Darwinist historical revisionism challenged

[Syamsu]

http://www.ferris.edu/isar/academic-controversies/sarton-medal.htm

"Professor [Robert] Richards has yet to justify his assertions that
Haeckel subscribed to a tragic sense of life similar to that of Miguel
de Unamuno when in fact Unamuno was centrally engaged in polemics
against Haeckel's Monism; that Haeckel was not racially anti-Semitic
when in fact the sources that Richards relies upon reveal clearly
Haeckel's racial opposition to the Jews; that Haeckel did not support
the creation of an authoritarian state when in fact Haeckel stated
just the opposite; and that Haeckel was not a supporter of Aryan
inspired eugenics nor the idea that politics is applied biology when
in fact he supported such positions; and the list of gross
misrepresentations by Richards goes on and on."

[Kermit]

What do the politics and racial attitudes of a nineteenth century
German
science have to do with the nature of the world around us? One of
the
co-inventors of the transistor was a racist; yet transistors work.
Some
scientists were delightful, some grouchy; some were kind, some
vicious,
some are Muslim, some Christian, some atheist.

The nature of the *scientific work is independent of their character
and
other work.

Kermit

[Christopher]

The effects on society of a scientific theory or religious belief has absolutely no bearing on whether or not such a belief or theory is true, so I find the squabbles (from both sides of the debate) to be utterly worthless.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 05:36:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Syamsu
<nando_r...@yahoo.com>:

Are you under the mistaken impression that this has some
sort of relevance to the subject of evolution, or of
evolutionary theory? Or do you just like posting random crap
salted with what you consider to be big mysterious words?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <64da7e37-195a-4887...@googlegroups.com>,

Christopher <christophe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The effects on society of a scientific theory or religious belief has
>absolutely no bearing on whether or not such a belief or theory is true,
>so I find the squabbles (from both sides of the debate) to be utterly
>worthless.

A technology that works can have a transformative effect on a society.
While some technologies can blunder along for a while with no theoretical
backing whatsoever, the ones that are based on empirically verifiable
science are the ones that can really take off. Nuclear physics and
rocketry transformed the world begining in the mid twentieth century,
with solid state electronics (whose design is based on applied quantum
mechanics) taking over later in the century. It looks like it is now
the life sciences' turn to do some serious shit, which is why it matters
if a nation decides to teach bullshit biology to an entire generation
of students.

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

[Syamsu]

On Jul 9, 9:22 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <64da7e37-195a-4887...@googlegroups.com>,
>

If you want to learn biology now, then your best bet is to learn
sociology. That is because in sociology you can learn modern theories
about how decisions are made in freedom. Then you can apply that
knowledge to biology. You would be far advanced to any evolutionist,
and you may even have preserved your soul.

[wiki trix]

Shit Nando. You are getting stupider and stupider every post. You have
taken it to a new level with this one. And it's not funny anymore. I
have a lot of patience. And I virtually never use exclamation marks.
And I virtually never go all caps. And I virtually never appeal to the
only begotten Son of God. But Please Nando!!! Please stop this
insanity now!!!! CHRIST ALL MIGHTY!!!

[Syamsu]

Really your idea that freedom is irrellevant in the universe, save a
few brains, of which you by sheer coincedence happen to be the owner
of one, that idea is not cutting it now, and will be dismissed as the
most horrific ignorance in the future.

But untill then good luck high and mighty owner of freedom, may thy
awesome power of going an alternative way guide you.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:44:36 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

So, it's door #2. OK.

[Nashton]

I'm sure.

LOL

[RAM]

Then provide the evidence. Or is this more of your typical assertions
without any evidence.

[Attila]

Sorry but your instructions are to vague to be of use. What exact branch of
sociology are we talking about. Can you give me the sames of some
universities that offer such courses in Sociology and the names of the
courses where one can learn about how decisions are made in freedom.

As for preserving my sole, I tend to prefer to have it fresh. Pickled sole
doesn't really work for me and although I love smoked salmon, smoked sole is
not to my taste. (What wine would go with it?) I guess that leaves salted
sole in the manner of bacalao but that is truly disgusting. Your taste in
food is rather bizarre to say the least.

[Attila]

OK, you got me Nando. I have to ask even though the only answer I'll get
will involve something like how decisions are made in freedom which has
nothing to do with my question nor anything else of this world. With that
said, you state "Haeckel was not racially anti-Semitic". OK I'll bite. What
is the difference between being racially anti-Semitic and and the plain
garden-variety anti-Semitic? And what does "racial opposition to the Jews"
mean exactly. Is that different from plain old opposition? I gotta hand it
to you, Nand, you write some really weird shit.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Monday, July 9, 2012 5:54:41 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> On Jul 9, 9:22 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

> &gt; In article &lt;64da7e37-195a-4887...@googlegroups.com&gt;,
> &gt;
> &gt; Christopher  &lt;christopher.svanef...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt;The effects on society of a scientific theory or religious belief has
> &gt; &gt;absolutely no bearing on whether or not such a belief or theory is true,
> &gt; &gt;so I find the squabbles (from both sides of the debate) to be utterly
> &gt; &gt;worthless.
> &gt;
> &gt; A technology that works can have a transformative effect on a society.
> &gt; While some technologies can blunder along for a while with no theoretical
> &gt; backing whatsoever, the ones that are based on empirically verifiable
> &gt; science are the ones that can really take off.  Nuclear physics and
> &gt; rocketry transformed the world begining in the mid twentieth century,
> &gt; with solid state electronics (whose design is based on applied quantum
> &gt; mechanics) taking over later in the century.  It looks like it is now
> &gt; the life sciences&#39; turn to do some serious shit, which is why it matters
> &gt; if a nation decides to teach bullshit biology to an entire generation
> &gt; of students.
> &gt;
> &gt; --
> &gt; Please reply to:         | &quot;We establish no religion in this country, we
> &gt; pciszek at panix dot com |  command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
> &gt; Autoreply is disabled    |  will we ever.  Church and state are, and must
> &gt;                          |  remain, separate.&quot; --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

>
> If you want to learn biology now, then your best bet is to learn
> sociology. That is because in sociology you can learn modern theories
> about how decisions are made in freedom. Then you can apply that
> knowledge to biology. You would be far advanced to any evolutionist,
> and you may even have preserved your soul.

I assume you're lying. If you're not, you should be able name 5 sociology papers regarding "modern theories about how decisions are made in freedom."

[Burkhard]

Have you tried caveach of sole? I quite like it

[Attila]

No, I've had never heard of it unitl now. This NG is awesome. You learn a
lot of really neat things. I'll try it the next chance I get. I don't know
if they do it in Italy.

[*Hemidactylus*]

In the category "Where does the sole go after death?"

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 07/09/2012 03:22 PM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article <64da7e37-195a-4887...@googlegroups.com>,
> Christopher <christophe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The effects on society of a scientific theory or religious belief has
>> absolutely no bearing on whether or not such a belief or theory is true,
>> so I find the squabbles (from both sides of the debate) to be utterly
>> worthless.
>
> A technology that works can have a transformative effect on a society.
> While some technologies can blunder along for a while with no theoretical
> backing whatsoever, the ones that are based on empirically verifiable
> science are the ones that can really take off. Nuclear physics and
> rocketry transformed the world begining in the mid twentieth century,
> with solid state electronics (whose design is based on applied quantum
> mechanics) taking over later in the century. It looks like it is now
> the life sciences' turn to do some serious shit, which is why it matters
> if a nation decides to teach bullshit biology to an entire generation
> of students.

Rocketry and nuclear physics gave us ICBMs that can wipe out cities.
Solid state electronics gave us the advent of the computer virus in
Pakistan and a time sink social network that registers your every move
at Harvard. Biology can give us biological agents like some superstrain
of bird flu.

[Slow Vehicle]

The wine to go with smoked sole?
...Chateau "LaFeet".

[Will in New Haven]

On Jul 13, 2:04 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/09/2012 03:22 PM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <64da7e37-195a-4887...@googlegroups.com>,

> > Christopher  <christopher.svanef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The effects on society of a scientific theory or religious belief has
> >> absolutely no bearing on whether or not such a belief or theory is true,
> >> so I find the squabbles (from both sides of the debate) to be utterly
> >> worthless.
>
> > A technology that works can have a transformative effect on a society.
> > While some technologies can blunder along for a while with no theoretical
> > backing whatsoever, the ones that are based on empirically verifiable
> > science are the ones that can really take off.  Nuclear physics and
> > rocketry transformed the world begining in the mid twentieth century,
> > with solid state electronics (whose design is based on applied quantum
> > mechanics) taking over later in the century.  It looks like it is now
> > the life sciences' turn to do some serious shit, which is why it matters
> > if a nation decides to teach bullshit biology to an entire generation
> > of students.
>
> Rocketry and nuclear physics gave us ICBMs that can wipe out cities.

We always could wipe out cities. The Mongols in Iraq wiped out more
cities than Harry Truman ever did and no one has ever wiped out a city
with an ICBM. Sure, someone could but, as I said, we always could.

> Solid state electronics gave us the advent of the computer virus in
> Pakistan and a time sink social network that registers your every move
> at Harvard. Biology can give us biological agents like some superstrain
> of bird flu.

Sure. So what? None of those things make human beings any worse than
we already were. Which is bad enough.

--
Will in New Haven

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 07/09/2012 05:54 PM, Syamsu wrote:

[snip]

> If you want to learn biology now, then your best bet is to learn
> sociology. That is because in sociology you can learn modern theories
> about how decisions are made in freedom. Then you can apply that
> knowledge to biology. You would be far advanced to any evolutionist,
> and you may even have preserved your soul.

The forefather of sociology Durkheim believed social structure was *sui
generis*. So what would learning sociology tell us about biology aside
from the biases of the scientists?

If you want to learn the root of all science, learn psychology and
Piaget's circle.

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

[quote]However, it has also been suggested (for example, by Jean Piaget,
1950) that the unity of science can be considered in terms of a circle
of the sciences, where physics provides a basis for chemistry, chemistry
for biology, biology for psychology, psychology for logic & mathematics
and logic & mathematics for physics. [/quote]

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v4/n6/box/nrn1117_BX1.html

This reminds me of an argument between Dr Sheldon Cooper and Dr. Amy
Farrah Fowler over whether physics or neuroscience was more fundamental.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Your animistic view of immanent freedom is just the flipside of radical
physicalists who discount the notion of life having any feature that
distinguishes it from rocks.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I was thinking of the Brain virus, but that may have been the first DOS
or IBM-PC virus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_%28computer_virus%29

[Attila]

Can you explain "chez watt" rules to me or direct me to a site that does it,
so I can respond appropriately. I admit the play on words was a bit lame but
everyone else seems to do it if that's a valid excuse (if your friend jumped
out of the window would you jump out of the window?)

[*Hemidactylus*]

The rules of Chez Watt are there are no rules. Usually (*de facto*) it's
replying to an anonymized statement by someone that strikes you as odd
for some reason. I thought your shift from soul to sole was funny. There
are far more egregious reasons to qualify for Chez Watt status.
Categorizing the statement with some attempt at wit is standard
practice. Thus the sole sometimes goes to the dinner plate after death,
answering that age old question.

But here's a tutorial:

http://home.comcast.net/~ferrous.patella/ChezWatt/index.html

[Burkhard]

I won my first chez watt within weeks of joining this NG. Proudest
moment in my life that was. I even drafted an acceptance speech:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0b0f3ed4cdcdd600?hl=en

Had many more later (and even one or two POTMs), but nothing beats
your first CW

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 11:51:47 AM UTC-4, Attila wrote:
> Syamsu wrote:
>
> &gt; http://www.ferris.edu/isar/academic-controversies/sarton-medal.htm
> &gt;
> &gt; &quot;Professor [Robert] Richards has yet to justify his assertions that
> &gt; Haeckel subscribed to a tragic sense of life similar to that of Miguel
> &gt; de Unamuno when in fact Unamuno was centrally engaged in polemics
> &gt; against Haeckel&#39;s Monism; that Haeckel was not racially anti-Semitic
> &gt; when in fact the sources that Richards relies upon reveal clearly
> &gt; Haeckel&#39;s racial opposition to the Jews; that Haeckel did not support
> &gt; the creation of an authoritarian state when in fact Haeckel stated
> &gt; just the opposite; and that Haeckel was not a supporter of Aryan
> &gt; inspired eugenics nor the idea that politics is applied biology when
> &gt; in fact he supported such positions; and the list of gross
> &gt; misrepresentations by Richards goes on and on.&quot;
> OK, you got me Nando. I have to ask even though the only answer I&#39;ll get

> will involve something like how decisions are made in freedom which has
> nothing to do with my question nor anything else of this world. With that

> said, you state &quot;Haeckel was not racially anti-Semitic&quot;. OK I&#39;ll bite. What

> is the difference between being racially anti-Semitic and and the plain

> garden-variety anti-Semitic? And what does &quot;racial opposition to the Jews&quot;

> mean exactly. Is that different from plain old opposition? I gotta hand it
> to you, Nand, you write some really weird shit.

Racialist anti-Semitism is a term for anti-Semitism based on the belief that Judaism is a "race," as opposed to traditional anti-Semitism, which is based on the notion that Judaism is a religion. As used by apologists for traditional anti-Semitism, traditional anti-Semitism isn't as bad, as all you have to do is converting to some other religion and they won't kill you.

Note that serious followers of Islam and Christianity claim it's better to die than to convert underduress, so the notion that traditional anti-Semitism isn't as bad is an anti-Semitic apology. Note also that it really doesn't work: Christian countries (as opposed to modern secular democracies) tended to give converted Jews the same political rights as the uncovered - or most of them - it was never really forgotten that you were "really" a Jew. Doubt what I say only after you've heard Karl Marx described as "a lapsed Lutheran" and not as a "Jew."

Finally, Jews don't see Judaism as just a religion; can't stop being Jewish just by becoming, e.g., an atheist. Judaism isn't a "race" either, as you can convert, or be adopted, into it. It’s it’s own thing.

That hasn't stopped anti-Semitic Christians from claiming Jews were racists.

Haeckel made various anti-Semitic remarks over his like, and these can be quote mined, if one is inclined. In general, however, he was more liberal regarding Judaism than most Germans of his time, at least once well into adulthood. In his science he placed Jews at the same level as "Aryans." In this he was better than post people on the continent, but much worse than Darwin, who didn't believe in hierarchies of "races," didn't believe that human races was a useful scientific concept or had much foundation in evidence, and concluded that Jews weren't biologically much different than anyone else.

There is of course no evidence of significant influence by Haeckel on the Nazis, who suppressed his works - for reasons that should be obvious to anyone familiar with them.

Nando can dispute this if he wants, but he'll have to extensively quote Haeckel, in context, rather than quote one crank historian.

Mitchel Coffey

[jillery]

A point to remember about Chez Watt is that it's a linguistic
double-take, which can be either remarkably stupid or remarkably
witty. Although I admit most Chez Watt noms are for being remarkably
stupid, ISTM your quote falls in the latter category. So sleep well,
Hun.

[Attila]

Thank you Hemi. You have restored my faith in the fundamental decency of
humanity. Once again I have come away from TO understanding more than when I
went in. I should also thank Nando for the cleansing effects of his posts
which remove all content from my brain cells (a bit like a thorough
cleansing of the brain) allowing new, better, fresh information to enter.
Surely you should be called *Plenidactylus* or if you disagree could we
compromise on *3/4dactylus*?

[Attila]

You are all far too kind and my cheeks glow red with honour and humility. I
couldn't have done this alone and I accept this award on behalf of all the
little people who helped me along the road to greatness... whoops wrong
speech. I'll start again? Nah. On a serious note, however, I was
particularly pleased with ^H's call for me to be banned. Is this a rare
occurrence? or is a sort of a rite de passage that you all have gone
through? Oh and Kalkidas will no longer speak to me. Can I put a notch on my
belt for that?
Ciao cari

[Attila]

Oh!!! Big Big Prizes for that on. It surely merits a chez watt for "best pun
of the weak[sic]" Is there an address for nominations? ROTFL/LMFAO

[Attila]

Mitchell Coffey wrote:

<snip>

>
> Finally, Jews don't see Judaism as just a religion; can't stop being
> Jewish just by becoming, e.g., an atheist. Judaism isn't a "race" either,
> as you can convert, or be adopted, into it. It’s it’s own thing.
>

I'd be interested in knowing the evidence for this claim. Clearly it doesn't
apply to me. I do see Judaism as a religion and the claim that Jews form an
ethnic group is simply factually false. So what are we talking about? Not a
religion, not an ethnic group? So what kind of group, exactly? No common
language, no common customs, no common food. It's reminiscent of and has no
more meaning than the term "American Indian" or "Aboriginals" which is a
creation of the illegal immigrants who pretty much exterminated them. I
might accept "Litvak" as a designation for myself which at least has some
significance wrt language, food and various other cultural variables.
Galiciana? Even that is an entirely alien nation. Which is not to say they
are not perfectly nice.

> That hasn't stopped anti-Semitic Christians from claiming Jews were
> racists.

I'd hardly think the rantings of Christians as evidence for anything beyond
their own stupidity. I don't think that a group should be defined bythose
trying to destroy it.

>
> Haeckel made various anti-Semitic remarks over his like, and these can be
> quote mined, if one is inclined. In general, however, he was more liberal
> regarding Judaism than most Germans of his time, at least once well into
> adulthood. In his science he placed Jews at the same level as "Aryans." In
> this he was better than post people on the continent, but much worse than
> Darwin, who didn't believe in hierarchies of "races," didn't believe that
> human races was a useful scientific concept or had much foundation in
> evidence, and concluded that Jews weren't biologically much different than
> anyone else.
>
> There is of course no evidence of significant influence by Haeckel on the
> Nazis, who suppressed his works - for reasons that should be obvious to
> anyone familiar with them.
>
> Nando can dispute this if he wants, but he'll have to extensively quote
> Haeckel, in context, rather than quote one crank historian.
>
> Mitchel Coffey

I do agree with you on your main point, however.

[Ernest Major]

In message <jtpqdo$2ga$1...@dont-email.me>, Attila <jdka...@gmail.com>
writes

Chez Watt nominations are for the stunningly stupid, the stunningly
ignorant, the stunningly witty, and the stunningly anything else. As I
recall the only rule is that identifications of individuals should be
removed.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

On Jul 14, 5:59 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> jillery wrote:

> > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:46:15 +0200, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>*Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
> >>> In the category "Where does the sole go after death?"
>
> >>>> As for preserving my sole, I tend to prefer to have it fresh. Pickled
> >>>> sole doesn't really work for me and although I love smoked salmon,
> >>>> smoked sole is not to my taste. (What wine would go with it?) I guess
> >>>> that leaves salted sole in the manner of bacalao but that is truly
> >>>> disgusting. Your taste in food is rather bizarre to say the least.
> >>Can you explain "chez watt" rules to me or direct me to a site that does
> >>it, so I can respond appropriately. I admit the play on words was a bit
> >>lame but everyone else seems to do it if that's a valid excuse (if your
> >>friend jumped out of the window would you jump out of the window?)
>
> > A point to remember about Chez Watt is that it's a linguistic
> > double-take, which can be either remarkably stupid or remarkably
> > witty.  Although I admit most Chez Watt noms are for being remarkably
> > stupid, ISTM your quote falls in the latter category.  So sleep well,
> > Hun.
>
> You are all far too kind and my cheeks glow red with honour and humility. I
> couldn't  have done this alone and I accept this award on behalf of all the
> little people who helped me along the  road to greatness.

Oi, you are only nominated, you haven't won yet! That happens in the
second stage at the end of the month when Harvestdancer collects all
nominations. Nominees then have ot parade in evening gown, swimming
suit and (creationist contenders only) with a fig leaf, and then
everybody has to answer a question ("how would you bring peace to the
world) after which we all vote

[Attila]

Thanks Ernest. I dread to think of what category I fall into. Maybe a joke
would help. Did you hear the one where Darwin and Wallace are invited by to
give a lecture at Bryan College. Tragically, Todd Wood dies quite suddenly.
As a result Darwin and Wallace are both warned, "You can't come without
mourning Wood"? As you can probably tell, I wrote that one myself in honour
of TO.

[Grandbank]

Dude, please, he LOL'd. What more could he possibly do to demonstrate
the sagacity of his position?

KP

[Dr.Gary Hurd]

On Monday, July 9, 2012 5:36:23 AM UTC-7, Syamsu wrote:
> http://www.ferris.edu/isar/academic-controversies/sarton-medal.htm
>
> &quot;Professor [Robert] Richards has yet to justify his assertions that

> Haeckel subscribed to a tragic sense of life similar to that of Miguel
> de Unamuno when in fact Unamuno was centrally engaged in polemics

> against Haeckel&#39;s Monism; that Haeckel was not racially anti-Semitic

> when in fact the sources that Richards relies upon reveal clearly

> Haeckel&#39;s racial opposition to the Jews; that Haeckel did not support

> the creation of an authoritarian state when in fact Haeckel stated
> just the opposite; and that Haeckel was not a supporter of Aryan
> inspired eugenics nor the idea that politics is applied biology when
> in fact he supported such positions; and the list of gross

> misrepresentations by Richards goes on and on.&quot;

Daniel Gasman was the author of “The Scientific Origins of National Socialism” (2004, 1st Ed 1970, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers) in which he practically charges Ernst Haeckel with the personal murder of all the Jews of Europe. Robert J. Richards, “The Tragic Sense of Life: Ernst Haeckel and the Struggle over Evolutionary Thought” (2008 University Of Chicago Press) has exploded Gasman's work. Gasman, and (senior discot'tute) Richard Weikart support the notion that "evolution" caused the Holocaust.

[Dr.Gary Hurd]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 8:51:47 AM UTC-7, Attila wrote:
> Syamsu wrote:
>
> &gt; http://www.ferris.edu/isar/academic-controversies/sarton-medal.htm
> &gt;

> &gt; &quot;Professor [Robert] Richards has yet to justify his assertions that
> &gt; Haeckel subscribed to a tragic sense of life similar to that of Miguel
> &gt; de Unamuno when in fact Unamuno was centrally engaged in polemics
> &gt; against Haeckel&#39;s Monism; that Haeckel was not racially anti-Semitic
> &gt; when in fact the sources that Richards relies upon reveal clearly
> &gt; Haeckel&#39;s racial opposition to the Jews; that Haeckel did not support
> &gt; the creation of an authoritarian state when in fact Haeckel stated
> &gt; just the opposite; and that Haeckel was not a supporter of Aryan
> &gt; inspired eugenics nor the idea that politics is applied biology when
> &gt; in fact he supported such positions; and the list of gross
> &gt; misrepresentations by Richards goes on and on.&quot;
> OK, you got me Nando. I have to ask even though the only answer I&#39;ll get

> will involve something like how decisions are made in freedom which has
> nothing to do with my question nor anything else of this world. With that

> said, you state &quot;Haeckel was not racially anti-Semitic&quot;. OK I&#39;ll bite. What

> is the difference between being racially anti-Semitic and and the plain

> garden-variety anti-Semitic? And what does &quot;racial opposition to the Jews&quot;

> mean exactly. Is that different from plain old opposition? I gotta hand it
> to you, Nand, you write some really weird shit.

On Friday, July 13, 2012 8:51:47 AM UTC-7, Attila wrote:
> Syamsu wrote:
>
> &gt; http://www.ferris.edu/isar/academic-controversies/sarton-medal.htm
> &gt;

> &gt; &quot;Professor [Robert] Richards has yet to justify his assertions that
> &gt; Haeckel subscribed to a tragic sense of life similar to that of Miguel
> &gt; de Unamuno when in fact Unamuno was centrally engaged in polemics
> &gt; against Haeckel&#39;s Monism; that Haeckel was not racially anti-Semitic
> &gt; when in fact the sources that Richards relies upon reveal clearly
> &gt; Haeckel&#39;s racial opposition to the Jews; that Haeckel did not support
> &gt; the creation of an authoritarian state when in fact Haeckel stated
> &gt; just the opposite; and that Haeckel was not a supporter of Aryan
> &gt; inspired eugenics nor the idea that politics is applied biology when
> &gt; in fact he supported such positions; and the list of gross
> &gt; misrepresentations by Richards goes on and on.&quot;
> OK, you got me Nando. I have to ask even though the only answer I&#39;ll get

> will involve something like how decisions are made in freedom which has
> nothing to do with my question nor anything else of this world. With that

> said, you state &quot;Haeckel was not racially anti-Semitic&quot;. OK I&#39;ll bite. What

> is the difference between being racially anti-Semitic and and the plain

> garden-variety anti-Semitic? And what does &quot;racial opposition to the Jews&quot;

> mean exactly. Is that different from plain old opposition? I gotta hand it
> to you, Nand, you write some really weird shit.

On Friday, July 13, 2012 8:51:47 AM UTC-7, Attila wrote:
> Syamsu wrote:
>
>
> OK, you got me Nando. I have to ask even though the only answer I&#39;ll get

> will involve something like how decisions are made in freedom which has
> nothing to do with my question nor anything else of this world. With that

> said, you state &quot;Haeckel was not racially anti-Semitic&quot;. OK I&#39;ll bite. What

> is the difference between being racially anti-Semitic and and the plain

> garden-variety anti-Semitic? And what does &quot;racial opposition to the Jews&quot;

> mean exactly. Is that different from plain old opposition? I gotta hand it
> to you, Nand, you write some really weird shit.

One of the things that Nazis claimed differentiated their antisemitism was that the Nazis saw the Jews as a separate biological race than so-called Aryans. You might find Robert N. Proctor, "Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis" (1988 Boston: Harvard University Press) helpful. The Nazis even launched the idea that Jesus was not a Jew, but an Aryan (see: Susannah Heschel, “The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany” 2008 Princeton University Press).

[John S. Wilkins]

Was it hard to come up with that? You most certainly did rise to the
challenge.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Roger Shrubber]

Seemed anticlimactic.

[Attila]

I simply tried to go with the flow. I'm glad to see you and John are getting
into the spirit of this thread. I don't know if it could be reproduced
anywhere else.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1kn9w52.1jhu426p0id2oN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

And we can only hope it doesn't rub off on the rest of us.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Syamsu]

On Jul 13, 10:25�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Nando can dispute this if he wants, but he'll have to extensively quote Haeckel, in context, rather than quote one crank historian.

On what basis do you call historian Daniel Gasman a crank?

Are Klaus Fischer, Ute Deichmann, Polyakov, Grunberger, Michael
Burleigh, Benno Mueller-Hill etc. which historians all attribute
significant roles to social darwinism as from science, also cranks?

I previously quoted to you the original German of Heackel saying
Jesus's loving nature was demonstrative of an Aryan race rather than
Jewish. You dismissed this quote as insignificant, although it was
written in a very popular book of Heackel (running 100.000s of copies
or even millions of copies I can't remember exactly).

So in popularizing this opinion Heackel convinced Christians in
believing Jesus was an Aryan, and believing that Chrisitian love is a
matter of scientific fact, not faith. This is very insidious, as it
turned what previously defended against racism, Christianity, into a
supporter of racism.

But what you instead find more significant is that Heackel in some
interview not very widely circulated says he was friends with some
Jews, and spoke admiringly of them, and Jews in general.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Monday, July 16, 2012 7:30:31 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> On Jul 13, 10:25�pm, Mitchell Coffey &lt;mitchell.cof...@gmail.com&gt;
> wrote:
>
> &gt; Nando can dispute this if he wants, but he&#39;ll have to extensively quote Haeckel, in context, rather than quote one crank historian.

>
> On what basis do you call historian Daniel Gasman a crank?

Go ahead and actually read Richard's work. Gasman has latched on to an idee fixe which he supports with ahistorical argumentation, selective quotation and associative logic; which he refuses to alter when presented with counter information. He's a crank.

> Are Klaus Fischer, Ute Deichmann, Polyakov, Grunberger, Michael
> Burleigh, Benno Mueller-Hill etc. which historians all attribute
> significant roles to social darwinism as from science, also cranks?

This is a non-sequitur. Gasman is a crank regarding Haeckel and Nazis. Many of Richard's papers relevant to Gasman's views are on line. So are exchanges between Gasman and Richards. Read them.

And once again you're claiming that historians support your views. Whenever you've been challenged to quote historians whom you claim agree with you, you've either refused, admitted there were no actual relevant quotes, or quote something that did not support you views.

Furthermore, you consistantly use a definition of "social darwinism" that is yours and yours alone, one that is not even close to how term is used in historical and political studies, in everyday common usage, or in any dictionary. Your personal definition is not even logically coherent or reflective of historical fact. Most relevantly, your private definition of "social darwinism" is not how the term is used by "Klaus Fischer, Ute Deichmann, Polyakov, Grunberger, Michael Burleigh, Benno Mueller-Hill etc." You once again claim other people agree with you who do not. And your fundemental claim is without validity, as it is based on you wildly redefining a common term, a private definition no one else uses.

> I previously quoted to you the original German of Heackel saying

> Jesus&#39;s loving nature was demonstrative of an Aryan race rather than

> Jewish. You dismissed this quote as insignificant, although it was
> written in a very popular book of Heackel (running 100.000s of copies

> or even millions of copies I can&#39;t remember exactly).

He also said good things about Jews. Is your point here that Haeckel was antisemitic? A 19th c. central European conservative monarchist? Imagine!

By the way, it might be useful for you to scroll back up and re-read my discussion of why Gasman is a crank. It similarly applies to Haeckel regarding race, "Aryans," religion and his bullshit about Jesus. He didn't use selective quotation to my knowledge, though. Haeckel did significant biological work, invented the science of ecology, etc., had one or two admirable political views like pacifism (in Wilhelmine Germany), but when it came to race and religion he was a crank.

> So in popularizing this opinion Heackel convinced Christians in
> believing Jesus was an Aryan,

This story had already been popularized.

> and believing that Chrisitian love is a
> matter of scientific fact, not faith. This is very insidious, as it
> turned what previously defended against racism, Christianity, into a
> supporter of racism.

This is a untrue, claiming that Christianity had previous to Haeckel "defended against racism." Go read something about the history of slavery, racism, antisemitism and Christian churches.

Your claim that Haeckel "convinced Christians" of anything in particular is nonsense and without evidence. Your claim is particularly ridiculous given the history of Christianity regarding racism and antisemitism.

Explain to me why the mass of Christians would pay attention to - much less be "convinced" by - the opinions about Jesus of a free-thinking, anti-Christian, pagan like Haeckel?

And Gasman's claim that Haeckel had much of an influence on anything after his death is without evidence. And I will note again the Nazis suppressing his works.

> But what you instead find more significant is that Heackel in some
> interview not very widely circulated says he was friends with some
> Jews, and spoke admiringly of them, and Jews in general.

In fact, I was referring to extended and explicit arguements in Haeckel's "scientific" books. You woud know this if you read Haeckel and/or the Richard's papers on line. PDF versions of the relevant books by Haeckel (in English) are also on line.

Mitchell Coffey

[Steven L.]

On 7/12/2012 2:02 PM, Nashton wrote:
> On 07-09-12 12:02 PM, Kermit wrote:
>> On Jul 9, 5:36 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.ferris.edu/isar/academic-controversies/sarton-medal.htm
>>>

>>> "Professor [Robert] Richards has yet to justify his assertions that

>>> Haeckel subscribed to a tragic sense of life similar to that of Miguel

>>> de Unamuno when in fact Unamuno was centrally engaged in polemics

>>> against Haeckel's Monism; that Haeckel was not racially anti-Semitic

>>> when in fact the sources that Richards relies upon reveal clearly

>>> Haeckel's racial opposition to the Jews; that Haeckel did not support

>>> the creation of an authoritarian state when in fact Haeckel stated

>>> just the opposite; and that Haeckel was not a supporter of Aryan

>>> inspired eugenics nor the idea that politics is applied biology when

>>> in fact he supported such positions; and the list of gross

>>> misrepresentations by Richards goes on and on."
>>
>> What do the politics and racial attitudes of a nineteenth century
>> German
>> science have to do with the nature of the world around us? One of
>> the
>> co-inventors of the transistor was a racist; yet transistors work.
>> Some
>> scientists were delightful, some grouchy; some were kind, some
>> vicious,
>> some are Muslim, some Christian, some atheist.
>>
>> The nature of the *scientific work is independent of their character
>> and
>> other work.
>>
>> Kermit
>>
>
> I'm sure.
>
> LOL

If you feel that way, then when are you going to start claiming the
Uncertainty Principle in physics is false?

Werner Heisenberg headed the German Nazi atomic bomb project, working
actively to help the Nazis achieve their military objectives.

But no, despite all the moral and personal failings of scientists over
the years, you just keep after Darwin, Darwin, Darwin.

I wonder why that is.


--
Steven L.

[Steven L.]

On 7/14/2012 11:43 AM, Dr.Gary Hurd wrote:
> On Monday, July 9, 2012 5:36:23 AM UTC-7, Syamsu wrote:
>> http://www.ferris.edu/isar/academic-controversies/sarton-medal.htm
>>
>> &quot;Professor [Robert] Richards has yet to justify his assertions that
>> Haeckel subscribed to a tragic sense of life similar to that of Miguel
>> de Unamuno when in fact Unamuno was centrally engaged in polemics
>> against Haeckel&#39;s Monism; that Haeckel was not racially anti-Semitic
>> when in fact the sources that Richards relies upon reveal clearly
>> Haeckel&#39;s racial opposition to the Jews; that Haeckel did not support
>> the creation of an authoritarian state when in fact Haeckel stated
>> just the opposite; and that Haeckel was not a supporter of Aryan
>> inspired eugenics nor the idea that politics is applied biology when
>> in fact he supported such positions; and the list of gross
>> misrepresentations by Richards goes on and on.&quot;
>

> Daniel Gasman was the author of �The Scientific Origins of National Socialism� (2004, 1st Ed 1970, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers) in which he practically charges Ernst Haeckel with the personal murder of all the Jews of Europe. Robert J. Richards, �The Tragic Sense of Life: Ernst Haeckel and the Struggle over Evolutionary Thought� (2008 University Of Chicago Press) has exploded Gasman's work. Gasman, and (senior discot'tute) Richard Weikart support the notion that "evolution" caused the Holocaust.

I read (an English translation of) Mein Kampf.

In it, Hitler's reasons for hating the Jews had nothing whatsoever to do
with the Theory of Evolution. Instead, Hitler put forward his own
pseudo-scientific theories.

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html


--
Steven L.

[John Stockwell]

On Monday, July 9, 2012 3:54:41 PM UTC-6, Syamsu wrote:
> On Jul 9, 9:22�pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

> &gt; In article &lt;64da7e37-195a-4887...@googlegroups.com&gt;,
> &gt;
> &gt; Christopher �&lt;christopher.svanef...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt;The effects on society of a scientific theory or religious belief has
> &gt; &gt;absolutely no bearing on whether or not such a belief or theory is true,
> &gt; &gt;so I find the squabbles (from both sides of the debate) to be utterly
> &gt; &gt;worthless.
> &gt;
> &gt; A technology that works can have a transformative effect on a society.
> &gt; While some technologies can blunder along for a while with no theoretical
> &gt; backing whatsoever, the ones that are based on empirically verifiable
> &gt; science are the ones that can really take off. �Nuclear physics and
> &gt; rocketry transformed the world begining in the mid twentieth century,
> &gt; with solid state electronics (whose design is based on applied quantum
> &gt; mechanics) taking over later in the century. �It looks like it is now
> &gt; the life sciences&#39; turn to do some serious shit, which is why it matters
> &gt; if a nation decides to teach bullshit biology to an entire generation
> &gt; of students.
> &gt;
> &gt; --
> &gt; Please reply to: � � � � | &quot;We establish no religion in this country, we
> &gt; pciszek at panix dot com | �command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
> &gt; Autoreply is disabled � �| �will we ever. �Church and state are, and must
> &gt; � � � � � � � � � � � � �| �remain, separate.&quot; --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

>
> If you want to learn biology now, then your best bet is to learn
> sociology. That is because in sociology you can learn modern theories
> about how decisions are made in freedom. Then you can apply that
> knowledge to biology. You would be far advanced to any evolutionist,
> and you may even have preserved your soul.

If you want to understand biology now, you study biology now.

[Perseus]

On Jul 13, 6:30�pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In the category "Where does the sole go after death?"
>

yes, I am interested in this problem, for I ate yesterday a fried
sole. I am beginning to worry about the soul of the sole. Was it
sent to hell? Is the soul of sole happy in peace with the gods of the
sea? I suppose it must be a marine heaven without any sharks, other
predators.

Perseus

[Syamsu]

On Jul 16, 5:35�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 16, 2012 7:30:31 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 10:25�pm, Mitchell Coffey &lt;mitchell.cof...@gmail.com&gt;
> > wrote:
>
> > &gt; Nando can dispute this if he wants, but he&#39;ll have to extensively quote Haeckel, in context, rather than quote one crank historian.
>
> > On what basis do you call historian Daniel Gasman a crank?
>
> Go ahead and actually read Richard's work. Gasman has latched on to an idee fixe which he supports with ahistorical argumentation, selective quotation and associative logic; which he refuses to alter when presented with counter information. He's a crank.

Richards is very obviously and openly a Heackel afficianado. That
Gasman talks about Heackel is incedental to his research, he didn't
have any very significant special favor for or against Heackel in
starting out his research. And in any case Gasman makes specific
criticisms of Richards work, Richards work is simply shoddy. You are a
bullying asshole is why you call Gasman a crank, as everybody in their
right mind knows.

> > Are Klaus Fischer, Ute Deichmann, Polyakov, Grunberger, Michael
> > Burleigh, Benno Mueller-Hill etc. which historians all attribute
> > significant roles to social darwinism as from science, also cranks?
>
> This is a non-sequitur. Gasman is a crank regarding Haeckel and Nazis. Many of Richard's papers relevant to Gasman's views are on line. So are exchanges between Gasman and Richards. Read them.

I referenced part of an exchange Richards has yet to answer.

> And once again you're claiming that historians support your views. Whenever you've been challenged to quote historians whom you claim agree with you, you've either refused, admitted there were no actual relevant quotes, or quote something that did not support you views.

You are misleading people about the opinions of historians. Richards
is the odd one out about Heackel, not Gasman.

> Furthermore, you consistantly use a definition of "social darwinism" that is yours and yours alone, one that is not even close to how term is used in historical and political studies, in everyday common usage, or in any dictionary. Your personal definition is not even logically coherent or reflective of historical fact. Most relevantly, your private definition of "social darwinism" is not how the term is used by "Klaus Fischer, Ute Deichmann, Polyakov, Grunberger, Michael Burleigh, Benno Mueller-Hill etc." You once again claim other people agree with you who do not. And your fundemental claim is without validity, as it is based on you wildly redefining a common term, a private definition no one else uses.

Social-darwinism is based on making natural selection theory morally
prescriptive, as historians generally agree. I explain that one is
already making a prescriptive statement by identifying love and hate
as objective matters of fact, because morality is derived from what is
identified as loving and hateful. What ought and ought not
automatically follows from what is identified as loving or hateful. So
I only have an opinion on how natural selection theory is turned into
prescriptive morality, where historians generally agree that natural
selection was turned into prescriptive morality.

Again, you are obviously a lying asshole who completely disregards the
truth. There is no need to address your bullshit, your dismissal of
Daniel Gasman as a crank historian, dismisses you already as a
dishonest darwinist fanatic.

[Attila]

Interesting questions, Pers. I need one bit of information and then a
definitive answer can surely be found. You state that you "ate yesterday a
fried sole." Was that the sole fried sole you ate at that time? I need the
answer to this because the soul of the sole fried sole is a different kettle
of fish from the soul of several fried soles eaten on a Friday.

[Attila]

Syamsu wrote:

<big snip to allow a big quote>

> Again, you are obviously a lying asshole who completely disregards the
> truth. There is no need to address your bullshit, your dismissal of
> Daniel Gasman as a crank historian, dismisses you already as a
> dishonest darwinist fanatic.

Yo, Nando, here you go. Don't say I never done nothing for you. Read it and
weep, sucker.

social Darwinism, the theory that persons, groups, and races are subject to
the same laws of natural selection as Charles Darwin had perceived in plants
and animals in nature. According to the theory, which was popular in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries, the weak were diminished and their
cultures delimited, while the strong grew in power and in cultural influence
over the weak. Social Darwinists held that the life of humans in society was
a struggle for existence ruled by “survival of the fittest,” a phrase
proposed by the British philosopher and scientist Herbert Spencer.

The social Darwinists—notably Spencer and Walter Bagehot in England and
William Graham Sumner in the United States—believed that the process of
natural selection acting on variations in the population would result in the
survival of the best competitors and in continuing improvement in the
population. Societies, like individuals, were viewed as organisms that
evolve in this manner.

The theory was used to support laissez-faire capitalism and political
conservatism. Class stratification was justified on the basis of “natural”
inequalities among individuals, for the control of property was said to be a
correlate of superior and inherent moral attributes such as industriousness,
temperance, and frugality. Attempts to reform society through state
intervention or other means would, therefore, interfere with natural
processes; unrestricted competition and defense of the status quo were in
accord with biological selection. The poor were the “unfit” and should not
be aided; in the struggle for existence, wealth was a sign of success. At
the societal level, social Darwinism was used as a philosophical
rationalization for imperialist, colonialist, and racist policies,
sustaining belief in Anglo-Saxon or Aryan cultural and biological
superiority.

Social Darwinism declined during the 20th century as an expanded knowledge
of biological, social, and cultural phenomena undermined, rather than
supported, its basic tenets.

[Slow Vehicle]

There was a Korean-bred thouroughbred mare that raced her first year
as "Filly of Seoul"....

[Syamsu]

On Jul 17, 2:09�pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Social Darwinism declined during the 20th century as an expanded knowledge
> of biological, social, and cultural phenomena undermined, rather than
> supported, its basic tenets.

1/4 of the world population, the Chinese, live with social-darwinist
legislation, since about 1998. This includes forced sterilization for
diseases like schizophrenia.

Since about the 80's intellectual climate of opinion has reverted back
to biological determinism, because of a resurgence of Darwinism, new
atheism, and all that stuff.

What on earth do you think you are doing on talk.origins if not
supporting biological determinism? You are in realy effects of your
presence here underminding creationism / intelligent design, and every
single last theory which supports a reality of freedom, leaving a
subjectively identified spiritual domain to do the deciding. Why do
you think Boikat insistently refers to a brain doing the deciding, if
not for sake of biological determinism?

[*Hemidactylus*]

> One of the things that Nazis claimed differentiated their antisemitism was that the Nazis saw the Jews as a separate biological race than so-called Aryans. You might find Robert N. Proctor, "Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis" (1988 Boston: Harvard University Press) helpful. The Nazis even launched the idea that Jesus was not a Jew, but an Aryan (see: Susannah Heschel, �The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany� 2008 Princeton University Press).

Doesn't the Wagnerite Houston Chamberlain fit into this "Aryan Christ"
history somewhere?

[Attila]

Brilliant! But more importantly, now we can add Seoul to Perseus's question:
Was the soul of the sole fried sole from Seoul...
Any more? The world record is within our grasp.

[Attila]

Thank you for your interest. Please reread the material sent to you. If you
agree to its terms you may contact us later. Yours in Wallace.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:21:00 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
[snip]

> Why do
> you think Boikat insistently refers to a brain doing the deciding, if
> not for sake of biological determinism?

Because rocks don't have volition, you friggin' idiot!

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 7:16:34 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> On Jul 16, 5:35 pm, Mitchell Coffey &lt;mitchell.cof...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> &gt; On Monday, July 16, 2012 7:30:31 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> &gt; &gt; On Jul 13, 10:25 pm, Mitchell Coffey &amp;lt;mitchell.cof...@gmail.com&amp;gt;
> &gt; &gt; wrote:
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Nando can dispute this if he wants, but he&amp;#39;ll have to extensively quote Haeckel, in context, rather than quote one crank historian.
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; On what basis do you call historian Daniel Gasman a crank?
> &gt;
> &gt; Go ahead and actually read Richard&#39;s work. Gasman has latched on to an idee fixe which he supports with ahistorical argumentation, selective quotation and associative logic; which he refuses to alter when presented with counter information. He&#39;s a crank.

>
> Richards is very obviously and openly a Heackel afficianado. That

> Gasman talks about Heackel is incedental to his research, he didn&#39;t

> have any very significant special favor for or against Heackel in
> starting out his research. And in any case Gasman makes specific
> criticisms of Richards work, Richards work is simply shoddy. You are a
> bullying asshole is why you call Gasman a crank, as everybody in their
> right mind knows.

Actually, Gasman's research was all about Haeckel - for godsake is book was about Haeckel!

I note you are unable to actually support your assertions with evidence or logic. Note also that, even if what you claim about them were true, Richards' and Gasman's motivations and preconceptions are irrelevant to whether their analysis are accurate or not.

I'm aware that Gasman makes specific criticisms of Richards' work; and Richards' responds to them. Merely citing the fact that one person has critized another's work is not an argument.

OK, so explain a few examle of where Richards' work is shoddy, include your evidence.

Also, name one person other than yourself how thinks the reason I call Gasman a crank is because I'm a bully?

> &gt; &gt; Are Klaus Fischer, Ute Deichmann, Polyakov, Grunberger, Michael
> &gt; &gt; Burleigh, Benno Mueller-Hill etc. which historians all attribute
> &gt; &gt; significant roles to social darwinism as from science, also cranks?
> &gt;
> &gt; This is a non-sequitur. Gasman is a crank regarding Haeckel and Nazis. Many of Richard&#39;s papers relevant to Gasman&#39;s views are on line. So are exchanges between Gasman and Richards. Read them.

>
> I referenced part of an exchange Richards has yet to answer.

No: you mean "has yet to resond to." Explain why Richards is wrong and Gasman is right.

> &gt; And once again you&#39;re claiming that historians support your views. Whenever you&#39;ve been challenged to quote historians whom you claim agree with you, you&#39;ve either refused, admitted there were no actual relevant quotes, or quote something that did not support you views.

>
> You are misleading people about the opinions of historians. Richards
> is the odd one out about Heackel, not Gasman.

As anyone can read, above, what you actually wrote was that those historians "all attribute significant roles to social darwinism as from science". That was not the issue at hand. You've now switched your claim to that they agree with Gasman over Richards. In fact, not one of those historians to my knowledge argued that Haeckel had an influence on the Nazis anywhere near Gasman's mechanistic, simplistic and wrong single-cause analysis.

> &gt; Furthermore, you consistantly use a definition of &quot;social darwinism&quot; that is yours and yours alone, one that is not even close to how term is used in historical and political studies, in everyday common usage, or in any dictionary. Your personal definition is not even logically coherent or reflective of historical fact. Most relevantly, your private definition of &quot;social darwinism&quot; is not how the term is used by &quot;Klaus Fischer, Ute Deichmann, Polyakov, Grunberger, Michael Burleigh, Benno Mueller-Hill etc.&quot; You once again claim other people agree with you who do not. And your fundemental claim is without validity, as it is based on you wildly redefining a common term, a private definition no one else uses.

>
> Social-darwinism is based on making natural selection theory morally
> prescriptive, as historians generally agree. I explain that one is
> already making a prescriptive statement by identifying love and hate
> as objective matters of fact, because morality is derived from what is
> identified as loving and hateful. What ought and ought not
> automatically follows from what is identified as loving or hateful. So
> I only have an opinion on how natural selection theory is turned into
> prescriptive morality, where historians generally agree that natural
> selection was turned into prescriptive morality.

You don't respond. As I wrote, "you consistantly use a definition of 'social darwinism' that is yours and yours alone, one that is not even close to how term is used in historical and political studies, in everyday common usage, or in any dictionary." Your bullshit about love and hate isn't a response.

When your wrote "Social-darwinism is based on making natural selection theory morally prescriptive" you were actually getting it right. But since nobody arguing with you in T.O. believes natural selection theory is morally prescriptive, and virtually no modern "darwinists" whom you assert are social darwinists believe it, you have to fall into your own private definition so that you can make your patently false claims.

> Again, you are obviously a lying asshole who completely disregards the
> truth.

I note that to my knowledge you have never, once, in recent years produced evidence to support your constant claims that other people are lying. You won't do it know, either, because you know damn well you're lying.

> There is no need to address your bullshit, your dismissal of
> Daniel Gasman as a crank historian, dismisses you already as a
> dishonest darwinist fanatic.

You're inability - once again - to produce evidence to support your claims is noted.

Anyone interested in why I claim Gasman is a crank can view or downloads his and Richards' work and exchanges from here:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-07-01/#feature

and

http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/

Mitchell Coffey

[Syamsu]

More of your bullshit intellectual thuggery to discourage opinions you
don't agree with. As a matter of fact rocks do have alternative states
available in the moment. And there is no reason to require any super-
sophisticated mechanism such as a brain for the simple capability of
realizing one of alternative states.

Unless ofcourse one conceives of choosing as calculating an optimal
result, which requires some sophisticated calculator, like a
chesscomputer calculating an optimal result. But then calculating an
optimal result doesn't require any freedom whatever.

Which is ofcourse exactly what Darwinists insist on is the only
correct meaning of choosing, to calculate an optimal result. And to
interpret choosing as involving alternative results in the moment, why
then you have a throng of Darwinist thugs against you calling you
names.

[Slow Vehicle]

...the Saturnalia recipe for "Sol Invictuals"?
Han Solo, Napoleon Solo, and Hope Solo (that's a trio of Solos...)
singing a dirge on the tonic ("sol")?
Are ya sol' on the idea yet?

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jul 17, 8:55�am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> And there is no reason to require any super-

> sophisticated mechanism such as a brain...

<snip>

...Houston, we have identified the root of the problem...

[Syamsu]

On Jul 17, 4:15�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone interested in why I claim Gasman is a crank can view or downloads his and Richards' work and exchanges from here:
>
> http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-07-01/#feature

Obviously you and Richards, find Gasman to be a crank because his
findings support the creationist cause, eventhough Gasman doesn't even
want to be sided with the creationist cause.

Heackel is known for monism. Richards whole book about Heackel is
based on treating Heackel as some kind of dualist. The tragic sense of
life refers to the need for irrational belief, besides the facts of
science, where Heackel obviously sought fullfilment in science alone,
monism. Richards book is thus baloney, and Richards is a fraud.

The generally careful historical researsch by Gasman, tracing
Heackel's influence to racists who were either read by, or had direct
contact with Adolf Hitler, still stands. And there are numerous fraud
historians who are enthusiastic Darwin supporters, who take it upon
themselves to rewrite the history of the holocaust, besides producing
their awful biographies of various Darwinists. It is a sure thing that
Galton, and Spencer will be exonorated too by Darwinist fanatics,
eventhough at this time they conveniently blame Galton and Spencer to
divert attention away from Darwin.

http://www.ferris.edu/isar/academic-controversies/gasman.htm

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 10:55:10 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> On Jul 17, 4:18�pm, Mitchell Coffey &lt;mitchell.cof...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> &gt; On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:21:00 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> &gt;
> &gt; [snip]
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; Why do
> &gt; &gt; you think Boikat insistently refers to a brain doing the deciding, if
> &gt; &gt; not for sake of biological determinism?
> &gt;
> &gt; Because rocks don&#39;t have volition, you friggin&#39; idiot!
> &gt;

>
> More of your bullshit intellectual thuggery to discourage opinions you

> don&#39;t agree with.

You mean, I pointed out the fact that rocks don't have volition. That's thuggery? And since when is arguing a position discouraging "opinions you don'agree with"? What the hell are you doing in as discussion group if you don't belief in discussion?

> As a matter of fact rocks do have alternative states
> available in the moment.

As anyone can read, in the passage you're pretending to respond to, I wrote "rocks don't have volition." This is a fact people keep poining out but you refuse to respond to honestly. And nobody has disputed that "rocks do have alternative states available in the moment," to the extent your sentence makes any sense in English. Nobody disputes the role of quantum randomness, thus the path of a rock rolling down a hill is not determinist. However, rocks don't have volition, which is the issue regarding free will.

> And there is no reason to require any super-
> sophisticated mechanism such as a brain for the simple capability of
> realizing one of alternative states.

Sure, a rolling stone is subject to random process. It does not however have volition.

> Unless ofcourse one conceives of choosing as calculating an optimal
> result, which requires some sophisticated calculator, like a
> chesscomputer calculating an optimal result. But then calculating an

> optimal result doesn&#39;t require any freedom whatever.

No, but volition does.

> Which is ofcourse exactly what Darwinists insist on is the only
> correct meaning of choosing, to calculate an optimal result.

Which they don't. And rocks don't have volition.

And to
> interpret choosing as involving alternative results in the moment,

You keep telling this lie. You never attempt to demonstrate its truth. It is trivially untrue. Your claim is that human free will is like a rock bouncing around randomly. It is not. Free will requires volition. Random movement is not volition

> why
> then you have a throng of Darwinist thugs against you calling you
> names.

Let me remind you of the vile obsenities you've routinly thown at anyone who disagrees with you, and you call for the mass murder of "darwinist."

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:20:52 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> On Jul 17, 4:15�pm, Mitchell Coffey &lt;mitchell.cof...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> &gt; Anyone interested in why I claim Gasman is a crank can view or downloads his and Richards&#39; work and exchanges from here:
> &gt;
> &gt; http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-07-01/#feature

>
> Obviously you and Richards, find Gasman to be a crank because his

> findings support the creationist cause, eventhough Gasman doesn&#39;t even

> want to be sided with the creationist cause.
>
> Heackel is known for monism. Richards whole book about Heackel is
> based on treating Heackel as some kind of dualist. The tragic sense of
> life refers to the need for irrational belief, besides the facts of
> science, where Heackel obviously sought fullfilment in science alone,
> monism. Richards book is thus baloney, and Richards is a fraud.

So you assert, but you refuse to give evidence.

> The generally careful historical researsch by Gasman, tracing

> Heackel&#39;s influence to racists who were either read by, or had direct

> contact with Adolf Hitler, still stands. And there are numerous fraud
> historians who are enthusiastic Darwin supporters, who take it upon
> themselves to rewrite the history of the holocaust, besides producing
> their awful biographies of various Darwinists. It is a sure thing that
> Galton, and Spencer will be exonorated too by Darwinist fanatics,
> eventhough at this time they conveniently blame Galton and Spencer to
> divert attention away from Darwin.
>
> http://www.ferris.edu/isar/academic-controversies/gasman.htm

You're inability - yet again - to produce evidence to support your claims is noted. You should be able to cite specific facts, like who those "racists who were either read by, or had direct contact with Adolf Hitler" were, and demonstrate how those indirect influences were more important than every other influence on his life. You must also explain how Haeckel's alleged influence on Hitler didn't turn Hitler into a pacifist, like Haeckel, and didn't make Hitler believe that Jews were the evolutionary equals to "Aryans." And so on.

Anyone interested in why I claim Gasman is a crank should also look at the material in the link Nando snipped:

http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/

Mitchell Coffey

[Attila]

This last one my be a bit dodgy. Elision of final consonants to create new
instances of a form is frowned upon by the rules committee. We must proceed
with care, Kimosabe.

[Slow Vehicle]

We have time for a million elisions and revisions, Prufrock. How will
we know what's too far, unless we try, and fail?
Let the rules committee (that infamous gang of four) frown!

Besides: no love for "Sol Invictuals"?
oh, well....

[Attila]

Isn't time for a snifter of that fine brandy you keep hidden somewhere
around?

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jul 17, 1:14�ｿｽpm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Slow Vehicle wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 10:56 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Slow Vehicle wrote:
> >> > On Jul 17, 7:58 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Slow Vehicle wrote:
> >> >> > On Jul 17, 6:00 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Perseus wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Jul 13, 6:30 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> In the category "Where does the sole go after death?"
>
> >> >> >> > yes, I am interested in this problem, for I ate yesterday a fried

> >> >> >> > sole. �ｿｽI am beginning to worry about the soul of the sole. �ｿｽWas
> >> >> >> > it sent to hell? �ｿｽIs the soul of sole happy in peace with the
> >> >> >> > gods of the sea? �ｿｽI suppose it must be a marine heaven without

> >> >> >> > any sharks, other predators.
>
> >> >> >> > Perseus
>
> >> >> >> Interesting questions, Pers. I need one bit of information and then
> >> >> >> a definitive answer can surely be found. You state that you "ate
> >> >> >> yesterday a fried sole." Was that the sole fried sole you ate at
> >> >> >> that time? I need the answer to this because the soul of the sole
> >> >> >> fried sole is a different kettle of fish from the soul of several
> >> >> >> fried soles eaten on a Friday.
>
> >> >> > There was a Korean-bred thouroughbred mare that raced her first year
> >> >> > as "Filly of Seoul"....
>
> >> >> Brilliant! But more importantly, now we can add Seoul to Perseus's
> >> >> question: Was the soul of the sole fried sole from Seoul...
> >> >> Any more? The world record is within our grasp.
>
> >> > ...the Saturnalia recipe for "Sol Invictuals"?
> >> > Han Solo, Napoleon Solo, and Hope Solo (that's a trio of Solos...)
> >> > singing a dirge on the tonic ("sol")?
> >> > Are ya sol' on the idea yet?
>
> >> This last one my be a bit dodgy. Elision of final consonants to create
> >> new instances of a form is frowned upon by the rules committee. We must
> >> proceed with care, Kimosabe.
>

> > We have time for a million elisions and revisions, Prufrock. �ｿｽHow will

> > we know what's too far, unless we try, and fail?
> > Let the rules committee (that infamous gang of four) frown!
>
> > Besides: no love for "Sol Invictuals"?
> > oh, well....
>
> Isn't time for a snifter of that fine brandy you keep hidden somewhere
> around?

"For the love of God, Montressor!"

[Syamsu]

On Jul 17, 6:11�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Let me remind you of the vile obsenities you've routinly thown at anyone who disagrees with you, and you call for the mass murder of "darwinist."

I am not proud of that, but I express my feeling on account of
subjectivity in general being surpressed. That feeling is of murderous
rage, it was then, and it is now still, and there seems to be nothing
much I can do about it to change that.

There are no theories on talk.origins positing a reality of freedom,
except those of creationists. It is quite clear to me evolutionists
consistently sabotage any theory positing freedom with bullying. And
evolutionists also quite explicitly bully against expression of
subjective belief, for the simple reason that it is subjective. The
acceptance of the human spirit on a purely subjective basis, is said
to be wrong by every single last evolutionists I have ever met. I did
not have much of any problem with that on the creationwiki site. I see
this kind of bullying behaviour against subjectivity all the time on
talk.origins and various other forums. And those are the central
elements in the ideology in the history of the holocaust, and nothing
much else.

Bullying against beliefs has become a societal norm in recent years,
as something which is supposedly a good thing that makes people
tougher, ignoring the inherent fragility of subjective beliefs as
different from the much unshakeable certainty of facts. I am sure this
culture of bullying against beliefs in society comes from treating
matters of belief the same way like matters of fact, it comes from
science, and mainly evolution activists. It is some creepy idea of
cultural selection of beliefs, that after bullying the best beliefs
will be left standing.

Monism is a bad idea because it is not suitable for knowledge about
decisions made in freedom. To describe any freedom requires that what
does the deciding is identified in a free way. It requires this
distinct category which job it is to decide and which is identified in
a free way, the spiritual domain, it requires dualism. That some
Christians dislike Jews, and that some Jews dislike Jews, and some
Christians dislike Christians, whatever, all these things are much
controllable in an environment where people take care to have right
knowledge about how freedom works, and an appreciation for
subjectivity. Those dislikes are not good explanations for the
holocaust. Surpression of knowledge about freedom, and surpression of
subjectivity is the big thing which explains the big tragedy.

[Attila]

Syamsu wrote:

> On Jul 17, 6:11 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Let me remind you of the vile obsenities you've routinly thown at anyone
>> who disagrees with you, and you call for the mass murder of "darwinist."
>
> I am not proud of that, but I express my feeling on account of
> subjectivity in general being surpressed. That feeling is of murderous
> rage, it was then, and it is now still, and there seems to be nothing
> much I can do about it to change that.
>
> There are no theories on talk.origins positing a reality of freedom,
> except those of creationists. It is quite clear to me evolutionists
> consistently sabotage any theory positing freedom with bullying. And
> evolutionists also quite explicitly bully against expression of
> subjective belief, for the simple reason that it is subjective. The
> acceptance of the human spirit on a purely subjective basis, is said
> to be wrong by every single last evolutionists I have ever met. I did
> not have much of any problem with that on the creationwiki site. I see
> this kind of bullying behaviour against subjectivity all the time on
> talk.origins and various other forums. And those are the central
> elements in the ideology in the history of the holocaust, and nothing
> much else.
>
> Bullying against beliefs has become a societal norm in recent years,
> as something which is supposedly a good thing that makes people
> tougher, ignoring the inherent fragility of subjective beliefs as
> different from the much unshakeable certainty of facts.

One point only. Your beliefs are your own business and you are fully
justified in holding them however bizarre they may be. It's when you
repeatedly foist them on others with insane charges of lying about the
holocaust, denying subjectiveness, etc. that you might get rather heated
responses. Since your beliefs are incomprehensible to all but yourself why
not enjoy them in the privacy of your own brain.

[Syamsu]

On Jul 17, 6:38�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:20:52 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 4:15�pm, Mitchell Coffey &lt;mitchell.cof...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> > &gt; Anyone interested in why I claim Gasman is a crank can view or downloads his and Richards&#39; work and exchanges from here:
> > &gt;
> > &gt;http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-07-01/#feature
>
> > Obviously you and Richards, find Gasman to be a crank because his
> > findings support the creationist cause, eventhough Gasman doesn&#39;t even
> > want to be sided with the creationist cause.
>

> >Heackelis known for monism. Richards whole book aboutHeackelis
> > based on treatingHeackelas some kind of dualist. The tragic sense of

> > life refers to the need for irrational belief, besides the facts of

> > science, whereHeackelobviously sought fullfilment in science alone,

> > monism. Richards book is thus baloney, and Richards is a fraud.
>
> So you assert, but you refuse to give evidence.
>
> > The generally careful historical researsch by Gasman, tracing
> > Heackel&#39;s influence to racists who were either read by, or had direct
> > contact with Adolf Hitler, still stands. And there are numerous fraud
> > historians who are enthusiastic Darwin supporters, who take it upon
> > themselves to rewrite the history of the holocaust, besides producing
> > their awful biographies of various Darwinists. It is a sure thing that
> > Galton, and Spencer will be exonorated too by Darwinist fanatics,
> > eventhough at this time they conveniently blame Galton and Spencer to
> > divert attention away from Darwin.
>
> >http://www.ferris.edu/isar/academic-controversies/gasman.htm
>
> You're inability - yet again - to produce evidence to support your claims is noted. You should be able to cite specific facts, like who those "racists who were either read by, or had direct contact with Adolf Hitler" were, and demonstrate how those indirect influences were more important than every other influence on his life. You must also explain how Haeckel's alleged influence on Hitler didn't turn Hitler into a pacifist, like Haeckel, and didn't make Hitler believe that Jews were the evolutionary equals to "Aryans." And so on.
>
> Anyone interested in why I claim Gasman is a crank should also look at the material in the link Nando snipped:
>
> http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/
>
> Mitchell Coffey

Mere pseudoscientific posturing is what you are doing here, you have
no interest whatever in the facts of the matter.

Heackel popularized the notion that Jesus's religion of love was
definitely not Jewish, but more representative of the higher
characteristics of Aryan blood, and he put a stamp of pseudoscientific
fact on that notion. Both the historian Richards, and Mitchel Coffey
allege that this is insignificant. And then Coffey calls Gasman a
crank historian for substantiating Heackel as an important figure in
the history of anti-semitism...

[Syamsu]

On Jul 18, 10:06�am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:

> One point only. Your beliefs are your own business and you are fully
> justified in holding them however bizarre they may be. It's when you
> repeatedly foist them on others with insane charges of lying about the
> holocaust, denying subjectiveness, etc. that you might get rather heated
> responses. Since your beliefs are incomprehensible to all but yourself why
> not enjoy them in the privacy of your own brain.

That is lying, you and Darwinists generally, bully against all theory
which posit freedom. This bullying does not start when those who
theorize on a basis that freedom is real accuse Darwinists of things.
There is a complete lack of any idea or theory on a basis that freedom
is real on the part of evolutionists. Including human behaviour, which
is consistently explained in terms of being forced. There are ideas
about both environmental and genetic determinism, and Darwinists
quarrel over which of those is more important, but the human behaviour
is always considered as forced, and never free in the sense of having
alternative results available in the moment.

If freedom is real or not, is a matter of fact, not a matter of
belief. What makes a decision turn out the way it does is a matter of
belief.

[Nashton]

On 12-07-13 3:46 PM, Attila wrote:

> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
>> In the category "Where does the sole go after death?"
>>

>>> As for preserving my sole, I tend to prefer to have it fresh. Pickled
>>> sole doesn't really work for me and although I love smoked salmon, smoked
>>> sole is not to my taste. (What wine would go with it?) I guess that
>>> leaves salted sole in the manner of bacalao but that is truly disgusting.
>>> Your taste in food is rather bizarre to say the least.
> Can you explain "chez watt" rules to me or direct me to a site that does it,
> so I can respond appropriately. I admit the play on words was a bit lame but
> everyone else seems to do it if that's a valid excuse (if your friend jumped
> out of the window would you jump out of the window?)
>

It's a silly way to ridicule posters and submit them to peer pressure.
Many posters in here are still in high school in their minds and act
accordingly.

[Syamsu]

On Jul 18, 12:17�pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:

> It's a silly way to ridicule posters and submit them to peer pressure.
> Many posters in here are still in high school in their minds and act
> accordingly.

Several years ago there was a scientific study done which proved
peerpressure worked to change opinions. Since then the use of peer
pressure to form opinion has been regarded by many science-minded folk
as a clever and intelligent way to form opinions. So they've been
using peerpressure to discourage smoking, to promote energy efficiency
etc. and now they use peer pressure to form opinions on scientific
theories, that's how that works.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jul 18, 1:49�am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 6:11�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Let me remind you of the vile obsenities you've routinly thown at anyone who disagrees with you, and you call for the mass murder of "darwinist."
>
> I am not proud of that, but I express my feeling on account of
> subjectivity in general being surpressed. That feeling is of murderous
> rage, it was then, and it is now still, and there seems to be nothing
> much I can do about it to change that.

...you could grow up...or, if you insist on wallowing in in it, you
could do it in the privacy of a locked room...

> There are no theories on talk.origins positing a reality of freedom,
> except those of creationists. It is quite clear to me evolutionists
> consistently sabotage any theory positing freedom with bullying.

...It is quite clear to methat you _still_ have no idea what you are
talking. One poster asks questions...one routinely resorts to
sophomoric insults, lies, and threats--which of these, then, is doing
the"bullying"?

> And
> evolutionists also quite explicitly bully against expression of
> subjective belief, for the simple reason that it is subjective.

...you are telling lies again. Disagreeing with you is _not_
"bullying", "telling lies about the holocaust", "suppressing all
knowledge of alternate states in the moment", or "worshipping
thermostats".

> The
> acceptance of the human spirit on a purely subjective basis, is said
> to be wrong by every single last evolutionists I have ever met.

...You would have to do a much better job of describing, intelligibly,
exactly what you think you think you mean, to even be considered
wrong...

> I did
> not have much of any problem with that on the creationwiki site. I see
> this kind of bullying behaviour against subjectivity all the time on
> talk.origins and various other forums. And those are the central
> elements in the ideology in the history of the holocaust, and nothing
> much else.

...this is a foul lie, a pet lie, an intentional attempt to divert
the discussion from how fundamentally vacuous and stupid your "ideas"
are by making wild (but routine, for you) accusations. It is obscene
for you to use the Holocaust as a way to insult anyone who does not
toe your line.
If you had any center, at all, you would be ashamed...

> Bullying against beliefs has become a societal norm in recent years,
> as something which is supposedly a good thing that makes people
> tougher, ignoring the inherent fragility of subjective beliefs as
> different from the much unshakeable certainty of facts.

If your beliefs are so fragile, perhaps you need to figure out why...

>I am sure this
> culture of bullying against beliefs in society comes from treating
> matters of belief the same way like matters of fact, it comes from
> science, and mainly evolution activists. It is some creepy idea of
> cultural selection of beliefs, that after bullying the best beliefs
> will be left standing.

The thing you miss, just as Carol, and recently, Peter, do, is that
you are welcome to believe whatever foolish thing gets your tube sock
sticky. Where I call you out is your ridiculous idea that you can, or
should, tell others what they have to believe.
For someone who claims to be the champion of "freedom", you spend an
unexplainable and inexcusable amount of time telling people exactly
what they have to accept, and how they have to believe it.

> Monism is a bad idea because it is not suitable for knowledge about
> decisions made in freedom. To describe any freedom requires that what
> does the deciding is identified in a free way. It requires this
> distinct category which job it is to decide and which is identified in
> a free way, the spiritual domain, it requires dualism. That some
> Christians dislike Jews, and that some Jews dislike Jews, and some
> Christians dislike Christians, whatever, all these things are much
> controllable in an environment where people take care to have right
> knowledge about how freedom works, and an appreciation for
> subjectivity.

...but if the subjective is all, what place have you even wanting to
"control" what others think, or believe? You express your "atmosphere
of freedom" as practical slavery to the "subjective"...how then do you
have the right to say what is "wrong"?

> Those dislikes are not good explanations for the
> holocaust. Surpression of knowledge about freedom, and surpression of
> subjectivity is the big thing which explains the big tragedy.

...maybe in your subjective "mind", but not in any observable version
of reality.

[Slow Vehicle]

Buehler's corollary to Godwin's law...

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jul 18, 2:46�am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 10:06 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One point only. Your beliefs are your own business and you are fully
> > justified in holding them however bizarre they may be. It's when you
> > repeatedly foist them on others with insane charges of lying about the
> > holocaust, denying subjectiveness, etc. that you might get rather heated
> > responses. Since your beliefs are incomprehensible to all but yourself why
> > not enjoy them in the privacy of your own brain.
>
> That is lying, you and Darwinists generally, bully against all theory
> which posit freedom.

It is clear that you have no idea what any of those words mean.

.This bullying does not start when those who

> theorize on a basis that freedom is real accuse Darwinists of things.
> There is a complete lack of any idea or theory on a basis that freedom
> is real on the part of evolutionists. Including human behaviour, which
> is consistently explained in terms of being forced.

Again: show me where I have said any such thing, or anything that
could be reasonably demonstrated to imply any such thing. Your
inability to process reality lets you tell any lie you want, then
claim refuge in the "subjective". None of that, however, has any
influence on, or basis in, any demonstrable reality.

>There are ideas
> about both environmental and genetic determinism, and Darwinists
> quarrel over which of those is more important, but the human behaviour
> is always considered as forced, and never free in the sense of having
> alternative results available in the moment.

...which is not what "freedom" means,,,
...and " 'Darwinism' = determinism" is as frankly stupid as "Darwin
was a social darwinist".
...but go on believing whatever you want--just don't be surprised if
no one marches in your lock-step "parade of freedom".

> If freedom is real or not, is a matter of fact, not a matter of
> belief. What makes a decision turn out the way it does is a matter of
> belief.

The statement: "that is not what freedom is", is not equivalent to the
statement "freedom is not real".
...not that I expect you to understand that, nor admit it if you
did...

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 06:17:30 -0400, Nashton wrote
(in article <ju62fo$vug$2...@speranza.aioe.org>):

Hmm. I'm pretty sure that I've seen, ahem, 'evolutionists' and/or 'atheists'
not merely get Chez Watted, but to actively seek out Chez Watts. But then,
unlike most creationists, 'evolutionists' tend to have a sense of humor.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[jillery]

And other posters already explained that to Attila. This is just
Nashton shooting off his mouth and his foot with one bullet. I have
to admit, that's something Annie Oakley would never do.

[Syamsu]

On 18 jul, 14:48, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2:46 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > theorize on a basis that freedom is real accuse Darwinists of things.
> > There is a complete lack of any idea or theory on a basis that freedom
> > is real on the part of evolutionists. Including human behaviour, which
> > is consistently explained in terms of being forced.
>
> Again: show me where I have said any such thing, or anything that
> could be reasonably demonstrated to imply any such thing. �Your
> inability to process reality lets you tell any lie you want, then
> claim refuge in the "subjective". �None of that, however, has any
> influence on, or basis in, any demonstrable reality.

Again, that only demonstrates your bizarre wholesale rejection of
subjectivity, always portraying subjectivity as something sinister.

> >There are ideas
> > about both environmental and genetic determinism, and Darwinists
> > quarrel over which of those is more important, but the human behaviour
> > is always considered as forced, and never free in the sense of having
> > alternative results available in the moment.
>
> ...which is not what "freedom" means,,,

I already pointed out Darwinists use a different definition of
freedom, as meaning unhindered, unchecked, without constraints etc.
All of what I said is thus true, with the understanding that
creationists use a definition of freedom where there are alternatives
available, and Darwinists use a definition of freedom as to mean
unhindered. You are playing wordgames, is how you are trying to get
away from accusations which are fully evidenced.

> ...and " 'Darwinism' = determinism" is as frankly stupid as "Darwin
> was a social darwinist".
> ...but go on believing whatever you want--just don't be surprised if
> no one marches in your lock-step "parade of freedom".

Subtle hint, no one better agree with subjectivity being valid, or
else they are going to get it from the evolutionist goons.

> > If freedom is real or not, is a matter of fact, not a matter of
> > belief. What makes a decision turn out the way it does is a matter of
> > belief.
>
> The statement: "that is not what freedom is", is not equivalent to the
> statement "freedom is not real".

The logic that Darwinists use with the word freedom is the exactsame
as the logic they use with force. You are denying freedom the
creationist sense, obviously.

> ...not that I expect you to understand that, nor admit it if you
> did...

All nonsense I explained at length in this thread how Darwinists use
the word freedom, and chosing. The free flow of tears, the free
falling of a rock, and chosing as the calculation of a chesscomputer
of an optimal result, or the calculation in a human brain of an
optimal result. These ideas have the same logic as that of force
obviously.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 3:49:31 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> On Jul 17, 6:11�pm, Mitchell Coffey &lt;mitchell.cof...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>
> &gt; Let me remind you of the vile obsenities you&#39;ve routinly thown at anyone who disagrees with you, and you call for the mass murder of "darwinists."

>
> I am not proud of that, but I express my feeling on account of
> subjectivity in general being surpressed. That feeling is of murderous
> rage, it was then, and it is now still, and there seems to be nothing
> much I can do about it to change that.

You also called people "dirty Jew." Yet even though you aren't proud of your dispicable and dishonest behavior, you attack other people for using far more moderate language!

Nobody here doesn't believe in subjectivity; nobody here doesn't believe in in the existence of freedom; neither does anyone here believe that events can only go one way. You've been repeatedly told that.

Since you are unable to provide any quotes in which you claim somebodies lying about the Holocaust, we can assume even you know at some level you're telling dispicable lies in that regard. In fact, since you can't provide any quotes in which you claim somebodies lying, period, it's safe to say you know you're repeatedly lying about that, too.

If you stopped compulsively lying about other people's beliefs maybe you'd feel better about yourself and stop having these violent fantasies.

> There are no theories on talk.origins positing a reality of freedom,
> except those of creationists.

You know this to be untrue. You are the one who rejects human free will, equating it with the random component in the movement path of rocks, when rolling down a hill.

> It is quite clear to me evolutionists
> consistently sabotage any theory positing freedom with bullying.

"Bullying" and "sabotage" is your term for arguing against you. In fact, however little respect you get here, it's more than you give anybody else, with your pure nastiness and your're refusal to backup your extreme accusations with evidence.

>And
> evolutionists also quite explicitly bully against expression of
> subjective belief, for the simple reason that it is subjective.

That is, they disagree with you. And know one here denies the validity of the expression of subjective belief. You know that, too: that's why you've avoided my repeated request that you tell us how to design a safe, effective bridge using only subjective belief.

> The
> acceptance of the human spirit on a purely subjective basis, is said
> to be wrong by every single last evolutionists I have ever met.

Only atheists take a position like that. You're bitch is that they disagree with you; as you are an authoritarian by nature you consider it immoral to disagree with you.

> I did
> not have much of any problem with that on the creationwiki site. I see
> this kind of bullying behaviour against subjectivity all the time on
> talk.origins and various other forums.

Yeah, you think people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with you.

> And those are the central
> elements in the ideology in the history of the holocaust, and nothing
> much else.

Which is nonsense. Nazism was an extremely emotive, subjectivist movement.

> Bullying against beliefs has become a societal norm in recent years,
> as something which is supposedly a good thing that makes people
> tougher, ignoring the inherent fragility of subjective beliefs as
> different from the much unshakeable certainty of facts. I am sure this
> culture of bullying against beliefs in society comes from treating
> matters of belief the same way like matters of fact, it comes from
> science, and mainly evolution activists. It is some creepy idea of
> cultural selection of beliefs, that after bullying the best beliefs
> will be left standing.

I repeat: Let me remind you of the vile obsenities you've routinly thown at anyone who disagrees with you, and you call for the mass murder of "darwinists." Let me remind you how you call me a "dirty Jew." Let me remind you how you claimed that Hitler's problem was that he killed the wrong Jews. Let me remind you that you believe disagreeing with you is morally wrong.

Have the good taste not to accuse others of "bullying," bigot!

>
> Monism is a bad idea because it is not suitable for knowledge about
> decisions made in freedom. To describe any freedom requires that what
> does the deciding is identified in a free way. It requires this
> distinct category which job it is to decide and which is identified in
> a free way, the spiritual domain, it requires dualism.

I don't like Monism, either. What's your point?

> That some
> Christians dislike Jews, and that some Jews dislike Jews, and some
> Christians dislike Christians, whatever, all these things are much
> controllable in an environment where people take care to have right
> knowledge about how freedom works, and an appreciation for
> subjectivity. Those dislikes are not good explanations for the
> holocaust. Surpression of knowledge about freedom, and surpression of
> subjectivity is the big thing which explains the big tragedy.

Christians suppressed and slaughtered Jews for almost two thousand years before the Holocaust; religious, political, personal and philosophical freedom and "an appreciation for subjectivity" even as values only came in with the Enlightenement and were rejected by main stream Christians, who for the most part thought their religion was objectively true, otherwise it would be legitimate for people to arrive through faith - subjectively - to other religions.

Mitchell Coffey

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jul 18, 8:38�am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 18 jul, 14:48, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 18, 2:46 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > theorize on a basis that freedom is real accuse Darwinists of things.
> > > There is a complete lack of any idea or theory on a basis that freedom
> > > is real on the part of evolutionists. Including human behaviour, which
> > > is consistently explained in terms of being forced.
>
> > Again: show me where I have said any such thing, or anything that
> > could be reasonably demonstrated to imply any such thing. Your
> > inability to process reality lets you tell any lie you want, then
> > claim refuge in the "subjective". None of that, however, has any
> > influence on, or basis in, any demonstrable reality.
>
> Again, that only demonstrates your bizarre wholesale rejection of
> subjectivity, always portraying subjectivity as something sinister.

This may, indeed, be the stupidest thing you have posted yet. n Show
me where I said the "subjective" was sinister, or admit you lied,
apologize, and go away.

> > >There are ideas
> > > about both environmental and genetic determinism, and Darwinists
> > > quarrel over which of those is more important, but the human behaviour
> > > is always considered as forced, and never free in the sense of having
> > > alternative results available in the moment.
>
> > ...which is not what "freedom" means,,,
>
> I already pointed out Darwinists use a different definition of
> freedom, as meaning unhindered, unchecked, without constraints etc.
> All of what I said is thus true, with the understanding that
> creationists use a definition of freedom where there are alternatives
> available, and Darwinists use a definition of freedom as to mean
> unhindered. You are playing wordgames, is how you are trying to get
> away from accusations which are fully evidenced.

No, _you_ use a different definition of "freedom", as in, "hurricanes
and rocks (but not thermostats) make choices as defined by alternative
states in the agency of the infact moment lying about the holocaust
thuggery", which is _not_ what "freedom" means.
It is remarkably stupid to say that "evolutionists" deny
alternatives. The entire history of life on earth is the story of
contingencies...run the tape back, play it again, and things would be
different.
That's not the same thing as DNA "making choices"...ot the weather
being "hateful".
You lie, little man. Your "accusations" are not something I need to
"get away from".
You put on your aluminum hat and say that aliens from Roswell caused
the holocaust by lying about thermostats...that is not an
"accusation". You mis-state what "social darwinism" is, or what
"freedom" is, and that is not an accusation.
You have never gotten close enough to what I beleive, or what I have
said (rather than what you assume I should have said, so that you
don't even have to read) to make a cogent accusation...pointing out
that you are lying is not "escaping" your "accusations"...just
observing that the truth is not in you.

> > ...and " 'Darwinism' = determinism" is as frankly stupid as "Darwin
> > was a social darwinist".
> > ...but go on believing whatever you want--just don't be surprised if
> > no one marches in your lock-step "parade of freedom".
>
> Subtle hint, no one better agree with subjectivity being valid, or
> else they are going to get it from the evolutionist goons.
>

...so you think it is good and proper to tell lies, just becasue they
fit with your delusions, and escape censure by claiming
"subjectivity"?
In other words, it does not matter what you say, at all--it is true in
your head, and nowhere else.
Once again, you are free to believe whatever tangled, crusty trail
your subjective ideas require of you--no one is trying to stop you.
WHat you may not do is "require" others to say that your inner
delusions are "true"...no matter how abusive you get.

> > > If freedom is real or not, is a matter of fact, not a matter of
> > > belief. What makes a decision turn out the way it does is a matter of
> > > belief.
>
> > The statement: "that is not what freedom is", is not equivalent to the
> > statement "freedom is not real".
>
> The logic that Darwinists use with the word freedom is the exactsame
> as the logic they use with force. You are denying freedom the
> creationist sense, obviously.

...and you are lying, again, obviously. See above.

> > ...not that I expect you to understand that, nor admit it if you
> > did...
>
> All nonsense I explained at length in this thread how Darwinists use
> the word freedom, and chosing.

No. detailing your subjective delusions explains nothing. What you
want is the Nando version of "Freedom mk 0.00," where everyone is free
to believe exactly as Nando does.

In reality, you cannot do anything about what I believe, nor can I do
anything about what you believe...but I will continue to point out
that you are lying when you thy to substitute your vomitus for actual
reality.

You act as if the group you call "Darwinists" have a monobloc party
line...which only bothers you because you want everyone to adopt
_your_ monobloc; to drink _your_ flavor-aid.
Most of us realize that things are not so simple.

>The free flow of tears, the free
> falling of a rock, and chosing as the calculation of a chesscomputer
> of an optimal result, or the calculation in a human brain of an
> optimal result. These ideas have the same logic as that of force
> obviously.

You use "obviously" differently than people who know what it means...
It may be obvious to _you_ that tears choose to fall, or that rocks
could fly if they wanted to, or that a chess computer is a good model
of how human brains think...
I do not agree.
Nor does demonstrable reality.
...but you are free to believe what you want...
As long as everyone else is, too.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:19:59 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> On Jul 17, 6:38�pm, Mitchell Coffey &lt;mitchell.cof...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> &gt; On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:20:52 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> &gt; &gt; On Jul 17, 4:15�pm, Mitchell Coffey &amp;lt;mitchell.cof...@gmail.com&amp;gt; wrote:
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Anyone interested in why I claim Gasman is a crank can view or downloads his and Richards&amp;#39; work and exchanges from here:
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-07-01/#feature
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; Obviously you and Richards, find Gasman to be a crank because his
> &gt; &gt; findings support the creationist cause, eventhough Gasman doesn&amp;#39;t even
> &gt; &gt; want to be sided with the creationist cause.
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt;Heackelis known for monism. Richards whole book aboutHeackelis
> &gt; &gt; based on treatingHeackelas some kind of dualist. The tragic sense of
> &gt; &gt; life refers to the need for irrational belief, besides the facts of
> &gt; &gt; science, whereHeackelobviously sought fullfilment in science alone,
> &gt; &gt; monism. Richards book is thus baloney, and Richards is a fraud.
> &gt;
> &gt; So you assert, but you refuse to give evidence.
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; The generally careful historical researsch by Gasman, tracing
> &gt; &gt; Heackel&amp;#39;s influence to racists who were either read by, or had direct
> &gt; &gt; contact with Adolf Hitler, still stands. And there are numerous fraud
> &gt; &gt; historians who are enthusiastic Darwin supporters, who take it upon
> &gt; &gt; themselves to rewrite the history of the holocaust, besides producing
> &gt; &gt; their awful biographies of various Darwinists. It is a sure thing that
> &gt; &gt; Galton, and Spencer will be exonorated too by Darwinist fanatics,
> &gt; &gt; eventhough at this time they conveniently blame Galton and Spencer to
> &gt; &gt; divert attention away from Darwin.
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt;http://www.ferris.edu/isar/academic-controversies/gasman.htm
> &gt;
> &gt; You&#39;re inability - yet again - to produce evidence to support your claims is noted. You should be able to cite specific facts, like who those &quot;racists who were either read by, or had direct contact with Adolf Hitler&quot; were, and demonstrate how those indirect influences were more important than every other influence on his life. You must also explain how Haeckel&#39;s alleged influence on Hitler didn&#39;t turn Hitler into a pacifist, like Haeckel, and didn&#39;t make Hitler believe that Jews were the evolutionary equals to &quot;Aryans.&quot; And so on.
> &gt;
> &gt; Anyone interested in why I claim Gasman is a crank should also look at the material in the link Nando snipped:
> &gt;
> &gt; http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/
> &gt;
> &gt; Mitchell Coffey

>
> Mere pseudoscientific posturing is what you are doing here, you have
> no interest whatever in the facts of the matter.
>

> Heackel popularized the notion that Jesus&#39;s religion of love was

> definitely not Jewish, but more representative of the higher
> characteristics of Aryan blood, and he put a stamp of pseudoscientific
> fact on that notion. Both the historian Richards, and Mitchel Coffey
> allege that this is insignificant. And then Coffey calls Gasman a
> crank historian for substantiating Heackel as an important figure in
> the history of anti-semitism...

No: the issue isn't whether this particular action by Haeckel is significant(even were it true: this particular story had been around for hundreds of years). And you are not telling the truth by calim Gasman's point was to "substantiating Heackel as an important figure in the history of anti-semitism." Gasman claims that Haeckel had some overwheming causal influence on the Nazis and the Holocaust. If you want to back off on Gasman's major claim, say so.

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 9:00:47 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 07/14/2012 11:54 AM, Dr.Gary Hurd wrote:
> &gt; On Friday, July 13, 2012 8:51:47 AM UTC-7, Attila wrote:
> &gt;&gt; Syamsu wrote:
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; http://www.ferris.edu/isar/academic-controversies/sarton-medal.htm
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; &amp;quot;Professor [Robert] Richards has yet to justify his assertions that
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; Haeckel subscribed to a tragic sense of life similar to that of Miguel
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; de Unamuno when in fact Unamuno was centrally engaged in polemics
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; against Haeckel&amp;#39;s Monism; that Haeckel was not racially anti-Semitic
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; when in fact the sources that Richards relies upon reveal clearly
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; Haeckel&amp;#39;s racial opposition to the Jews; that Haeckel did not support
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; the creation of an authoritarian state when in fact Haeckel stated
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; just the opposite; and that Haeckel was not a supporter of Aryan
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; inspired eugenics nor the idea that politics is applied biology when
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; in fact he supported such positions; and the list of gross
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; misrepresentations by Richards goes on and on.&amp;quot;
> &gt;&gt; OK, you got me Nando. I have to ask even though the only answer I&amp;#39;ll get
> &gt;&gt; will involve something like how decisions are made in freedom which has
> &gt;&gt; nothing to do with my question nor anything else of this world. With that
> &gt;&gt; said, you state &amp;quot;Haeckel was not racially anti-Semitic&amp;quot;. OK I&amp;#39;ll bite. What
> &gt;&gt; is the difference between being racially anti-Semitic and and the plain
> &gt;&gt; garden-variety anti-Semitic? And what does &amp;quot;racial opposition to the Jews&amp;quot;
> &gt;&gt; mean exactly. Is that different from plain old opposition? I gotta hand it
> &gt;&gt; to you, Nand, you write some really weird shit.
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt; On Friday, July 13, 2012 8:51:47 AM UTC-7, Attila wrote:
> &gt;&gt; Syamsu wrote:
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; http://www.ferris.edu/isar/academic-controversies/sarton-medal.htm
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; &amp;quot;Professor [Robert] Richards has yet to justify his assertions that
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; Haeckel subscribed to a tragic sense of life similar to that of Miguel
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; de Unamuno when in fact Unamuno was centrally engaged in polemics
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; against Haeckel&amp;#39;s Monism; that Haeckel was not racially anti-Semitic
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; when in fact the sources that Richards relies upon reveal clearly
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; Haeckel&amp;#39;s racial opposition to the Jews; that Haeckel did not support
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; the creation of an authoritarian state when in fact Haeckel stated
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; just the opposite; and that Haeckel was not a supporter of Aryan
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; inspired eugenics nor the idea that politics is applied biology when
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; in fact he supported such positions; and the list of gross
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; misrepresentations by Richards goes on and on.&amp;quot;
> &gt;&gt; OK, you got me Nando. I have to ask even though the only answer I&amp;#39;ll get
> &gt;&gt; will involve something like how decisions are made in freedom which has
> &gt;&gt; nothing to do with my question nor anything else of this world. With that
> &gt;&gt; said, you state &amp;quot;Haeckel was not racially anti-Semitic&amp;quot;. OK I&amp;#39;ll bite. What
> &gt;&gt; is the difference between being racially anti-Semitic and and the plain
> &gt;&gt; garden-variety anti-Semitic? And what does &amp;quot;racial opposition to the Jews&amp;quot;
> &gt;&gt; mean exactly. Is that different from plain old opposition? I gotta hand it
> &gt;&gt; to you, Nand, you write some really weird shit.
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt; On Friday, July 13, 2012 8:51:47 AM UTC-7, Attila wrote:
> &gt;&gt; Syamsu wrote:
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt; OK, you got me Nando. I have to ask even though the only answer I&amp;#39;ll get
> &gt;&gt; will involve something like how decisions are made in freedom which has
> &gt;&gt; nothing to do with my question nor anything else of this world. With that
> &gt;&gt; said, you state &amp;quot;Haeckel was not racially anti-Semitic&amp;quot;. OK I&amp;#39;ll bite. What
> &gt;&gt; is the difference between being racially anti-Semitic and and the plain
> &gt;&gt; garden-variety anti-Semitic? And what does &amp;quot;racial opposition to the Jews&amp;quot;
> &gt;&gt; mean exactly. Is that different from plain old opposition? I gotta hand it
> &gt;&gt; to you, Nand, you write some really weird shit.
> &gt;
> &gt; One of the things that Nazis claimed differentiated their antisemitism was that the Nazis saw the Jews as a separate biological race than so-called Aryans. You might find Robert N. Proctor, &quot;Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis&quot; (1988 Boston: Harvard University Press) helpful. The Nazis even launched the idea that Jesus was not a Jew, but an Aryan (see: Susannah Heschel, �The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany� 2008 Princeton University Press).
>
> Doesn&#39;t the Wagnerite Houston Chamberlain fit into this &quot;Aryan Christ&quot;
> history somewhere?

Yeah, it wasn't original to Haeckel and Chamberlain was far more influencial.

Mitchell Coffey

[Syamsu]

On 18 jul, 17:04, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Which is nonsense. Nazism was an extremely emotive, subjectivist movement.

Ofcourse that is completely bizarre, every policy was rationalized on
a basis of prescriptive natural selection theory. Not only policy, but
every individual act of every individual nazi as well, was
rationalized on a basis of prescriptive natural selection theory.
Everything anybody did or said was rationalized on a basis of survival
of the fittest. Any emotion expressed or subjective belief held was
rationalized in terms of wether or not the belief or expression
enchanced survival of the Aryan race. For this reason the old pagan
gods were conjured up again among many nazi's, because the belief in
them were thought to enchance fitness. For this reason Christianity
was changed to Jesus as an Aryan fighter, instead of Jesus suffering
on the cross, because such belief it was thought enhanced survival.

Emotions were systematically brutalized, and Nazism explicitly posited
as a "rational outlook on life", based on the scientific facts about
the spiritual attributes of Aryans.

And sure you accept subjectivity is valid, every evolutionist does,
you just don't accept the human spirit on a subjective
basis..............which means you don't accept subjectivity as valid
at all.

And you and your fellow evolutionists continuously make suggestive
disparraging remarks about the validity of subjectivity, for it being
of no use to build a bridge, and subjectivity are foolish beliefs
etc..

And now you treat the holocaust as generally run of the mill Christian
anti-semitism, same as thousands of years, with more advanced
technics.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 11:38:53 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> On 18 jul, 17:04, Mitchell Coffey &lt;mitchell.cof...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>
> &gt; Which is nonsense. Nazism was an extremely emotive, subjectivist movement.

>
> Ofcourse that is completely bizarre, every policy was rationalized on
> a basis of prescriptive natural selection theory. Not only policy, but
> every individual act of every individual nazi as well, was
> rationalized on a basis of prescriptive natural selection theory.
> Everything anybody did or said was rationalized on a basis of survival
> of the fittest. Any emotion expressed or subjective belief held was
> rationalized in terms of wether or not the belief or expression
> enchanced survival of the Aryan race. For this reason the old pagan

> gods were conjured up again among many nazi&#39;s, because the belief in

> them were thought to enchance fitness. For this reason Christianity
> was changed to Jesus as an Aryan fighter, instead of Jesus suffering
> on the cross, because such belief it was thought enhanced survival.
>
> Emotions were systematically brutalized, and Nazism explicitly posited

> as a &quot;rational outlook on life&quot;, based on the scientific facts about

> the spiritual attributes of Aryans.

No historian is going to agree with your nonsense above.

> And sure you accept subjectivity is valid, every evolutionist does,

> you just don&#39;t accept the human spirit on a subjective
> basis..............which means you don&#39;t accept subjectivity as valid
> at all.

Which is bullshit. Your failed logic just disproves your whole nonsense: people who don't accept religion on faith routinely value subjective judgement, therefore you claim is untrue.

Obviously everyone, but you, values objective and subjective judgement in their place. I notice you still haven't explained how one can build a safe and useful bridge on faith alone.

> And you and your fellow evolutionists continuously make suggestive
> disparraging remarks about the validity of subjectivity, for it being
> of no use to build a bridge, and subjectivity are foolish beliefs
> etc..

Believing that rocks have volition is a foolish belief; many other subjective judgements aren't foolish. You are once again lying about what I and other people believe.

You're also lying when you claim that that I've said that subjectivity is of no use to building a bridge. If you're not lying you'd be able to quote me saying as much. I have asked you to explain how one can build a safe and useful bridge using subjective judgement alone. One can't obviously. You in fact understand that your nonsense about subjectivity and your lies about what are untrue; you know that objective judgement is valuabe in it's place, so you can't answer my question.

> And now you treat the holocaust as generally run of the mill Christian
> anti-semitism, same as thousands of years, with more advanced
> technics.

You once again lie about my beliefs. What a surprise.

And you, because you're a religious anti-Semite, deny that the Holocaust has much continuity with traditional religious anti-Semitism.

Mitchell Coffey

[Boikat]

On Jul 18, 3:46�am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 10:06�am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One point only. Your beliefs are your own business and you are fully
> > justified in holding them however bizarre they may be. It's when you
> > repeatedly foist them on others with insane charges of lying about the
> > holocaust, denying subjectiveness, etc. that you might get rather heated
> > responses. Since your beliefs are incomprehensible to all but yourself why
> > not enjoy them in the privacy of your own brain.
>
> That is lying, you and Darwinists generally, bully against all theory
> which posit freedom.

Do you mean a *scientific* theory? Which theory would that be?

> This bullying does not start when those who
> theorize on a basis that freedom is real accuse Darwinists of things.

So far as I can tell, you are the onely one making noise about the
"theory of freedom", whatever that is.

> There is a complete lack of any idea or theory on a basis that freedom
> is real on the part of evolutionists.

Since your usage of the word "freedom" is vague, your accusation is
also vague, and therefor meaningless.

> Including human behaviour, which
> is consistently explained in terms of being forced.

As opposed to "I wish it to be true, therefore, it is true"?

> There are ideas
> about both environmental and genetic determinism, and Darwinists
> quarrel over which of those is more important, but the human behaviour
> is always considered as forced, and never free in the sense of having
> alternative results available in the moment.

When it comes to people, it is debatable, however, you claim that
those qualities also apply to rocks.*That* is what is rejected as
insanity.

>
> If freedom is real or not, is a matter of fact, not a matter of
> belief.

Even though I believe I posses the quality known as "free will", it's
still debataqble. But I am pretty certain that rocks do not possess
free will. Feel free to prove me wrong.

> What makes a decision turn out the way it does is a matter of
> belief.

They why do you demand that "the spirit realm" be taken into account
as "what makes a choice"?

Boikat

[Boikat]

On Jul 18, 10:38�am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 18 jul, 17:04, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Which is nonsense. Nazism was an extremely emotive, subjectivist movement.
>
> Ofcourse that is completely bizarre,

Tio you it may be "bizarre". But that is because it's a fact of
reality. Since you cannot relate to reality, it seems bizarre to you.

> every policy was rationalized on
> a basis of prescriptive natural selection theory.

NS is discriptive, not prescriptive, dumbass.

<snip remaining idiocy>

Boikat

[Attila]

For which I am eternally grateful. My life has taken on new meaning since I
started molesting highschool students. Was Annie Oakley a scientolgist?

[Attila]

Syamsu wrote:

> On Jul 18, 10:06 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> One point only. Your beliefs are your own business and you are fully
>> justified in holding them however bizarre they may be. It's when you
>> repeatedly foist them on others with insane charges of lying about the
>> holocaust, denying subjectiveness, etc. that you might get rather heated
>> responses. Since your beliefs are incomprehensible to all but yourself
>> why not enjoy them in the privacy of your own brain.
>
> That is lying, you and Darwinists generally, bully against all theory
> which posit freedom.

Bully? moi? I have been as sweet and tender as a very young kitten with you.
I totally respected your right to your ideas no matter how bizarre they may
be. What more could you ask for? Secondly, how can a bully you from Northern
Italy? It's a long way from here to the planet you inhabit. I only have a
keyboard just like you so we're on an equal footing if you'll pardon the
expression.

> This bullying does not start when those who
> theorize on a basis that freedom is real accuse Darwinists of things.
> There is a complete lack of any idea or theory on a basis that freedom
> is real on the part of evolutionists.

One possible reason for this might be that freedom is meaningless or
irrelevant in this context. You haven't got around to presenting even one
hypothesis with some empirical content that makes crucial reference to
"freedom"

> Including human behaviour, which
> is consistently explained in terms of being forced. There are ideas
> about both environmental and genetic determinism, and Darwinists
> quarrel over which of those is more important, but the human behaviour
> is always considered as forced, and never free in the sense of having
> alternative results available in the moment.
>
> If freedom is real or not, is a matter of fact, not a matter of
> belief. What makes a decision turn out the way it does is a matter of
> belief.

As I explained so kindly before: freedom is not a matter of fact; it is the
fact of the matter, believe it or not. I think I have successfully answered
all your questions. No thanks are necessary. Enjoy your very private
thoughts by keeping them to yourself. That can be your contribution to
humanity.

[jillery]

Just wait until you start bashing babies' heads.

>Was Annie Oakley a scientolgist?

Not officially, but she might have inspired a few.

[Syamsu]

On Jul 18, 7:00�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 11:38:53 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> > On 18 jul, 17:04, Mitchell Coffey &lt;mitchell.cof...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>
> > &gt; Which is nonsense. Nazism was an extremely emotive, subjectivist movement.
>
> > Ofcourse that is completely bizarre, every policy was rationalized on
> > a basis of prescriptive natural selection theory. Not only policy, but
> > every individual act of every individual nazi as well, was
> > rationalized on a basis of prescriptive natural selection theory.
> > Everything anybody did or said was rationalized on a basis of survival
> > of the fittest. Any emotion expressed or subjective belief held was
> > rationalized in terms of wether or not the belief or expression
> > enchanced survival of the Aryan race. For this reason the old pagan
> > gods were conjured up again among many nazi&#39;s, because the belief in
> > them were thought to enchance fitness. For this reason Christianity
> > was changed to Jesus as an Aryan fighter, instead of Jesus suffering
> > on the cross, because such belief it was thought enhanced survival.
>
> > Emotions were systematically brutalized, and Nazism explicitly posited
> > as a &quot;rational outlook on life&quot;, based on the scientific facts about
> > the spiritual attributes of Aryans.
>
> No historian is going to agree with your nonsense above.

That is the way actual historians talk about the holocaust.
Specifically that nazi's formed beliefs in order to enhance survival
is what I got from a historian.

> > And sure you accept subjectivity is valid, every evolutionist does,
> > you just don&#39;t accept the human spirit on a subjective
> > basis..............which means you don&#39;t accept subjectivity as valid
> > at all.
>
> Which is bullshit. Your failed logic just disproves your whole nonsense: people who don't accept religion on faith routinely value subjective judgement, therefore you claim is untrue.

No they define subjective judgement as perceived from a particular
position, and then they value that. This has nothing to do with
subjective judgement in the sense of freedom.

> Obviously everyone, but you, values objective and subjective judgement in their place. I notice you still haven't explained how one can build a safe and useful bridge on faith alone.

More bizarre competing objectivity against subjectivity. The issue is
to validate subjectivity, I accuse you of not doing that, then you
bring up the uselessness of subjectivity for building bridges.....

> > And you and your fellow evolutionists continuously make suggestive
> > disparraging remarks about the validity of subjectivity, for it being
> > of no use to build a bridge, and subjectivity are foolish beliefs
> > etc..
>
> Believing that rocks have volition is a foolish belief; many other subjective judgements aren't foolish. You are once again lying about what I and other people believe.

That rocks have alternative states available in the moment is a matter
of fact, not a matter of belief. You still understand nothing about
the categorical distinction between subjectivity and objectivity.

> You're also lying when you claim that that I've said that subjectivity is of no use to building a bridge. If you're not lying you'd be able to quote me saying as much. I have asked you to explain how one can build a safe and useful bridge using subjective judgement alone. One can't obviously. You in fact understand that your nonsense about subjectivity and your lies about what are untrue; you know that objective judgement is valuabe in it's place, so you can't answer my question.

What? objective judgement is valuable in place of subjective
judgement? No not in place, objectivity and subjectivity exist side by
side. Objectivity cannot apply to anything what does the deciding,
only subjectivity can apply there, and also subjectivity in general
does not apply to what has in fact been chosen.

> > And now you treat the holocaust as generally run of the mill Christian
> > anti-semitism, same as thousands of years, with more advanced
> > technics.
>
> You once again lie about my beliefs. What a surprise.
>
> And you, because you're a religious anti-Semite, deny that the Holocaust has much continuity with traditional religious anti-Semitism.

I'm sure that in previous times people also committed the original sin
of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, just like
Heackel ate from the tree of knowledge of good and bad by making the
love of Jesus into a matter of fact. To establish what is loving and
hateful as fact, automatically leads to establishing what is right and
wrong as fact, it is knowledge of good and evil.

And any historian who doesn't acknowledge the human spirit in a
properly subjective way, and properly acknowledges the decisions made
in an objective way, is lying about the holocaust.

[Syamsu]

On Jul 18, 9:16�pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:

> One possible reason for this might be that freedom is meaningless or
> irrelevant in this context. You haven't got around to presenting even one
> hypothesis with some empirical content that makes crucial reference to
> "freedom"

Free will provides organisms unpredictability in escape, and surprise
in attack. Every nature documentary argues on this basis that there
are alternative results available in the moment, even evolutionist
nature documentaries. Words like tension, suspense, drama, are all
based on a logic of alternative results being available in the moment.
They accurately reflect what is going on. And theory based on DNA
being decided, such as that C is considered an alternative of A, etc.
have also been made, and explain things. There is a difference between
theories about every part of DNA being decided individually, and DNA
being decided as a whole, and generally evidence points towards DNA
being decided more as a whole. etc. etc.

The logic of freedom is an excellent descriptive tool that provides
insightful models, eventhough ofcourse, the model is going to diverge
from the reflected reality, because the decisions in the model may
turn out differently than in the reality reflected.

[Attila]

Thanks for your interest.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Thursday, July 19, 2012 3:40:32 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> On Jul 18, 7:00�pm, Mitchell Coffey &lt;mitchell.cof...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> &gt; On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 11:38:53 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:

> &gt; &gt; On 18 jul, 17:04, Mitchell Coffey &amp;lt;mitchell.cof...@gmail.com&amp;gt; wrote:
> &gt;

> &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Which is nonsense. Nazism was an extremely emotive, subjectivist movement.
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; Ofcourse that is completely bizarre, every policy was rationalized on
> &gt; &gt; a basis of prescriptive natural selection theory. Not only policy, but
> &gt; &gt; every individual act of every individual nazi as well, was
> &gt; &gt; rationalized on a basis of prescriptive natural selection theory.
> &gt; &gt; Everything anybody did or said was rationalized on a basis of survival
> &gt; &gt; of the fittest. Any emotion expressed or subjective belief held was
> &gt; &gt; rationalized in terms of wether or not the belief or expression
> &gt; &gt; enchanced survival of the Aryan race. For this reason the old pagan
> &gt; &gt; gods were conjured up again among many nazi&amp;#39;s, because the belief in
> &gt; &gt; them were thought to enchance fitness. For this reason Christianity
> &gt; &gt; was changed to Jesus as an Aryan fighter, instead of Jesus suffering
> &gt; &gt; on the cross, because such belief it was thought enhanced survival.
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; Emotions were systematically brutalized, and Nazism explicitly posited
> &gt; &gt; as a &amp;quot;rational outlook on life&amp;quot;, based on the scientific facts about
> &gt; &gt; the spiritual attributes of Aryans.
> &gt;
> &gt; No historian is going to agree with your nonsense above.

>
> That is the way actual historians talk about the holocaust.

> Specifically that nazi&#39;s formed beliefs in order to enhance survival

> is what I got from a historian.

Right: they formed beliefs (decide on faith: that is, subjectively), which they defended though religious assertion, philosophical perversions, pseudo-historical inventions, various metaphors - most often medical, and remarkably few reference to "darwinist" metaphor. Surely you don't think metaphors are objective?

In fact, the Nazis exhaulted emotionalism, subjectivity, faith and will. The Nuremberg Rallys weren't biology lectures. I'd recommend you watch "Triumph of the Will," except, since like the Nazis you undervalue objectivity and facts, only subjective responses on the moment, you'd probably be swept up in the subjective experience (as the Nazis wanted people to be) and under go a full-bore conversion.

> &gt; &gt; And sure you accept subjectivity is valid, every evolutionist does,
> &gt; &gt; you just don&amp;#39;t accept the human spirit on a subjective
> &gt; &gt; basis..............which means you don&amp;#39;t accept subjectivity as valid
> &gt; &gt; at all.
> &gt;
> &gt; Which is bullshit. Your failed logic just disproves your whole nonsense: people who don&#39;t accept religion on faith routinely value subjective judgement, therefore you claim is untrue.

>
> No they define subjective judgement as perceived from a particular
> position, and then they value that. This has nothing to do with
> subjective judgement in the sense of freedom.

Nonsense speach is not an argument. People who don't accept religion on faith routinely value subjective judgement, therefore you claim is untrue. Changing the meaning of words in real-time is dishonest.

> &gt; Obviously everyone, but you, values objective and subjective judgement in their place. I notice you still haven&#39;t explained how one can build a safe and useful bridge on faith alone.

>
> More bizarre competing objectivity against subjectivity. The issue is
> to validate subjectivity, I accuse you of not doing that, then you
> bring up the uselessness of subjectivity for building bridges.....

What the hell does "to validate subjectivity" mean?

Are you now claiming that subjectivity is uselessness for building bridges?

> &gt; &gt; And you and your fellow evolutionists continuously make suggestive
> &gt; &gt; disparraging remarks about the validity of subjectivity, for it being
> &gt; &gt; of no use to build a bridge, and subjectivity are foolish beliefs
> &gt; &gt; etc..
> &gt;
> &gt; Believing that rocks have volition is a foolish belief; many other subjective judgements aren&#39;t foolish. You are once again lying about what I and other people believe.

>
> That rocks have alternative states available in the moment is a matter
> of fact, not a matter of belief. You still understand nothing about
> the categorical distinction between subjectivity and objectivity.

Rocks do not have volition. Free will is not the same as random reactions. At some level you know this is true, as you keep avoiding a response.

> &gt; You&#39;re also lying when you claim that that I&#39;ve said that subjectivity is of no use to building a bridge. If you&#39;re not lying you&#39;d be able to quote me saying as much. I have asked you to explain how one can build a safe and useful bridge using subjective judgement alone. One can&#39;t obviously. You in fact understand that your nonsense about subjectivity and your lies about what are untrue; you know that objective judgement is valuabe in it&#39;s place, so you can&#39;t answer my question.

>
> What? objective judgement is valuable in place of subjective
> judgement? No not in place, objectivity and subjectivity exist side by
> side. Objectivity cannot apply to anything what does the deciding,
> only subjectivity can apply there, and also subjectivity in general
> does not apply to what has in fact been chosen.

Seriously, you need to stay away from engineering. The shape of the curve of the main cables on a suspension bridge are determined objectively through mathematics. You must decide the shape of those curves through objective measures.

> &gt; &gt; And now you treat the holocaust as generally run of the mill Christian
> &gt; &gt; anti-semitism, same as thousands of years, with more advanced
> &gt; &gt; technics.
> &gt;
> &gt; You once again lie about my beliefs. What a surprise.
> &gt;
> &gt; And you, because you&#39;re a religious anti-Semite, deny that the Holocaust has much continuity with traditional religious anti-Semitism.
>
> I&#39;m sure that in previous times people also committed the original sin

> of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, just like
> Heackel ate from the tree of knowledge of good and bad by making the
> love of Jesus into a matter of fact. To establish what is loving and
> hateful as fact, automatically leads to establishing what is right and
> wrong as fact, it is knowledge of good and evil.

Only in your imagination does anyone think that one can establish what is loving and hateful solely as objective fact. Neither does anyone think right and wrong, in the moral sense, are objective facts, and not based largely on subjective moral judgements.

> And any historian who doesn&#39;t acknowledge the human spirit in a

> properly subjective way, and properly acknowledges the decisions made
> in an objective way, is lying about the holocaust.

Which is of course bullshit. You're just applying a monsterous insult to anyone who happend to disagree with you. You can't defend the insult, the proof being that you've not once been able to quote *anybody* lying about the Holocaust.

Mitchell Coffey

[John Stockwell]

On Monday, July 9, 2012 6:36:23 AM UTC-6, Syamsu wrote:
> http://www.ferris.edu/isar/academic-controversies/sarton-medal.htm
>
> &quot;Professor [Robert] Richards has yet to justify his assertions that

> Haeckel subscribed to a tragic sense of life similar to that of Miguel

> de Unamuno when in fact Unamuno was centrally engaged in polemics

> against Haeckel&#39;s Monism; that Haeckel was not racially anti-Semitic

> when in fact the sources that Richards relies upon reveal clearly

> Haeckel&#39;s racial opposition to the Jews; that Haeckel did not support

> the creation of an authoritarian state when in fact Haeckel stated

> just the opposite; and that Haeckel was not a supporter of Aryan

> inspired eugenics nor the idea that politics is applied biology when

> in fact he supported such positions; and the list of gross

> misrepresentations by Richards goes on and on.&quot;

So what? This sort of clap trap is of no relevance to biology.

-John

[Syamsu]

You are not interested in a factual account of the history of the
holocaust on a basis that it could have turned out differently, just
as you are not interested in the history of life on a basis that it
could have turned out differently. And an essential part of the
history of the holocaust is to relate subjectively to the spirit in
which the decisions were made.

You actively oppose reaching a conclusion by chosing, you ridicule
that, your support for subjectivity is your own Darwinist definition
of subjectivity, which has got nothing to do with freedom in a sense

of alternative results being available in the moment.

You are like a dumb drunk walking criss cross the intellectual
landscape without regard for any limit to the scientific method with
which you are intoxicated by. It is certainly helpful moralizing to
you, to call you a liar about the holocaust, so that you stay away
from reinventing the history of the holocaust with your bullshit
scientific method which takes no account of the facts of freedom, nor
takes account of subjectivity in dealing with the spirit in which
decisions are made.

[Attila]

Are you familiar with the term "glossalalia? Do you think this could be what
we're dealing with here?

[Boikat]

On Jul 20, 7:05�am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 4:42�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thursday, July 19, 2012 3:40:32 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:

> > > On Jul 18, 7:00�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 11:38:53 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:

> > > > > On 18 jul, 17:04, Mitchell Coffey &lt;mitchell.cof...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>
> > > > > &gt; Which is nonsense. Nazism was an extremely emotive, subjectivist movement.

>
> > > > > Ofcourse that is completely bizarre, every policy was rationalized on

> > > > > a basis of prescriptive natural selection theory. Not only policy, but

> > > > > every individual act of every individual nazi as well, was

> > > > > rationalized on a basis of prescriptive natural selection theory.

> > > > > Everything anybody did or said was rationalized on a basis of survival

> > > > > of the fittest. Any emotion expressed or subjective belief held was

> > > > > rationalized in terms of wether or not the belief or expression

> > > > > enchanced survival of the Aryan race. For this reason the old pagan

> > > > > gods were conjured up again among many nazi&#39;s, because the belief in

> > > > > them were thought to enchance fitness. For this reason Christianity

> > > > > was changed to Jesus as an Aryan fighter, instead of Jesus suffering

> > > > > on the cross, because such belief it was thought enhanced survival.
>

> > > > > Emotions were systematically brutalized, and Nazism explicitly posited

> > > > > as a &quot;rational outlook on life&quot;, based on the scientific facts about

> > > > > the spiritual attributes of Aryans.
>

> > > > No historian is going to agree with your nonsense above.
>
> > > That is the way actual historians talk about the holocaust.

> > > Specifically that nazi's formed beliefs in order to enhance survival

> > > is what I got from a historian.
>
> > Right: they formed beliefs (decide on faith: that is, subjectively), which they defended though religious assertion, philosophical perversions, pseudo-historical inventions, various metaphors - most often medical, and remarkably few reference to "darwinist" metaphor. Surely you don't think metaphors are objective?
>
> > In fact, the Nazis exhaulted emotionalism, subjectivity, faith and will. The Nuremberg Rallys weren't biology lectures. I'd recommend you watch "Triumph of the Will," except, since like the Nazis you undervalue objectivity and facts, only subjective responses on the moment, you'd probably be swept up in the subjective experience (as the Nazis wanted people to be) and under go a full-bore conversion.
>

> > > > > And sure you accept subjectivity is valid, every evolutionist does,

> > > > > you just don&#39;t accept the human spirit on a subjective
> > > > > basis..............which means you don&#39;t accept subjectivity as valid
> > > > > at all.
>
> > > > Which is bullshit. Your failed logic just disproves your whole nonsense: people who don't accept religion on faith routinely value subjective judgement, therefore you claim is untrue.

>
> > > No they define subjective judgement as perceived from a particular
> > > position, and then they value that. This has nothing to do with
> > > subjective judgement in the sense of freedom.
>
> > Nonsense speach is not an argument. People who don't accept religion on faith routinely value subjective judgement, therefore you claim is untrue. Changing the meaning of words in real-time is dishonest.
>

> > > > Obviously everyone, but you, values objective and subjective judgement in their place. I notice you still haven't explained how one can build a safe and useful bridge on faith alone.

>
> > > More bizarre competing objectivity against subjectivity. The issue is
> > > to validate subjectivity, I accuse you of not doing that, then you
> > > bring up the uselessness of subjectivity for building bridges.....
>
> > What the hell does "to validate subjectivity" mean?
>
> > Are you now claiming that subjectivity is uselessness for building bridges?
>

> > > > > And you and your fellow evolutionists continuously make suggestive

> > > > > disparraging remarks about the validity of subjectivity, for it being

> > > > > of no use to build a bridge, and subjectivity are foolish beliefs

> > > > > etc..
>
> > > > Believing that rocks have volition is a foolish belief; many other subjective judgements aren't foolish. You are once again lying about what I and other people believe.

>
> > > That rocks have alternative states available in the moment is a matter
> > > of fact, not a matter of belief. You still understand nothing about
> > > the categorical distinction between subjectivity and objectivity.
>
> > Rocks do not have volition. Free will is not the same as random reactions. At some level you know this is true, as you keep avoiding a response.
>

> > > > You're also lying when you claim that that I've said that subjectivity is of no use to building a bridge. If you're not lying you'd be able to quote me saying as much. I have asked you to explain how one can build a safe and useful bridge using subjective judgement alone. One can't obviously. You in fact understand that your nonsense about subjectivity and your lies about what are untrue; you know that objective judgement is valuabe in it's place, so you can't answer my question.

>
> > > What? objective judgement is valuable in place of subjective
> > > judgement? No not in place, objectivity and subjectivity exist side by
> > > side. Objectivity cannot apply to anything what does the deciding,
> > > only subjectivity can apply there, and also subjectivity in general
> > > does not apply to what has in fact been chosen.
>
> > Seriously, you need to stay away from engineering. The shape of the curve of the main cables on a suspension bridge are determined objectively through mathematics. You must decide the shape of those curves through objective measures.
>

> > > > > And now you treat the holocaust as generally run of the mill Christian

> > > > > anti-semitism, same as thousands of years, with more advanced

> > > > > technics.

>
> > > > You once again lie about my beliefs. What a surprise.
>

> > > > And you, because you're a religious anti-Semite, deny that the Holocaust has much continuity with traditional religious anti-Semitism.
>
> > > I'm sure that in previous times people also committed the original sin

> > > of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, just like
> > > Heackel ate from the tree of knowledge of good and bad by making the
> > > love of Jesus into a matter of fact. To establish what is loving and
> > > hateful as fact, automatically leads to establishing what is right and
> > > wrong as fact, it is knowledge of good and evil.
>
> > Only in your imagination does anyone think that one can establish what is loving and hateful solely as objective fact. Neither does anyone think right and wrong, in the moral sense, are objective facts, and not based largely on subjective moral judgements.
>

> > �> And any historian who doesn't acknowledge the human spirit in a

>
> > > properly subjective way, and properly acknowledges the decisions made
> > > in an objective way, is lying about the holocaust.
>
> > Which is of course bullshit. You're just applying a monsterous insult to anyone who happend to disagree with you. You can't defend the insult, the proof being that you've not once been able to quote *anybody* lying about the Holocaust.
>
> You are not interested in a factual account of the history of the
> holocaust on a basis that it could have turned out differently, just
> as you are not interested in the history of life on a basis that it
> could have turned out differently.

What does idle speculation on how things could have turned out
differently have to do with understanding the actual historical event?

> And an essential part of the
> history of the holocaust is to relate subjectively to the spirit in
> which the decisions were made.

That's why most normal people believe Hitler was insane, fool.

>
> You actively oppose reaching a conclusion by chosing,

Reaching a conclusion *is* choosing, you ignorant twit.

> you ridicule
> that, your support for subjectivity is your own Darwinist definition
> of subjectivity, which has got nothing to do with freedom in a sense
> of alternative results being available in the moment.

What is ridiculed is *your* demented demands on how you believe others
should make decisions.

>
> You are like a dumb drunk walking criss cross the intellectual
> landscape without regard for any limit to the scientific method with
> which you are intoxicated by.

The scientific method has limits. That's why it works. *You* are the
spazzoid that believes the scientific method should include
subjectivity i reaching a conclusion. That tosses consistency right
out the window, and would make the scientific method useless, just
like your "logic".

> It is certainly helpful moralizing to
> you, to call you a liar about the holocaust, so that you stay away
> from reinventing the history of the holocaust with your bullshit
> scientific method which takes no account of the facts of freedom, nor
> takes account of subjectivity in dealing with the spirit in which
> decisions are made.

The "spirit" in which "decisions were made" with regards to the
Holocaust was the "spirit" you embrace: Subjectivity forced onto
others as being as important, or more important, than objective
reasoning. *Your* mindset is what would lead to future Holocausts.
"Your* reasoning is what would lead people to judge others as "not
worthy" of living as a people or culture. *Your* mindset was what you
used as your justification for calling for the extermination of
"evolutionists", and you still use that same mindset to call anyone
who disagrees with you "liars about the Holocaust". Of course, you
are too full of your own bullshit that you cannot see that. But, then
again, you are mentally disturbed.

Boikat

[Slow Vehicle]

...I might argue for "idioglossa", but it's pretty much of a
muchness...