Now that is real faith

[Balerion]

To cut in and respond even though it's not directed at me, I said something similar so allow me to expand on the idea and clarify.

Evolution is not intelligent. That is, I think, the point being made.

What we do as semi-intelligent beings is another matter.

Since evolution and natural selection, is unintelligent, it plays no true role in what humans do- any more than what animals do.
We ARE natural. Everything we do is natural. Even what we abhor- consider bad- nothing we do or can do is unnatural.

Evolution obviously plays a role in what we do, since evolution is the reason we are here. We would not have opposable thumbs without evolution, so clearly it plays a role.

What you said in response is agreeable. That we might behave in such a way is a disadvantage- heavily one, in fact. There is nothing to say we can only behave to our benefit- we will behave by selfish wants, first. Such as pollution and G.Warming. It's best to learn better ways to behave.
Carl Sagan liked to point out that the future has the uncertainty of whether we would destroy ourselves- well... I think we won't. But we do act stupid time to time.
And it well should be discouraged and to do so, to improve and discourage- will be natural

Because evolution by natural selection is a morally neutral process, by calling a morally abhorrent act such as genocide or the practice of eugenics as "natural selection" you are implying that the act is morally neutral--or even morally sound, if you listen to the early proponents of social Darwinism.

You don't say the person who raped you "had sex" with you. You say the person raped you. You don't say the person who assaulted you "grappled" with you, you say they assaulted you. And you don't call genocide or eugenics "natural selection," because it simply is not an accurate way to describe the act.

I knew somebody is going to cry sooner or later...

Yeah, gods forbid someone challenges you when you try to absolve the Nazis for murdering the handicapped. What a bunch of liberal pussies.

Natural in a way that anything what humans do is natural. I specially mentioned about the moral aspects of it, that it doesn't matter what we think of it, it still exists.

This is not selection, no more than rape is rough sex, or theft is communism.

Google of nonexisting nations. In history hundreds of nations came and now gone through the centuries. Do you cry for the Avars? You probably don't even know who they were.

So you're saying that I can only judge the morality of an act if I am aware of every instance of an act? In other words, my condemnation of eugenics as it pertained to the elimination of the Jews and the handicapped or mentally retarded in Germany is disqualified if I am ignorant to the presence of a similar atrocity elsewhere in history?

Obviously this is a false dichotomy. You're just trying to scramble because someone called you out on your disgusting ideas.

Here I will do it for you, with languages. Once the language is gone, so is the nation who spoke it, they either become completely extinct or melt into another nation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_languages

Or just look into the Bible. How many nations/countries still exists mentioned in the Bible??? Just like species, new nations form and old nations disappear (for whatever reasons), and that is NATURAL...

...and therefore there were no atrocities committed or evils done, right? Isn't that how the story goes? Genocide is just fine--after all, it's happened before!

Sorry, your jackboots are untied.

 

[lightgigantic]

No, that's just you talking about that. Thanks for not shrugging. It's a refreshing change.

Once again you enter into discussions with the thread reading skills of a guppy

:shrug:

 

[Neverfly]

You don't say the person who raped you "had sex" with you. You say the person raped you. You don't say the person who assaulted you "grappled" with you, you say they assaulted you. And you don't call genocide or eugenics "natural selection," because it simply is not an accurate way to describe the act.

This is a good enough definition for me.

Once again you enter into discussions with the thread reading skills of a guppy

I know. It's terrible. I should feel bad, but I'm an immoral atheist and shameless.

Could you please counter my posts with strong reasoning, irrefutable evidence, logic skills and demonstrations of proper debate and silence me for good?

 

[lightgigantic]

Could you please counter my posts with strong reasoning, irrefutable evidence, logic skills and demonstrations of proper debate and silence me for good?

Quite a challenge if you don't read anything further than 4 posts down

:shrug:

 

[Neverfly]

Quite a challenge if you don't read anything further than 4 posts down

Oh well that makes it easy. Just stop participating in each thread after four posts.

 

[lightgigantic]

Oh well that makes it easy. Just stop participating in each thread after four posts.

well consider yourself defeated then ... in four posts from now
:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

Oh well that makes it easy. Just stop participating in each thread after four posts.

LG's a troll, Nev. Just put him on ignore.

 

[Neverfly]

well consider yourself defeated then ... in four posts from now
:shrug:

Originally Posted by Neverfly:
Could you please counter my posts with strong reasoning, irrefutable evidence, logic skills and demonstrations of proper debate and silence me for good?

Gotta use this bit or I won't be. It isn't automatic.

It's quite simple:
-You must use rational critical thinking, strong evidence and strong reasoning to silence me.
-You must do it within four posts.

C'mon, you have to do some work. It isn't free.

 

[Neverfly]

LG's a troll, Nev. Just put him on ignore.

Sorry, thought I was on the troll road.

Stopped to pay the troll.

 

[Syzygys]

Because evolution by natural selection is a morally neutral process, by calling a morally abhorrent act such as genocide or the practice of eugenics as "natural selection" you are implying that the act is morally neutral

The problem is that you are comparing evolution and social Darwinism. Let's say you are an alien and visiting this planet. You don't really feel or care more about humans than about ants. You as an alien, do you think wars for whatever reasons are morally good or bad? Or genicide? Remember, for you there is no difference between an anteater eating 2000 ants in 5 minutes and
a night in Auswitz.
So do you see the problem of your approach?

Yeah, gods forbid someone challenges you

I LIKE challenges. It either proves I am right, or if I am not I change my mind, simple as it is...

when you try to absolve the Nazis for murdering the handicapped.

Remember, you are still the not caring alien. No absolution, just observation for you...

This is not selection,

Sure it is. The winner selects who lives and who dies. That is selection for you. For that matter, Hitler categorized different nations into how they should be treated. Some of them fell into the "good for slaves" category, thus they survived, but had to serve.

Again, it is an observation, not a juddgement. If you can't be objective, well, that is your problem.

So you're saying that I can only judge the morality of an act if I am aware of every instance of an act?

First, you shouldn't even be judging anything. We are talking about history. The longer you are removed in time from the event, the more objective you can be. Let's talk about Romans. They ruled the known world, occasionally whipping out nations. Then a stronger nation came, and Rome fell. The newer and stronger always replacing the weaker. No judgement required....

In other words, my condemnation of eugenics

Although nice, it is irrelevant to the discussion. I could complain about gravity because I fell and broke my arm, but in a physics discussion about gravity, it is rather irrelevant.

One more time, I brought up not anymore existing nations to show that it has happened in history, and most likely will happen again, you like it or not.Why they were whipped out, is rather irrelevant, specially morally, the important part is that they were at some point weak, and a stronger nation replaced them.End of story, this is history...

on your disgusting ideas.

Between you and me, I always thought that gravity doesn't exist, and it was just made up by elevator making companies and airlines. Personally I find it a disgusting idea...

 

[Syzygys]

To use another analogy, let's say interspecies connection, humans and dolphins. We are the stronger and can kill them and/or eat them. But poor little cute dolphins, they are even intelligent!! Well, it really doesn't matter. What matters is which species is the stronger and what the stronger decides. Do you think the lion cares when he eats us? We are just food for him, no morals involved whatsoever.
We killed off the dodo, we almost killed off the American buffalo, and the whales in the 1800s,etc. Was it right or wrong? For the bottomline (evolutionary approach), it doesn't matter. What matters is if they are still around (buffalo) or they became extinct (dodo).

I can not be clearer. If you get it, you get it, if you don't, think what you want.

P.S.: How do you feel about the Syrian civil war? Well, eventually the stronger will win (assuming no foreign interaction) and quite a lot of the losers will die....

 

[Balerion]

The problem is that you are comparing evolution and social Darwinism. Let's say you are an alien and visiting this planet. You don't really feel or care more about humans than about ants. You as an alien, do you think wars for whatever reasons are morally good or bad? Or genicide? Remember, for you there is no difference between an anteater eating 2000 ants in 5 minutes and
a night in Auswitz.
So do you see the problem of your approach?

I think if you can't see a difference between eating 2000 ants in 5 minutes and a night in "Auswitz", then you need medication. To directly answer your question, yes, I would be able to take a position on the morality of an act. Just as a test of this, have you never seen a cat kill a mouse? It's never a quick act, and quite hard to watch. I don't hold the cat responsible because the cat doesn't know better, but I'm still put off by its casual cruelty. Now if you're asking me to observe humans from an outside perspective, I'm going to be even more disturbed by such behavior because it's being done by a species that can differentiate between kindness and cruelty, and does know how to act better.

I LIKE challenges. It either proves I am right, or if I am not I change my mind, simple as it is...

Somehow I doubt that.

Remember, you are still the not caring alien. No absolution, just observation for you...

So I'm a robot? I mean, just because I'm a superior species (presumably?) doesn't mean that I'm immune to feelings of empathy. Empathy after all is the basis for morality, so why would this alien not have it?

Sure it is. The winner selects who lives and who dies. That is selection for you. For that matter, Hitler categorized different nations into how they should be treated. Some of them fell into the "good for slaves" category, thus they survived, but had to serve.

It's no more natural selection than picking a wardrobe is natural selection. Sure, it was Hitler's selection, but that's not natural selection like you mean it.

Again, it is an observation, not a juddgement. If you can't be objective, well, that is your problem.

Of course it's a judgment. Don't try to hide from it now, you've already made your position clear. Natural selection is a morally neutral process, and to lump eugenics in with it implies that eugenics is also morally neutral.

Unless you're saying natural selection is somehow not morally neutral, but you've already demonstrated that this isn't what you're saying at all.

First, you shouldn't even be judging anything. We are talking about history. The longer you are removed in time from the event, the more objective you can be. Let's talk about Romans. They ruled the known world, occasionally whipping out nations. Then a stronger nation came, and Rome fell. The newer and stronger always replacing the weaker. No judgement required....

Again, you're asserting that nothing is a moral question. Murder, by your logic, is perfectly acceptable because it is natural. No need to judge, right? If it happened, it's history, whether that's 3 seconds ago or 3 thousand years ago.

You know you're wrong, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to abstract atrocities by glossing over them as "natural" and "history."

Although nice, it is irrelevant to the discussion. I could complain about gravity because I fell and broke my arm, but in a physics discussion about gravity, it is rather irrelevant.

You're not comparing like with like. If I were to drop a rock on your head from the top of a building, you wouldn't chalk it up to gravity and say there was no moral dilemma here.

One more time, I brought up not anymore existing nations to show that it has happened in history, and most likely will happen again, you like it or not.Why they were whipped out, is rather irrelevant, specially morally, the important part is that they were at some point weak, and a stronger nation replaced them.End of story, this is history...

I don't think you understand the implications of what you're saying. Rape has happened in history, and most likely will happen again. Does that mean it isn't a moral question? Obviously not. What kind of idiot logic is that? "Something happens, so obviously it isn't a moral question." What?

Between you and me, I always thought that gravity doesn't exist, and it was just made up by elevator making companies and airlines. Personally I find it a disgusting idea...

Don't pretend we're buddies. I'm thoroughly disgusted by your ideas, and I'm only participating in this conversation in an attempt to show you how wrong you are.

 

[Syzygys]

I think if you can't see a difference between eating 2000 ants in 5 minutes and a night in "Auswitz", then you need medication.

I think you are still not getting our approach. This offtopic what we are discussing is not a moral one, but a practical one. The basic question is, who survives and why? We are not discussing if it is morally right or wrong, and any attempt of yours will be ignored.

To directly answer your question, yes, I would be able to take a position on the morality of an act.

First, I never asked such a question, second, for the last time, it is irrelevant.

So I'm a robot?

If it helps you to easier discuss this topic, then yes. You are an emotional robot, discussing evolution and social Darwinism.

Empathy after all is the basis for morality, so why would this alien not have it?

Because otherwise I wouldn't let him into the Solar system.

Again, you're asserting that nothing is a moral question.

Would you please forget about morals already? We are scientist now, evolutionist and historians, not ethicists.

You know you're wrong, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to abstract atrocities by glossing over them as "natural" and "history."

Alright, just for this time only, I feel really bad for the Avars, Mayans, Incas. etc. It doesn't change the bottom line, that once in history, they were the weaker, and they are no longer with us...

Does it make you feel happy?

Don't pretend we're buddies.

I was just about to invite you for a beer, your loss....

 

[Syzygys]

Now this is half related, for Neverfly, but I have just read it:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/cl.../was-genghis-khan-historys-greenest-conqueror

Genghis Khan, although killed probably millions of people, in the process he also helped mother Earth and was the greenest warrior:

"Unlike modern day climate change, however, the Mongol invasion cooled the planet, effectively scrubbing around 700 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere.

So how did Genghis Khan, one of history's cruelest conquerors, earn such a glowing environmental report card? The reality may be a bit difficult for today's environmentalists to stomach, but Khan did it the same way he built his empire — with a high body count.

Over the course of the century and a half run of the Mongol Empire, about 22 percent of the world's total land area had been conquered and an estimated 40 million people were slaughtered by the horse-driven, bow-wielding hordes. Depopulation over such a large swathe of land meant that countless numbers of cultivated fields eventually returned to forests."

Unintended consequences....

------------------------------------------

Going back to the seed spreading:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html

"An international group of geneticists studying Y-chromosome data have found that nearly 8 percent of the men living in the region of the former Mongol empire carry y-chromosomes that are nearly identical. That translates to 0.5 percent of the male population in the world, or roughly 16 million descendants living today.
The spread of the chromosome could be the result of natural selection, in which an extremely fit individual manages to pass on some sort of biological advantage. The authors think this scenario is unlikely. They suggest that the unique set of circumstances surrounding the establishment of the Mongol empire led to the spread."

 

[lightgigantic]

Gotta use this bit or I won't be. It isn't automatic.

It's quite simple:
-You must use rational critical thinking, strong evidence and strong reasoning to silence me.
-You must do it within four posts.

C'mon, you have to do some work. It isn't free.

if you read around post 16 and further you will see what people were discussing

:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

I think you are still not getting our approach. This offtopic what we are discussing is not a moral one, but a practical one. The basic question is, who survives and why? We are not discussing if it is morally right or wrong, and any attempt of yours will be ignored.

Well, you tried to morally whitewash the issue and failed, which is why you're now receding behind into your hidey hole. In any event, you're still wrong, because natural selection is a sexual process. It is the carrying on of selected traits through reproduction. It is not the death of a species following a volcanic eruption or a tidal wave. Likewise, it is not the death of a people at the hands of a psychopathic Austrian man with a funny mustache.

If those handicapped German people were not able to pass on their genes because they were overlooked sexually, that would be natural selection. That they were murdered for being cripples is simply murder.

First, I never asked such a question, second, for the last time, it is irrelevant.

Uh, yes you did:

You as an alien, do you think wars for whatever reasons are morally good or bad? Or genicide?

In case you can't read, that's you asking me if I would take a moral position on an act if I was an alien (presumably meaning an outside observer). I answered yes. Now you say you didn't ask the question? I don't know who you think you're trying to pull this crap on, but your words are printed right there for everyone to see. There's a record of what you said. I just can't imagine the set of balls it takes to lie like that.

If it helps you to easier discuss this topic, then yes. You are an emotional robot, discussing evolution and social Darwinism.

Wow. Wrong. You asked me to be detached. I said I could not be a biological, empathetic organism and be detached. This is why I gave you the cat/mouse analogy. I am a superior being to the mouse, yet I am saddened (and sickened) by its suffering. The only reason I do not hold the cat responsible (thought it's kind of hard not to in the moment, isn't it?) is because the cat does not know better, cannot act differently. Observing humans, however, I would know full well that they were aware and could act differently, so their actions would be immoral.

Would you please forget about morals already? We are scientist now, evolutionist and historians, not ethicists.

What I'm trying to tell you is what you're implying by calling genocide "natural selection." I'm not saying that those things didn't happen, I'm simply saying that just because they're happened doesn't mean they're morally-neutral events.

Alright, just for this time only, I feel really bad for the Avars, Mayans, Incas. etc. It doesn't change the bottom line, that once in history, they were the weaker, and they are no longer with us...

Again, you make the mistake of assuming that genocide or the fall of a nation is natural selection. This is not what natural selection is. And you know this, because when asked point-blank if the Jews were genetically weaker than the Nazis, you ignored the question.

 

[Syzygys]

I cut out and ignored all the moral parts...

because natural selection is a sexual process.

Not in sociology, history. If I kill your kind off, that is not a sexual process. For the last time, in sociology, whatever humans do to each other can be considered natural selection. The humans naturally select to do this or that...

I said I could not be a biological, empathetic organism and be detached.

Then conversation is over, the Ethics Subforum is 3 doors down, that way >>>

P.S.: I do apologize though, it seems I did ask you that question. But since you can't look at the issue without raising moral issues, we can't really discuss this with each other...

 

[Balerion]

I cut out and ignored all the moral parts...

Because you were defeated on those points.

Not in sociology, history. If I kill your kind off, that is not a sexual process.

And that's not natural selection.

For the last time, in social Darwinism, whatever humans do to each other can be considered natural selection.

Even on a technical level that's incorrect. The term for human sexual selection is artificial selection, coined by Darwin himself. But beyond that, social Darwinism is based on the flawed premise that certain peoples are more fit than others, so I don't know what you think you're arguing here.

The humans naturally select to do this or that...

Again, it isn't "selecting" in the terms of an act. You don't "naturally select" a favorite song. And also again, the proper term for human sexual selection is "artificial selection," not natural selection.

Then conversation is over, the Ethics Subforum is 3 doors down, that way >>>

I'm just going to re-quote the post in which you attempted to tackle this from an ethics standpoint and were humiliated for your disgusting attempt to absolve the Nazis of any wrongdoing:

The problem is that you are comparing evolution and social Darwinism. Let's say you are an alien and visiting this planet. You don't really feel or care more about humans than about ants. You as an alien, do you think wars for whatever reasons are morally good or bad? Or genicide? Remember, for you there is no difference between an anteater eating 2000 ants in 5 minutes and
a night in Auswitz.
So do you see the problem of your approach?

 

[Syzygys]

As I said, there is nothing for us to discuss, but thanks for the participation...

 

[Aqueous Id]

“
Originally Posted by Epictetus
Natural selection delayed, but clearly still in effect.
”
The irony is that ideas of natural selection fueled and justified a lot of the genocide attributed to communism

Wrong.

Not to forget Nazism, and the eugenics programme championed by Margaret Sanger, which is still in effect today under the guise of abortion.jan.

Rich women have abortions all the time.

I'm pretty sure genocide is not natural selection.

Right.

I agree. I don't think genocide counts as natural selection. If it does, it is on an extreme stretch of technicalities.
However, some scriptural texts, most certainly do support genocide and report genocide has having been ordered by God. So while we are at pointing fingers..... look at all those pretty mirrors.

Indeed! Hah!

All of this started from the original claim:

The irony is that ideas of natural selection fueled and justified a lot of the genocide attributed to communism

Bogus. Marx influenced communism. Darwin did not influence Marx. Marx published shortly after Darwin returned from Galapagos and long before Darwin published.

However, they were both apparently influenced by Malthus, who commented on the social ills of struggling members of society. Darwin commented that Malthus' idea about the human struggle for survival had occurred to him as he began to unravel the mysteries of Galapagos.

Thus the reverse is true. The idea of evolution arose out of the idea of human cruelty, not the other way around as LG claimed.

Exaggeration of Darwin's influence on Marx.