other news, Darwin had the same number of nostrils as almost every Nazi. It's a disgrace.
The nazis were baptized christians. Racism, bigotry and christianity have always been in bed together.

It isn't surprising that something authoritarian like religion favors fascism over secularism and atheism. Religion is about power. It's why Bishop Wilberforce was so opposed to Darwin's discoveries.
 
It isn't surprising that something authoritarian like religion favors fascism over secularism and atheism. Religion is about power. It's why Bishop Wilberforce was so opposed to Darwin's discoveries.
Curiously, Wilberforce was an abolitionist too. But then Christianity's never been big on consistency...
 
Cheerful Charlie is trying to defend Darwin[ism] and keep him/it out of the hands of the Third Reich in the same way as I might try to argue that the bible doesn't support slavery.

That's not really the same thing unless you can produce explicitly pro-Nazism quotes from Darwin.

D'Souza doesnt need to show pro-Nazism quotes from Darwin.
D'Souza isn't the issue here. You made an analogy. I pointed out what you need to supply in order for your analogy not to have been a bad analogy.

He simply needs to show pro-Darwinism quotes from Nazis.
Can you produce any that he showed? Quotes that are specifically pro-Darwinism and not pro-{some competing evolution theory}? As noted upthread, Nazism arose during the Eclipse of Darwinism.

The irony here is that a Darwinian concept of natural selection would be morally neutral. Neither pro-Nazi nor anti-Nazi. Evolution - survival of the strongest/luckiest - doesn't care if the predator is a Nazi and the prey is a....[a Jew, a negro, a disabled person.] Evolution sheds no tears at the extinction of a species/race.
Also sheds no tears if the prey escapes and the predator starves.

The Bible actually contains explicitly pro-slavery passages.

No it doesn't.
Leviticus 25:44-46...


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

The question is, did the Nazis expropriate Darwinian ideas about natural selection and survival of the strongest to justify their cause?
Why is that the question?
Because ppl are losing their minds at the thought that Darwinian natural selection makes a useful justification for racial supremacy.
By "losing their minds", you mean "disagreeing with you"?

They wanna rush to the defense of Charles Darwin and evolutionTM because they have a misplaced loyalty to Darwin himself rather than Darwinian evolution.
Well, in the first place, what's misplaced about loyalty to Darwin? People should be loyal to and rush to the defense of everyone who's the target of unfair accusations. And in the second place, pointing out errors in someone's criticism of a theory isn't about loyalty to the theory; it's about loyalty to truth.

Why is that the question? Suppose the answer is yes. What of it?
If the answer is yes, nothing changes AT ALL.
Nazism is what it is. Racism is what it is. History cant be changed. Darwin's science isn't good or bad depending on how people try to get an 'ought' from an 'is'.
Well then why do you think "did the Nazis expropriate Darwinian ideas" is a question worth focusing on?

The bible is canon of OUGHTS and moral imperatives. (Thou shalt not steal... Thou shalt not covet... Thou shalt not lie.... The love of money is the root of all evil.... for God so loved the world - the whole world. All nations. God wants everyone to be saved...)
"It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies." - Mark Twain

Contrast that with the Darwinian science of evolution and natural selection which has no moral compass and confers no innate worth or moral value on... the Jew, or the negro or the disabled person.
Darwinian science, like all science, has a moral compass. What it confers innate worth on is truth. In scientific ethics, wrongfulness does not lie in being strong or in being weak, but in falsifying your data.
 
Now, no doubt there were some people who felt that having foreigners run their countries was the same thing as being flogged for not working for somebody else; but that's a mistake a person who has been flogged for not working for somebody else is unlikely to make.

That explains the lack of all those popular uprisings that didn't eventually lead to the collapse of the British colonial system.
:rolleyes: Um, you know Americans collapsed the British colonial system here with a popular uprising, don't you? You know our uprising was orchestrated by a bunch of rich white landowners ticked off about taxes and British soldiers being quartered in their houses and the lack of Americans in Parliament, don't you? So by your reasoning, the fact that we had a popular uprising shows that being an underrepresented rich white landowner must be equivalent to being flogged. Can you produce any example of a black slave in 18th-century America who thought rich white landowners were enslaved by the British?

And the reason you are telling me this, as though it had bearing on the point in dispute, is in order to try to draw attention away from the false claim you made that I corrected you on.
What?
You wrote "Darwin was in favour of the British empire enslaving countless millions of people across the globe." That's a false claim. You don't have a reason to believe it. You've been suckered into spouting politically correct drivel.

Yes, he was an abolationist. Because he had double standards.
No, because slavery is evil and he knew it.

That's not an argument against slavery... or anything. I can win any argument by simply labelling my oponents opinion as evil. So easy. Saves me the trouble of constructing a cogent attack on it.
:rolleyes: I wasn't offering that as an argument against slavery. Why would I waste all our time arguing against slavery when nobody here is in favor of slavery? I was correcting your foolish misstatement of Darwin's psychology. It's not a double standard to see slavery as evil and oppose it.

Like most other Brits of his generation. They thought it was barbaric and uncivilised. They didn't oppose slavery because they thought highly of those enslaved or saw them as equals.
And in your mind that invalidates his opposition to slavery because his reasons don't satisfy your 21st-century standards for purity, thus making him undeserving of even bare truthfulness from you, thus legitimizing your libel against him. Let me remind you, you didn't say "Darwin was in favour of the British empire not seeing countless millions of people across the globe as their equals." You said "Darwin was in favour of the British empire enslaving countless millions of people across the globe." That was libelous. You said it because, apparently, you don't give a damn whether the things you say about other people are true or not.

What? All I'm saying is that Darwin was for the most part a regular British chap, with regular British chap opinions. That's not libel.
No, "Darwin was in favour of the British empire enslaving countless millions of people across the globe." is libel. Why do you keep trying to change the subject from what you actually wrote to incorrect purported paraphrases of it? Regular British chaps with regular British chap opinions weren't in favor of the British empire enslaving countless millions of people across the globe either. Slavery was a settled issue in Britain by the time Darwin was publishing. If imperialism and slavery are the same thing in your mind, well, stop projecting your own error onto regular British chaps. They're allowed to have supported imperialism and opposed slavery at the same time, your false premises notwithstanding.

(Funny story -- Japan had a civil war at roughly the same time the U.S. did. It was fought between the Imperialists and the Samurai. The Samurai lost. And about the first thing the Imperialists did after they disarmed the Samurai was abolish slavery.)

That's just the reality of the British colonial rule and their attitudes about it. No ... their attitudes they held back then doesn't satisfy my 21st-century standards for purity.
And in the 21st century the woke customarily consider impurity to be grounds to treat someone as fair game for untruthfulness. Seriously, dude, what's up with you? You go back and forth between condemning political correctness in one post and being among the board's most enthusiastic practitioners of it in the next.

I think colonialism, as it was practiced, was evil. Darwin was clearly a supporter of the British empire. He was progressive for his day. But the goalposts have shifted dramatically since he was around.
Sure. And none of that qualifies as a reason to think he wanted the British empire to enslave anyone. The goalposts had shifted past slavery when he was around. He was one of the people who shifted them!

They thought it was beneath white people to own slaves. He thought that was something brown people are up to. He thought it was the duty of white people to prevent brown people from enslaving eachother.
Yeah. That's not a double standard. That's a single standard. No enslavement by white people, no enslavement by anyone. A double standard would be "It's beneath white people to own slaves, but if that's something brown people are up to, our culture has no right to judge theirs."
While they simultaneously enslaved entire peoples using draconian methods. Your argument against his double standard is weak.
Oh, for the love of god, do you even listen to yourself? Are you in favor of abolishing the police? You aren't? But sometimes the police kill unarmed suspects. Therefore, going by the inference rule you're using, you're in favor of the police killing unarmed suspects.

You haven't even shown that Darwin believed that the British empire was enslaving entire peoples using draconian methods, let alone that he was in favor of it doing so.

Let me draw your attention to the fact that "civilise" does not equal "enslave". That's why they're spelled differently.

Well... that's what they did. I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings.
:rolleyes: How old are you?

And you have evidence Darwin was in favor of that?
He had his head up his arse.
I see, so your theory is that anybody who has his head up his arse must necessarily disagree with you about absolutely everything, like one of those natives on the island where everyone always tells the truth or always lies?
I think white supremacists sitting on white stallions passing moral judgements on others is full of <expletive deleted>... yes. I think it's double standards.
So that's a "No". You don't have evidence, just an ad hominem argument.

I find your attempt to spin this horrendous chapter of British history into something positive offensive.
Your attempt to spin what I said into your own false narrative, in which you make trumped-up accusations against me, in payback for my horrendous misdeed of pointing out that what you said was idiotic, is pathetic. I did not attempt to spin this horrendous chapter of British history into something positive. That's a figment of your imagination. You simply made that up about me. You did it because apparently, see above, you don't give a damn whether the things you say about other people are true or not.

Yes, you did.
So when you put words in my mouth and I correct you, you just double down and try to put your words back in my mouth again instead of going back and fact-checking your own claim. Why do you think that's an acceptable way to behave? Is your reading comprehension problem really that severe?

Person A: Torquemada got himself off by raping the altar boys.
Person B: You have no evidence for that.
Person A: You're trying to spin the Spanish Inquisition into something positive!

Stop thinking like Person A. Person A is an imbecile.

Oh, look. You did it again. It's not a false accusation against Darwin. It's an accurate description of his values and beliefs.
"It"? In the singular? What, you think you made only one description of Darwin's values and beliefs? You made two. You described him as a regular British chap, and you also described him as pro-enslavement. That's two contradictory descriptions.

Based on the available evidence.
Well, go ahead, produce some evidence that Darwin was in favor of the British empire enslaving countless millions of people across the globe.

I can turn it around... why are you so desperate to portray him as a person with modern 21st century beliefs?
Why haven't you stopped beating your wife?
 
The people who put the Nazis in power - and let them stay in power - embraced Darwinism. Nuff said.

Demonstrate that claim is true.



People who embrace Darwinism voted in a party which supports Darwinism.
QED

Hitler gave them what they wanted, and what they thought was scientifically rational - the master race. The uberman. Übermensch
Nietzsche would have applauded them.

Ubermensch has nothing to do with what Darwin wrote. Try again.
 
People who embrace Darwinism voted in a party which supports Darwinism.
QED

Hitler gave them what they wanted, and what they thought was scientifically rational - the master race. The uberman. Übermensch
Nietzsche would have applauded them.

Ubermensch has nothing to do with what Darwin wrote. Try again.

The idea of the superior man, Ubermensch is a very old one. See Callicles and Thrasymachus characters in Plato's dialogues. (Gorgius and The Republic respectively).

Wikipedia
Callicles is depicted as a young student of the sophist Gorgias. In the dialogue named for his teacher, Callicles argues the position of an oligarchic amoralist, stating that it is natural and just for the strong to dominate the weak and that it is unfair for the weak to resist such oppression by establishing laws to limit the power of the strong.


Further more, way back in post #8 of this thread, I noted that the idea of a superior peoples, the Gerrmans, predated darwin by centuries.

...

Hannah Arendt - Race Before Racism

France, wasat the same time the first to elaborate definite class-thinking.
The Comte de Boulainvilliers, a French nobleman who wrote at
the beginning of the 18th century and whose works were published
afterhis death, interpreted the history of France as the history of
two different nations of which the one, of Germanic origin, had conquered
the older inhabitants, the "Gaules," had imposed upon them its law,
had taken their lands, andhad settled down as the ruling class, the"peerage"
whose supreme rights rested upon the"right of conquest"
and the "necessity of obedience always due to the strongest."
Engaged in his arguments against the rising political power
of the Tiers Etat and their spokesmen, the "nouveau corps"
formed by "gens de lettres et de lois,".....
....

Don't blame Darwin for the idea of master races, and superior men, superior to the common herd. The idea of nobles and filthy serfs goes back far before Darwin.
 
Back
Top Bottom