Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life
Mike Painter
> In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> between humans and animals.
>
> If you were in Germany
> a) in the 1890s, and
> b) in the 1930s,
> would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that supported
Hitler and this was due in large part because of the punitive treatment
handed down by the good christians of the world.
"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name of Jesus
was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name was on early
Nazi designs.
david ford
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
And on what basis?
Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
perform for the sake of convenience:
abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
partial-birth abortions?
infanticide?
involuntary euthanasia?
mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_
(USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp. About Weikart's
book:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
On 76:
Haeckel and many other German Darwinists fought
incessantly against all dualistic views of humans, which
endued human life with much greater value than
animals. For Haeckel and most German Darwinists,
humans were not much different from animals, and they
often criticized Christians and other dualists for insisting
on significant qualitative distinctions between humans
and animals.^13
On 90:
Haeckel regularly marshaled Darwinian arguments in
support of inegalitarianism. In _The Natural History of
Creation_ (1868) he explained that
_between the most highly developed animal soul and the
least developed human soul there exists only a small
quantitative, but no qualitative difference_, and that this
difference is much less, than the difference between the
lowest and the highest human souls, or as the difference
between the highest and lowest animal souls.^3
Dawkins, Richard. 2003. _A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections
on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love_ (USA: Houghton Mifflin
Company), 263pp. A paragraph on 26:
I have argued that the discontinuous gap between
humans and 'apes' that we erect in our minds is
regrettable. I have also argued that, in any case, the
present position of the hallowed gap is arbitrary, the
result of evolutionary accident. If the contingencies of
survival and extinction had been different, the gap
would be in a different place. Ethical principles that are
based upon accidental caprice should not be respected as
if cast in stone.
Williams, George C. 1997. _The Pony Fish's Glow: And
Other Clues to Plan and Purpose in Nature_ (USA:
BasicBooks), 184pp. On 155-6:
Our experience of human life histories today, with the
great majority of our babies surviving to adulthood, is
grossly abnormal.
.... The infanticide I mentioned is not a social pathology
found only in abnormal circumstances. It is prevalent
today in diverse human cultures, including some that we
might not think of as primitive; it is widespread in a large
proportion of the animal kingdom; and it is entirely to
be expected from what we know of evolution. These
assertions are abundantly documented in the technical
literature of anthropology and biology, and infanticide is
just one small detail of a monstrous picture. Mountains
of data on parasitism and predation (including
cannibalism) in nature could be amassed to document
the enormity of the pain and mayhem that arise from
adaptations produced by natural selection.
.... This [just-described explanation] is why infanticide
is adaptive for the male [monkey].
A paragraph on 160:
The only realistic view is that a human life arises
gradually. A child’s acquisition of speech, and use of it
to convey ideas to others, is perhaps the most obvious
indication of this process. This gradualism is not much
help in making personal decisions or devising public
policy. We want clear and simple rules as guides for
human behavior and the recognition of who should be
accorded human rights. The recognition of full
humanity in a full-term newborn would be one such
simple rule. I am not inclined to argue that it is the best
possible, but it makes more sense than any recognition
of fetal rights. All the usual arguments for rights before
birth are based either on an untenable biological
definition of humanity or on fetal behavioral
attainments. The observable capabilities of a human
fetus can all be matched in other mammals at
comparable stages of development.
1995 Dennett: "Darwinian thinking helps us see why the
traditional hope of solving these problems (finding a moral
algorithm) is forlorn"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0408021033.78218bde%40posting.google.com
Taking a firm, godless stand for death
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410291758.3dfffe4b%40posting.google.com
Convert to secular humanism to enjoy guiltless sexual
activity of many varieties.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409241109.17e2611d%40posting.google.com
Secular humanism has everything to do with abortion and
euthanasia.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408161826.47fa8898%40posting.google.com
Haeckel's influence on many Germans as with Goldschmidt,
in 1983 Bruce Alberts; Haeckel's fraudulent embryo
depictions; 1956 Goldschmidt
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-38m3vrF5o7bk2U1%40individual.net
2004 Richard Weikart: "physicians... were committed to a racist
eugenics ideology that the Nazis favored"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407120310.7d3f3929%40posting.google.com
Haeckel on murdering the disabled
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407271740.7ae3b80b%40posting.google.com
Nivlem
I killfiled dumbshit ford quite some time ago. The mock 8th
grade textbook questions about nothing in particular
technique he loves so much is incredibly irritating. The
question to ask him is, how the fuck do his perceived
political and social implications of the theory, bogus as
they are, have anything to to do with whether the theory is
is correct? I don't much like that atomic theory allows us
to build nuclear weapons, myself. That doesn't mean that I
get to insist that matter isn't composed of atoms, or that
neutrons don't exist.
Ike
"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RDKXd.15476$OU1....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> david ford wrote:
> > In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> > between humans and animals.
> >
> > If you were in Germany
> > a) in the 1890s, and
> > b) in the 1930s,
> > would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
> No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that supported
> Hitler and this was due in large part because of the punitive treatment
> handed down by the good christians of the world.
because of the punitive treatment
handed down by the good christians.What?
Randy Story
"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RDKXd.15476$OU1....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
So what, Hitler based all his extreminations on Darwins survival of the
fittest principle. He thought he was just helping out a slow & extremely
cruel process.
snex
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of
the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am
fighting for the work of the Lord.
Hitler, A. 1943. Mein Kampf. Transl. R. Manheim. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
scooter
Cary Kittrell
And your point is...what, exactly? That some major findings of
science must be supressed, lest someone use them to rationalize
the evil they already wish to do?
If so, are there other important scientific findings you suggest
we might well suppress for the greater good?
Remember Galileo? Remember Pope Paul V? It wasn't that the
Pope doubted Galileo's scientific discovery; he did not.
He knew that Galileo was right. But Paul V thought that these findings might
weaken the faith of some, and so he ordered Galileo to keep quiet.
Do you think Paul was justified in this? Do you think the
theory of evolution should be supressed for similar reasons?
And if you do think this, should we also suppress Christianity
for similar reasons?:
I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator.
By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work
-- Hitler, Mein Kampf
and if you agree -- Christianity should be supressed because
it can be used to rationalize evil -- should we make a double
effort to keep down the Protestant flavor, whose founder
famously wrote:
If I had to baptise a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of
the Elbe, hang a stone around his neck and push him over with
the words 'I baptise thee in the name of Abraham'.
-- Martin Luther
Me, I'm not in favor of supressing any thought at all. But
if you are, then surely you agree we must not hang back,
either for fear of hiding scientific truth, or out of
respect for the religious ideas of some.
-- cary
raven1
wrote:
>In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
>between humans and animals.
Err, humans *are* animals.
If you disagree, please elaborate as to on what basis you do so.
Mike Painter
No, he based it on What Martin Luther wrote. Anybody who actually knew
anything about the theory would realize that "survival of the fittest", even
if it was true would not apply in this situation.
Mike Painter
> "Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:RDKXd.15476$OU1....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> david ford wrote:
>>> In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
>>> between humans and animals.
>>>
>>> If you were in Germany
>>> a) in the 1890s, and
>>> b) in the 1930s,
>>> would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
>> No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that
>> supported Hitler and this was due in large part because of the
>> punitive treatment handed down by the good christians of the world.
>
> because of the punitive treatment
> handed down by the good christians.What?
Compare the treaty after WWI with the way Germany was treated after WWII.
sAnToLiNa
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-399a...@individual.net...
> In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> between humans and animals.
>
>
> c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
It's quite true, there is no qualitative difference between humans and
animals, as humans ARE animals. Can you explain how this uncontroversial
truth somehow downgrades the value of human life?
> And on what basis?
>
Is this a trick question?
(snip)
Matt Giwer
> In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> between humans and animals.
> If you were in Germany
> a) in the 1890s, and
> b) in the 1930s,
> would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
> c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
> And on what basis?
Why would you ask the question specific to Germany? The idea was common in the western world. Are
you unaware you are spouting anti-German propaganda or are you doing it deliberately?
--
The greater the ascendency of democracy the more important the
opinion of the man in the street and the less important
the opinion of the government.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3396
http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
unrestra...@hotmail.com
david ford wrote:
> In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> between humans and animals.
>
Feel free to explain the difference between humans and animals.
Also, do you approve or disapprove of lying? Does God need you to lie
- does it help him? Does it help or hinder your cause? What *is your
cause?
Please explain why you think David Ford is infallible. Is this a
Christian belief?
Kermit
satyr
wrote:
>In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
>between humans and animals.
>
>If you were in Germany
>a) in the 1890s, and
>b) in the 1930s,
>would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
And would your answer change if you were transsexual lesbian?
>c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
>And on what basis?
This Haeckel seems like more of a philosopher than a scientist which
explains why I have barely heard of him. I have a basic distrust of
this profession and eugenics is a good reason why. The concept of
social Darwinism is based on ignorance of both Darwinian evolution and
society.
Whether you like Haeckel or not, he is right about us being animals.
What Haeckel fails to mention (or you fail to quote) is that we are
social animals who depend on each other for survival. That means that
I, as a human, naturally distinguish between humans who may assist me
in survival and other animals which may be food or pests or threats.
In order to exist in a community, we must have standards of behavior
which we agree upon - what is permitted, what is not. As a
"Darwinist" (as you would no doubt refer to me) and a social animal, I
recognize the importance of ethical behavior. As an atheist, I reject
the use of divine revelation as a basis for our ethical laws.
>Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
>perform for the sake of convenience:
>abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
Why stop at "pre-born?" Couldn't we all be referred to as "pre-dead?"
>partial-birth abortions?
Not a medical term, but I support a woman's right to abortion.
>infanticide?
No, I don't support that and I am willing to support care of orphans
who are not adopted.
>involuntary euthanasia?
If by involuntary you mean against the expressed will of a conscious
individual, I am opposed. And I support universal health care to
provide all reasonable measures to prolong and improve life.
If by involuntary you mean in the case of an individual who is in a
persistent state of unconsciousness, then yes I would support
euthanasia if there is no reasonable hope of improvement. We have too
many people who can benefit from medical care to waste money on
hopeless cases.
>mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
Nope. Pretty much against involuntary killing of humans from the
moment of birth until they lose consciousness for the last time.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
Mitchell Coffey
wrote:
1. Why, in your opinion, was Krystal Nacht held on Luther's birthday?
a. If you didn't know, why not?
2. You live in a county that in the 1960s had to be forced by the
courts to integrate its schools.
a. What if anything did adult members of your church do to fight
racial segregation in the 1960s?
b. In case you ask, many members of my temple were active in the
civil rights movement, locally and elsewhere. Several got their heads
beaten by the police for their efforts, in deep South locals that
forbade the teaching of evolution.
c. Why do you think it was in the 1960s that states with official
segregation and official bans on interracial marriage were almost to
the one states with official bans on teaching evolution?
d. Why was it South Africa under apartheid banned the teaching of
evolution?
e. Why did most American large, nationally organized Protestant
churches (e.g., Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian) divide over the
first half of the 19th century into two organizations, over issues of
slavery?
By the way, I won't accept your standard argument that, because you
are ignorant about how other people arrive at their ethical beliefs,
you don't have to defend your claims.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
wrote:
Do you have any evidence for this statement?
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>In article <112v3u2...@corp.supernews.com> "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> writes:
>>
>That would be extremely interesting -- if it were true.
>And it is true that Hitler mentions being aware of Darwin.
Where? I mean this. It's amazing, given all the cant about Hitler
and "Darwinism," how seldom he mentioned it.
>And it as true as well that Hitler wrote in "Mein Kampf":
>
> I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator.
> By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work
>
>
>So, whaddya think: shall we repress Christianity -- and in particular
>the Protestant flavor of Christianity, whose Martin
>Luther wrote such tidbits as:
>
> If I had to baptise a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of
> the Elbe, hang a stone around his neck and push him over with
> the words 'I baptise thee in the name of Abraham'.
>
>because people like Hitler can mis-use it to justify their
>evil?
>
>
>Similarly, shall we suppress one of the most important
>scientific theories ever for the same reason?
Mitchell Coffey
Ash
*nemo*
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> between humans and animals.
Objectively, there isn't. So what? That doesn't mean that humans
shouldn't value their fellow humans, does it?
You want to complain about people who don't value human life, go comlain
to the rich who call us "human resources" or "headcount." Go talk to the
politicians who use numbers to hide the humanity of the people from
their decision making. If you want to call a group of people "heartless"
because they think humans are disposable, talk t the corprate heads who
do cost-benefit analyses to decide if fixing a product defect will cost
more than the lawsuits that will come becuse of deaths and injuries
their defects will cause.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
zawa...@yahoo.com
THe nazi's used poison gas in an attempt to exterminate the Jews. Does
this make chemistry immoral or it's theories suspect.
To paraphase the gun-rights mantra :
Science doesn't kill people, people kill people.
Cary Kittrell
Oooh, excellent, that last part!
Consider it stolen.
-- cary
zawa...@yahoo.com
wcb
> In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> between humans and animals.
>
> If you were in Germany
> a) in the 1890s, and
> b) in the 1930s,
> would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
>
> c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
> And on what basis?
We are animals. Certainly not plants, certainly not
mineral.
Haekel kew we were animals with the same basic
biology as any animal.
What eklse is there? A deeply stupid ancient billy
goat herder tall tale that has man created by god
as stoop labor.
To be kept dumb and mortal and exploited.
And thrown out of the garden by a panicky
god afraid man would eat of the magic tree of
life and become a rival god.
Whatis itabout dumbasses like you, that makes
rant and rave at the obvious facts we are animals,
while ignoring the great stupidities of your deeply
stupid and false billy goat herder tall tale with
its two contradictory creation tall tales?
Where does this found of mass stupidity come from
that makes morons like you want to be ignorant and backwards?
And when it comes to morality, the long seriers of mass murders
you xians have supported is disgusting and nasty.
***********************************************************
The Failure of Christianity in America
W. C . Barwell 3-8-05
***********************************************************
Since Nixon, this nation has rapidly moved to the far right,
taken there mainly by christian right wingers who have fully
supported thr GOP as it has moved right to gain support of
christian right wingers. This started when Noxn
play tehracist Southern Strategy card building on civil rights
era resentments by far right Southerners.
So we now have had a essentially a christian GOP government
for 30 years.
Under Nixon:
We supported incompetent and corrupt Vietnamese politicians.
And a senseless war in Vietnam that accomplished nothing.
Instigated awful and murderous policies as the Phoenix
program.
Supported the secret bombings in Cambodia that killed hundreds
of thousands of innocent Cambodians.
Winked at the invasion of West Timur and parts of New Guinea
by our allies, the Indonesions.
The Indonesionas killed 1/4 of the Timurese over several decades,
mass murder, genocide. 2 million dead.
Winked at the Greek far right Junta that overthrew the Greek
government.
Supported the murderous far right Brazilian generals who
overthrew that democratically elected government.
Supported the mass murdering Argentinian government and
their terroristic "Dirty War" of torture, mass murder
and disappearances.
Supported the murderous Pinochet of Chile.
No Christians rspected life here. Or freedom. But supported
Nixon heartily despite the horrors we commited in Vietnam
and Cambodia and Chile and winked at support for others
mentioned above.
Reagan.
Reagan lead the GOP in support for military aid to the genocidal
Rios Montt of Guatemala, who practiced wholesale torture, rape and
genocide on the Mayan Indians of Guatemala.
Reagan and the GOP supported the mass murdering ex-Somoza Guards
of Nicaragua.
Reagan and the GOP supported Saddam Hussein of Iraq.
Reagan and the GOP supported the murderous Robert D'Aubisson
of El Salavador, a known far right death squad leader.
The El Salvadoran government was involved in numerous
murders, and massacres, such as teh killing of 400
villagers at a small village colled El Mezote, most ofthem young women
and children.
Reagan and the GOP supported Noriega of Panama.
Reagan and the GOP happily supported Pol Pot's claim to be the
rightful government of Cambodia despite the genocide committed
by the insane Pol Pot's Khmer Regime.
Reagan and the GOP supported a number of murdering
far right extremist guerilla movements in Africa including
the genocidal Frelimo in Mozambique.
The Christin a religous right heavily supported Reagan and
the GOP despite numerous examples of such evil as listed above.
The leader of the religous right never cared nor complained,
neither did the religous leaders of the main stream christian
denominations.
There was and is no respect for life in American christianity
as these wholesale and repeat failures of America christianity
collectively over 20 years shows.
Then we had Bush.
Bush continued support for the evil dictators above,
including Pinochet, Pol Pot and others. However,
Saddam screwed us and invaded Iraq, mainly because
Bush screwed up and did not warn him to not do so.
Bush did not act in case of genocide my Jugoslavia's
Milosevic, and Bush and the GOP's loud and obnoxious
footdragging here allowed Milosevic to kill
hundreds of thousands with near impunity.
The leaders of the GOP, House and Senate, and religous
leaders of the right and mainstream denominations never
cared about any of this.
In the Desert Storm war, Bush allowed the US air
force to bomb Iraq's water and sewer systems.
A war crime.
They placed sanctions on Iraq that made it impossible
to keep their water supplies safe resulting in numerous
deaths that eventually would total over 2 million dead
Iraqi civilians, mostly children.
Our government coldly calculated that these sanctions would
indeed would cause mass epidemics and mass death, and did
it anyway.
Thomas Nagy, a California colege professor used the FOIA
statutes to obtain these documents that were published
in September 2001 in the Progressive Magazine.
www.progressivemagazine.com
No Christian leaders of either far right or mainstream
cared nor brought Bush and the GOP leadership
of House and Senate to task for this genocide of innocents.
Clinton:
Under Clinton this policy continued. Again, Christians did
not care. All Christians cared about was Clintons
don't-ask-don't-tell gays in military policy and Clinton's
sex life and Whitewater.
$47 million spent investigating whitewater while the Christian
right roared with naked hate. Money spent investigation mass
murder in Iraq caused by our purposeful by our sanctions?
$0.
Roars of disaprovable from Christian America over these mass
murders?
None.
What has 30 years or right winged GOP government and right
winger christianity got us? Mass murder, genocide,
Nothing but callousness, disregard for human life,
mass moral failure of religion, Christianity and
the american right.
Not once did religous christian Americans, either
leadership or rank and file ever find any of these
evils unacceptable or punish any who supported any
of this.
Most GOP House and Senate members were people who
did these things claimed to be christians. Not a one
cares, not a christian cares they did not care or act.
30 years of failure. 30 years of support for
far right genocidal bastards, mass murderers,
and evil.
Total christian failure.
Total lack of any real morality at all
in American christianity.
Do you see why I despise religion, right wingers and
American Christians?
Christians posture as moral, American christians have
a very bad track records when it comes to morality, they
will happily support any genocdial monster as long as he's
a right winger.
You all will even keep voting for politicians who
cozied up to Pol Pot.
This is not some far away, log distance inquisition
or crusades of the middle ages, the culprits sit
esconced in Washington DC because of Christianities
moral failures and moral cowardice.
Christianity is a mass failure, a failure of
intellectual honesty and morality.
(End)
Ken Shackleton
Randy;
This is crap....Hitler used whatever argument he felt would convince
the masses to assist him in his evil goals. He used religious arguments
far more than the arguments based on science....by your logic, we
should then ban all religious teachings.
Consider this....the countries that have the highest rates of violent
crime [immoral behaviour] are those countries [including the good ol'
US of A] that have a strong religious base. Those countries that are
primarily secular have much lower rates of violent crime. Based on this
evidence and your reasoning, religion everywhere should be
banned....don't you agree?
Cary Kittrell
You know, I was conflating a quote from Marx, mis-attributing
it to Hitler. My bad.
Nonetheless, I believe it's fairly well accepted that Social
Darwinism was used to provide "justification" for the
Ayran supremicists. Of course, Social Darwinism was
also used to justify robber-baron capitalism, but
somehow the anti-evolution types rarely seem inclined to
condemn the teaching of evolution by warning us that it
leads to capitalism.
-- cary
Jez
> david ford wrote:
>
>>In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
>>between humans and animals.
>>
>
> <snip>
>
> Feel free to explain the difference between humans and animals.
>
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
unrestra...@hotmail.com
david ford wrote:
<snip>
>
> Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
> perform for the sake of convenience:
> mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
No. But I find the idea of middle-age individuals killing presumptuous,
superstitious, and uncouth children strangely attractive.
Think of it as "pre-emptive cultural triage".
Or "applied evolution".
Kermit
Heh.
Or retroactive abortion.
Social jerkectomy.
Or...
Cary Kittrell
Developmental catabolism?
-- cary
Clayton: The Reason The Housewives Are Desperate!
"Ash" <asha...@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d0pbde$2cb$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Lies are all they have! If it wasn't for lies, Christianity and creationism
simply would not exist!!!
Christopher A. Lee
Creationisn wouldn't. Christianity would be more liberal.
jfa...@earthlink.net
david ford wrote:
> In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> between humans and animals.
>
> If you were in Germany
> a) in the 1890s, and
> b) in the 1930s,
> would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
>
> And on what basis?
>
> Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
> perform for the sake of convenience:
Ford dishonestly attempts to load the question, just as he
dishonestly quotes out of context: without conscience or
a care. Here is how you ask a question honestly and
without loading. Do you approve of this, Ford?:
So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with
instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword
those living there, including the women and children. "This
is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every
woman who is not a virgin." They found among the people
living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had
never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at
Shiloh in Canaan. -- Judges 21:10-12
> partial-birth abortions?
No such thing.
> infanticide?
No. How about you? Do you approve of:
Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no
mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children.
-- Isaiah 13:18
> involuntary euthanasia?
> mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
No. How about you? Do you approve of:
"'Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity
or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens,
women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark.
Begin at my sanctuary.' So they began with the elders who were
in front of the temple." -- Ezekiel 9:5-6
How about it Ford? Do you approve of:
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they
have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant
women ripped open." -- Hosea 13:16
Tell us what the pre-born human life did to rebel against "God" Ford.
No, I don't suspect you will be answering these questions any time
soon.
>
> Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler:
> Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_
> (USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp. About Weikart's
> book:
>
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
> On 76:
> Haeckel and many other German Darwinists fought
> incessantly against all dualistic views of humans, which
> endued human life with much greater value than
> animals. For Haeckel and most German Darwinists,
> humans were not much different from animals,
David Ford is the guy who consciously and intentionally takes
passages out of context to alter the meaning of the text in his
obsessive, one-track hatred of science in general and evolution in
particular. It doesn't matter to him that he has persuaded no one
to his POV. And I'm guessing that someday he will have occasion
to look back on his massive archive of hate and dishonesty and be
appalled, disgusted and ashamed. If he is lucky
Here, he quotes creationist Weikart, playing the Hitler card, from
his book. The amusing blurb for it states:
>From Darwin to Hitler" is a compelling and painstakingly researched
work of intellectual history, inwhich Weikart explains the
revolutionary
impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that
many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany
believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and
Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of
human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism ...
Notice the implication that traditional "Judeo-Christian
ethics" is other than "Moral relativism." If Ford was honest
and had the courage to address my questions to him regards
the previous Bible passages I quoted, he wwould defend the
cold blooded slaughter outlined therein as being perfectly moral
because "God" was behind it. You see, to those with radical
situational ethics like Ford, it is not the _act_ of murder,
genocide, rape, or his chronic dishonesty, that is intrinsically
evil, immoral or wrong. How could they be when such things
are ordered by his god? No, such things are subjectively moral
or immoral depending on "God's" wishes (as interpreted by Ford)
at any given moment.
I and humanists in general find this extreme moral relativity
depraved and repellent. To us, murder, genocide, etc is immmoral
period. It would not matter to us if there was a god and he said it
was ok or not. People like Ford find this attitude quaint and
arrogant: who are we to question the "sublime" morality of "God"
-commanded genocide let alone refuse to participate in it if God
wants it?
Of course, people like Ford are not oblivious to how this makes
them appear. Ford and his cronies are very reluctant to admit to
their approval of killing infants, woman and children because
some members of their group "rebelled" against "God." But make
no mistake, they do indeed suscribe to such putrid ethics--while
smuggly lying about non-believers, accusing them of what they
know they are really guilty of believing. For instance, you will
never see Ford condemn those actions described in the passages I quote.
Ford isn't ashamed by this. At most he will be embarrassed
by my exposure of his radical situational ethics. Ethics? Did
I say "ethics"? I should amend that. I can honestly say that
I can't complain about Ford's ethics--he doesn't have any.
e
Rolf
Clayton: The Reason The Housewives Are Desperate!
news:4230cfd0$0$22223$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
I'd rather talk about the Inquistition and related subjects.
skyeyes
> >Feel free to explain the difference between humans and animals.
>Animals are not dumb enough to sit in front of a T.V. 8 hours a day ?
I dunno. My big male cat *loves* to watch TV. He even sits staring at
it when it's not on.
Years ago I had a cat who knew how to turn the TV on - using the
zapper, no less - and did so frequently in the middle of the night.
Then she would sit in the recline and just veg out and watch the boob
tube.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
When I was a kid, we had a waist-level combination door-knocker and
letterbox flap.
Our cat learned to raise the knocker and let it drop, to get let in.
skyeyes
>Our cat learned to raise the knocker and let it drop, to get let in.
Aren't they amazing little fuzzballs? I find them easier to train than
dogs, although most folks disagree with me on that.
'Course, that's not counting the one of mine who's on Paxil. <G> Yes,
it's true: I have a cat on antidepressants.
samir...@alemsistem.com.ba
I think cat is smarter than dog just because it is harder to teach them
to do stupid things. The dog will bring the same stick several times.
The cat quickly learns just those activities what she finds useful.
I have never seen any cat in the circus. They are too unpredictable.
skyeyes
>I think cat is smarter than dog just because it is harder to teach
>them to do stupid things. The dog will bring the same stick severa
>times. The cat quickly learns just those activities what she finds
>useful.
Cats and dogs have vastly different psychologies. Dogs get off on
pleasing the "alpha" pack member, i.e., the human. Cats recognize no
"alpha" animal, and therefore couldn't care less if a human is pleased.
>I have never seen any cat in the circus. They are too unpredictable.
Does that count big cats, lions, tigers, that sort of thing? Because
they're all over the circuses I've been to. Their degree of
trainability is no different from that of the common house cat.
At any rate, I've seen dozens of performing house cats, and they
perform quite predictably. You just have to find a treat they really,
REALLY like - then they'll perform all day. =-)
Danny Kodicek
"skyeyes" <sky...@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1110580193....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
> >Our cat learned to raise the knocker and let it drop, to get let in.
>
> Aren't they amazing little fuzzballs? I find them easier to train than
> dogs, although most folks disagree with me on that.
>
> 'Course, that's not counting the one of mine who's on Paxil. <G> Yes,
> it's true: I have a cat on antidepressants.
Well, let's face it, it's a tough life.
By the way - my cat learned the same trick with the doorknocker - scared the
hell out of my grandmother one night when she came to stay. She was
convinced it was burglars - although she refused to comment on why burglars
would knock on the door.
Danny
Jez
> Jez wrote:
>
>
>>>Feel free to explain the difference between humans and animals.
>
>
>>Animals are not dumb enough to sit in front of a T.V. 8 hours a day ?
>
>
> I dunno. My big male cat *loves* to watch TV. He even sits staring at
> it when it's not on.
Hmmm, through the years I've had a number of dogs, and cats, (Stuck with
2 cats at the moment.),and
not one of them ever showed any interest in TV at all !!
Guess I just had some boring pets eh.
>
> Years ago I had a cat who knew how to turn the TV on - using the
> zapper, no less - and did so frequently in the middle of the night.
> Then she would sit in the recline and just veg out and watch the boob
> tube.
Hehe......clever little creature !!
david ford
> >> between humans and animals.
> >>
> >> If you were in Germany
> >> a) in the 1890s, and
> >> b) in the 1930s,
> >> would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
> >No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that
supported
> >Hitler and this was due in large part because of the punitive treatment
> >handed down by the good christians of the world.
> >"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name of
Jesus
> >was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name was on
early
> >Nazi designs.
>
> grade textbook questions about nothing in particular
> technique he loves so much is incredibly irritating.
IIRC, John Wilkins promised me that question-filled dialogue between him
and I would be fun.
> The
> question to ask him is, how the fuck do his perceived
> political and social implications of the theory, bogus as
> they are, have anything to to do with whether the theory is
> is correct? I don't much like that atomic theory allows us
> to build nuclear weapons, myself. That doesn't mean that I
> get to insist that matter isn't composed of atoms, or that
> neutrons don't exist.
What is the name of "the theory" that you refer to? The theory of
natural selection?
1942 Heydrich: "The Jews... no doubt a large part of them will be
eliminated by natural diminution. The survivors, the hardiest among
them, must be given an appropriate treatment, because they represent a
natural selection...."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407032023.243f5883%40posting.google.com
david ford
> Randy Story wrote:
> > "Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RDKXd.15476$OU1....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> >>> In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> >>> between humans and animals.
> >>>
> >>> If you were in Germany
> >>> a) in the 1890s, and
> >>> b) in the 1930s,
> >>> would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
> >> No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that
> >> supported Hitler and this was due in large part because of the
> >> punitive treatment handed down by the good christians of the world.
> >> "God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name of
> >> Jesus was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name
> >> was on early Nazi designs.
> >
> > the fittest principle. He thought he was just helping out a slow &
> > extremely cruel process.
>
> anything about the theory would realize that "survival of the
fittest", even
> if it was true would not apply in this situation.
david ford
> david ford wrote:
> > In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> > between humans and animals.
> >
> > If you were in Germany
> > a) in the 1890s, and
> > b) in the 1930s,
> > would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
>
> No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that supported
> Hitler
1. Are you aware of any individuals in the "German Christian community"
that opposed Hitler?
> and this was due in large part because of the punitive treatment
> handed down by the good christians of the world.
2. I don't follow. Details, please.
> "God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name of
Jesus
> was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name was on
early
> Nazi designs.
3. In your view, what is the significance of that?
For what reason/s was "the name of Jesus" removed or ceased being used?
Do you disagree with Haeckel's view that there is no qualitative
difference between humans and animals?
david ford
> david ford wrote:
> > In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> > between humans and animals.
> >
> > If you were in Germany
> > a) in the 1890s, and
> > b) in the 1930s,
> > would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
> >
> > And on what basis?
>
> Why would you ask the question specific to Germany?
8. Because Haeckel's and Buchner's ideas permeated Germany and thereby
helped engender a moral climate informed by Darwinian thinking that
helped make the Holocaust possible.
> The idea was common in the western world.
9. When did the idea that there is no qualitative difference between
humans and animals become common in America?
> Are
> you unaware you are spouting anti-German propaganda or are you doing
it deliberately?
10. What do you mean by "propaganda"-- untruths?
Do you think that the biology textbook at the other end of this URL
contains "propaganda"?:
excerpts from a 1942 Nazi biology textbook for the middle school
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/textbk01.htm
> --
> The greater the ascendency of democracy the more important the
> opinion of the man in the street and the less important
> the opinion of the government.
> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3396
> http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
david ford
> On Wed 9 Mar 2005 david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> >In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> >between humans and animals.
> >
> >If you were in Germany
> >a) in the 1890s, and
> >b) in the 1930s,
> >would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
>
>
> >c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
> >And on what basis?
>
> explains why I have barely heard of him.
11. Perhaps now is a good time to learn more about him.
Haeckel's influence on many Germans as with Goldschmidt,
in 1983 Bruce Alberts; Haeckel's fraudulent embryo
depictions; 1956 Goldschmidt
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-38m3vrF5o7bk2U1%40individual.net
Haeckel on murdering the disabled
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407271740.7ae3b80b%40posting.google.com
Dobzhansky, 1900 Haeckel ("the law of the persistence of matter and
force; that law knows nothing of a beginning"), and 1987 Dawkins reject
the position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311740.48df353%40posting.google.com
> I have a basic distrust of
> this profession and eugenics is a good reason why.
12. Which profession-- philosophy? zoology?
> The concept of
> social Darwinism is based on ignorance of both Darwinian evolution and
> society.
13. Meaning of "evolution"?
Do you agree with Haeckel's view that there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals?
> Whether you like Haeckel or not, he is right about us being animals.
> What Haeckel fails to mention (or you fail to quote) is that we are
> social animals who depend on each other for survival. That means that
> I, as a human, naturally distinguish between humans who may assist me
> in survival and other animals which may be food or pests or threats.
14. Do you "distinguish between humans who may assist" you and humans
incapable of helping you? If "yes":
what is your attitude toward the killing of humans incapable of helping
you-- indifference?
Terri Schindler Schiavo is incapable of helping you. Do you oppose, or
are you OK with, the removal of her food and hydration/ water?
Some documents about her are at
http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schindler-schiavo-docs-links-page.html
david ford
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-399a...@individual.net...
> > In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> > between humans and animals.
>
>
> > c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
>
> animals, as humans ARE animals.
I see.
> Can you explain how this uncontroversial
> truth somehow downgrades the value of human life?
No. But I will say that Stalin killed a lot of animals, just as the
beef industry has killed a lot of animals.
[Yockey in 1986]"If humans are only matter, it is no worse to burn a ton
of humans than to burn a ton of coal." Ref:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404100938.e7c05f7%40posting.google.com
> > And on what basis?
>
> Is this a trick question?
Only if you let it be.
> (snip)
sAnToLiNa
> sAnToLiNa wrote:
> > david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> news:dford3-399a...@individual.net...
> > > In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> > > between humans and animals.
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
> >
> > It's quite true, there is no qualitative difference between humans and
> > animals, as humans ARE animals.
>
> I see.
>
> > Can you explain how this uncontroversial
> > truth somehow downgrades the value of human life?
>
> No.
I see.
david ford
[snip-- replied to]
> In order to exist in a community, we must have standards of behavior
> which we agree upon - what is permitted, what is not. As a
> "Darwinist" (as you would no doubt refer to me) and a social animal, I
> recognize the importance of ethical behavior.
15. Do you think Terri Schindler Schiavo's husband engaged in "ethical
behavior" when he:
remained married to her while fathering 2 children with another woman?
pushes hard for her to die via starvation?
> As an atheist, I reject
> the use of divine revelation as a basis for our ethical laws.
16. In your view, what should be the "basis for our ethical laws"?
1976 Ronald Reagan on a "natural law"/ "higher law of morality"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0412021517.f5e01d1%40posting.google.com
1922 Max Nordau: "Good and bad.... are subject to the laws of evolution
in society and therefore in a constant state of flux"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411271314.4b84581e%40posting.google.com
[Humanist Manifesto II, at
<http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html>]"THIRD: We
affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience.
Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or
ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest."
[Humanist Manifesto III, at
<http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm>]"The
lifestance of Humanism-- guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and
informed by experience-- encourages us to live life well and fully. It
evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts
of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however
carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and
understandings advance."
> >Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
> >perform for the sake of convenience:
> >abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
>
> Why stop at "pre-born?" Couldn't we all be referred to as "pre-dead?"
17. If you like.
> >partial-birth abortions?
>
> Not a medical term, but I support a woman's right to abortion.
18. Interesting. Upon what basis/ grounds do you think there exists a
"right to abortion"?
> >infanticide?
>
> No, I don't support that and I am willing to support care of orphans
> who are not adopted.
19. Upon what basis do you oppose infanticide?
> >involuntary euthanasia?
>
> If by involuntary you mean against the expressed will of a conscious
> individual, I am opposed.
20. Upon what basis? (By 'involuntary euthanasia,' I mean 'in the
absence of the expressed consenting will of the human most directly
affected.')
> And I support universal health care to
> provide all reasonable measures to prolong and improve life.
21. Do you support or oppose the removal of food and hydration from
Terri Schindler Schiavo?
> If by involuntary you mean in the case of an individual who is in a
> persistent state of unconsciousness, then yes I would support
> euthanasia if there is no reasonable hope of improvement. We have too
> many people who can benefit from medical care to waste money on
> hopeless cases.
>
> >mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
>
> Nope. Pretty much against involuntary killing of humans from the
> moment of birth until they lose consciousness for the last time.
22. Upon what basis?
david ford
Could you provide more details about the circumstances?
Was an absence of virginity associated with the possession of say
syphilis, or some other sexually-transmitted disease/s?
> > partial-birth abortions?
>
> No such thing.
Are you OK with the use of the abortion procedure known as 'dilation and
extraction'?
> > infanticide?
>
> No.
Your response is ambiguous. Are you OK with infanticide?
> How about you? Do you approve of:
>
> Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no
> mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children.
> -- Isaiah 13:18
Details about the circumstances? For example, who is "they"?
> > involuntary euthanasia?
> > mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
>
> No.
Your response is ambiguous.
Are you OK with involuntary euthanasia?
Are you OK with mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
> How about you? Do you approve of:
>
> "'Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity
> or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens,
> women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark.
> Begin at my sanctuary.' So they began with the elders who were
> in front of the temple." -- Ezekiel 9:5-6
>
> How about it Ford? Do you approve of:
>
> The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they
> have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword;
> their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant
> women ripped open." -- Hosea 13:16
>
> Tell us what the pre-born human life did to rebel against "God" Ford.
23. I would think nothing. Did the pregnant women do anything, or
carry one or more potentially-catastrophic diseases? If "yes," what did
they do or carry?
> No, I don't suspect you will be answering these questions any time
> soon.
>
> > Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler:
> > Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_
> > (USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp. About Weikart's
> > book:
> >
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
> > On 76:
> > Haeckel and many other German Darwinists fought
> > incessantly against all dualistic views of humans, which
> > endued human life with much greater value than
> > animals. For Haeckel and most German Darwinists,
> > humans were not much different from animals,
>
> David Ford is the guy who consciously and intentionally takes
> passages out of context to alter the meaning of the text
Examples? Did I do so here?:
[Wolfe in _The New Republic_]"She [O'Hair] was dictatorial,
irresponsible, racist, overbearing, corrupt, anti-Semitic, homophobic,
anti-Catholic, and at times criminal. .... this crudely embarrassing
atheist [i.e. O'Hair]"
[O'Hair to her father]"the Jews in big business are running this country
into the ground."
[O'Hair to her son William, after slapping him hard in the face]"Listen,
kid, the United States of America is nothing more than a fascist slave
labor camp run by a handful of Jew bankers in New York City."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
[Gofreemind]"For newer atheists, Madalyn was anything but heroic. Her
rude, obnoxious public displays were an embarrassment."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503090734.55fbdce3%40posting.google.com
> in his
> obsessive, one-track hatred of science in general and evolution in
> particular.
Meaning of "evolution"?
Meaning of "evolution" and "species"?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
In your view, did the atheist Stalin ever engage in "immoral" actions?
In your view, is killing pre-born human life:
"immoral"?
"murder"?
Do you think withholding food and water from Terri Schindler Schiavo
resulting in her death from starvation is:
"immoral"?
"murder"?
Danny Kodicek
> jfa...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > Ford dishonestly attempts to load the question, just as he
> > dishonestly quotes out of context: without conscience or
> > a care. Here is how you ask a question honestly and
> > without loading. Do you approve of this, Ford?:
> >
> > So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with
> > instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword
> > those living there, including the women and children. "This
> > is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every
> > woman who is not a virgin." They found among the people
> > living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had
> > never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at
> > Shiloh in Canaan. -- Judges 21:10-12
>
> Could you provide more details about the circumstances?
> Was an absence of virginity associated with the possession of say
> syphilis, or some other sexually-transmitted disease/s?
Er - are you saying that if this was the case, it would be okay to slaughter
them?
> > How about it Ford? Do you approve of:
> >
> > The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they
> > have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword;
> > their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant
> > women ripped open." -- Hosea 13:16
> >
> > Tell us what the pre-born human life did to rebel against "God" Ford.
>
> 23. I would think nothing. Did the pregnant women do anything, or
> carry one or more potentially-catastrophic diseases? If "yes," what did
> they do or carry?
So is 'partial birth abortion' justified if the pregnant woman has 'done
something' or carries 'one or more potentially catastrophic diseases'?
Danny
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection - the modern
sythesis.
Evolutionary theory. What theory did you think you were talking about?
> 1942 Heydrich: "The Jews... no doubt a large part of them will be
> eliminated by natural diminution. The survivors, the hardiest among
> them, must be given an appropriate treatment, because they represent
a
> natural selection...."
>
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407032023.243f5883%40posting.google.com
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
I don't trust your paraphrasing of anyone's position on anything. Could
you please reference the book and page in which Haeckel says this, so
we can read it in context? And what would this have to do with
*anything?
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
david ford wrote:
> satyr wrote:
>
> [snip-- replied to]
>
> > In order to exist in a community, we must have standards of
behavior
> > which we agree upon - what is permitted, what is not. As a
> > "Darwinist" (as you would no doubt refer to me) and a social
animal, I
> > recognize the importance of ethical behavior.
>
> 15. Do you think Terri Schindler Schiavo's husband engaged in
"ethical
> behavior" when he:
> remained married to her while fathering 2 children with another
woman?
> pushes hard for her to die via starvation?
>
What does this have to do with evolutionary science?
For the record, her husband learned nursing so he could help care for
her and avoid the development of bedsores and other complications. He
flew her to California to try a new therapy. After 5 or 6 years,
Terry's parents gave their approval for him to start dating again. It
was only after he determined there was no hope for her, and decided to
pull the plug, as was her wish, that her parents turned hostile toward
him.
Not that any of this has anything to do with evolutionary science.
> > As an atheist, I reject
> > the use of divine revelation as a basis for our ethical laws.
>
> 16. In your view, what should be the "basis for our ethical laws"?
The short answer: ethics is how we treat other people.
Not who is on top when we have sex.
Not which drug we decide to get intoxicated with.
Not which day of the week we decide to take off.
Not whether women show their faces, or their ankles, or their boobs,
in public.
> <snip>
> > >Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
> > >perform for the sake of convenience:
> > >abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
> >
> > Why stop at "pre-born?" Couldn't we all be referred to as
"pre-dead?"
>
> 17. If you like.
Do you support my daughter's right to vote as a pre-adult?
>
> > >partial-birth abortions?
> >
> > Not a medical term, but I support a woman's right to abortion.
>
> 18. Interesting. Upon what basis/ grounds do you think there exists
a
> "right to abortion"?
Bizarre. Upon what grounds do you think you have the right to make a
woman have children? It's certainly not biblical.
>
> > >infanticide?
> >
> > No, I don't support that and I am willing to support care of
orphans
> > who are not adopted.
>
> 19. Upon what basis do you oppose infanticide?
They are living human beings.
Why do you not oppose infanticcide?
>
> > >involuntary euthanasia?
> >
> > If by involuntary you mean against the expressed will of a
conscious
> > individual, I am opposed.
>
> 20. Upon what basis? (By 'involuntary euthanasia,' I mean 'in the
> absence of the expressed consenting will of the human most directly
> affected.')
Not clear enough.
Are they objecting? Or incapable of having any opinion?
You are a twisty little toad, David. It's obvious you are being as
ambiguous and misleading as possible, so as to get one of us to say
something which you can twist into some "representative Darwinist"
stance.
You are not trying to find out what any of us actually think about any
issues. You're like those slimy printer cartridge salesdroids that call
the office and try to get one of us to agree that "yes, we'd like to
save money" so they can get us on tape "agreeing" to their dishonest
sales pitch.
>
> > And I support universal health care to
> > provide all reasonable measures to prolong and improve life.
>
> 21. Do you support or oppose the removal of food and hydration from
> Terri Schindler Schiavo?
I support an adult's right to choose; and I support traditional
marriage values - an adult should be able to choose another adult to
have power of attorney. Of either gender. Why don't you think a woman
should be able to choose a husband, who has long had this legal right?
>
> > If by involuntary you mean in the case of an individual who is in
a
> > persistent state of unconsciousness, then yes I would support
> > euthanasia if there is no reasonable hope of improvement. We have
too
> > many people who can benefit from medical care to waste money on
> > hopeless cases.
> >
> > >mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
> >
> > Nope. Pretty much against involuntary killing of humans from the
> > moment of birth until they lose consciousness for the last time.
>
> 22. Upon what basis?
It's wrong. Don't you know that?
Kermit
david ford
> david ford wrote:
> > Nivlem wrote:
> > > I killfiled dumbshit ford quite some time ago. The mock 8th
> > > grade textbook questions about nothing in particular
> > > technique he loves so much is incredibly irritating.
> >
> > IIRC, John Wilkins promised me that question-filled
> > dialogue between him and I would be fun.
> >
> > > The
> > > question to ask him is, how the fuck do his perceived
> > > political and social implications of the theory, bogus as
> > > they are, have anything to to do with whether the theory is
> > > is correct? I don't much like that atomic theory allows us
> > > to build nuclear weapons, myself. That doesn't mean that I
> > > get to insist that matter isn't composed of atoms, or that
> > > neutrons don't exist.
> >
> > What is the name of "the theory" that you refer to? The theory of
> > natural selection?
>
> Natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection - the modern
> sythesis.
> Evolutionary theory. What theory did you think you
> were talking about?
I have talked about the Synthetic Euphoria before. I don't recall
talking about "perceived political and social implications of" the
Synthetic Euphoria. Perhaps you will refresh my memory.
Synthetic Euphoria URLs
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-35qfcuF4rpudvU1%40individual.net
david ford
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a6m...@individual.net...
> > sAnToLiNa wrote:
> > > david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-399a...@individual.net...
> > > > In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> > > > between humans and animals.
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > > c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
> > >
> > > It's quite true, there is no qualitative difference between
humans and
> > > animals, as humans ARE animals.
> >
> > I see.
> >
> > > Can you explain how this uncontroversial
> > > truth somehow downgrades the value of human life?
> >
> > No.
>
> I see.
>
> > as the beef industry has killed a lot of animals.
> >
> > [Yockey in 1986]"If humans are only matter, it is no
> > worse to burn a ton of humans than to burn a ton
> > of coal." Ref:
> >
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404100938.e7c05f7%40posting.google.com
I'll add that Haeckel was absolutely right: there is no qualitative
difference between humans and animals.
There is no significant difference between doing the following actions:
1) putting down 1000 elderly dogs and cats
2) putting down 1000 severely-handicapped and mentally-retarded humans
3) putting down 1000 political opponents
4) putting down 1000 carriers of virulent viruses of the mind
5) terminating 1000 inconvenient and unwanted pre-born humans
6) terminating 1000 cheetahs out of an almost-extinct world cheetah
population
7) terminating 1000 elephants to obtain their ivory tusks
8) terminating Terri Schindler Schiavo's life through starvation
9) terminating Terri Schindler Schiavo's life through administration of
Zyklon B gas.
Taking a firm, godless stand for death
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410291758.3dfffe4b%40posting.google.com
Haeckel on murdering the disabled
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407271740.7ae3b80b%40posting.google.com
Darwinists downgrading the value of human life
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-399aluF5uql89U1%40individual.net
Secular humanism has everything to do with abortion and euthanasia.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408161826.47fa8898%40posting.google.com
Convert to secular humanism to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
varieties.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409241109.17e2611d%40posting.google.com
Do you think that the more one looks at atheists, particularly hard-core
militantly-godless types:
the better atheism looks?
the worse atheism looks?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3a19amF65ij6fU2%40individual.net
1940 Nazi film "All Life is Struggle" embraced Darwinian natural selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407042043.1c2ccf1f%40posting.google.com
2004 Richard Weikart: "physicians... were committed to a racist
eugenics ideology that the Nazis favored"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407120310.7d3f3929%40posting.google.com
david ford
> "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a6n...@individual.net...
> > jfa...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > Ford dishonestly attempts to load the question, just as he
> > > dishonestly quotes out of context: without conscience or
> > > a care. Here is how you ask a question honestly and
> > > without loading. Do you approve of this, Ford?:
> > >
> > > So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with
> > > instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword
> > > those living there, including the women and children. "This
> > > is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every
> > > woman who is not a virgin." They found among the people
> > > living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had
> > > never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at
> > > Shiloh in Canaan. -- Judges 21:10-12
> >
> > Could you provide more details about the circumstances?
> > Was an absence of virginity associated with the possession of say
> > syphilis, or some other sexually-transmitted disease/s?
>
> Er - are you saying that if this was the case,
> it would be okay to slaughter them?
At the moment I'm not saying anything, but rather am inquiring for more
information about the situation.
> > > How about it Ford? Do you approve of:
> > >
> > > The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they
> > > have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword;
> > > their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant
> > > women ripped open." -- Hosea 13:16
> > >
> > > Tell us what the pre-born human life did to rebel against "God"
Ford.
> >
> > 23. I would think nothing. Did the pregnant women do anything, or
> > carry one or more potentially-catastrophic diseases? If "yes,"
what did
> > they do or carry?
>
> So is 'partial birth abortion' justified if the pregnant woman has 'done
> something' or carries 'one or more potentially catastrophic diseases'?
This might answer your questions:
I think execution by the state of a man or woman is justified if the man
or woman has committed premeditated murder. In such a circumstance,
execution of a pregnant woman should wait until after she has given
birth to her child-- the child isn't guilty of anything and is innocent,
and it would be unjust to the pre-born child to execute a woman while
she is pregnant with child.
Abortion is justified if continuation of the pregnancy likely will do
grave physical harm to the mother.
As a practical matter, if an army wipes out a particular town of people
using fuel air explosives because the town's population has contracted a
highly-contagious airborne hemorrhagic fever virus, it might not be
practical to preserve the lives of uninfected pre-born humans prior to
implementing total destruction of the town. [This scenario is inspired
by the movie that was loosely based upon Richard Preston's nonfiction
_The Hot Zone_ (USA: Anchor Books Doubleday), 422pp.]
As a practical matter, if every adult in a town 3000 years ago has
committed heinous acts and is to be executed, it might not be practical
to execute every adult while preserving the pre-born human life present
in that town. Perhaps the nerve required to carry out such a mass
execution would be lost if pregnant women were permitted to give birth
before their planned execution.
david ford
> > difference between humans and animals?
>
> I don't trust your paraphrasing of anyone's position on anything. Could
> you please reference the book and page in which Haeckel says this, so
> we can read it in context?
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_
(USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp. About Weikart's
book:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
On 76:
Haeckel and many other German Darwinists fought
incessantly against all dualistic views of humans, which
endued human life with much greater value than
animals. For Haeckel and most German Darwinists,
humans were not much different from animals, and they
often criticized Christians and other dualists for insisting
on significant qualitative distinctions between humans
and animals.^13
On 90:
Haeckel regularly marshaled Darwinian arguments in
support of inegalitarianism. In _The Natural History of
Creation_ (1868) he explained that
_between the most highly developed animal soul and the
least developed human soul there exists only a small
quantitative, but no qualitative difference_, and that this
difference is much less, than the difference between the
lowest and the highest human souls, or as the difference
between the highest and lowest animal souls.^3
Compare Dawkins and Williams in
Darwinists downgrading the value of human life
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-399aluF5uql89U1%40individual.net
> And what would this have to do with *anything?
Killing the mentally and physically challenged is very
much in keeping with "social Darwinism," i.e. the application of
Darwinian thought to humans and human society.
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary
Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_ (USA: Palgrave
Macmillan), 312pp. A paragraph on 148:
Not only did Haeckel justify infanticide, abortion, and
assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, but he also
supported the involuntary killing of the mentally ill. He
condemned the idea that all human life should be
preserved, "even when it is totally worthless." He called
cretinism and microcephaly "decisive proof" for the
physical basis of the soul, since those suffering from these
conditions "spend their entire life at a lower animal stage of
development in their soul's activity." He complained that
not only are many mentally ill people burdens to society,
but so are lepers, cancer patients, and others with incurable
illnesses. Why not just spare ourselves much pain and
money, he asked, by just giving them a shot of morphine?
To safeguard against abuse, Haeckel proposed that a
commission of physicians make the final decision in each
case, but the individual being reviewed would have no
voice.^16 The leading Darwinist in Germany thus gave his
scientific imprimatur to murdering the disabled, both in
infancy and in adulthood.
1983 Daniel Brooks
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990628151138.260287C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Rolf
> unrestra...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > david ford wrote:
> > > Do you disagree with Haeckel's view that there is no qualitative
> > > difference between humans and animals?
> >
People of all denominations perform all kinds of acts, share all kinds of
kinky philosophies and in general are just like his brother son of a bitch
fellow man in all that counts, and able to perform whatever atrocities he
takes his fancy to, so I can't for the life of me se how this possibly can
be any issue worth discussing.
it certainly has noe bearing on the 'first' question: Is nature capable of
evolution on it's own, or does it need designer-manufacturers, of rhe divine
or just the little green men variety?
I'd place my bets on the first alternative.
Rolf
Danny Kodicek
> Danny Kodicek wrote:
> > "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> news:dford3-3a6n...@individual.net...
> > > jfa...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > Ford dishonestly attempts to load the question, just as he
> > > > dishonestly quotes out of context: without conscience or
> > > > a care. Here is how you ask a question honestly and
> > > > without loading. Do you approve of this, Ford?:
> > > >
> > > > So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with
> > > > instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword
> > > > those living there, including the women and children. "This
> > > > is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every
> > > > woman who is not a virgin." They found among the people
> > > > living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had
> > > > never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at
> > > > Shiloh in Canaan. -- Judges 21:10-12
> > >
> > > Could you provide more details about the circumstances?
> > > Was an absence of virginity associated with the possession of say
> > > syphilis, or some other sexually-transmitted disease/s?
> >
> > Er - are you saying that if this was the case,
> > it would be okay to slaughter them?
>
> At the moment I'm not saying anything, but rather am inquiring for more
> information about the situation.
Well, given that it's a biblical quotation, you can answer that as well as
anyone else can (by the way, you have some nerve asking for more context to
others' quotes). And I can't quite see how *any* context could put this act
in any better light.
>
> > > > How about it Ford? Do you approve of:
> > > >
> > > > The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they
> > > > have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword;
> > > > their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant
> > > > women ripped open." -- Hosea 13:16
> > > >
> > > > Tell us what the pre-born human life did to rebel against "God"
> Ford.
> > >
> > > 23. I would think nothing. Did the pregnant women do anything, or
> > > carry one or more potentially-catastrophic diseases? If "yes,"
> what did
> > > they do or carry?
> >
> > So is 'partial birth abortion' justified if the pregnant woman has
'done
> > something' or carries 'one or more potentially catastrophic diseases'?
>
> This might answer your questions:
And now follows that rare thing, an actual statement of belief by Mr Ford.
Pause and savour it, everyone. Now I can see why he reveals his own
principles so rarely.
>
> I think execution by the state of a man or woman is justified if the man
> or woman has committed premeditated murder. In such a circumstance,
> execution of a pregnant woman should wait until after she has given
> birth to her child-- the child isn't guilty of anything and is innocent,
> and it would be unjust to the pre-born child to execute a woman while
> she is pregnant with child.
A fair enough point, and one which I believe most states that practise
capital punishment follow.
>
> Abortion is justified if continuation of the pregnancy likely will do
> grave physical harm to the mother.
Glad you approve
>
> As a practical matter, if an army wipes out a particular town of people
> using fuel air explosives because the town's population has contracted a
> highly-contagious airborne hemorrhagic fever virus, it might not be
> practical to preserve the lives of uninfected pre-born humans prior to
> implementing total destruction of the town. [This scenario is inspired
> by the movie that was loosely based upon Richard Preston's nonfiction
> _The Hot Zone_ (USA: Anchor Books Doubleday), 422pp.]
You have a problem with the word 'foetus', I think? Well, your concern for
the poor pre-borns in the plague-town is touching, but frankly that's the
least of the moral issues here, I think.
>
> As a practical matter, if every adult in a town 3000 years ago has
> committed heinous acts and is to be executed, it might not be practical
> to execute every adult while preserving the pre-born human life present
> in that town. Perhaps the nerve required to carry out such a mass
> execution would be lost if pregnant women were permitted to give birth
> before their planned execution.
>
So you're saying that for the crime of worshipping another god, it's all
right for an entire town to be slaughtered, including the children (forget
pre-born here!)? Sure, the chapter in question refers to human sacrifice,
but are you saying that in the entire town, *every adult* (and the children
too, presumably) should die for that crime? Your government is responsible
for killing innocents - does that mean that your family should be killed?
Nice moral code you've got there, David. Glad to see that Christian
compassion's working well for you. I'll stick to my atheistic humanism,
thanks all the same.
Incidentally, I'm always intrigued by the fact that fundamentalist
Christians are so fond of the Old Testament, when Jesus quite clearly said
that he was there to overturn the old way of thinking. I remember the calls
for 'an eye for an eye' after 9/11, which was something Jesus *specifically*
overturned (Matthew 5). These people claim to follow Jesus, but they'd
really prefer it if he'd left the old laws alone.
Danny
wcb
> sAnToLiNa wrote:
> There is no significant difference between doing the following actions:
>
> 1) putting down 1000 elderly dogs and cats
> 2) putting down 1000 severely-handicapped and mentally-retarded humans
> 3) putting down 1000 political opponents
> 4) putting down 1000 carriers of virulent viruses of the mind
> 5) terminating 1000 inconvenient and unwanted pre-born humans
> 6) terminating 1000 cheetahs out of an almost-extinct world cheetah
> population
> 7) terminating 1000 elephants to obtain their ivory tusks
> 8) terminating Terri Schindler Schiavo's life through starvation
> 9) terminating Terri Schindler Schiavo's life through administration of
> Zyklon B gas.
>
***********************************************************
The Failure of Christianity in America
W. C . Barwell 3-8-05
***********************************************************
Since Nixon, this nation has rapidly moved to the far right,
taken there mainly by christian right wingers who have fully
supported thr GOP as it has moved right to gain support of
christian right wingers. This started when Noxn
play the racist Southern Strategy card building on civil
rights era resentments by far right Southerners.
So we now have had a essentially a christian GOP government
for 30 years.
Under Nixon:
Christian Americans supported incompetent and corrupt
Vietnamese politicians. And a senseless war in Vietnam
that accomplished nothing.
Instigated awful and murderous policies as the Phoenix
program.
Supported the secret bombings in Cambodia that killed
hundreds of thousands of innocent Cambodians.
Winked at the invasion of West Timur and parts of New
Guinea by our allies, the Indonesions.
The Indonesionas killed 1/4 of the Timurese over several
decades, mass murder, genocide. 2 million dead.
Winked at the Greek far right Junta that overthrew the
Greek government.
Supported the murderous far right Brazilian generals who
overthrew that democratically elected government.
Supported the mass murdering Argentinian government and
their terroristic "Dirty War" of torture, mass murder
and disappearances.
Supported the murderous Pinochet of Chile.
No Christians respected life here. Or freedom. But supported
Nixon heartily despite the horrors we commited in Vietnam
and Cambodia and Chile and winked at support for others
mentioned above.
Reagan.
Reagan lead the GOP in support for military aid to the
genocidal Rios Montt of Guatemala, who practiced wholesale
torture, rape and genocide on the Mayan Indians of Guatemala.
Reagan and the GOP supported the mass murdering ex-Somoza
Guards of Nicaragua.
Reagan and the GOP supported Saddam Hussein of Iraq.
Reagan and the GOP supported the murderous Robert
D'Aubisson of El Salavador, a known far right death
squad leader.
The El Salvadoran government was involved in numerous
murders, and massacres, such as the killing of 400
villagers at a small village called El Mezote, most
of them young women and children.
Reagan and the GOP supported Noriega of Panama.
Reagan and the GOP happily supported Pol Pot's claim
to be the rightful government of Cambodia despite the
genocide committed by the insane Pol Pot's Khmer Regime.
Reagan and the GOP supported a number of murdering
far right extremist guerrilla movements in Africa including
the genocidal Frelimo in Mozambique.
The Christian and religous right heavily supported Reagan
and the GOP despite numerous examples of such evils as
listed above.The leader of the religous right never cared
nor complained, neither did the religous leaders of the
main stream christian denominations.
There was and is no respect for life in American
christianity as these wholesale and repeat failures of
America christianity collectively over 20 years shows.
Then we had Bush.
Bush continued support for the evil dictators above,
including Pinochet, Pol Pot and others. However,
Saddam screwed us and invaded Iraq, mainly because
Bush screwed up and did not warn him to not do so.
Bush did not act in case of genocide my Jugoslavia's
Milosevic, and Bush and the GOP's loud and obnoxious
footdragging here allowed Milosevic to kill
hundreds of thousands with near impunity.
The leaders of the GOP, House and Senate, and religous
leaders of the right and mainstream denominations never
cared about any of this.
In the Desert Storm war, Bush allowed the US air
force to bomb Iraq's water and sewer systems.
A war crime.
They placed sanctions on Iraq that made it impossible
to keep their water supplies safe resulting in numerous
deaths that eventually would total over 2 million dead
Iraqi civilians, mostly children.
Our government coldly calculated that these sanctions would
indeed would cause mass epidemics and mass death, and did
it anyway.
Thomas Nagy, a California colege professor used the FOIA
statutes to obtain these documents that were published
in September 2001 in the Progressive Magazine.
www.progressivemagazine.com
No Christian leaders of either far right or mainstream
cared nor brought Bush and the GOP leadership of House
and Senate to task for this genocide of innocents.
Clinton:
Under Clinton this policy continued. Again, Christians did
not care. All Christians cared about was Clintons
don't-ask-don't-tell gays in military policy and Clinton's
sex life and Whitewater.
$47 million spent investigating whitewater while the Christian
right roared with naked hate. Money spent investigation mass
murder in Iraq caused by our purposeful by our sanctions?
$0.
Roars of disaprovable from Christian America over these mass
murders?
None.
What has 30 years or right winged GOP government and right
winger christianity got us? Mass murder, genocide,
Nothing but callousness, disregard for human life,
mass moral failure of religion, Christianity and
the american right.
Not once did religous christian Americans, either
leadership or rank and file ever find any of these
evils unacceptable or punish any who supported any
of this.
Most GOP House and Senate members were people who
did these things claimed to be christians. Not a one
cares, not a christian cares they did not care or act.
30 years of failure. 30 years of support for
far right genocidal bastards, mass murderers,
and evil.
Total christian failure.
Total lack of any real morality at all
in American christianity.
Christians posture as moral, American christians have
a very bad track records when it comes to morality, they
will happily support any genocdial monster as long as he's
a right winger, and right winger politicians support
that monster no matter how murderous or genocidal he
and his evil regime is.
(End)
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
sAnToLiNa
Non-responsive obfuscation.
How does the uncontroversial truth that humans are animals downgrade the
value of human life?
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
>Christians posture as moral, American christians have
>a very bad track records when it comes to morality, they
>will happily support any genocdial monster as long as he's
>a right winger, and right winger politicians support
>that monster no matter how murderous or genocidal he
>and his evil regime is.
William, William, when will thee learn that 'Christians' does not
include all Christians? Not even all American Christians?
And don't expect me to killfile you. Some of thy posts are quite
well-written and amusing.
Lizz 'and besides, my posture is *terrible' Holmans
--
I was too far out all my life
Michael Altarriba
> In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> between humans and animals.
>
> a) in the 1890s, and
> b) in the 1930s,
>
> c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
Humans are apes, and primates, and animals, and sentient beings. All of
those descriptions apply. Humans are unique in terms of their cognitive
abilities. Other apes are very similar to humans, but, so far as I know
at this point, gorillas and chimpanzees don't progress in their
cognitive abilities past about what a human two or three-year-old.
Gorillas have been taught ASL (American Sign Language), and do exhibit
the ability to use language.
The basis? Observation. Humans, both morphologically and genetically,
are quite obviously apes.
Humans (and other animals, to a lesser extent) are sentient beings. As
such, their treatment has certain moral requirements.
>
> Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
> perform for the sake of convenience:
> abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
> partial-birth abortions?
> infanticide?
> involuntary euthanasia?
> mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
>
I firmly support the right of mothers to terminate their pregnancies up
to the beginning of the third trimester, and after if there is grave
danger to the life and/or well-being of the mother, or when the fetus
is clearly non-viable.
I firmly support the right of suffering, terminal patients who are
capable of giving clear consent to choose to have their lives ended in
a manner of their choosing, and under a doctor's supervision.
<rest snipped>
david ford
> "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a8e...@individual.net...
> > Danny Kodicek wrote:
> > > "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a6n...@individual.net...
> > > > jfa...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > > Ford dishonestly attempts to load the question, just as he
> > > > > dishonestly quotes out of context: without conscience or
> > > > > a care. Here is how you ask a question honestly and
> > > > > without loading. Do you approve of this, Ford?:
> > > > >
> > > > > So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with
> > > > > instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword
> > > > > those living there, including the women and children. "This
> > > > > is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every
> > > > > woman who is not a virgin." They found among the people
> > > > > living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had
> > > > > never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at
> > > > > Shiloh in Canaan. -- Judges 21:10-12
Just because an event or an act is recorded in the New Testament or Old
Testament, that doesn't mean God is said to have approved or condoned
that act. The above quote doesn't mention or allude to God. Perhaps
the act was entirely human-initiated, perhaps as an act of revenge. I
can't tell from the short quotation.
Below:
Hsu abstract; destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
> > > > Could you provide more details about the circumstances?
> > > > Was an absence of virginity associated with the possession of say
> > > > syphilis, or some other sexually-transmitted disease/s?
> > >
> > > Er - are you saying that if this was the case,
> > > it would be okay to slaughter them?
> >
> > At the moment I'm not saying anything, but rather am inquiring for more
> > information about the situation.
>
> Well, given that it's a biblical quotation, you can answer that as
well as
> anyone else can
1. I concede that I could easily look up the relevant passages, or
paste the relevant passages using text off the Web.
> (by the way, you have some nerve asking for more context to
> others' quotes).
2. It's unusual for me to even see "others' quotes."
I have a lot of nerve in asking a lot of my questions, and in pointing
out that the Darwinian emperor has no clothes.
Hsu, Kenneth J. 1986. "Darwin's three mistakes" _Geology_ 14:532-4.
Hsu was with the Geological Institute, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland. The
abstract:
Darwin's three mistakes were that (1) he dismissed mass
extinctions as artifacts of an imperfect geological record;
(2) he assumed that species diversity, like individuals of a
given species, tends to increase exponentially with time;
and (3) he considered biotic interactions the major cause
of species extinction. Those mistakes led to the theory
propounded in his book _On the Origin of Species by
Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of
Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life_ (Darwin, 1859),
which has been adopted by many as the scientific basis of
their social philosophies.
The article's last two sentences state, "We have had enough of the
Darwinian fallacy. It is about time that we cry: 'The emperor has no
clothes.'" The emperor has no clothes.
more Hsu
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3a18k3F66sgjpU1%40individual.net
Are any of these quotes out-of-context, in your view?:
[Wolfe in _The New Republic_]"She [O'Hair] was dictatorial,
irresponsible, racist, overbearing, corrupt, anti-Semitic, homophobic,
anti-Catholic, and at times criminal. .... this crudely embarrassing
atheist [i.e. O'Hair]"
[O'Hair to her father]"the Jews in big business are running this country
into the ground."
[O'Hair to her son William, after slapping him hard in the face]"Listen,
kid, the United States of America is nothing more than a fascist slave
labor camp run by a handful of Jew bankers in New York City."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
[Gofreemind]"For newer atheists, Madalyn was anything but heroic. Her
rude, obnoxious public displays were an embarrassment."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503090734.55fbdce3%40posting.google.com
> And I can't quite see how *any* context could put this act
> in any better light.
3. Perhaps your imagination could use a workout. I suggest formulating
4 just-so stories to account for the act of infanticide by some human
males, and cannibalism among some humans. That ought to do the trick.
Williams in
Darwinists downgrading the value of human life
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-399aluF5uql89U1%40individual.net
> > > > > How about it Ford? Do you approve of:
> > > > >
> > > > > The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they
> > > > > have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword;
> > > > > their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant
> > > > > women ripped open." -- Hosea 13:16
> > > > >
> > > > > Tell us what the pre-born human life did to rebel against "God"
> > > > > Ford.
> > > >
> > > > 23. I would think nothing. Did the pregnant women do
anything, or
> > > > carry one or more potentially-catastrophic
> > > > diseases? If "yes," what did
> > > > they do or carry?
> > >
> > > So is 'partial birth abortion' justified if the pregnant woman has
> > > 'done something' or carries 'one or more
> > > potentially catastrophic diseases'?
> >
> > This might answer your questions:
>
> And now follows that rare thing, an actual statement of belief by Mr
Ford.
> Pause and savour it, everyone.
4. It's very tasty.
> Now I can see why he reveals his own
> principles so rarely.
>
> > I think execution by the state of a man or woman is justified if
the man
> > or woman has committed premeditated murder. In such a circumstance,
> > execution of a pregnant woman should wait until after she has given
> > birth to her child-- the child isn't guilty of anything and is
innocent,
> > and it would be unjust to the pre-born child to execute a woman while
> > she is pregnant with child.
>
> A fair enough point, and one which I believe most states that practise
> capital punishment follow.
>
> > Abortion is justified if continuation of the pregnancy likely will do
> > grave physical harm to the mother.
>
> Glad you approve
>
> > As a practical matter, if an army wipes out a particular town of people
> > using fuel air explosives because the town's population has
contracted a
> > highly-contagious airborne hemorrhagic fever virus, it might not be
> > practical to preserve the lives of uninfected pre-born humans prior to
> > implementing total destruction of the town. [This scenario is inspired
> > by the movie that was loosely based upon Richard Preston's nonfiction
> > _The Hot Zone_ (USA: Anchor Books Doubleday), 422pp.]
>
> You have a problem with the word 'foetus', I think?
5. No. I understand what you mean by "fetus," and understand what's
meant by "fetuscide."
Taking a firm, godless stand for death
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410291758.3dfffe4b%40posting.google.com
> Well, your concern for
> the poor pre-borns in the plague-town is touching, but frankly that's the
> least of the moral issues here, I think.
>
> > As a practical matter, if every adult in a town 3000 years ago has
> > committed heinous acts and is to be executed, it might not be practical
> > to execute every adult while preserving the pre-born human life present
> > in that town. Perhaps the nerve required to carry out such a mass
> > execution would be lost if pregnant women were permitted to give birth
> > before their planned execution.
>
> So you're saying that for the crime of worshipping another god, it's all
> right for an entire town to be slaughtered, including the children
(forget
> pre-born here!)?
6. How do you know that "the crime of worshipping another god" is all
that's involved-- are there any other alleged misdeeds involved, and if
so, what? What was involved in this worshiping? How
historically-accurate and complete is the account you're looking at?
Also, perhaps the quotation is a threat, and that threat did not end up
being carried out because the society that was threatened heeded the
threat and repented. I can't tell what happened from the snippet of a
quotation that was presented.
> Sure, the chapter in question refers to human sacrifice,
> but are you saying that in the entire town, *every adult* (and the
children
> too, presumably) should die for that crime?
7. What does the chapter say about "human sacrifice"? Perhaps every
adult in Samaria participated in or supported "human sacrifice."
Perhaps "human sacrifice" was a rite of passage everybody did in order
to become considered as an adult.
> Your government is responsible
> for killing innocents - does that mean that your family should be killed?
8. In your scenario, is my family:
involved in "killing innocents"?
supportive of the government's killing of innocents?
> Nice moral code you've got there, David. Glad to see that Christian
> compassion's working well for you.
9. What do you think my "moral code" holds? Perhaps your remarks flow
from an erroneous conception.
> I'll stick to my atheistic humanism,
> thanks all the same.
10. What does your "atheistic humanism" say about:
abortion?
infanticide?
euthanasia?
the removal of food and water from Terri Schindler Schiavo, resulting in
her death via starvation?
In pre-Holocaust 20th century Germany, abortion was promoted as being a
tool in the service of eugenics. The majority of the prominent
advocates of abortion were fervent Darwinist adherents of materialism,
and they viewed the use of abortion as a method of helping 'evolution'
advance and improving humanity.
Ref:
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics,
Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_ (USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp., 157.
About Weikart's book:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
> Incidentally, I'm always intrigued by the fact that fundamentalist
> Christians are so fond of the Old Testament, when Jesus quite clearly
said
> that he was there to overturn the old way of thinking. I remember the
calls
> for 'an eye for an eye' after 9/11, which was something Jesus
*specifically*
> overturned (Matthew 5). These people claim to follow Jesus, but they'd
> really prefer it if he'd left the old laws alone.
11. What does "atheistic humanism" say is the appropriate response to
the terrorist attacks of 9/11?
In the Old Testament, God is said to have destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
Do you think God shouldn't have destroyed the towns?
Do you think God did an 'evil' thing in destroying the towns?
Do you think the people killed in the towns were 'evil'?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2018;&version=65;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=19&version=65
Genesis 18 (The Message)
17 Then GOD said, "Shall I keep back from Abraham what I'm about to do?
18 Abraham is going to become a large and strong nation; all the nations
of the world are going to find themselves blessed through him.
19 Yes, I've settled on him as the one to train his children and future
family to observe GOD's way of life, live kindly and generously and
fairly, so that GOD can complete in Abraham what he promised him."
20 GOD continued, "The cries of the victims in Sodom and Gomorrah are
deafening; the sin of those cities is immense.
21 I'm going down to see for myself, see if what they're doing is as bad
as it sounds. Then I'll know."
22 The men set out for Sodom, but Abraham stood in GOD's path, blocking
his way.
23 Abraham confronted him, "Are you serious? Are you planning on getting
rid of the good people right along with the bad?
24 What if there are fifty decent people left in the city; will you lump
the good with the bad and get rid of the lot?
25 Wouldn't you spare the city for the sake of those fifty innocents? I
can't believe you'd do that, kill off the good and the bad alike as if
there were no difference between them. Doesn't the Judge of all the
Earth judge with justice?"
26 GOD said, "If I find fifty decent people in the city of Sodom, I'll
spare the place just for them."
27 Abraham came back, "Do I, a mere mortal made from a handful of dirt,
dare open my mouth again to my Master?
28 What if the fifty fall short by five--would you destroy the city
because of those missing five?"
He said, "I won't destroy it if there are forty-five."
29 Abraham spoke up again, "What if you only find forty?"
"Neither will I destroy it if for forty."
30 He said, "Master, don't be irritated with me, but what if only thirty
are found?"
"No, I won't do it if I find thirty."
31 He pushed on, "I know I'm trying your patience, Master, but how about
for twenty?"
"I won't destroy it for twenty."
32 He wouldn't quit, "Don't get angry, Master--this is the last time.
What if you only come up with ten?"
"For the sake of only ten, I won't destroy the city."
33 When GOD finished talking with Abraham, he left. And Abraham went home.
Genesis 19
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening. Lot was sitting at
the city gate. He saw them and got up to welcome them, bowing before them
2 and said, "Please, my friends, come to my house and stay the night.
Wash up. You can rise early and be on your way refreshed."
They said, "No, we'll sleep in the street."
3 But he insisted, wouldn't take no for an answer; and they relented and
went home with him. Lot fixed a hot meal for them and they ate.
4 Before they went to bed men from all over the city of Sodom, young and
old, descended on the house from all sides and boxed them in.
5 They yelled to Lot, "Where are the men who are staying with you for
the night? Bring them out so we can have our sport with them!"
6 Lot went out, barring the door behind him,
7 and said, "Brothers, please, don't be vile!
8 Look, I have two daughters, virgins; let me bring them out; you can
take your pleasure with them, but don't touch these men--they're my
guests."
9 They said, "Get lost! You drop in from nowhere and now you're going
to tell us how to run our lives. We'll treat you worse than them!" And
they charged past Lot to break down the door.
10 But the two men reached out and pulled Lot inside the house, locking
the door.
11 Then they struck blind the men who were trying to break down the
door, both leaders and followers, leaving them groping in the dark.
12 The two men said to Lot, "Do you have any other family here? Sons,
daughters--anybody in the city? Get them out of here, and now!
13 We're going to destroy this place. The outcries of victims here to
GOD are deafening; we've been sent to blast this place into oblivion."
14 Lot went out and warned the fiancés of his daughters, "Evacuate this
place; GOD is about to destroy this city!" But his daughters' would-be
husbands treated it as a joke.
15 At break of day, the angels pushed Lot to get going, "Hurry. Get
your wife and two daughters out of here before it's too late and you're
caught in the punishment of the city."
16 Lot was dragging his feet. The men grabbed Lot's arm, and the arms
of his wife and daughters-- GOD was so merciful to them!-- and dragged
them to safety outside the city.
17 When they had them outside, Lot was told, "Now run for your life!
Don't look back! Don't stop anywhere on the plain--run for the hills or
you'll be swept away."
18 But Lot protested, "No, masters, you can't mean it!
19 I know that you've taken a liking to me and have done me an immense
favor in saving my life, but I can't run for the mountains--who knows
what terrible thing might happen to me in the mountains and leave me for
dead.
20 Look over there--that town is close enough to get to. It's a small
town, hardly anything to it. Let me escape there and save my life--it's
a mere wide place in the road."
21 He said to him, "All right. If you insist. I'll let you have your
way. And I won't stamp out the town you've spotted.
22 But hurry up. Run for it! I can't do anything until you get there."
That's why the town was called Zoar, that is, Smalltown.
23 The sun was high in the sky when Lot arrived at Zoar.
24 Then GOD rained brimstone and fire down on Sodom and Gomorrah--a
river of lava from GOD out of the sky!--
25 and destroyed these cities and the entire plain and everyone who
lived in the cities and everything that grew from the ground.
26 But Lot's wife looked back and turned into a pillar of salt.
27 Abraham got up early the next morning and went to the place he had so
recently stood with GOD.
28 He looked out over Sodom and Gomorrah, surveying the whole plain.
All he could see was smoke belching from the Earth, like smoke from a
furnace.
29 And that's the story: When God destroyed the Cities of the Plain, he
was mindful of Abraham and first got Lot out of there before he blasted
those cities off the face of the Earth.
david ford
> david ford wrote:
>> satyr wrote:
>>
>> [snip-- replied to]
>>
>>> In order to exist in a community, we must have standards of
>>> behavior
>>> which we agree upon - what is permitted, what is not. As a
>>> "Darwinist" (as you would no doubt refer to me) and a
>>> social animal, I recognize the importance of
>>> ethical behavior.
>>
>> 15. Do you think Terri Schindler Schiavo's
>> husband engaged in "ethical behavior" when he:
>> remained married to her while fathering 2 children
>> with another woman?
>> pushes hard for her to die via starvation?
>
> What does this have to do with evolutionary science?
3. I don't know what you mean by "evolutionary science." To me, that
sounds strangely like behavioral science, Freudian psychological
analytic science, film criticism science, dialectical materialism
science, art decondadacriticism science, and hypertextual
innerinterelational cotranscongruent science.
Meaning of "evolutionary"?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
Below:
1922 Nordau; 1976 Reagan; 1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope
slide from devaluing some human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to
mass killings
> For the record, her husband learned nursing so he could help care for
> her and avoid the development of bedsores and other complications. He
> flew her to California to try a new therapy. After 5 or 6 years,
> Terry's parents gave their approval for him to start dating again. It
> was only after he determined there was no hope for her, and decided to
> pull the plug, as was her wish, that her parents turned hostile toward
> him.
4. When you say "pull the plug," that means 'remove food and water,'
yes? If "yes," how do you know it's Terri Schindler Schiavo's "wish" to
stop receiving food and water?
Do you give any credence to reports that Terri Schindler Schiavo made a
partially-successful attempt to say that she wanted to live?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/18/174428.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43383
> Not that any of this has anything to do with evolutionary science.
>
>>> As an atheist, I reject
>>> the use of divine revelation as a basis for our ethical laws.
>>
>> 16. In your view, what should be the "basis for our ethical laws"?
>
> The short answer: ethics is how we treat other people.
> Not who is on top when we have sex.
> Not which drug we decide to get intoxicated with.
> Not which day of the week we decide to take off.
> Not whether women show their faces, or their ankles, or their boobs,
> in public.
5. You didn't answer my question of, What should be the "basis for our
ethical laws"?
Do you agree with this Nordau?:
Nordau, Max. 1922. _Morals and the Evolution of Man_ [trans. of
_Biologie und Ethik_] (London), 73. Cited in Weikart, Richard. 2004.
_From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in
Germany_ (USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp., 30. About Weikart's book:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
Good and bad.... derive not only their existence but their
measure and their significance from the views of the
community. They are therefore not absolute but variable;
they are not an immutable standard amid the ever-
changing conditions of humanity, a rule by which the
value of the actions and aims of mortals are indisputably
determined, but are subject to the laws of evolution in
society and therefore in a constant state of flux. At
different times and in different places they present the
most varied aspects. What is virtue here and now may
have been vice formerly and at another spot, and _vice
versa_.
> <snip>
>
>> >>Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
>>>>perform for the sake of convenience:
>>>>abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
>>>
>>> Why stop at "pre-born?" Couldn't we all be referred to as
>>> "pre-dead?"
>>
>> 17. If you like.
>
> Do you support my daughter's right to vote as a pre-adult?
6. No.
Do you support your daughter's right to life?
Do you support pre-born humans' right to life?
Do you support pre-born humans' right to avoid being subjected to
dismemberment?
Which place do you think is a safer place to be:
a Los Angeles inner-city neighborhood, or
in a uterus in the United States?
>>>>partial-birth abortions?
>>>
>>> Not a medical term, but I support a woman's right to abortion.
>>
>> 18. Interesting. Upon what basis/ grounds do you
>> think there exists a "right to abortion"?
>
> Bizarre. Upon what grounds do you think you have the right to make a
> woman have children? It's certainly not biblical.
7. I don't know what you mean by "biblical."
Upon what grounds do you think you have the right to prevent parents
from killing their own children?
>>>>infanticide?
>>>
>>> No, I don't support that and I am willing to support care of
>>> orphans who are not adopted.
>>
>> 19. Upon what basis do you oppose infanticide?
>
> They are living human beings.
8. I'm in a room with a pregnant woman; there are 3 beating hearts in
the room. In your view, how many "living human beings" are in the room?
> Why do you not oppose infanticcide?
>
>>>>involuntary euthanasia?
>>>
>>> If by involuntary you mean against the expressed will of a
>>> conscious individual, I am opposed.
>>
>> 20. Upon what basis? (By 'involuntary euthanasia,' I mean 'in the
>> absence of the expressed consenting will of the human most directly
>> affected.')
>
> Not clear enough.
> Are they objecting? Or incapable of having any opinion?
9. If a person is extremely young, or severely senile, insane, or
retarded, that person is incapable of even _understanding_ the following
questions:
Do you desire to continue living?
Do you desire to die and assume room temperature?
Do you wish to die by being processed through one of the mobile
asphyxiating and gassing vans that have stopped by?
The Einsatzgruppen has arrived-- would you mind if they put a bullet in
your head?
Would it be okay if diesel fumes were piped into the room in which
you've been placed?
Upon what basis do you oppose involuntary euthanasia, i.e., upon what
basis do you oppose euthanasia/killing of people that haven't consented
to being euthanized/killed?
> You are a twisty little toad, David. It's obvious you are being as
> ambiguous and misleading as possible, so as to get one of us to say
> something which you can twist into some "representative Darwinist"
> stance.
>
> You are not trying to find out what any of us actually think about any
> issues. You're like those slimy printer cartridge salesdroids that call
> the office and try to get one of us to agree that "yes, we'd like to
> save money" so they can get us on tape "agreeing" to their dishonest
> sales pitch.
For some prominent Darwinists, including Haeckel, Dawkins, and Williams,
taking stands that downgrade the value of human life, see
Darwinists downgrading the value of human life
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-399aluF5uql89U1%40individual.net
>>> And I support universal health care to
>>> provide all reasonable measures to prolong and improve life.
>>
>> 21. Do you support or oppose the removal of food and hydration from
>> Terri Schindler Schiavo?
>
> I support an adult's right to choose;
10. Do you support "an adult's right to choose" whether or not to:
kill their newborn child because they wanted a boy and not a girl (a
common practice in atheocratic China)?
keep a slave?
crash a passenger-laden jetliner?
Are you saying that Terri Schindler Schiavo has chosen to:
have food and water removed from her?
be starved to death?
(If "yes," how do you know that?)
> and I support traditional
> marriage values
11. Do you think homosexuals should be able to get married?
Do you think it's perfectly OK that Terri Schindler Schiavo's husband
fathered 2 children with another woman while still being married to
Terri Schindler Schiavo?
> - an adult should be able to choose another adult to
> have power of attorney. Of either gender. Why don't you think a woman
> should be able to choose a husband, who has long had this legal right?
12. I'm not sure what "legal right" you are talking about. Are you
talking about a "legal right" to withhold food and water from someone in
your care, resulting in that person's death via starvation?
Speaking of killing via starvation:
[Smith]"Once the referees [in Germany] determined that the children were
eligible for euthanasia, they were killed either by intentional
starvation or an overdose of a drug, most typically a sedative called
Luminal. The euphemism of choice for this butchery was 'treatment.'"
Speaking of "treatment":
1942 Heydrich: "The Jews... no doubt a large part of them will be
eliminated by natural diminution. The survivors, the hardiest among
them, must be given an appropriate treatment, because they represent a
natural selection...."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407032023.243f5883%40posting.google.com
>>> If by involuntary you mean in the case of an individual who
>>> is in a
>>> persistent state of unconsciousness, then yes I would support
>>> euthanasia if there is no reasonable hope of improvement.
>>> We have too
>>> many people who can benefit from medical care to waste money on
>>> hopeless cases.
>>>
>>>>mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
>>>
>>> Nope. Pretty much against involuntary killing of humans from the
>>> moment of birth until they lose consciousness for the last time.
>>
>> 22. Upon what basis?
>
> It's wrong. Don't you know that?
13. I'm all confused. I don't know what to think.
Do you agree or disagree with Reagan's allegation that there exists
some [Reagan]"natural law," some [Reagan]"higher law of morality"?
Reagan, Ronald. 1976, 1980. _Sincerely, Ronald Reagan_,
edited by Helene von Damm (New York: Berkley
Books), 224pp. A paragraph on 103-4:
I could not have worked in the motion picture industry
for most of my adult life and been a 'blue-nose' or prude.
Still I have to believe that all law is based on natural
law. On the higher law of morality we know that
premarital sex or promiscuity in our entire
Judeo-Christian tradition is a sin. Most of our common
law is based on this concept and belief. In recent years
an adult society has said to our young people in a
thousand different ways, including the classroom and
the lecture hall, that this concept has somehow become
outmoded and, therefore, sex ranks with the physical
appetites with no more importance assigned to it than
eating a ham sandwich when you're hungry. We have,
in fact, been preaching or at least accepting hedonism,
and not for the first time in man's history. The easy
way, of course, is to accept this as a new life-style and
adjust accordingly. The more difficult, but I believe
proper course dictated by the past, is to return to
standards we know are based on solid moral principles.
All of history proves that happiness is to be found by
following such moral precepts.
Do you think there exists some [Reagan]"natural law," some
[Nordau]"immutable standard amid the ever-changing conditions of
humanity," according to which torturing children in front of their
parents in order to extract confessions from the parents (which
Saddam's henchmen did) is "wrong"?
horrific brutality of the Saddam regime
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-37nm2uF5gqtjkU2%40individual.net
[Smith]"These ideas later came to haunt Hoche; he would turn against the
German euthanasia program-- even though much of its rationale derived
from his own writings-- after one of his relatives became a victim."
Of the people currently arguing for the euthanasia, how many are going
to be killed/ 'euthanized' when they become elderly?
How many of those currently arguing for euthanasia will have in future
years relatives of theirs being killed/ 'euthanized'?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Smith, Wesley J. 1997. _Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted
Suicide to Legalized Murder_ (USA: Times Books), 291pp. Some highlights
from 69-81:
An ethical tug-of-war has emerged between those who
continue to hold to the equality-of-human-life ethic and
advocates who wish to replace it with a different, less
egalitarian approach, sometimes described
(euphemistically, in my opinion) as the "quality-of-life"
ethic. I prefer to call it "the death culture."
....
[a 1970 _California Medicine_ editorial]"The traditional
Western ethic has always placed great emphasis on the
intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life
regardless of its stage or condition.... This traditional
ethic is . . . being eroded at its core...." .... Others in
this century have walked this way, with disastrous
results....
Wicked ideas are hardest to detect in their own time, even
when they are variations on a theme that has been tried
before. For although there are many substantive
differences between the values that drove the earlier
German death culture and the ones emerging in our day, a
careful analysis of the _actions_ being advocated-- rather
than just the words used to promote those actions-- leads
to the uncomfortable inference that the differences are not
as profound as many would like to believe. ....
Euthanasia, in turn, led directly to the death camps of
Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Dachau, as, in the words of the
psychiatrist and Holocaust historian Robert Jay Lifton,
"the medicalization of killing" became "a crucial . . .
terrible step [toward] systemic genocide."^4 During
these six years [of 1939-45], doctors and nurses
intentionally killed more than 200,000 helpless people:
the cognitively or physically disabled, people with mental
disease, infants born with birth defects, the senile elderly,
even severely wounded German soldiers. German
euthanasia practices were the first movement of the
symphony of slaughter that took the lives of millions of
Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, labor union
members, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, and other
"undesirables" whose deaths we memorialize in the term
_Holocaust_.
The medical professionals who killed their own patients
did not act under duress, coercion, menace, or out of fear
for their own lives. They were not drafted into
performing euthanasia; they eagerly volunteered. "Those
responsible believed in the necessity of what they were
doing," writes Michael Burleigh of the London School of
Economics.^5 The historian and author Hugh Gregory
Gallagher, who has also written extensively about the
subject of the German euthanasia program, agrees,
stating, "German doctors were not coerced. In fact, it was
doctors who went to the government and suggested it, not
the other way around." .... This unethical approach to
the practice of medicine was already well developed in
Germany by the time Hitler came to power in 1933.
Indeed, euthanasia had been aggressively promoted as a
proper and ethical public policy by the German medical,
legal, and academic intelligentsia since the late nineteenth
century, when Hitler was a child.
The first notable advocate of euthanasia was Adolf Jost,
who publicized his ideas in _The Right to Death_,
published in 1895. .... Such was the social mood when,
in 1920, two venerable German professors published a
book on the subject of euthanasia: _Permitting the
Destruction of Life Not Worthy of Life_. .... One
enthusiastic reader of _Permitting the Destruction of Life
Not Worthy of Life_ was a young army veteran and
rabble-rouser named Adolf Hitler, who viewed the book
as in step with his own value system. Hitler was so taken
with Hoche's theories that he later allowed his name to be
used in connection with advertising the doctor's books.
.... Hoche put it this way: "I have discovered that the
average yearly (per head) cost for maintaining idiots has
till now been thirteen hundred marks.... If we assume an
average life expectancy of fifty years for individual cases,
it is easy to estimate what _incredible capital_ is
withdrawn from the nation's wealth for food, clothing,
and heating-- for an unproductive purpose" (emphasis in
original)." .... These ideas later came to haunt Hoche; he
would turn against the German euthanasia program--
even though much of its rationale derived from his own
writings-- after one of his relatives became a victim. ....
Eugenics was a profound violation of the equality-of-
human-life ethic and resulted in terrible oppression
wherever it found official acceptance. ....
When the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly enacted
laws authorizing involuntary sterilization. .... In the end,
it is estimated that up to 350,000 Germans were sterilized
in the years 1933-1945. ....
Well aware that the German public supported euthanasia,
the new Nazi government proposed to legalize the
practice in 1933. A front-page _New York Times_ article
described the proposal as making it possible for
physicians to end the tortures of incurable patients. ....
This legislation never became law because of an outcry
from the churches. But that did not stop the Nazi
government from campaigning to increase public support
for the killing of "useless eaters." .... Many doctors and
nurses came to accept the idea that they owed a
professional duty to the state as well as to their patients--
in their delivery of medical services. .... By 1938,
more than a year before the outbreak of actual hostilities,
an outpouring of requests from the relatives of severely
disabled infants and young children for permission to end
the lives of their little useless eaters was flowing to the
German government. .... That case came to their
attention in late 1938. A baby had been born with birth
defects: Baby Knauer was blind and had a leg and part of
an arm missing. The parents were distraught and,
accepting the general value system of their time, were
deeply ashamed to have brought a useless eater into the
world. They wrote requesting permission to have their
child "put to sleep." Hitler was quite interested in the
case and sent one of his personal physicians, Karl
Rudolph Brandt, to investigate. Brandt's instructions
from the Fuhrer were to verify the facts of the baby's
condition and, if true, to assure the child's doctors and her
parents that if she was killed, no one would face
punishment or liability. Brandt was then to witness the
euthanasia and report back to Hitler. The doctors in the
case who met with Brandt agreed that there was "no
justification for keeping the child alive," and Baby
Knauer soon became one of the first victims of the
Holocaust.^27 ....
In early 1939, children born with birth defects or with
congenital diseases began to be killed under the
euthanasia program. These unfortunate children were
admitted to medical clinics by their doctors, where they
would be euthanized. Most of these children were
voluntarily turned over to medical authorities by their
own parents; some (but certainly not all) knew, or at least
suspected, that their disabled children were being sent to
their deaths. New reporting rules made it mandatory for
midwives and doctors to notify authorities when a baby
was born with birth defects. Once the referees
determined that the children were eligible for euthanasia,
they were killed either by intentional starvation or an
overdose of a drug, most typically a sedative called
Luminal. The euphemism of choice for this butchery was
"treatment."
It wasn't long before the list of those eligible to be killed
expanded. The next group to be systematically
euthanized, as authorized in an October 1939 decree from
Hitler that was written on his private stationery, were
severely mentally ill and retarded adults, a category that
was expanded to include the criminally insane and people
with conditions such as epilepsy, polio, schizophrenia,
senile diseases, paralysis, and Huntington's disease. This
was known as the T-4 program. As with the children's
euthanasia order, the matter was officially a secret.
.... The killing of adults generally was accomplished
with carbon monoxide, and eventually cyanide gas, with
each center having its own crematorium. Within the
framework of the T-4 program, experiments were
performed to determine the most efficient way to kill
masses of people, making more efficient the later
slaughter at Auschwitz, Treblinka, Dachau, Buchenwald,
and other genocide centers. ....
One of the most powerful voices in opposition to
euthanasia was the Catholic archbishop Clemens August
Graf von Galen, who courageously preached against the
euthanasia program from the pulpit on August 3, 1941,
stating in words still relevant today:
"If you establish and apply the principle that you can
'kill' unproductive human beings, then woe betide us all
when we become old and frail! If one is allowed to kill
unproductive people, then woe betide the invalids who
have used up, sacrificed and lost their health and strength
in the productive process. . . . Poor people, sick people,
unproductive people, so what? Have they somehow
forfeited the right to live? Do you, do I have the right to
live only as long as we are productive? . . . Nobody
would be safe anymore. Who could trust his physician?
It is inconceivable what depraved conduct, what
suspicion would enter family life if this terrible doctrine
is tolerated, adopted, carried out."^36
....
It is important to reiterate that throughout the years in
which euthanasia was performed in Germany, whether
part of the officially sanctioned government program or
otherwise, the government did not force one doctor to kill
a patient nor were any doctors ever punished for refusing
to euthanize a patient. It was the participating doctors
themselves who had become the zealots.
Haeckel on murdering the disabled
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3a8etdF65smnrU4%40individual.net
[Hoche]"I have discovered that the average yearly (per head) cost for
maintaining idiots has till now been thirteen hundred marks...."
[1940 Nazi film]"Hereditarily sick Jewess cost up to this point 15,000
marks [3,000 marks a year was a good salary].... feeble minded sisters
from a genetically over-burdened family. The mother bore ten children.
These four children have cost the state 90,000 marks up til now."
film "All Life is Struggle" embraced Darwinian natural selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407042043.1c2ccf1f%40posting.google.com
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
david ford
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a8e...@individual.net...
>> unrestra...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> david ford wrote:
>>>> Do you disagree with Haeckel's view that there is no qualitative
>>>> difference between humans and animals?
>
> I just wanna know, what iw the whole point?
>
> People of all denominations perform all kinds of acts, share all kinds of
> kinky philosophies and in general are just like his brother son of a
bitch
> fellow man in all that counts, and able to perform whatever atrocities he
> takes his fancy to, so I can't for the life of me se how this
possibly can
> be any issue worth discussing.
1. So don't discuss it.
> it certainly has noe bearing on the 'first' question: Is nature
capable of
> evolution on it's own, or does it need designer-manufacturers, of rhe
divine
> or just the little green men variety?
>
> I'd place my bets on the first alternative.
2. Do you have any evidence and arguments for "the first alternative"?
Do you believe life came from non-living matter? If "yes," upon what
basis/grounds do you believe that?
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
Danny Kodicek
> Danny Kodicek wrote:
> > "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> news:dford3-3a8e...@individual.net...
> > > Danny Kodicek wrote:
> > > > "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> news:dford3-3a6n...@individual.net...
> > > > > jfa...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > > > Ford dishonestly attempts to load the question, just as he
> > > > > > dishonestly quotes out of context: without conscience or
> > > > > > a care. Here is how you ask a question honestly and
> > > > > > without loading. Do you approve of this, Ford?:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with
> > > > > > instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword
> > > > > > those living there, including the women and children. "This
> > > > > > is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and
every
> > > > > > woman who is not a virgin." They found among the people
> > > > > > living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had
> > > > > > never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at
> > > > > > Shiloh in Canaan. -- Judges 21:10-12
>
> Just because an event or an act is recorded in the New Testament or Old
> Testament, that doesn't mean God is said to have approved or condoned
> that act. The above quote doesn't mention or allude to God.
Don't you think this kind of response is rather foolish? It's not like it
isn't easy for anyone to check the context of the quote and see. The act was
committed by the Israelites to punish the Jabesh Gilead folk for not turning
up to a gathering: 'they had taken a solemn oath that anyone who failed to
assemble before the LORD at Mizpah should certainly be put to death'.
Conveniently, this also served to provide wives for the Benjaminites, who
the Israelites wouldn't marry their daughters to. And all this was in
response to a prayer (and sacrifice) to God.
Perhaps
> the act was entirely human-initiated, perhaps as an act of revenge. I
> can't tell from the short quotation.
Your aversion to looking at the context of quotes serves just as well in
defence as in offence, I see.
> > And I can't quite see how *any* context could put this act
> > in any better light.
>
> 3. Perhaps your imagination could use a workout. I suggest formulating
> 4 just-so stories to account for the act of infanticide by some human
> males, and cannibalism among some humans. That ought to do the trick.
Are you talking about evolutionary psychology here? Then as with most
critics, you're missing the point. I certainly think it's true that human
males can commit infanticide, and that there are good Darwinian reasons why
this should be so (as it is in most species). That says nothing about
whether it's morally right or wrong.
> > So you're saying that for the crime of worshipping another god, it's
all
> > right for an entire town to be slaughtered, including the children
> (forget
> > pre-born here!)?
>
> 6. How do you know that "the crime of worshipping another god" is all
> that's involved-- are there any other alleged misdeeds involved, and if
> so, what? What was involved in this worshiping? How
> historically-accurate and complete is the account you're looking at?
It's a Biblical account, and as such it's all we've got. I'm not even
claiming it's true, just commenting on the text.
> Also, perhaps the quotation is a threat, and that threat did not end up
> being carried out because the society that was threatened heeded the
> threat and repented. I can't tell what happened from the snippet of a
> quotation that was presented.
Then look it up like I did. You expect other people to read your link-filled
posts and you're too lazy to look up a Bible quote when you've been given
chapter and verse? Don't make me laugh. Here, I'll even give you the URL:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea%2013;&version=31;
>
> > Sure, the chapter in question refers to human sacrifice,
> > but are you saying that in the entire town, *every adult* (and the
> children
> > too, presumably) should die for that crime?
>
> 7. What does the chapter say about "human sacrifice"? Perhaps every
> adult in Samaria participated in or supported "human sacrifice."
> Perhaps "human sacrifice" was a rite of passage everybody did in order
> to become considered as an adult.
That's called a 'social norm'. I personally happen to think capital
punishment is murder, but I don't think an executioner is a murderer,
they're fulfilling a socially sanctioned role. It would be wrong to 'punish'
an executioner. (incidentally, this principle has a lot of grey area -
consider the question of torture. Is there any human society where torture
is socially sanctioned in the same way as execution? If there were, would it
be right to punish the torturers? It's a slippery slope towards 'just
following orders' that I'm not sure how to avoid. Sorry, just thinking as I
type, it's not something I've ever thought about explicitly before)
>
> > Your government is responsible
> > for killing innocents - does that mean that your family should be
killed?
>
> 8. In your scenario, is my family:
> involved in "killing innocents"?
> supportive of the government's killing of innocents?
The latter. I'm talking about social norms again. If the society as a whole
condones an act, then the society as a whole has to take responsibility for
it. As I say: it would be wrong to punish an executioner in the United
States for 'murder': if a murder has been committed, the executioner was the
instrument of the murder, not its instigator.
>
> > Nice moral code you've got there, David. Glad to see that Christian
> > compassion's working well for you.
>
> 9. What do you think my "moral code" holds? Perhaps your remarks flow
> from an erroneous conception.
I go by what I read.
>
> > I'll stick to my atheistic humanism,
> > thanks all the same.
>
> 10. What does your "atheistic humanism" say about:
> abortion?
Nothing
> infanticide?
Nothing
> euthanasia?
Nothing
My atheistic humanism doesn't say anything about any of these things. I have
to work out my views for myself. For what it's worth, I see plenty of grey
areas here: for the first, I think Clinton summed it up well: safe, legal
and rare. Not something to be celebrated, but not something to be vilified
either. An unfortunate event which is the business of the parties involved
to work out for themselves - and don't think for one second that any woman
has gone through an abortion without thinking (and feeling) hard about the
moral implications. For the second, duh. (and no, I don't think there's a
sharp dividing line between the two: fortunately I don't feel any need to
divide the world into absolutes of good and evil). And for the third, I see
no difference between voluntary (informed) euthanasia and suicide and I
can't see what the fuss is about.
> the removal of food and water from Terri Schindler Schiavo, resulting in
> her death via starvation?
This is a US case and I haven't followed it closely, but from what I've seen
here, it sounds like the term 'death' is slightly overstretching the case
when she's hardly 'alive' right now.
> > Incidentally, I'm always intrigued by the fact that fundamentalist
> > Christians are so fond of the Old Testament, when Jesus quite clearly
> said
> > that he was there to overturn the old way of thinking. I remember the
> calls
> > for 'an eye for an eye' after 9/11, which was something Jesus
> *specifically*
> > overturned (Matthew 5). These people claim to follow Jesus, but they'd
> > really prefer it if he'd left the old laws alone.
>
> 11. What does "atheistic humanism" say is the appropriate response to
> the terrorist attacks of 9/11?
See above.
My opinion: diplomacy is good; catching the culprits is good; invading a
country with no known connections to the attacks in pursuit of a plan
formulated years previously is unwise. But what do I know. I do know that
revenge is not a Christian virtue.
>
> In the Old Testament, God is said to have destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
> Do you think God shouldn't have destroyed the towns?
> Do you think God did an 'evil' thing in destroying the towns?
> Do you think the people killed in the towns were 'evil'?
I don't use the word or have any interest in it. And yes, if God is
omnipotent, I can't see why he had to destroy them. Killing them when he had
another option (an an all-powerful deity always has another option), was
morally wrong by my standards. But then I think capital punishment is
morally wrong too - see, social norms again.
A nice quote from a bad fantasy novel (from memory - it may be a word
different here or there):
Do not kill where maiming is enough
Do not maim where wounding is enough
Do not wound where hurting is enough
Do not hurt where holding it enough
The greatest warrior is one who does not have to kill.
Now there's true Christian morality.
Danny
shane
For many years i believed it on the basis of scripture (Genesis 2:7 And
the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,.....)
So your point would be?
--
shane
The truth will set you free.
jfa...@earthlink.net
Unlike your buzz-word laden hypothetical, the "details,"
such as they are, are available to anyone who owns a
Bible and cares to find out. But I think you've confirmed
my point: That killing women and children and the rape
of virgins is casually acceptable to you. That you seek
mitigating circumstances for such grossly barbaric behavior
in order to rationalize it simply identifies your "ethics" as
the extreme situational kind.
Thus it is an understatement to point out that you lack
the moral authority to pass judgment on anyone elses
morals, especially humanist morals.
> > > partial-birth abortions?
> >
> > No such thing.
>
> Are you OK with the use of the abortion procedure known as 'dilation
and
> extraction'?
Could you provide ANY details about the circumstances?
That you fail to do so here where the circumstances are all
important, while asking for them where no moral
justification could exist (raping virgins, & the cold blooded
slaughter of women, children, & infants) is just another
example of your radically inconsistent and extreme situational
"ethics."
>
> > > infanticide?
> >
> > No.
>
> Your response is ambiguous. Are you OK with infanticide?
"No" is ambiguous? I suggest that if it seems so to you,
re-examine your own "ethics."
>
> > How about you? Do you approve of:
> >
> > Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no
> > mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children.
> > -- Isaiah 13:18
>
> Details about the circumstances? For example, who is "they"?
The implication being that it is acceptable to you under the
"right" circumstances. You just don't want to say so. To my
humanist mind there are no such circumstances
>
> > > involuntary euthanasia?
> > > mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
> >
> > No.
>
> Your response is ambiguous.
> Are you OK with involuntary euthanasia?
> Are you OK with mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
Again I am amazed that you would find the word "no"
ambiguous. Perhaps at this point I shouldn't be.
>
> > How about you? Do you approve of:
> >
> > "'Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity
> > or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens,
> > women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark.
> > Begin at my sanctuary.' So they began with the elders who were
> > in front of the temple." -- Ezekiel 9:5-6
> >
> > How about it Ford? Do you approve of:
> >
> > The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they
> > have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword;
> > their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant
> > women ripped open." -- Hosea 13:16
> >
> > Tell us what the pre-born human life did to rebel against "God"
Ford.
>
> 23. I would think nothing. Did the pregnant women do anything, or
> carry one or more potentially-catastrophic diseases? If "yes," what
did
> they do or carry?
Please. The rationale is in the context. It is the consequence
of "rebelling" against their god. That you think there could
be a rationalization for this speaks volumes.
>
> > No, I don't suspect you will be answering these questions any time
> > soon.
A very accurate prediction as it turns out, wasn't it? Now
how did I know this, Ford?
> > > Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler:
> > > Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_
> > > (USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp. About Weikart's
> > > book:
> > >
>
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
> > > On 76:
> > > Haeckel and many other German Darwinists fought
> > > incessantly against all dualistic views of humans, which
> > > endued human life with much greater value than
> > > animals. For Haeckel and most German Darwinists,
> > > humans were not much different from animals,
> >
> > David Ford is the guy who consciously and intentionally takes
> > passages out of context to alter the meaning of the text
>
> Examples?
I've offered examples previously. Make it worth my while
to do it again: deny that you have done this.
> Did I do so here?:
I don't know. But offering hand-picked examples where you
have not is hardly evidence that you haven't done it before.
>
> [Wolfe in _The New Republic_]"S he [O'Hair] was dictatorial,
> irresponsible, racist, overbearing, corrupt, anti-Semitic,
homophobic,
> anti-Catholic, and at times criminal. .... this crudely
embarrassing
> atheist [i.e. O'Hair]"
> [O'Hair to her father]"the Jews in big business ar e running this
country
> into the ground."
> [O'Hair to her son William, after slapping him hard in the
face]"Listen,
> kid, the United States of America is nothing more than a fascist
slave
> labor camp run by a handful of Jew bankers in New York City."
>
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
>
> [Gofreemind]"For newer atheists, Madalyn was anything but heroic.
Her
> rude, obnoxious public displays were an embarrassment."
>
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503090734.55fbdce3%40posting.google.com
Ford attempts guilt by association. If Ohair was a bad person
then all atheists must be, you see. Precisely the kind of dishonest
tactic one would expect from someone with radical situational
"ethics."
>
> > in his
> > obsessive, one-track hatred of science in general and evolution in
> > particular.
>
> Meaning of "evolution"?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
>
> Meaning of "evolution" and "species"?
> http://group
s.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
>
> > It doesn't matter to him that he has persuaded no one
> > to his POV. And I'm guessing that someday he will have occasion
> > to look back on his massive archive of hate and dishonesty and be
> > appalled, disgusted and ashamed. If he is lucky
> >
> > Here, he quotes creationist Weikart, playing the Hitler card,
from
> > his book. The amusing blurb for it states:
> >
> > >From Darwin to Hitler" is a compelling and painstakingly
researched
> > work of intellectual history, inwhich Weikart explains the
> > revolutionary
> > impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that
> > many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany
> > believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and
> > Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the
sacredness of
> > human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism ...
> >
> > Notice the implication that tr aditional "Judeo-Christian
> > ethics" is other than "Moral relativism." If Ford was honest
> > and had the courage to address my questions to him regards
> > the previous Bible passages I quoted,
Which, as predicted, he clearly lacks.
> > he would defend the
> > cold blooded slaughter out lined therein as being perfectly moral
> > because "God" was behind it. You see, to those with radical
> > situational ethics like Ford, it is not the _act_ of murder,
> > genocide, rape, or his chronic dishonesty, that is intrinsically
> > evil, immoral or wrong. How could they be when such things
> > are ordered by his god? No, such things are subjectively moral
> > or immoral depending on "God's" wishes (as interpreted by Ford)
> > at any given moment.
> >
> > I and humanists in general find this extreme moral relativity
> > depraved and repellent. To us, murder, genocide, etc is immmoral
> > period.
>
> In your view, did the atheist Stalin ever engage in "immoral"
actions?
If you can't deduce the answer from my above, and since you
find ambiguity in answers like "yes" or "no" your question
must be assumed to be an evasion of my point about your
extreme moral relativity.
>
> In your view, is killing pre-born human life:
> "immoral"?
> "murder"?
My above also applies here and below. Since you refuse to
accept clear cut answers attempting to give you one is
pointless.
>
> Do you think withholding food and water from Terri Schindler Schiavo
> resulting in her death from starvation is:
> "immoral"?
> "murder"?
>
> > It would not matter to us if there was a god and he said it
> > was ok or not. Peopl e like Ford find this attitude quaint and
> > arrogant: who are we to question the "sublime" morality of "God"
> > -commanded genocide let alone refuse to participate in it if God
> > wants it?
> >
> > Of course, people like Ford are not oblivious to how this makes
> > them appear. Ford and his cronies are very reluctant to admit to
> > their approval of killing infants, woman and children because
> > some members of their group "rebelled" against "God." But make
> > no mistake, they do indeed suscribe to such putrid ethics--while
> > smuggly lying about non-believers, accusing them of what they
> > know they are really guilty of believing. For instance, you will
> > never see Ford condemn those actions described in the passages I
quote.
> >
> > Ford isn't ashamed by this. At most he will be embarrassed
> > by my exposure of his radical situational ethics. Ethics? Did
> > I say "ethics"? I should amend that. I can honestly say that
> > I can't complain about Ford's ethics--he doesn't have any.
QED
jfa...@earthlink.net
Unlike your buzz-word laden hypothetical, the "details,"
such as they are, are available to anyone who owns a
Bible and cares to find out. But I think you've confirmed
my point: That killing women and children and the rape
of virgins is casually acceptable to you. That you seek
mitigating circumstances for such grossly barbaric behavior
in order to rationalize it simply identifies your "ethics" as
the extreme situational kind.
Thus it is an understatement to point out that you lack
the moral authority to pass judgment on anyone elses
morals, especially humanist morals.
> > > partial-birth abortions?
> >
> > No such thing.
>
> Are you OK with the use of the abortion procedure known as 'dilation
and
> extraction'?
Could you provide ANY details about the circumstances?
That you fail to do so here where the circumstances are all
important, while asking for them where no moral
justification could exist (raping virgins, & the cold blooded
slaughter of women, children, & infants) is just another
example of your radically inconsistent and extreme situational
"ethics."
>
> > > infanticide?
> >
> > No.
>
> Your response is ambiguous. Are you OK with infanticide?
"No" is ambiguous? I suggest that if it seems so to you,
re-examine your own "ethics."
>
> > How about you? Do you approve of:
> >
> > Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no
> > mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children.
> > -- Isaiah 13:18
>
> Details about the circumstances? For example, who is "they"?
The implication being that it is acceptable to you under the
"right" circumstances. You just don't want to say so. To my
humanist mind there are no such circumstances
>
> > > involuntary euthanasia?
> > > mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
> >
> > No.
>
> Your response is ambiguous.
> Are you OK with involuntary euthanasia?
> Are you OK with mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
Again I am amazed that you would find the word "no"
ambiguous. Perhaps at this point I shouldn't be.
>
> > How about you? Do you approve of:
> >
> > "'Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity
> > or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens,
> > women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark.
> > Begin at my sanctuary.' So they began with the elders who were
> > in front of the temple." -- Ezekiel 9:5-6
> >
> > How about it Ford? Do you approve of:
> >
> > The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they
> > have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword;
> > their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant
> > women ripped open." -- Hosea 13:16
> >
> > Tell us what the pre-born human life did to rebel against "God"
Ford.
>
> 23. I would think nothing. Did the pregnant women do anything, or
> carry one or more potentially-catastrophic diseases? If "yes," what
did
> they do or carry?
Please. The rationale is in the context. It is the consequence
of "rebelling" against their god. That you think there could
be a rationalization for this speaks volumes.
>
> > No, I don't suspect you will be answering these questions any time
> > soon.
A very accurate prediction as it turns out, wasn't it? Now
how did I know this, Ford?
> > > Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler:
> > > Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_
> > > (USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp. About Weikart's
> > > book:
> > >
>
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
> > > On 76:
> > > Haeckel and many other German Darwinists fought
> > > incessantly against all dualistic views of humans, which
> > > endued human life with much greater value than
> > > animals. For Haeckel and most German Darwinists,
> > > humans were not much different from animals,
> >
> > David Ford is the guy who consciously and intentionally takes
> > passages out of context to alter the meaning of the text
>
> Examples?
I've offered examples previously. Make it worth my while
to do it again: deny that you have done this.
> Did I do so here?:
I don't know. But offering hand-picked examples where you
have not is hardly evidence that you haven't done it before.
>
> [Wolfe in _The New Republic_]"S he [O'Hair] was dictatorial,
> irresponsible, racist, overbearing, corrupt, anti-Semitic,
homophobic,
> anti-Catholic, and at times criminal. .... this crudely
embarrassing
> atheist [i.e. O'Hair]"
> [O'Hair to her father]"the Jews in big business ar e running this
country
> into the ground."
> [O'Hair to her son William, after slapping him hard in the
face]"Listen,
> kid, the United States of America is nothing more than a fascist
slave
> labor camp run by a handful of Jew bankers in New York City."
>
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
>
> [Gofreemind]"For newer atheists, Madalyn was anything but heroic.
Her
> rude, obnoxious public displays were an embarrassment."
>
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503090734.55fbdce3%40posting.google.com
Ford attempts guilt by association. If Ohair was a bad person
then all atheists must be, you see. Precisely the kind of dishonest
tactic one would expect from someone with radical situational
"ethics."
>
> > in his
> > obsessive, one-track hatred of science in general and evolution in
> > particular.
>
> Meaning of "evolution"?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
>
> Meaning of "evolution" and "species"?
> http://group
s.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
>
> > It doesn't matter to him that he has persuaded no one
> > to his POV. And I'm guessing that someday he will have occasion
> > to look back on his massive archive of hate and dishonesty and be
> > appalled, disgusted and ashamed. If he is lucky
> >
> > Here, he quotes creationist Weikart, playing the Hitler card,
from
> > his book. The amusing blurb for it states:
> >
> > >From Darwin to Hitler" is a compelling and painstakingly
researched
> > work of intellectual history, inwhich Weikart explains the
> > revolutionary
> > impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that
> > many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany
> > believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and
> > Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the
sacredness of
> > human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism ...
> >
> > Notice the implication that tr aditional "Judeo-Christian
> > ethics" is other than "Moral relativism." If Ford was honest
> > and had the courage to address my questions to him regards
> > the previous Bible passages I quoted,
Which, as predicted, he clearly lacks.
> > he would defend the
> > cold blooded slaughter out lined therein as being perfectly moral
> > because "God" was behind it. You see, to those with radical
> > situational ethics like Ford, it is not the _act_ of murder,
> > genocide, rape, or his chronic dishonesty, that is intrinsically
> > evil, immoral or wrong. How could they be when such things
> > are ordered by his god? No, such things are subjectively moral
> > or immoral depending on "God's" wishes (as interpreted by Ford)
> > at any given moment.
> >
> > I and humanists in general find this extreme moral relativity
> > depraved and repellent. To us, murder, genocide, etc is immmoral
> > period.
>
> In your view, did the atheist Stalin ever engage in "immoral"
actions?
If you can't deduce the answer from my above, and since you
find ambiguity in answers like "yes" or "no" your question
must be assumed to be an evasion of my point about your
extreme moral relativity.
>
> In your view, is killing pre-born human life:
> "immoral"?
> "murder"?
My above also applies here and below. Since you refuse to
accept clear cut answers attempting to give you one is
pointless.
>
> Do you think withholding food and water from Terri Schindler Schiavo
> resulting in her death from starvation is:
> "immoral"?
> "murder"?
>
> > It would not matter to us if there was a god and he said it
> > was ok or not. Peopl e like Ford find this attitude quaint and
> > arrogant: who are we to question the "sublime" morality of "God"
> > -commanded genocide let alone refuse to participate in it if God
> > wants it?
> >
> > Of course, people like Ford are not oblivious to how this makes
> > them appear. Ford and his cronies are very reluctant to admit to
> > their approval of killing infants, woman and children because
> > some members of their group "rebelled" against "God." But make
> > no mistake, they do indeed suscribe to such putrid ethics--while
> > smuggly lying about non-believers, accusing them of what they
> > know they are really guilty of believing. For instance, you will
> > never see Ford condemn those actions described in the passages I
quote.
> >
> > Ford isn't ashamed by this. At most he will be embarrassed
> > by my exposure of his radical situational ethics. Ethics? Did
> > I say "ethics"? I should amend that. I can honestly say that
> > I can't complain about Ford's ethics--he doesn't have any.
QED
david ford
substance" at
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050321.shtml
Why does Terri Schiavo matter? Why has Congress made a federal case out
of her situation? Why did the president of the United States return to
Washington from Texas in order to sign a bill created for the express
purpose of inviting a federal court to review the case and likely
requiring her feeding tube restored while the judge gathers information?
She matters, not only because she has an endowed, inalienable right to
life, but also because she is a symbol - like Rosa Parks was a symbol
when she refused to sit in the back of that Montgomery, Ala., bus; like
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who symbolized freedom by defying Soviet
authorities and chronicling the inhabitants and victims of the gulags;
like astronauts who brave death to explore space. Symbols have meaning.
Terri Schiavo is a symbol in the battle over life-and-death issues
that inconveniently, but necessarily, confront us.
Opponents of federal intervention cry "hypocrisy" because conservatives
pushing for a federal court review claim to support states rights on
issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage and think these matters
should be left to the states under the 10th Amendment.
But the hypocrisy label can be turned around. Didn't liberals reject
states rights when it came to civil rights for African-Americans four
decades ago, and didn't they make federal cases out of such things as
integrated restrooms and universities? They supported sending federal
troops to force integration on unwilling states. They were right to do
so then, and conservatives are right to ask the federal government to
intervene when a Florida judge has, in effect, ordered the murder of
Terri Schiavo by denying her food and water.
Then, as now, when an individual's civil and constitutional rights are
denied by a state, there are instances when federal action is required.
This is such an instance.
Terri Schiavo's life matters as symbol and substance. Her case is only
the latest in a long series that forces us to choose between two
philosophies of life.
One philosophy says we are mere material and energy shaped by pure
chance in a random universe, evolving from slime with no Author of life,
no purpose for living beyond what gives us pleasure and no destination
after we die but the grave.
The other philosophy of life says we are created by an infinite,
personal God who has a plan for every life in every situation and
circumstance and that no one should take a life except under the most
extreme circumstances and only through due process or in self-defense.
The Schiavo case should not be viewed in isolation. It is part of a
flow that began in modern times with abortion-on-demand and will
continue, if not stopped, with euthanasia. Once a single category of
life is devalued, all other categories quickly become vulnerable.
Girls who became pregnant by a drunken father and sought abortions were
the symbolic beginning of a process that has resulted in abortion for
any reason at any stage. Now we are targeting the infirm, and soon the
elderly will be in our sights because of the pressure on Social Security
and Medicare. The "reasoning" will be: rather than raise taxes, reduce
benefits or raise the retirement age, let's eliminate those who are the
biggest "drain" on retirement resources - that is, the elderly and infirm.
Having been conditioned to accept killing, even killing by the state
according to an arbitrary standard of who is "fit" to live and who is
not, it will be a short step to killing Grandma and Grandpa in their
"assisted living" centers, which quickly will be transformed into
centers for assisted dying.
Someone will produce a document or hearsay testimony that the elderly
person would have "wanted to die" in such circumstances and never
intended to be a "burden" to their children. The lawyer will be called,
the will read and the inheritance distributed. It will be larger than
what would have remained had it been spent on the recently departed.
These are the stakes, and how the Schiavo case is decided will determine
what many of us will face in the future.
==================================================================
1922 Nordau; 1976 Reagan; 1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope
slide from devaluing some human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to
mass killings
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
Ash
> Thomas, Cal. 21 March 2005. "Schiavo case matters in symbol and
> substance" at
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050321.shtml
>
> Why does Terri Schiavo matter? Why has Congress made a federal case out
> of her situation? Why did the president of the United States return to
> Washington from Texas in order to sign a bill created for the express
> purpose of inviting a federal court to review the case and likely
> requiring her feeding tube restored while the judge gathers information?
>
> She matters, not only because she has an endowed, inalienable right to
> life, but also because she is a symbol
A symbol that only god has the right to end life
david ford
> ********************************************
> ***************
> The Failure of Christianity in America
> W. C . Barwell 3-8-05
> ******************************************
> *****************
Do you think the fire-bombing of Dresden during World War II was "a war
crime"?
Do you think that the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
was "a war crime"?
References for the remarks below?
david ford
> > Frank J wrote:
> > > david ford wrote:
> > >>Frank J wrote:
> > >> > david ford wrote:
> > >> > > In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> > >> > > between humans and animals.
> > >> >
> > >> > humans and animals.
> > >>
> > >>What is that qualitative difference?
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > Just as I said. One is a species, the other, a kingdom.
> >
> > Is there a qualitative difference between humans and lab rats?
>
> Sure. There's lots.
>
> For eg, lab rats' front limbs are adapted for locomotion,
> while humans' are adapted for grasping and manipulating.
Is there a qualitative difference between:
a human without arms, and a rat without "front limbs"?
Do you think that there is such a thing as a human life not worth living?
If "yes," what are some of these sorts of human lives you think are not
worth living?
Do you think Stephen Hawking's life is not worth living?
Do you think Terri Schindler Schiavo's life is not worth living?
> Which makes me wonder, how are you managing to type?
david ford
> david ford wrote:
> > In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> > between humans and animals.
> >
> > If you were in Germany
> > a) in the 1890s, and
> > b) in the 1930s,
> > would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
> >
> > c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
> > And on what basis?
>
> Humans are apes, and primates, and animals, and sentient beings. All of
> those descriptions apply. Humans are unique in terms of their cognitive
> abilities. Other apes are very similar to humans, but, so far as I know
> at this point, gorillas and chimpanzees don't progress in their
> cognitive abilities past about what a human two or three-year-old.
> Gorillas have been taught ASL (American Sign Language), and do exhibit
> the ability to use language.
>
> The basis? Observation. Humans, both morphologically and genetically,
> are quite obviously apes.
>
> Humans (and other animals, to a lesser extent) are sentient beings. As
> such, their treatment has certain moral requirements.
7. I take it you support Haeckel's view. What are the "moral
requirements" you have in mind?
Do you think that Terri Schindler Schiavo is in the group of "sentient
beings" you speak of?
Some information about her is at
http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schindler-schiavo-docs-links-page.html
and there have been reports that she made a
partially-successful attempt to say that she wanted to live:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/18/174428.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43383
Do you oppose, or are you OK with, the starving-to-death of:
old gorillas and chimpanzees?
Terri Schindler Schiavo?
Do you oppose, or are you OK with, giving a lethal injection to:
old gorillas and chimpanzees?
Terri Schindler Schiavo?
Do you oppose, or are you OK with, inducing quick death through
administration of Zyklon B gas to:
old gorillas and chimpanzees?
Terri Schindler Schiavo?
> > Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
> > perform for the sake of convenience:
> > abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
> > partial-birth abortions?
> > infanticide?
> > involuntary euthanasia?
> > mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
>
> I firmly support the right of mothers to terminate their pregnancies up
> to the beginning of the third trimester, and after if there is grave
> danger to the life and/or well-being of the mother, or when the fetus
> is clearly non-viable.
8. What's your rationale/ grounds for opposing in general abortion
during the "third trimester"?
> I firmly support the right of suffering, terminal patients who are
> capable of giving clear consent to choose to have their lives ended in
> a manner of their choosing, and under a doctor's supervision.
>
> <rest snipped>
9. Do you think that any of the actions recounted in this 1997 Wesley
Smith is fine/ OK/ acceptable, and if so, what?:
In early 1939, children born with birth defects or with
congenital diseases began to be killed under the
euthanasia program. These unfortunate children were
admitted to medical clinics by their doctors, where they
would be euthanized. Most of these children were
voluntarily turned over to medical authorities by their
own parents; some (but certainly not all) knew, or at least
suspected, that their disabled children were being sent to
their deaths. New reporting rules made it mandatory for
midwives and doctors to notify authorities when a baby
was born with birth defects. Once the referees
determined that the children were eligible for euthanasia,
they were killed either by intentional starvation or an
overdose of a drug, most typically a sedative called
Luminal. The euphemism of choice for this butchery was
"treatment."
Cite in
1997 Wesley Smith
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
If you didn't see anything above you considered acceptable:
upon what basis do you oppose the sorts of actions Smith described?
david ford
> Mike Painter wrote:
>> david ford wrote:
>> > In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
>> > between humans and animals.
>> >
>> > If you were in Germany
>> > a) in the 1890s, and
>> > b) in the 1930s,
>> > would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
>>
>> supported Hitler
>
> 1. Are you aware of any individuals in the "German Christian
> community" that opposed Hitler?
Catholic archbishop Clemens August Graf von Galen.
Ref:
Did the German atheist community do anything to oppose Hitler? There
must have been a lot of German atheists around at the time, considering
the huge numbers of materialism conversion experiences engendered by the
writings of Haeckel and Buchner in pre-Holocaust Germany.
Are you aware of any atheists of today that are voicing opposition to
Terri Schindler Schiavo's being sentenced to death via starvation?
Or are rank-and-file atheists following the pro-death lead of prominent
atheist Jack Kevorkian, and supporting the 'euthanizing'/ killing of
Terri Schindler Schiavo?
Are rank-and-file atheists following the pro-death lead of prominent
atheists such as Haeckel, Dawkins, Dennett, George Williams, Steven
Pinker, Peter Singer, and Margaret Sanger, who have supported letting
medical personnel murder pre-born human life, and/or have supported
letting medical personnel commit infanticide?
If there are any atheists here that break with the pro-death position of
the above prominent atheists,
if there are any atheists here that oppose the court-imposed murder of
Terri Schindler Schiavo,
I invite you to speak up. I'm curious to see who you are.
> > and this was due in large part because of the punitive treatment
> > handed down by the good christians of the world.
>
> 2. I don't follow. Details, please.
>
>> "God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name of
>> Jesus was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name
>> was on early Nazi designs.
>
> 3. In your view, what is the significance of that?
> For what reason/s was "the name of Jesus" removed or ceased
> being used?
>
> Do you disagree with Haeckel's view that there is no qualitative
> difference between humans and animals?
Douglas Berry
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
>Opponents of federal intervention cry "hypocrisy" because conservatives
>pushing for a federal court review claim to support states rights on
>issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage and think these matters
>should be left to the states under the 10th Amendment.
>
>But the hypocrisy label can be turned around. Didn't liberals reject
>states rights when it came to civil rights for African-Americans four
>decades ago, and didn't they make federal cases out of such things as
>integrated restrooms and universities?
Cal Thomas needs to read the 14th Amendment.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
er...@swva.net
> david ford wrote:
> > Mike Painter wrote:
> >> david ford wrote:
> >> > In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> >> > between humans and animals.
> >> >
> >> > If you were in Germany
> >> > a) in the 1890s, and
> >> > b) in the 1930s,
> >> > would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
> >>
> >> No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that
> >> supported Hitler
> >
> > 1. Are you aware of any individuals in the "German Christian
> > community" that opposed Hitler?
>
> Catholic archbishop Clemens August Graf von Galen.
> Ref:
> 1997 Wesley Smith
>
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
>
> Did the German atheist community do anything to oppose Hitler?
important to you?
> There
> must have been a lot of German atheists around at the time,
considering
> the huge numbers of materialism conversion experiences engendered by
the
> writings of Haeckel and Buchner in pre-Holocaust Germany.
conversion experiences," or are you just talking shit out some sort of
hostility problem?
>
> Are you aware of any atheists of today that are voicing opposition to
> Terri Schindler Schiavo's being sentenced to death via starvation?
>
You tell us, if you know.
> Or are rank-and-file atheists following the pro-death lead of
prominent
> atheist Jack Kevorkian,
Could we have a citation as to Kevorkian's religious beliefs, and you
realize that sticking a label in front of someone's name, e.g., calling
them "atheist so-and-so" is a form of ad hominem argument?
> and supporting the 'euthanizing'/ killing of
> Terri Schindler Schiavo?
>
> Are rank-and-file atheists following the pro-death lead of prominent
> atheists such as Haeckel,
Citation of teligious belief, please.
> Dawkins, Dennett, George Williams,
Citation of religious belief on Williams, please.
> Steven Pinker, Peter Singer, and Margaret Sanger,
Citation of religious belief on all the previous, please.
> who have supported letting
> medical personnel murder pre-born human life,
Who above has done so? Is that some sort of dysphemism for abortion?
> and/or have supported
> letting medical personnel commit infanticide?
>
Who in the modern western world has done that?
>
> If there are any atheists here that break with the pro-death position
of
> the above prominent atheists,
> if there are any atheists here that oppose the court-imposed murder
of
> Terri Schindler Schiavo,
> I invite you to speak up. I'm curious to see who you are.
>
Why? What business is it of yours?
> > > and this was due in large part because of the punitive
treatment
> > > handed down by the good christians of the world.
> >
> > 2. I don't follow. Details, please.
> >
> >> "God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name
of
> >> Jesus was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the
name
> >> was on early Nazi designs.
> >
> > 3. In your view, what is the significance of that?
What's your view of it.
> > For what reason/s was "the name of Jesus" removed or ceased
> > being used?
> >
> > Do you disagree with Haeckel's view that there is no qualitative
> > difference between humans and animals?
What _is_ Haeckel's view that there is no qualitative difference
between humans and (I assume you mean non-human) animals? In other
words, what's the obsession with Haeckel? It smacks of McCoyism. Why
do you keep asking everybody over and over again? When you have some
sort of point to make, why are you so afraid of making it?
How long have you denied the Biblical injunction for a wife to "leave
her parents, and cleave to her husband?"
Are you aware that you are kind of creepy?
er...@swva.net
Hmm, I was not able to track down the very first post in this thread to
properly attach this reply, but I just want to say that I consider the
idea that "Darwinists" or any other group of humans can downgrade human
life to be absurd. We can only downgrade what we have authority over.
Hurricanes can be downgraded to tropical storms at a certain velocity
because meteorlogists defined it so. Doctors can downgrade someone's
condition from critical to serious. A priority can be downgraded from
urgent to normal. But who has a say on the value of human life?
John
<er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:1111638544....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
You need to take a sociological view. Ford is a member of a cult. One of the
defining characteristics of a cult is that they have an Enemy, and that just
about everything wrong with the world can be traced back to that Enemy. It
gives the cult members a sense of fighting the good fight, brothers in arms
etc and allows easy explanations for why there is evil in the world.
david ford
Do you agree with this proposition?:
The unjustified taking of one human's life by another human is immoral/
wrong/ bad/ evil.
(This is practically true by definition, though I've been informed by a
few atheists here that they don't call things "bad"/ "evil." More
significantly, the worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism _can't_
term _any_ act "evil," including rape, slavery, murder, genocide,
bestiality, and infanticide. I invite all atheists who are revolted/
repelled/ repulsed by that to carefully re-examine their commitment to
materialism, and re-examine any reasons they might have for adhering to
materialism. By the way, materialism goes against rational
interpretation of the data from biology and physics.)
Supposing you do agree with the proposition "the unjustified taking of
one human's life by another human is immoral/ wrong/ bad/ evil":
Please list some of the situations in which you think there is
justification for one human to take another human's life:
1. _________________________
2. _________________________
3. _________________________
4. _________________________
5. _________________________
Do you think that personal inconvenience is sufficient to justify the
taking of one human's life by another human?
Do you think that a fetus/ pre-born human is a human life?
Do you think that there is justification for Terri Schindler Schiavo's
life to be taken?
If "yes":
1) What is that justification?
2) Do you think that there is justification for Terri Schindler
Schiavo's life to be taken via:
administration of Zyklon B gas?
lethal injection?
court-imposed starvation?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Vitz on his socialization in school
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-393h24F5qte75U1%40individual.net
1999 Paul Vitz, 2002 Benjamin Wiker
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-35qe6lF4orjsoU1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
raven1
wrote:
>Supposing you do agree with the proposition "the unjustified taking of
>one human's life by another human is immoral/ wrong/ bad/ evil":
Conditionally, yes, with an emphasis on "unjustified"...
>Please list some of the situations in which you think there is
>justification for one human to take another human's life:
Asking stupid questions on Usenet immediately comes to mind, but
obviously "self-defense" is virtually universally accepted as being a
justification for the taking of human life. Your point was...?
>
>Do you think that personal inconvenience is sufficient to justify the
>taking of one human's life by another human?
No. Of course not. Do you think that your own moral obtuseness about
the issues involved is sufficient to justify you whacking that
Strawman to death?
The courts on every level have upheld time and time again that Terri
Schiavo's own expressed wish, to several witnesses, was that she would
not want to be kept alive in a state like that she has been in for the
past fifteen years. This is not about killing someone for convenience;
this is about a person's right to not be kept in a state of quasi-life
by extraordinary means. Terri Schiavo, by all medical accounts, has no
remaining cerebral cortex. She is incapable of either cognition or
recovery. She is, effectively, already dead as far as personhood is
concerned. Keeping her body functioning may string along the
Schindlers (who, I understand, are being given their legal aid free
from a Fundamentalist organization) in their wishful thinking that she
actually has any level of awareness, or the hope that she might
recover (either possibility being part of the realm of fantasy in
light of the clear-cut medical evidence), but other than that, it
serves no purpose, and goes against what every court along the way has
agreed was Terri's expressed wish that she not be kept alive in such a
condition.
Am I arguing that persons in her position should have nutrition
withheld routinely? Emphatically no, what I am arguing is that
individual choice in the matter should be respected, especially if
it's been clearly and unequivocally expressed, as *every court* has
ruled it was in this case.
>Do you think that a fetus/ pre-born human is a human life?
No. Do you think a fertilized egg is a chicken?
>Do you think that there is justification for Terri Schindler Schiavo's
>life to be taken?
Red Herring. Her "life" is not being taken; it's no longer being
supported artificially. And philosophically, one could argue that she
hasn't been "alive" for a long time now.
satyr
wrote:
>satyr wrote:
> > On Wed 9 Mar 2005 david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > This Haeckel seems like more of a philosopher than a scientist which
> > explains why I have barely heard of him.
>
>11. Perhaps now is a good time to learn more about him.
Why? Are eugenics and nazism making a comeback?
> > I have a basic distrust of
> > this profession and eugenics is a good reason why.
>
>12. Which profession-- philosophy? zoology?
Philosophy.
> > The concept of
> > social Darwinism is based on ignorance of both Darwinian evolution and
> > society.
>
>13. Meaning of "evolution"?
>Do you agree with Haeckel's view that there is no qualitative difference
>between humans and animals?
Well, as I said in the very next sentence:
> > Whether you like Haeckel or not, he is right about us being animals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > What Haeckel fails to mention (or you fail to quote) is that we are
> > social animals who depend on each other for survival. That means that
> > I, as a human, naturally distinguish between humans who may assist me
> > in survival and other animals which may be food or pests or threats.
>
>14. Do you "distinguish between humans who may assist" you and humans
>incapable of helping you? If "yes":
>what is your attitude toward the killing of humans incapable of helping
>you-- indifference?
That is pretty much the case in Christian America. All these Bible
thumpers up in arms over Terri Schiavo but they don't give a rat's ass
about what is going on in Sudan. Do you?
>Terri Schindler Schiavo is incapable of helping you. Do you oppose, or
>are you OK with, the removal of her food and hydration/ water?
That was spooky. I actually wrote the Terri Schiavo comment before I
read your reference to her. So, when searching our brains (you know,
the thing that Terri doesn't got no more) to come up with an example
of "indifference toward the killing of humans incapable of helping
you" I come up with Darfur and you come up with Schiavo. Classic.
Thanks for playing.
>
>Some documents about her are at
>http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schindler-schiavo-docs-links-page.html
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
satyr
wrote:
>satyr wrote:
>
>[snip-- replied to]
>
> > In order to exist in a community, we must have standards of behavior
> > which we agree upon - what is permitted, what is not. As a
> > "Darwinist" (as you would no doubt refer to me) and a social animal, I
> > recognize the importance of ethical behavior.
>
>15. Do you think Terri Schindler Schiavo's husband engaged in "ethical
>behavior" when he:
>remained married to her while fathering 2 children with another woman?
>pushes hard for her to die via starvation?
>
> > As an atheist, I reject
> > the use of divine revelation as a basis for our ethical laws.
>
>16. In your view, what should be the "basis for our ethical laws"?
Equity, fairness, personal freedom, public health and safety. These
and more must be carefully weighed when making laws.
>[Humanist Manifesto II, at
><http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html>]"THIRD: We
>affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience.
>Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or
>ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest."
If I have to choose from among your quotes, I like this one best.
human need and interest ~= Equity, fairness, personal freedom, public
health and safety.
> > >Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
> > >perform for the sake of convenience:
> > >abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
> >
> > Why stop at "pre-born?" Couldn't we all be referred to as "pre-dead?"
>
>17. If you like.
>
> > >partial-birth abortions?
> >
> > Not a medical term, but I support a woman's right to abortion.
>
>18. Interesting. Upon what basis/ grounds do you think there exists a
>"right to abortion"?
Personal freedom: it's her body. Equity: we have never recognized the
"preborn predead" as persons. Public health and safety: unwanted
pregnancy is very stressful and studies suggest unwanted children end
up causing a lot of crime.
> > >infanticide?
> >
> > No, I don't support that and I am willing to support care of orphans
> > who are not adopted.
>
>19. Upon what basis do you oppose infanticide?
Personal freedom: the postborn predead is now a person. Equity:
birth has always been recognized in our society as the beginning of
life.
> > >involuntary euthanasia?
> >
> > If by involuntary you mean against the expressed will of a conscious
> > individual, I am opposed.
>
>20. Upon what basis? (By 'involuntary euthanasia,' I mean 'in the
>absence of the expressed consenting will of the human most directly
>affected.')
If the individual is conscious, he gets to choose. If he is
unconscious but previously expressed wishes, they should be followed
to the extent possible. If he is unconscious and no preference had
been expressed, then next-of-kin should make the decision. Of course
the Doctors are forbidden to do anything outside the bounds of medical
ethics.
> > And I support universal health care to
> > provide all reasonable measures to prolong and improve life.
>
>21. Do you support or oppose the removal of food and hydration from
>Terri Schindler Schiavo?
It is not my decision to make. However, if it were my decision it
would have been done long ago. What a waste. What an indignity. The
human part of Terri is dead. All that is left is a damaged reptilian
brain. Read this, you might learn something:
http://www.crystalinks.com/reptilianbrain.html
> > If by involuntary you mean in the case of an individual who is in a
> > persistent state of unconsciousness, then yes I would support
> > euthanasia if there is no reasonable hope of improvement. We have too
> > many people who can benefit from medical care to waste money on
> > hopeless cases.
> >
> > >mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
> >
> > Nope. Pretty much against involuntary killing of humans from the
> > moment of birth until they lose consciousness for the last time.
>
>22. Upon what basis?
Equity and naked self interest. I want those rights for me so I grant
them to you.
satyr
wrote:
>Girls who became pregnant by a drunken father and sought abortions were
>the symbolic beginning of a process that has resulted in abortion for
>any reason at any stage.
They were not. The abortion rights movement has always been about
every woman's right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy or not.
When abortion was legalized, there was no restriction on the familial
relationship or sobriety of the would-be father.
John Drayton
> John Drayton wrote:
> > david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> news:<dford3-3a95...@individual.net>...
> > > Frank J wrote:
> > > > david ford wrote:
> > > >>Frank J wrote:
> > > >> > david ford wrote:
> > > >> > > In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
> > > >> > > between humans and animals.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Just a note on this. But there is a qualitative difference between
> > > >> > humans and animals.
> > > >>
> > > >>What is that qualitative difference?
> > > >
> > > > (snip)
> > > >
> > > > Just as I said. One is a species, the other, a kingdom.
> > >
> > > Is there a qualitative difference between humans and lab rats?
> >
> > Sure. There's lots.
> >
> > For eg, lab rats' front limbs are adapted for locomotion,
> > while humans' are adapted for grasping and manipulating.
>
> Is there a qualitative difference between:
> a human without arms, and a rat without "front limbs"?
Sure. A human without arms can walk whereas a rat
without front limbs can't.
> Do you think that there is such a thing as a human life not worth living?
What does this have to do with evolutionary theory?
My personal answer would be that the only life I could
possibly answer that question for is my own.
> If "yes," what are some of these sorts of human lives you think are not
> worth living?
> Do you think Stephen Hawking's life is not worth living?
You'd have to ask him. He seems to think so.
> Do you think Terri Schindler Schiavo's life is not worth living?
Is she not brain dead?
I've answered some questions of yours, here's some of mine:
Do you think scientific theories answer moral questions?
If a person or persons attempt to use a scientific theory
to justify an act of immorality, does that make the
scientific theory incorrect?
Should you lie about such atheory to suppress it?
If a person or persons attempt to use a religion to justify
an act of immorality, does that make the religion incorrect?
Should you lie about such a religion to suppress it?
> > Which makes me wonder, how are you managing to type?
--
John Drayton