// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Social Darwinism and World War I

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Social Darwinism and World War I

    No one who is knowledgeable and honest would (or should) claim that Darwinism causes wars and the atrocities committed in those wars.

    The appropriate claim - with tons of historical evidence to support it - is that Darwinism may be, has been and most certainly will be used to justify wars including the atrocities therein. What's more, these "atrocities" are no longer regarded as "bad". No, not at all. No more than a lion ripping apart a baby zebra would be considered an "atrocity". Rather, those "atrocities" are now regarded as a "good thing", a part of a "natural order" where the weak serve the needs of the strong ... where the strong ("fittest") ultimately replace the weak ("less fit"). This is "survival of the fittest" - the calling card of Darwinism from its inception to the present day.

    In short, this has been and continues to be the "scientific justification" for why a "superior" (more fit) race or culture may (and should!) conquer all other "inferior" (less fit) races or cultures. It's a 'Natural Principle' - the foundation of Darwinism - that allegedly "explains" why species emerge and why species disappear. What applies to biological species has been "scientifically" projected to apply equally to social-political-economic groups of people.

    Here's a 14-minute video about this: http://darwintohitler.com/

    You certainly have the right to disagree with the thesis here, just be sure to express your disagreement in a rational and coherent fashion. Blind, irrational and fanatical adherence to the religious ideology of Darwinism is not allowed.

    Jorge

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    No one who is knowledgeable and honest would (or should) claim that Darwinism causes wars and the atrocities committed in those wars.

    The appropriate claim - with tons of historical evidence to support it - is that Darwinism may be, has been and most certainly will be used to justify wars including the atrocities therein. What's more, these "atrocities" are no longer regarded as "bad". No, not at all. No more than a lion ripping apart a baby zebra would be considered an "atrocity". Rather, those "atrocities" are now regarded as a "good thing", a part of a "natural order" where the weak serve the needs of the strong ... where the strong ("fittest") ultimately replace the weak ("less fit"). This is "survival of the fittest" - the calling card of Darwinism from its inception to the present day.

    In short, this has been and continues to be the "scientific justification" for why a "superior" (more fit) race or culture may (and should!) conquer all other "inferior" (less fit) races or cultures. It's a 'Natural Principle' - the foundation of Darwinism - that allegedly "explains" why species emerge and why species disappear. What applies to biological species has been "scientifically" projected to apply equally to social-political-economic groups of people.

    Here's a 14-minute video about this: http://darwintohitler.com/

    You certainly have the right to disagree with the thesis here, just be sure to express your disagreement in a rational and coherent fashion. Blind, irrational and fanatical adherence to the religious ideology of Darwinism is not allowed.

    Jorge
    Of course, the "beauty" about war is that Newton's theories are used to kill and maim folk as well as destroy property. In fact his theories have been used to kill tens of millions of folk world wide, as well has maim hundreds of millions more. The property damage, thanks to use of his theories, must run into the trillions.

    I believe that some folk see Newton as the pre-eminent creation scientist.

    I think, three cheers for Newton as well.

    A book for you Jorge:-

    Survival of the Nicest: How Altruism Made Us Human and Why It Pays to Get Along

    Anotheree for you to ponder:-

    Kindness In A Cruel World

    Evolution being used to justify many of the good things humans do. Tsk.
    Last edited by rwatts; 08-20-2014, 07:47 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      No one who is knowledgeable and honest would (or should) claim that Darwinism causes wars and the atrocities committed in those wars.

      The appropriate claim - with tons of historical evidence to support it - is that Darwinism may be, has been and most certainly will be used to justify wars including the atrocities therein. What's more, these "atrocities" are no longer regarded as "bad". No, not at all. No more than a lion ripping apart a baby zebra would be considered an "atrocity". Rather, those "atrocities" are now regarded as a "good thing", a part of a "natural order" where the weak serve the needs of the strong ... where the strong ("fittest") ultimately replace the weak ("less fit"). This is "survival of the fittest" - the calling card of Darwinism from its inception to the present day.

      In short, this has been and continues to be the "scientific justification" for why a "superior" (more fit) race or culture may (and should!) conquer all other "inferior" (less fit) races or cultures. It's a 'Natural Principle' - the foundation of Darwinism - that allegedly "explains" why species emerge and why species disappear. What applies to biological species has been "scientifically" projected to apply equally to social-political-economic groups of people.

      Here's a 14-minute video about this: http://darwintohitler.com/

      You certainly have the right to disagree with the thesis here, just be sure to express your disagreement in a rational and coherent fashion. Blind, irrational and fanatical adherence to the religious ideology of Darwinism is not allowed.

      Jorge
      Yes, what the white Europeans did to the Native Americans was all very natural, in keeping with the survival of the fittest model. And very successful.
      Last edited by seer; 08-20-2014, 08:34 AM.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #4
        Jorge,

        Abusus non tollit usum.

        Also, an equivocation fallacy -- "Social Darwinism" is not science.

        K54

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Yes, what the white Europeans did to the Native Americans was all very natural, in keeping with the survival of the fittest model. And very successful.
          So what does this have to do with the fact of evolution?

          The history of which you write happened long before Darwin.

          Wrong on top of wrong all the way down.

          K54

          Comment


          • #6
            Since Jorge can't discuss scientific facts, he has to bring up (putative!) misapplication of natural principles as a ruse.

            The master of intellectual dishonesty, which he generously projects to others, strikes again!!

            K54

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
              Jorge,

              Abusus non tollit usum.

              Also, an equivocation fallacy -- "Social Darwinism" is not science.

              K54
              "Social "Darwinism" is a philosophy and is not the same thing as evolution which is a scientific theory. It is also based far more on the works than Herbert Spencer, who sought to extend the Theory of Evolution (which deals with the natural world of plants and animals) into realms of sociology and ethics, than it does with Darwin. In many ways Social Darwinism is like Social Newtonism: the belief that in nature gravity makes things fall down, so we should push people we don't like off cliffs. IOW, attempts to discredit the ToE based on the fact that some have misapplied the theory are clearly misguided.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                So what does this have to do with the fact of evolution?

                The history of which you write happened long before Darwin.

                Wrong on top of wrong all the way down.

                K54
                But it is keeping with Darwinism and survival of the fittest. The white Europeans were very, very successful.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  [I] ... Blind, irrational and fanatical adherence to the religious ideology of Darwinism is not allowed.

                  Jorge
                  rotsa ruck, Rorge
                  To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Yes, what the white Europeans did to the Native Americans was all very natural, in keeping with the survival of the fittest model. And very successful.
                    And very driven by religion and divine right. Granted, European Christians believed in the principle of "survival of the fittest" long before Darwin voiced it. So freaking what?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by whag View Post
                      And very driven by religion and divine right. Granted, European Christians believed in the principle of "survival of the fittest" long before Darwin voiced it. So freaking what?
                      Well I have no idea what they believed, it doesn't matter. When one species of bacteria displaces or destroys another species they are doing what is natural, as were the white Europeans.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                        Jorge,

                        Abusus non tollit usum.

                        Also, an equivocation fallacy -- "Social Darwinism" is not science.

                        K54
                        But Darwinism (allegedly) is science ... it certainly is considered by most to be science (yourself included). The "social Darwinism" is nothing more than a projection of the Darwinian Principle into all areas of the social sphere (economics, politics, ethics, etc ... etc.).

                        Try to hide this all you want, it remains a fact.

                        Jorge

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          No one who is knowledgeable and honest would (or should) claim that Darwinism causes wars and the atrocities committed in those wars.

                          The appropriate claim - with tons of historical evidence to support it - is that Darwinism may be, has been and most certainly will be used to justify wars including the atrocities therein. What's more, these "atrocities" are no longer regarded as "bad". No, not at all. No more than a lion ripping apart a baby zebra would be considered an "atrocity". Rather, those "atrocities" are now regarded as a "good thing", a part of a "natural order" where the weak serve the needs of the strong ... where the strong ("fittest") ultimately replace the weak ("less fit"). This is "survival of the fittest" - the calling card of Darwinism from its inception to the present day.

                          In short, this has been and continues to be the "scientific justification" for why a "superior" (more fit) race or culture may (and should!) conquer all other "inferior" (less fit) races or cultures. It's a 'Natural Principle' - the foundation of Darwinism - that allegedly "explains" why species emerge and why species disappear. What applies to biological species has been "scientifically" projected to apply equally to social-political-economic groups of people.

                          Here's a 14-minute video about this: http://darwintohitler.com/

                          You certainly have the right to disagree with the thesis here, just be sure to express your disagreement in a rational and coherent fashion. Blind, irrational and fanatical adherence to the religious ideology of Darwinism is not allowed.

                          Jorge
                          Every war waged on earth before 1870 occured without the justification of Social Darwinism. If SD triggered an upswing in atheist belicosity, that should easily be demonstrated. Excluding Christian saber rattlers (Bush, Putin, etc) just for the sake of argument.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                            So what does this have to do with the fact of evolution?

                            The history of which you write happened long before Darwin.

                            Wrong on top of wrong all the way down.

                            K54
                            Why is it that the obvious has to be spelled out to the Evo-Faithful whenever their Sacred Ideology is shown up for what it is? You ask what this has to do with the "fact of evolution". Are you really so blind that you are unable to see how the Darwinian Principle has been (and is being) applied in all social arenas bar none? Can you not see in this what I have been speaking of since my first day here on TWeb: that there is a scientific aspect to evolution and then there is an ideological aspect ... then the two are intermixed, sold as a single "scientific" fact, and this is then used to "scientifically" justify everything from soup to nuts.

                            If you cannot grasp any of this, or if you willingly refuse to acknowledge any of it, then perhaps it is best if you remain as an observer (only) of this thread.

                            Jorge

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by whag View Post
                              Every war waged on earth before 1870 occured without the justification of Social Darwinism. If SD triggered an upswing in atheist belicosity, that should easily be demonstrated. Excluding Christian saber rattlers (Bush, Putin, etc) just for the sake of argument.
                              But every war before 1870 was still following Social Darwinism model, even if it wasn't articulated.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-17-2020, 05:11 PM
                              7 responses
                              26 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM
                              0 responses
                              20 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 10-09-2020, 03:29 PM
                              6 responses
                              49 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-07-2020, 12:11 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Sherman, 10-06-2020, 03:31 PM
                              33 responses
                              210 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Leonhard  
                              Working...
                              X