RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (18) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Paley Goes to the Movies, Reviews of evolutionism-inspired films.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,14:38   

Hostel

This is a film about a couple of naive American evolutionists--and an utterly clueless Scandanavian who can't keep his drawers on--disgusted with the remnants of Judeo-Christian morality in their country, take a trip to Europe in order to enjoy the illicit pleasures evolutionary morality has to offer.

However, when arriving at a Czech Hostel, they find out the true meaning of Darwinian values. Without giving away too much of the plot, our heroes find themselves in a situation where they become the objects of pleasure of true evolutionists uninfluenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Its very graphic and ugly, but this film is an ideal dramatic deptiction of Darwin's legacy in the soul of early 21st century Europeans. This is a must-see for evolutionists and Christians alike!

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,15:09   

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,16:09   

I suggest at least trying to come close to the topic of this board in the future.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,16:13   

What's the explicit topic of the board?

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,16:17   



--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,16:23   

that's a big topic

   
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,16:25   

"Passion" was better. Mel Gibson is a genius.

I haven't seen either film.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,16:26   

It would be nice if we had a site for the PT community without any restrictions. There's a lot of value in discussing off-topic things with the community of smart people here.

   
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,18:08   

"Silly, bloody nonsense that should appeal to hormonally challenged teens."

Pretty much says it all.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,22:51   

ZZZZZZZZZZZHuh what who hormonally challenged teens what

...Oh I see nevermindZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,02:41   

I for one am so glad to see that even though he is too busy to complete on his many promises to  us, GoP at least looks after his health sufficiently to take movie breaks.
Of course, that does rather make his commitments rather questionable -- quite in line with everything else he's up to.
Apparently, a typical Christian -- consistently boorish, ignorant, immoral, and thoroughly contemptible.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,04:51   

Yes I agree. Torqemada and his pals were a real bunch of evolutionists....mmmm.....uh huh....oh yeah....gimme more of that old time horseshyte GOP.....mmmm it sure tastes good don't it?

Oh wait, are they not TRUE christians? Can I here Hamish galloping up the drive?

Make with the geocentrism and stop the sideline bollocks please. I am chuckling away watching you abuse Mathematica (and I'm not even a mathematician) and pretend that vague references to quantised red shift imply that we are at the centre of concentric circles of expansion. Oh please. Two words:

Michelson

Morley.

Cheers

Louis

P.S. Has anyone else seen Animal House? "Your Delta Tau Chi name is......Flounder!;), if that ain't appropriate in every way for GOP, I'll be a monkey's uncle!

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,06:22   

Aren't you supposed to be working on your scientific 'proofs', GoP? I don't think you've convinced anyone here of geocentricity, yet.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,08:29   

Paley exposes his ideas in this post, however.  And it's something that I think is worth discussing.  Now, I haven't seen Hostel, but the previews make it look dark and disturbing.  Paley is attempting to connect the depravity of the characters/situations with evolution.

I for one, am curious as to where he gets these ideas.  Why does he think that people take their morals and ethics from a scientific theory?  Further, how does he know which scientific theory they got their morals from?  Perhaps they were angry heliocentrists.  Disillusioned general relativists?

Let's face it, this meme is a dangerous one.  Paley is attempting to conflate a lack of morals with a trust in the scientific method.  He, of course, uses the subtle propaganda method of mentioning these ideas (without backing any of it up) and hoping that people that read such drivel won't think about it on their own.  It's amazing how easily people are swayed by ideas like this.  Especially in the bible study group Paley attends, where he is clearly the dominant, intelligent, and influential leader.  I'm not suprised that he would stoop to such levels, but I'm no less disappointed.

  
Spike



Posts: 49
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,12:24   

Well, it's the exact same schtick used by Hovind, Ham and The Wedge: Belief in evolution has led the West into depravity. (The East has always been depraved to the extent that they are not Xtian).

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,12:27   

I guess the Handmaid's Tale is a good example of a Christian values movie.

Speaking of religious movies..What was the name of that Christian snuff film put out by Mel Gibson a few years back?  I missed that one.  Hey you gotta draw the line somewhere...

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,12:59   

I can't believe you sat through that piece of crap movie.  Aren't you like the...Issac Newton of information theory?  Did you bump into Richard Dawkins on his way to see Date Movie?  You could've at least picked Ice Age 2: The Meltdown.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,09:29   

Mr. Elsberry - has anyone complained about not being able to modify their posts?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,09:34   

Too bad we can't put some kind of model filter in Paley's way. Anytime Paley tried to post, this hypothetical filter would evaluate the post for a legitimate scientific model. Any post which wasn't a model would be discarded.

We'd never hear from Paley again.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,10:05   

Test

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,10:19   

Christian film rated PG

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23426

The Motion Picture Association of America is crystal clear when it describes why its "PG" rating exists -- it's a warning flag.

"The theme of a PG-rated film may itself call for parental guidance," the online explanation of the rating system states. "There may be some profanity in these films. There may be some violence or brief nudity. ... The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children. Obviously such a line is difficult to draw."

Disagreements are a given. The Christian moviemakers behind a low-budget film called "Facing the Giants" were stunned when the MPAA pinned a PG rating on their gentle movie about a burned-out, depressed football coach whose life -- on and off the field -- takes a miraculous turn for the better.

"What the MPAA said is that the movie contained strong 'thematic elements' that might disturb some parents,"

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,11:03   

Paley-

make sure you have cookies enabled in your browser;

I often disable them when surfing the net, and forget to re-enable them for sites that I frequent.

If still no go, try deleting the cookie for this site, logging out and logging in again and see if that works.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,11:29   

Quote
Paley-

make sure you have cookies enabled in your browser;

I often disable them when surfing the net, and forget to re-enable them for sites that I frequent.

If still no go, try deleting the cookie for this site, logging out and logging in again and see if that works.


Thanks. Nothing seems to work; methinks this particular library is the culprit. Their "Internet Options" probably deletes the cookies. Funny thing - I seem to remember editing posts before at this location....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,11:41   

Midnight Voice - thanks for the link. I actually think the PG rating's a good thing in this case. Aren't adult-oriented movies usually given a PG regardless of content? I seem to remember that was the rule at one time. Well, being British you might not know.

Arden - yes, I'm working. I plan to explain in more detail why the existence of redshift, in and of itself, doesn't harm my model. I will then destroy another one of Eric's evidences.

By the way, on this thread (and only on this thread, Wes!;)), I will discuss another film soon.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,11:44   

well, I see no problems with the code or the ability to edit posts on this end.

It suggests something has changed on your end.

did you recently upgrade or change your browser?

try a different browser and see what happens.

Quote
Their "Internet Options" probably deletes the cookies. Funny thing - I seem to remember editing posts before at this location....


oops, missed that bit.

It would make sense that they would disable cookies entirely; maybe they finally reconfigured the browser to do so?

ask the propietor if you can enable cookies temporarily?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,11:53   

Quote
It would make sense that they would disable cookies entirely; maybe they finally reconfigured the browser to do so?

ask the propietor if you can enable cookies temporarily?

Unfortunately, they're about ready to close. Let me try another forum. It was down earlier, but maybe it's up now...

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,12:13   

More detailed info on "Giants".

This looks pretty #### funny.  I like this part, emphasis mine:
Quote
The movie includes waves of answered prayers, a medical miracle, a mysterious silver-haired mystic who delivers a message from God and a bench-warmer who kicks a 51-yard field goal to win the big game when his handicapped father pulls himself out of a wheelchair and stands under the goal post to inspire his son's faith. There's a prayer-driven gust of wind in there, too.


--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,08:43   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 10 2006,16:41)
Midnight Voice - thanks for the link. I actually think the PG rating's a good thing in this case. Aren't adult-oriented movies usually given a PG regardless of content? I seem to remember that was the rule at one time.

The Motion Picture Association of America is crystal clear when it describes why its "PG" rating exists -- it's a warning flag.

"The theme of a PG-rated film may itself call for parental guidance," the online explanation of the rating system states. "There may be some profanity in these films. There may be some violence or brief nudity. ... The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children. Obviously such a line is difficult to draw."


And what makes you think I am British?

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,06:47   

Evolutionsim? You seem to be trying very hard to convince people on this forum that you're just a troll.

Also assuming that the teaching of evolution is responsible for all the worlds ills, what on earth has that got to do with whether or not it is true?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,14:58   

By the way, Mr. Murphy, I recently scraped up some cash to purchase a season's worth of Columbo episodes. The inverted mystery plot construction, along with the fantastic performances, keeps the show fresh. One of the few TV shows to have aged well, in my opinion -- although I was too young to appreciate the show during its original run.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,21:44   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 10 2006,16:41)
Arden - yes, I'm working. I plan to explain in more detail why the existence of redshift, in and of itself, doesn't harm my model. I will then destroy another one of Eric's evidences.

Destroy "another one" of my evidences? I don't recall your ever destroying one previously. You're sounding more and more like AF Dave of late, Bill.

And besides, evidence of what? For one thing, I haven't presented any "evidence" for you to "destroy." I've presented observations, which your model is required to account for if it's to have any credibility at all (regardless of whatever mathematical elegance it may possess).

For another, I'm not the one proposing a model here, Bill. Again, you seem to have things backwards, in typical IDist/creationist fashion. You're supposed to be providing evidence for your own model (well, at least, once you've actually supplied a model). Your job isn't to "destroy" my evidence; I haven't proposed a model for which it's my job to even provide evidence.

Dembski et. al. have managed to persuade a lot of scientifically-unsophisticated listeners that ID has scientific value by not-so-subtly shifting the burden of proof onto the Theory of Evolution, and merely claiming that their hypothesis of an intelligent designer is somehow a "better explanation" for observation, without ever describing what that "explanation" actually is. That's not going to work here, Bill. If you claim your model provides a "better explanation" for observation, you're going to have to detail exactly what that "explanation" is. It won't do to just be able to account for some observations here and there, and come up with some ad hoc explanations without an overarching, all-inclusive theory. If you want your geocentrist model to get anywhere, you're going to have to show us how it's a better, more inclusive explanation for observation than the last 500 years of theoretical astrophysics and cosmology. That's the task you've set for yourself, so it really is the case that you don't have the time to go to the movies.

But again—stop trying to "disprove" current theory. Start proving your own theory. When are you guys ever going to get clear on this concept?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,21:49   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 12 2006,19:58)
By the way, Mr. Murphy, I recently scraped up some cash to purchase a season's worth of Columbo episodes.

Hmm…Columbo…I was never much for the TV whodunits. Not much for TV at all, actually.

Buffy's more my style. Which, of course, is exactly why God invented the DVD.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,05:31   

Quote
But again—stop trying to "disprove" current theory. Start proving your own theory. When are you guys ever going to get clear on this concept?

But the quantised red shift and the near-uniformity of the CMB radiation do provide positive evidence for my model.
 
Quote
Hmm…Columbo…I was never much for the TV whodunits. Not much for TV at all, actually.

Buffy's more my style. Which, of course, is exactly why God invented the DVD.

Well, I thought the "just one more thing" on the other thread referred to Columbo. Oh well. As for Buffy, never got into that show.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,06:17   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 13 2006,10:31)
 
Quote
But again—stop trying to "disprove" current theory. Start proving your own theory. When are you guys ever going to get clear on this concept?

But the quantised red shift and the near-uniformity of the CMB radiation do provide positive evidence for my model.

Well, I guess we'll have to wait until you unveil your model (sometime this year?) before we know how well they support it, but I should say for now that redshift quantization per se is not problematic for cosmic inflation, and obviously the CMB at exactly the observed anisotropy is extremely powerful evidence supporting inflation, so unless you can show how both support your model even better, we're not going to be very impressed.

By the way, I know I'm getting ahead of you, but how exactly does your model even account for the existence of the CMB? Isn't your toy universe static?
     
Quote
 
Quote
Hmm…Columbo…I was never much for the TV whodunits. Not much for TV at all, actually.

Buffy's more my style. Which, of course, is exactly why God invented the DVD.

Well, I thought the "just one more thing" on the other thread referred to Columbo. Oh well. As for Buffy, never got into that show.


No, the "one more thing" is from Mr. Jobs, of Apple Computer. I wouldn't have thought Columbo would be considered to be a "greedy capitalist."

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,07:50   

Quote
By the way, I know I'm getting ahead of you, but how exactly does your model even account for the existence of the CMB? Isn't your toy universe static?

Well, it accounts for it, but I'm trying to think about how to present it without bringing up too much math. Let me work on my orbits and crystal spheres and stuff for now, and then I'll whip up on inflation.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,09:15   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 13 2006,12:50)
 
Quote
By the way, I know I'm getting ahead of you, but how exactly does your model even account for the existence of the CMB? Isn't your toy universe static?

Well, it accounts for it, but I'm trying to think about how to present it without bringing up too much math. Let me work on my orbits and crystal spheres and stuff for now, and then I'll whip up on inflation.

Well, in the standard model, it's not too difficult to present. It's the "surface of last scattering," i.e., the radiation released when the universe cooled enough for electrons to become bound in stable orbits around nuclei, allowing the mean free path of photons to be more than a couple of microns.

Not too hard to explain, and makes for a nice visual image, easily apprehended. Now, how hard is it going to be to explain in your model? If we're going to replace the new with the old, we want something in exchange, like an easier picture, perhaps?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,10:11   

Very interesting interview with Gary Kurtz. I found this passage very revealing:
     
Quote
IGNFF: Well what were the original outlines for the prequels? Since they can be compared and contrasted now that the first one's out there, and the second one's soon to be out there. Were there major differences from what you saw, from the original outlines of prequel ideas?

KURTZ: Well a lot of the prequel ideas were very, very vague. It's really difficult to say. I can't remember much about that at all, except dealing with the Clone Wars and the formation of the Jedi Knights in the first place – that was supposed to be one of the keys of Episode I, was going to be how the Jedi Knights came to be. But all of those notes were abandoned completely. One of the reasons Jedi came out the way it did was because the story outline of how Jedi was going to be seemed to get tossed out, and one of the reasons I was really unhappy was the fact that all of the carefully constructed story structure of characters and things that we did in Empire was going to carry over into Jedi. The resolution of that film was going to be quite bittersweet, with Han Solo being killed, and the princess having to take over as queen of what remained of her people, leaving everybody else. In effect, Luke was left on his own. None of that happened, of course.

IGNFF: So it would have been less of a fairy-tale ending?

KURTZ: Much, much less. It would have been quite sad, and poignant and upbeat at the same time, because they would have won a battle. But the idea of another attack on another Death Star wasn't there at all ... it was a rehash of Star Wars, with better visual effects. And there were no Ewoks ... it was just entirely different. It was much more adult and straightforward, the story. This idea that the roller-coaster ride was all the audience was interested in, and the story doesn't have to be very adult or interesting, seemed to come up because of what happened with Raiders of the Lost Ark and the Indiana Jones films – and the fact that that seemed to make a lot of money and it didn't matter whether there was a really good story or not – that wasn't what this kind of film was about. We had serious differences about a lot of that.

IGNFF: Well it's ironic to me ... I was talking to somebody who has a lot of good friends at ILM, especially in the conceptual department, and he said that George has basically a new catch phrase in the development process. His new catch phrase is "It's good enough," and they say he uses it all the time now. When you're talking about that idea of only going to a certain depth because the audience only wants the quick and easy impact, and then move along.... That somehow the audience isn't observant, so why should we be overly detailed... it's just fascinating to compare that with the observations you made.

KURTZ: Well, there is a balance that has to be struck there, because if you want to go to the other extreme, as we were talking about with Stanley Kubrick who was very, very aware and almost paranoid of every detail of his films, it didn't always make any difference in the sense that – as I said – his later films weren't very good, I didn't think. You can go overboard on that and spend too much energy. I think you have to make the film for yourself as the primary audience, and also look at it with a fairly discerning eye – "This works for me, this is good, I like this."

[my emp]


Kurtz tries to downplay the implications of this testimony later in the interview, but most sci-fi fans would be disturbed by this "confession" nonetheless. I find this intriguing because it dovetails with the Law of Unintended Consequences: something on its own may be neutral or even good (Raiders of the Lost Ark) and yet lead to disastrous consequences (the dumbing down of American cinema). One also sees this in films like Halloween, a well-crafted and creepy story whose influence gutted the entire horror industry, encouraging filmmakers to replace atmosphere and psychological tension with formulaic bloodbaths.
    How does this illuminate the creo/evo controversy? Well, suppose Darwinists are correct that evolutionary biology, in and of itself, is entirely harmless. This does not refute the creationist contention that Darwinism aids societal collapse. If Star Wars, Halloween, and Raiders can corrupt the American film industry, then why can't the same effect occur on a larger scale? Something to ponder at any rate.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,11:15   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 03 2006,15:11)
How does this illuminate the creo/evo controversy? Well, suppose Darwinists are correct that evolutionary biology, in and of itself, is entirely harmless. This does not refute the creationist contention that Darwinism aids societal collapse.

So which societies have collapsed as a result of evolutionary theory, Bill? Or are even in any danger of collapse as a result of evolutionary theory? Because I'm not aware of any society that's collapsed in the last 150 years as the result of any theory.

I think your theory kind of collapses if you can't show any societal collapses, don't you?

Not that Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Halloween have anything whatsoever to do with evolutionary theory...

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,11:24   

Quote
I think your theory kind of collapses if you can't show any societal collapses, don't you?

Anticipating Paley's response : the 3rd Reich?
???

Anyway, why do you ask? Paley is obviously a troll and this thread a big joke.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,11:31   

Somehow - somehow, I got dragged to Superman the other day. It was gay. And not in a pleasant homosexual way. It was terrible boring agony.

I blame Christianity for that horrible movie. It made Christianity look pretty bad, Paley!

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,11:43   

What the he11 has StarWars got to do with Darwinism?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,12:03   

Quote (jeannot @ July 03 2006,16:24)
 
Quote
I think your theory kind of collapses if you can't show any societal collapses, don't you?

Anticipating Paley's response : the 3rd Reich?
???

Anyway, why do you ask? Paley is obviously a troll and this thread a big joke.

The Third Reich didn't collapse; it was defeated by force of arms. Totally different thing.

I know this thread's a joke. I can't even imagine how a movie like Raiders of the Lost Ark could be considered "influenced by evolution."

On the other hand, it's no more of a joke than Young-Earth Creationism or Geocentrism.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,12:13   

<sigh>

C'mon guys, you're smarter than this.....look, technology, art, clothes, pop culture.....we agree that these things can influence society, correct? Furthermore, their influence isn't always predictable, correct? So here's an idea....suppose cultural artifacts occasionally hurt society in strange, unpredictable ways, even if they themselves are harmless? Can this happen? I'm arguing it can, while using the interview as supporting evidence. I'm not saying that Star Wars ties into Darwinism directly. But this movie did have a harmful impact on cinema. Or do you disagree? And if you agree, this suggests an analogy with scientific ideas, especially ones with a certain.....notoriety.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,12:30   

And you think Darwinism hurts science because ...

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,12:32   

Quote
Paley is obviously a troll and this thread a big joke

Yep, but for all the time and energy misguidedly invested in arguing with his bloviations, one could forgive a casual observer for thinking he was just as much a legitimate scientist and thinker as anyone else on this board.

What's the satisfaction in having your chain yanked by someone who lives for only that?

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,13:27   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 03 2006,17:13)
I'm not saying that Star Wars ties into Darwinism directly. But this movie did have a harmful impact on movies. Or do you disagree? And if you agree, this suggests an analogy with scientific ideas, especially ones with a certain.....notoriety.


First; I disagree with your premise. What effect did Star Wars have on films like "Memento," "Requiem for a Dream," "Dirty Pretty Things," or any of hundreds of films released subsequently that can stand with any cinema made previously. Granted, the intrinsic value of any film is largely a matter of opinion, but if you don't think a lot of throw-away trash was made before Star Wars came out, you obviously haven't spent too much time watching movies.

Second—Bill, it's pretty obvious to me that creationism has a much more destructive effect on society than any legitimate scientific theory, because it undermines people's ability to make informed decisions about what is and is not plausible. Young-Earth Creationism is especially destructive, because it requires that people give up the ability to reason dispassionately and weigh evidence, and instead lets them think that it's okay to believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of what the evidence might have to say about it.

You think Foucault's a jackass, and deride the whole postmodernist-deconstructionist premise that all ways of knowing are equally valid, and the multiculturalist thesis that science is just another myth, just like other myths. Creationism in general and Young-Earth varieties thereof in particular reinforce this belief that no method of knowing has primacy over any other.

AF Dave thinks he's entitled to spin any old wild-ass ad hoc hypothesis, regardless of whether it's supported by facts, and feels entitled to dismiss any evidence, regardless of how solidly supported it is, if it contradicts his beloved Bible. He is evidently of the opinion that he, with an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, is as or more qualified to opine on complex topics like radiometric dating, paleontology, geology, linguistics, and archaeology than people who have devoted their professional lives to it. If that isn't a postmodernist/deconstructionist position to take, I don't know what is.

If any force is likely to cause society to collapse, Bill, it's the rubbish promoted by the religious right as actual "science," like "Creation Science," "Intelligent Design," etc. Conservative refusal to credit the reality of global human-mediated climate change (a notion that is entirely uncontroversial in the scientific community) has the potential not just to cause society to collapse, but the entire ecosystem to collapse.

Evolution has been the considered opinion of the scientific community for the past 100 years or more, and if it's causing society to collapse, it's got to be the slowest collapse of all time.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,14:59   

O.T.:
             
Quote

             
Quote
Paley is obviously a troll and this thread a big joke


Yep, but for all the time and energy misguidedly invested in arguing with his bloviations, one could forgive a casual observer for thinking he was just as much a legitimate scientist and thinker as anyone else on this board.

What's the satisfaction in having your chain yanked by someone who lives for only that?


The funny thing is, I could be much better at this "trolling" business if that's what I was in it for. Consider the posters who generate the most heat:

1) Antievos who peddle creo boilerplate
2) Arrogant/low IQ ranters
3) Trashtalkers

C'mon, you know it's true. Look at Thordaddy -- the dude's posts were little more than random permutations of a few stock phrases (And yeah, I supported him....thought he would snap out of it sooner or later). Evopeach was little more than a Seanbaby/Don Rickles disciple; his posts generated chuckles but no insight. And look at Dave -- I think he's fantastic, but let's face it, the reason he draws so much attention is not because he makes plenty of good points and discusses interesting subjects (although he does) -- it's largely because you like to ridicule his intellect and flex your argumentative muscles. I think he's a bright guy with a cool background & a lot to contribute if you'd just listen, but if you shared my opinion of his mind then you wouldn't be as interested in debating him, now would ya? His "vulnerability" (your collective opinion, not mine) is what makes him so "appealing". But it's OK, cause Dave's a big boy and I'm glad his topics are getting so much coverage, even if it's for the wrong reasons.

This brings me to the second point. Suppose my goal was to yank chains & turn yer butts pink, how would I do it? Let's see, I could adopt any of these positions:

1) Bush is the greatest President of all time, long may he wave,

2) We should kill gays

3) The holocaust was a myth, & I can prove the Jews made it up so they could get their own country

4) Global warming is nothing more than pinko propaganda, and lest we forget.....

5) Whites are the smartest, greatest race of all time, and should rule the world.

I know that the Yenta and others think I have argued 5, but that's just because their liberal mindset drove em insane. When I was a liberal, I read a ton of stuff on racism & hate groups & IQ, and I'll bet I could rattle your cage a lot more if I really wanted to. But I don't, because I'm not trying to troll, but rather speak my mind and defend my position on a lot of issues. If I'm wrong....well, I haven't lost anything, because I lead a relatively happy life. And if I'm right, then I'm going to Heaven (assuming I ever get my behaviour in line with my beliefs, that is.....). Anyhoo -- as I've said before, it's a win-win situation.

Eric:
     
Quote
First; I disagree with your premise. What effect did Star Wars have on films like "Memento," "Requiem for a Dream," "Dirty Pretty Things," or any of hundreds of films released subsequently that can stand with any cinema made previously. Granted, the intrinsic value of any film is largely a matter of opinion, but if you don't think a lot of throw-away trash was made before Star Wars came out, you obviously haven't spent too much time watching movies.

Excellent point. Of course, I'm not arguing that good films are extinct, but rather:

1) The "average" Hollywood product, while technically more proficient than its predecessors, lacks the depth that filmbuffs have come to expect (it doesn't have to be this way....I don't watch much TV, but what I've seen indicates that this medium has gotten more sophisticated, perhaps as a reaction to Hollywood's inanity)

2) Good, adult*-oriented films have become harder to find, and often lack the sparkling dialogue of films past. That's why I find a film like Quiz Show a small miracle.....the dialogue is amazing. Obviously Hollywood doesn't buy the Flynn Effect.

3) Films were rarely a compendium of stunts, explosions, and car chases before The French Connection, Star Wars, and Raiders. Don't believe me? Read Pauline Kael around the late 70's early 80's. Was she hallucinating?

   
Quote
Second—Bill, it's pretty obvious to me that creationism has a much more destructive effect on society than any legitimate scientific theory, because it undermines people's ability to make informed decisions about what is and is not plausible. Young-Earth Creationism is especially destructive, because it requires that people give up the ability to reason dispassionately and weigh evidence, and instead lets them think that it's okay to believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of what the evidence might have to say about it.


Obviously I contest this. But time's running out, so let me end with this question:

Which country has the broadest range of free speech protection in the entire world? Now, which country has the largest group of Christian "fundies"?

*you know what I mean, wiseguys

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,15:45   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 03 2006,19:59)
And look at Dave -- I think he's fantastic, but let's face it, the reason he draws so much attention is not because he makes plenty of good points and discusses interesting subjects (although he does) -- it's largely because you like to ridicule his intellect and flex your argumentative muscles. I think he's a bright guy with a cool background & a lot to contribute if you'd just listen, but if you shared my opinion of his mind then you wouldn't be as interested in debating him, now would ya? His "vulnerability" (your collective opinion, not mine) is what makes him so "appealing".

I've yet to see Dave make a single good point. In over a hundred pages, he's yet to give me reason to question a single tenet of evolutionary biology, paleontology, cosmology, geology, or any other discipline upon which young-earth creationism impinges. Nor has he given me reason to doubt any particular piece of evidence supporting an ancient earth or evolution of organisms from simple precursors up to the present diversity of life. His posts are filled with the same kind of feeble-minded creationist ad hoc hypotheses and special pleading we've all seen from creationists a million times before.

If anything, AF Dave is a stunning example of how a person of relatively normal intelligence can be utterly blinded by ideology. It's been clear almost from Dave's first post that he will never, ever be persuaded by evidence that his Creator God Hypothesis is worthless crap, despite his frequent protestations to the contrary. At this point, we're making fun of Dave basically because there's nothing else you can do with him. He's impervious to reason, logic, evidence, or rational thought. He believes what he believes, and he's certainly not going to let facts get in his way.

I never would have believe that people like Dave could exist in the real world. If anyone who's posted on this site is indicative of the risks ideologically-blinkered thinking entails for society, it's our very own AF Dave.
 
Quote
Obviously I contest this. But time's running out, so let me end with this question:

Which country has the broadest range of free speech protection in the entire world? Now, which country has the largest group of Christian "fundies"?

Are you implying a causative relation here? Because I don't see it. Our current administration is probably more top-heavy with Christian "fundies" than any other administration in history, and yet this administration is undoubtedly the most secretive, and most hostile to free-speech protections, of any administration memory.

The way I see it, Christian "fundies" are perfectly willing to take advantage of constitutional protections of free speech, while at the same time being perfectly willing to deny those protections to others.

As far as I can tell, the U.S. has broad constitutional protections for free speech despite religious fundamentalists, not because of them.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,19:41   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 03 2006,17:13)
<sigh>

C'mon guys, you're smarter than this.....look, technology, art, clothes, pop culture.....we agree that these things can influence society, correct? Furthermore, their influence isn't always predictable, correct? So here's an idea....suppose cultural artifacts occasionally hurt society in strange, unpredictable ways, even if they themselves are harmless? Can this happen? I'm arguing it can, while using the interview as supporting evidence. I'm not saying that Star Wars ties into Darwinism directly. But this movie did have a harmful impact on cinema. Or do you disagree? And if you agree, this suggests an analogy with scientific ideas, especially ones with a certain.....notoriety.

Paley, why don't you make a movie proving the moon landings were faked?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,20:07   

Quote
Paley, why don't you make a movie proving the moon landings were faked?


Ooooh!  Then I can make a movie proving his movie is a fake!

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
JMX



Posts: 27
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,21:01   

Star Wars and Darwinism?
Au contraire, my dear Watson:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1283

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2006,01:33   

Dear All,

Ah this old chestnut!

"Star Wars (or pick a movie) ushered in a slide into cinematic depravity, it was the pebble that started the landslide. We know this is true because many movies today are shite.

Therefore by analogy:

Evolutionary biology (or pick a science) ushered in a slide into social depravity, it was the pebble that started the landslide. We know this is true because many facets of society today are shite."


I think I know what Ghosty's up to here, it's a game, it's "spot the ridiculous logical fallacies".

So I'll give it a go. In Ghosty's "argument" (not merely my shortened version of the key bit) I can find the following fallacies:

1. affirmation of the consequent
2. amphiboly
3. appeals to anecdotal evidence
4. argumentum ad nauseum
5. argumentum ad populum
6. audiatur et altera pars
7. bifurcation
8. converse accident
9. extended analogy in absence of factual basis
10. ignoratio elenchi
11. non causa pro causa (specifically in this case a combination of both the cum hoc ergo propter hoc and the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies)
12. non sequitur
13. petitio principii
14. slippery slope

Wow! 14 fallacies in ONE "argument" (more accurately an attempt at an insult combined with a red herring).

Can anyone spot any more fallacies in Ghosty's argument?

Louis

(watch Ghosty run to google to regurgitate a mass of semi-relevant spurious nonsense to "support" his claim, I predict distraction and bullshit from our ephemeral companion, anyone care to make a wager to the contrary? Anyone? [sound of crickets chirruping] Didn't think so.)

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,04:25   

Louis:

Just two questions:

1) Are you asserting that Star Wars, Raiders, and Halloween had little impact on modern cinematic values? Because this flies in the face of just about everything I've read from movie critics and people who were, like, actually making films at the time (see the above link)

2) Do you contest the possibility of a negative consequence flowing from a relatively benign cause? This is an important question, because your answer will address what I actually wrote:
 
Quote
So here's an idea....suppose cultural artifacts occasionally hurt society in strange, unpredictable ways, even if they themselves are harmless? Can this happen? I'm arguing it can, while using the interview as supporting evidence. I'm not saying that Star Wars ties into Darwinism directly. But this movie did have a harmful impact on cinema. Or do you disagree? And if you agree, this suggests an analogy with scientific ideas, especially ones with a certain.....notoriety.

I'm discussing what might be true about social trends in general.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,04:54   

Ghosty,

1) No

2) No

What I was doing was noting your commentary was a bunch of notably fallacious nonsense. Correlation =/= causation after all. What I am saying is that your very obvious argument is total crap, whether Star Wars had a massive impact on cinema, or whether benign things produce negative consequences on occasion are totally irrelevant to the fact that your "argument" is logically falacious, and even if all your assumptions were true, still would not establish that which you intend it to. Star Wars having an effect does not mean that that effect was negative (while you and I might agree that some effects were negative, I doubt we would agree that they all are etc). Basically you are using poor logic and weasel words to #### by association and insinuation and you are fooling nobody. You don't HAVE an argument, you have half assed cognitive dissonant nonsense that you use to try to shore up your beliefs and prejudices. Nothing more.

Let's get to the meat, there is, as far as I am aware, simply no evidence that evolutionary biology being taught in schools has any causative link with any aspect of societal decline (I don't even accept that society is declining because it rather hinges on what one means by decline).

Even if it were demonstrably the case that teaching evolutionary biology in schools was a causatively socially damaging in some manner (and again, there is no evidence it is AFAIK) that would have NOTHING to do with it's validity or accuracy as science.

Also one would have to question WHY it was socially damaging, i.e. why a relatively simple and (scientifically) uncontroversial scientific theory and series of data were somehow being singled out as a cause of societal problems. We return to the oft asked question, what makes evolutionary biology so terrible as opposed to meteorology or chemistry for example (both of which I might add refute clearly a number of creationist claims).

Basically, we can see through your nonsense, we're not impressed. Go troll something else, or better actually present this geocentric nonsense (oops sorry "model") you claim to have and stop pissing about with your social engineering muppetry.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,05:06   

Ghost:

I read through this, and something puzzles me. Are you arguing here that *correct* ideas, which are powerful enough to providing guiding and organizing principles for entire fields of science, should nonetheless be withheld from the public, which should be kept in ignorance because such ideas might undermine their moral fabric?

As I read it, your superficial "ignorance is bliss" argument isn't so straightforward, because in fact you've been working backward:
1) Has society been going downhill recently? Sure has.
2) Is evolutionary theory bunk? Must be, God said so.
3) Has evolutionary theory been accepted by Important People anyway, for the trivial reason that it explains so much and passes so many tests? Apparently so.
4) Aha, it follows that acceptance of an explanation for what we see around us that God (your interpretation) rejects, must be the cause of the moral degeneration you see (but others don't). What makes things even more disturbing is that this evil explanation meets so very clearly every single last rigorous requirement for being true.
5) Now all we need to do is document how actual comprehension of this explanation is causing social collapse, among those so immoral as to be well-educated. We document this by pointing to immoral movies. Where in these movies do we find any clear relationship between understanding biology and doing stuff you don't like? Simple, we *assume* it, because it must be true, because why else would these people be so immoral?

Now, to you the causal chain may be irrefutable, but to those not pre-equipped with this knowledge, the relationship you allege simply isn't there. At all. Ah well, faith is believing what you know ain't so.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,06:25   

Flint:
     
Quote
I read through this, and something puzzles me. Are you arguing here that *correct* ideas, which are powerful enough to providing guiding and organizing principles for entire fields of science, should nonetheless be withheld from the public, which should be kept in ignorance because such ideas might undermine their moral fabric?

No, I don't believe in censoring either ideas or art. For example, I would not censor "black" (i.e. Satan-themed) metal or Gangsta rap, even though their potential for social harm is obvious to pretty much everyone with a functioning brain. Likewise with movies: a steady diet of slasher flicks does a teenager no good (and probably harms him by desensitizing him to violence), but it's not up to the government to choose what we watch. But regardless of politics, a huge body of social science research links violent, anti-social media to crime and social decay. Yes, correlation does not equal causation, but social scientists know this and have developed methods to check for spurious correlation (think about the classic studies demonstrating a causal link between smoking and lung cancer). Plus, there are crude experiments than can monitor immediate behavior and attitudinal responses to violent media, and these drive home the connection. Anyway, legal does not equal benign.
     
Quote
5) Now all we need to do is document how actual comprehension of this explanation is causing social collapse, among those so immoral as to be well-educated. We document this by pointing to immoral movies. Where in these movies do we find any clear relationship between understanding biology and doing stuff you don't like? Simple, we *assume* it, because it must be true, because why else would these people be so immoral?

I think everyone still neglects my main point, which is that neutral or even benign phenomena can have bad consequences. That was why I brought the movies up. Notice that Louis, although he challenges everything else I say, doesn't challenge this point. Nevertheless, I'm not claiming that I have even begun to prove a link between Darwinism and social decay. I'm just showing that this issue is more complicated than either creos or evos make it.
   
Quote
Now, to you the causal chain may be irrefutable, but to those not pre-equipped with this knowledge, the relationship you allege simply isn't there. At all. Ah well, faith is believing what you know ain't so.

I never said the connection was proven; I'm just saying that there might be a link, and demonstrating the harmlessness of Darwinism itself does not prove that Darwinism has no harmful impact on society. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests with me, and I will be the first to admit it. By the way, I suspect that Darwinism is a deadly philosophy on its own terms; that's not my point however.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,07:00   

Actually, I'm convinced the decline of films and general collapse of society over the last 25 years is the fault of the Police Academy movies.

And I have every bit as much evidence for this theory as GoP does for his.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,07:25   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 05 2006,12:00)
Actually, I'm convinced the decline of films and general collapse of society over the last 25 years is the fault of the Police Academy movies.

And I have every bit as much evidence for this theory as GoP does for his.

Actually, it happened when they allowed Rhett Butler to say the word, "D4mn," as in, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a d4mn."  It was all downhill from there.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,07:39   

Another hole in your theory, Bill, is that a distinct minority of Americans believe in evolution. Supposedly something like 8% of Americans believe that evolution proceeded without assistance from god, and at least a third of Americans are YECs like Dave, if they ever think about it at all.

Given how few Americans even believe in evolution, Bill, I think a much stronger argument can be made that society is the way it is because people don't believe in evolution, not because they do.

And again, if evolution is true, does it matter whether it's harmful to society? Should we tell people comforting lies if it makes for a better society? I think that's the real moral issue here.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,07:43   

Louis:
     
Quote
Star Wars having an effect does not mean that that effect was negative (while you and I might agree that some effects were negative, I doubt we would agree that they all are etc). Basically you are using poor logic and weasel words to #### by association and insinuation and you are fooling nobody. You don't HAVE an argument, you have half assed cognitive dissonant nonsense that you use to try to shore up your beliefs and prejudices. Nothing more.

No, Stars Wars could have had a positive effect. For example, it showed that a movie could make a substantial amount of money from repeat business; this might encourage scriptwriters to add depth to their stories. Unfortunately, however, studio moguls focused on the movie's:
1) Teen appeal
2) Special effects
3) Merchandising (toy sales, etc)

How do we know this? Well, for one thing many of them confessed their strategy in interviews. In addition, they began to aggressively pursue market research so that they might better appeal to their new target audience: bored teenagers. Why is this significant? Because teenagers have relatively undeveloped tastes, and dislike complexity and high culture references. Once again, I recommend Pauline Kael's essays.

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,07:54   

Quote
I'm just saying that there might be a link, and demonstrating the harmlessness of Darwinism itself does not prove that Darwinism has no harmful impact on society. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests with me, and I will be the first to admit it. By the way, I suspect that Darwinism is a deadly philosophy on its own terms...

I just get more confused by this. I'm sorry I didn't come in at the beginning. I'm baffled by what you might intend by the "philosophy" of "Darwinism". What I'm talking about here is very specific: the biological theory that differential survival rates filter heritable traits, selecting thereby those traits possessed by the most effective replicators. This is most emphatically NOT a "philosophy", this is a proposed, well-supported explanation for a very large body of observations.

My question was, how is an understanding of this natural feedback process detrimental to society? You dodged this question, confusing it with censorship. Maybe I just didn't understand. If people understand how survival filters out those characteristics that assist in survival, how does this understanding, directly or indirectly, cause social harm. You seem to be claiming that it does, but making no case for this claim that I can find.

And how is this understanding "deadly"? To whom? By what mechanism? Are there any other well-supported scientific explanations of the evidence that you would consider deadly? I suppose you might make a case that our knowledge of evolution, like our knowledge of physics, permits us to construct weapons we couldn't begin to build without the underlying theories. Is this what you mean?

So once again, it sounds to me that in your dictionary, "darwinism" is pretty synonymous with anti-God, and it's a "philosophy" because, well, I give up.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,08:08   

Louis:
 
Quote
Even if it were demonstrably the case that teaching evolutionary biology in schools was a causatively socially damaging in some manner (and again, there is no evidence it is AFAIK) that would have NOTHING to do with it's validity or accuracy as science.

True enough, something can be both dangerous and true. But knowing one part doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate the other.
 
Quote
Also one would have to question WHY it was socially damaging, i.e. why a relatively simple and (scientifically) uncontroversial scientific theory and series of data were somehow being singled out as a cause of societal problems. We return to the oft asked question, what makes evolutionary biology so terrible as opposed to meteorology or chemistry for example (both of which I might add refute clearly a number of creationist claims).

Because militant atheists, racists, and other malcontents justify their beliefs with evolution rather than chemistry or meteorology. As you know.
 
Quote
Basically, we can see through your nonsense, we're not impressed. Go troll something else, or better actually present this geocentric nonsense (oops sorry "model") you claim to have and stop pissing about with your social engineering muppetry.

I realise you think you're brilliant and intimidating, but as someone whose spent his life arguing with Jewish people, I can tell you that you're an amateur when it comes to debating. Just thought you'd like to know.  :p

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,08:12   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 05 2006,13:08)
Because militant atheists, racists, and other malcontents justify their beliefs with evolution rather than chemistry or meteorology. As you know.

I realise you think you're brilliant and intimidating, but as someone whose spent his life arguing with Jewish people, I can tell you that you're an amateur when it comes to debating. Just thought you'd like to know.  :p

(emphasis mine)

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,08:16   

Quote
I realise you think you're brilliant and intimidating, but as someone whose spent his life arguing with Jewish people, I can tell you that you're an amateur when it comes to debating. Just thought you'd like to know.  


Have you ever debated Christianity, Geocentrism or denial of the moon landings with any Jews?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,08:28   

GCT:
Quote
Because militant atheists, racists, and other malcontents justify their beliefs with evolution rather than chemistry or meteorology. As you know.

I realise you think you're brilliant and intimidating, but [/b]as someone whose spent his life arguing with Jewish people, I can tell you that you're an amateur when it comes to debating.[/b] Just thought you'd like to know.  

(emphasis mine)

No racism here, just plenty of cultural knowledge. Judaism is by far the most intellectualised religion on Earth; this is one reason that Jewish culture embraces the mind. Read the Talmud.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,08:33   

Quote
Because militant atheists, racists, and other malcontents justify their beliefs with evolution rather than chemistry or meteorology. As you know.


Racists don't rationalize their beliefs with Christianity? Must have missed the memo on that one.

I'm glad to know that militant Christian malcontents justify their beliefs with Christianity, either. Whew.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,08:44   

Clearly, I've also missed something important here.

Which sounds like something one is more likely to hear:

(1) I'm justified in doing something antisocial because I have been called by God to do it/the Bible says this is proper; or

(2) I'm justified because normal biological variation implies slightly different rates of reproduction in subsequent generations.

Ghost has only heard the second? People actually USE this to justify antisocial behavior? Even the battle over the propriety of slavery involved Christians on both sides waving their Bibles and citing congenial verses.

I have never in my life heard anyone justify any "belief" on the grounds of differential reproductive success over long periods of time. I defy Ghost to back up his claim with even a single instance of this. Weird, man.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,09:13   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 05 2006,13:08)
Because militant atheists, racists, and other malcontents justify their beliefs with evolution rather than chemistry or meteorology. As you know.

If people justify their bad, wrong ideas (which shouldn't be construed to mean I think atheists have bad, wrong ideas) with incorrect understandings of physical theory, does that mean we should change the theory?

Maybe a better idea would be to educate people on what the theory really means. Given the virtually universal misunderstandings of evolutionary theory, this seems to me to be a laudable goal.

But I really don't think you want to tar evolutionary theory with the errors caused by misunderstandings of the theory. After all, look at the horrors precipitated by clearly erroneous readings of scripture. I'd wager that much more damage has been done due to unjustifed readings of Christian scripture than by any strained misinterpretations of neodarwinian evolution.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,10:22   

Here we read:

Quote
So at what point do a person's convictions become a health issue? In my opinion, the answer is this: A belief becomes cognitively unhealthy when the believer's free will and normal critical processes have been damaged by the belief system's dialectic. I argue that fundamentalist religions, insofar as they cripple a believer's ability to have free will, exhibit rational choice and appropriately assess the nature of the physical environment, have already passed this threshold.

Moreover, the effect of fundamentalism on society is as detrimental as the effect of fundamentalism on believers. Fundamentalists are the ones who fly planes into skyscrapers and murder doctors that perform abortions. They are the ones who deny the existence of proven physical phenomena while rabidly insisting on the existence of clearly unsubstantiated marvels.

They are also incapable of recognizing that they have a problem, and are often amongst the most intolerant people on this planet, commonly referring to non-believers as pagans, heathens, or infidels.

The differentiating factor must be this: A belief system is a mental disorder when it causes believers to deny the observations of empirical methodologies. With fundamentalists, this involves denying the nature of the physical world as it is being presented in favour of archaic and unyielding irrational orthodoxies; their brains have been infected and debilitated with unsubstantiated nonsense.


On the whole, a good sensible article. This guy says the cure is education. Preferably before the victims become "incapable of recognizing that they have a problem."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,11:19   

OK, I've got some free time, so now I can play catch-up.

GTC:

My opinions of Jews are not shaped by the fanciful stereotypes of antisemites (ooooh those Jews -- they're so sneaky and clever), but from growing up in a largely Jewish neighborhood and school. And let me tell ya, nothing hones the mind like Jewish culture. Nothing. This site gives you an idea of what Talmudic study entails:
         
Quote
This attitude toward texts had its necessary concomitant in what may again be called the Talmudic hypothetico-deductive method of text interpretation. Confronted with a statement on any subject, the Talmudic student will proceed to raise a series of questions before he satisfies himself of having understood its full meaning. If the statement is not clear enough, he will ask, 'What does the author intend to say here?' If it is too obvious, he will again ask, 'It is too plain, why then expressly say it?' If it is a statement of fact or of a concrete instance, he will then ask, 'What underlying principle does it involve?' If it is broad generalization, he will want to know exactly how much it is to include; and if it is an exception to a general rule, he will want to know how much it is to exclude. He will furthermore want to know all the circumstances under which a certain statement is true, and what qualifications are permissible.

Statements apparently contradictory to each other will be reconciled by the discovery of some subtle distinction, and statements apparently irrelevant to each other will be subtly analyzed into their ultimate elements and shown to contain some common underlying principle. The harmonization of apparent contradictions and the interlinking of apparent irrelevancies are two characteristic features of the Talmudic method of text study. And similarly every other phenomenon about the text becomes a matter of investigation. Why does the author use one word rather than another? What need was there for the mentioning of a specific instance as an illustration? Do certain authorities differ or not? If they do, why do they differ?

All these are legitimate questions for the Talmudic student of texts. And any attempt to answer these questions calls for ingenuity and skill, the power of analysis and association, and the ability to set up hypotheses - and all these must be bolstered up by a wealth of accurate information and the use of good judgment. No limitation is set upon any subject; problems run into one another; they become intricate and interwoven, one throwing light upon the other. And there is a logic underlying this method of reasoning. It is the very same kind of logic which underlies any sort of scientific research, and by which one is enabled to form hypotheses, to test them and to formulate general laws.

Here's a sample from the Babylonian Talmud. The Summa Theologiae is a comic book in comparison.

Arden:
       
Quote
Racists don't rationalize their beliefs with Christianity? Must have missed the memo on that one.

Some do, like the Klan and many members of the Christian Identity sect. Most rely on Darwin. But don't take my word for it; log on a neonazi/racist website and run a poll; I predict that Darwin will come out on top. After all, Jesus was Jewish, and most racists dislike Jews.

Flint:
     
Quote
Which sounds like something one is more likely to hear:

(1) I'm justified in doing something antisocial because I have been called by God to do it/the Bible says this is proper; or

(2) I'm justified because normal biological variation implies slightly different rates of reproduction in subsequent generations.

Ghost has only heard the second? People actually USE this to justify antisocial behavior? Even the battle over the propriety of slavery involved Christians on both sides waving their Bibles and citing congenial verses.

Focus on the level of the society. People have a need for transcendence; this leads to a relationship with God. Take God out of the picture if you like, but the need's still there. Where does it go? Does it shrivel up like a raisin in the sun (or like an orbital in information space)? Or does it become sublimated in social/political movements, such as......oh, let's pick an ideology at random.......Communism? Marx brought more pain to the world in one century than Christianity in a millenium. In fact, not only are Christian societies more peaceful than Commie ones, they're more peaceful than Islamic/pagan ones. Pre-Christian Europe was a very violent place. Slavery? What makes Judeo-Christian society unique was not its practice of slavery, but its elimination of the institution. Ask Sowell or D'Souza. As for modern Europe, its civilisation is due to its Judeo-Christian roots; having lost them, Europe is slowly reverting into a state of savagery.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,11:27   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 05 2006,16:19)
People have a need for trancendence;

What is I need?  And why do I need it?

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,11:30   

Ghost:

You've lost me. Focus on differential reproductive success due to biological variation. HOW does recognition of this fact cause any sort of social decay?

Hey, I have no problem with your opinions about the quality (and inherent inferiority, of course) of societies you don't live in. I simply don't see how the understanding of differential reproductive success is causing these problems. You said it was. Please explain.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,11:36   

MidnightVoice:

You must be gay. Otherwise you'd know. Remember that a thread or two back, it was gay marriage that was causing the collapse of society, not an understanding of reproductive success. I'm guessing that only gays understand reproductive success. What else could it be?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,11:41   

Flint:
 
Quote
So at what point do a person's convictions become a health issue? In my opinion, the answer is this: A belief becomes cognitively unhealthy when the believer's free will and normal critical processes have been damaged by the belief system's dialectic. I argue that fundamentalist religions, insofar as they cripple a believer's ability to have free will, exhibit rational choice and appropriately assess the nature of the physical environment, have already passed this threshold.

All systems of belief have a crippling effect on free will. Once you have enough time and energy invested in a worldview, you have to be dragged from it kicking and screaming. Evos are just as emotional as creos; atheists are just as emotional and dogmatic as the religious. But let's see how the author supports his belief:
 
Quote
Moreover, the effect of fundamentalism on society is as detrimental as the effect of fundamentalism on believers. Fundamentalists are the ones who fly planes into skyscrapers

Not the Christian ones, just the ones that Europe likes to import. ;)
 
Quote
and murder doctors that perform abortions.

OK, fair enough, but let's compare the tens of thousands of third-trimester fetuses murdered each year to the handful of abortionists who are killed. Then we'll get a better picture of who's &^%&ing society up.*
 
Quote
They are the ones who deny the existence of proven physical phenomena while rabidly insisting on the existence of clearly unsubstantiated marvels.

Let's assume that heliocentrism/evolution/relativity/pick yer theory is correct. Has American society been harmed? Our scientists are still the best in the entire world. Europe should have such problems!
 
Quote
They are also incapable of recognizing that they have a problem, and are often amongst the most intolerant people on this planet, commonly referring to non-believers as pagans, heathens, or infidels.

But once again, what's the social harm of such name calling? Are atheists, pagans, gays, and other minorities being whacked in record numbers? According to crime statistics, not as often as white heterosexuals. That's why the media has to bring the same examples up year after year.
 
Quote
The differentiating factor must be this: A belief system is a mental disorder when it causes believers to deny the observations of empirical methodologies. With fundamentalists, this involves denying the nature of the physical world as it is being presented in favour of archaic and unyielding irrational orthodoxies; their brains have been infected and debilitated with unsubstantiated nonsense.

And yet in spite of this, America is a rich, powerful trendsetter that laps the field in most categories. Boo hoo.

*No, I don't believe that abortionists should be murdered, and have no sympathy for those who do.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,11:56   

Quote
Some do, like the Klan and many members of the Christian Identity sect. Most rely on Darwin. But don't take my word for it; log on a neonazi/racist website and run a poll; I predict that Darwin will come out on top. After all, Jesus was Jewish, and most racists dislike Jews.


That seems pretty unlikely, given that the roots of anti-semitism are buried deep in Christianity.  Even going back as recently as the Holocaust, the greatest contributing factor was the longstanding tradition of Christian hatred for Jews.  If you want to make the case that the theory of evolution has somehow supplanted Christianity in its capacity for inspiring hatred, be my guest.  But the case is yours to make, not ours.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,12:05   

Quote
Let's assume that heliocentrism/evolution/relativity/pick yer theory is correct. Has American society been harmed?

But this was YOUR thesis, wasn't it? Or was it not the correctness of the theory of evolution that's causing social collapse, but rather that some people actually understand the theory? You weren't clear.

Quote
Once you have enough time and energy invested in a worldview, you have to be dragged from it kicking and screaming. Evos are just as emotional as creos

And, unsurprisingly, the relevance of evidence once again has escaped you. What this article is talking about isn't isolated conviction as to the truth of anything. He's very explicitly talking about conviction in defiance of enormous quantities of evidence to the contrary. He thinks that makes a difference. So do I. You don't even seem to recognize that it relates.

Quote
but let's compare the tens of thousands of third-trimester fetuses murdered each year

You have stumbled over your terminology. Murder is deliberately taking the life of a person. A 'person' is a legal construct. By law, fetuses are not people. You have made a religion-induced category error. Try again.

Quote
And yet in spite of this, America is a rich, powerful trendsetter that laps the field in most categories. Boo hoo

Well, let's see. America has a great many scientists, who are largely responsible for the "best in the entire world" quality of life. Even granting this rather dubious chauvinism, we might usefully ask what percentage of these scientists share the religious convictions you are so devoutely pimping for. After all, your defense against the accusation of religious wingnut-ism is that NON-wingnuts, who actually accept EVIDENCE (look it up), accomplish wonderful things. Now, one might hope that sooner or later, you might actually draw a correlation between scientific accomplishment and religious extremism, and notice that the two are for some strange reason nearly mutually exclusive.

And if this should ever occur to you, your sense of integrity might be sore distraught that you constructed special pleading so clearly dishonest.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,12:11   

MidnightVoice:
   
Quote
What is I need?  And why do I need it?

I define transcendence as a need to be part of something higher/greater than oneself. Could be God, could be a social ideal. But without the fulfillment, individuals often feel empty, bored, and deprived. Remember, American citizens are among the happiest in the world. Americans are also the most religious (at least among highly technological societies). I don't think it's a coincidence.

Flint:
   
Quote
Ghost:

You've lost me. Focus on differential reproductive success due to biological variation. HOW does recognition of this fact cause any sort of social decay?

Flint's a good man to have around. I hope yer takin notes, Louie, you could learn a thing or two.

OK: Here's the problem. First, there's the focus on biology instead of culture. Culture can be improved; biology, taken alone, cannot (leaving Mark Mcgwire and Barry Bonds out of this for the moment). This leads to a genetic reductionism that encourages callous attitudes towards "losers". That's why many atheists found eugenics and social Darwinism so congenial to their belief systems, at least before Hitler (and why many of the ones who rejected those values were forced into an equally rigid embrace of Marxism).

Second, most people, no matter how often you tell them they shouldn't, take their moral cues from nature in absence of something better. The struggle for survival needn't involve cruelty, but the most conspicuous examples often do, and people notice that the meek often end up in the bellies of their predators. A sort of moral heuristic takes over; I see that the jerks get ahead, and lacking any higher code, I'll follow their path to success. This, in turn, will maximise my reproductive opportunities. Who's to tell me otherwise? A book of "fairytales" that my science teacher has refuted? A moral nag? People need standards, whether they're intellectual, physical, or moral. Without a higher guide, logic can turn on itself, and then the rationalisations begin.

There's more to the story, but here's a start.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,12:46   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 05 2006,17:11)
I define transcendence as a need to be part of something higher/greater than oneself. Could be God, could be a social ideal. But without the fulfillment, individuals often feel empty, bored, and deprived. Remember, American citizens are among the happiest in the world. Americans are also the most religious (at least among highly technological societies). I don't think it's a coincidence.

Well, I don't.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3157570.stm

Nigeria is the happiest country.  US ranks 16th.  I guess our sufferings at the hands of moronic religous fanatics have driven us down the table.  :D

Or, if you prefer the subjective view:

1. Puerto Rico
2. Mexico
3. Denmark
4. Colombia
5. Ireland
6. Iceland
7. N. Ireland
8. Switzerland
9. Netherlands
10. Canada
11. Austria
12. El Salvador
13. Venezuela
14. Luxembourg
15. U.S.
16. Australia
17. New Zealand
18. Sweden
19. Nigeria
20. Norway
21. Belgium
22. Finland
23. Singapore
24. W. Germany
25. France
26. Argentina
27. Vietnam
28. Chile
29. Indonesia
30. Philippines
31. Taiwan
32. Brazil
33. Spain
34. Israel
35. Italy
36. Portugal
37. E. Germany
38. Slovenia
39. Japan
40. Czech Rep
41. S. Africa
42. Croatia
43. Greece
44. Peru
45. China
46. Morocco
47. S. Korea
48. Iran
49. Poland
50. Turkey
51. Bosnia
52. Uganda
53. Algeria
54. Bangladesh
55. Egypt
56. Kyrgyzstan
57. Hungary
58. Slovakia
59. Jordan
60. Estonia
61. Serbia
62. Tanzania
63. Azerbaijan
64. Montenegro
65. India
66. Lithuania
67. Macedonia
68. Pakistan
69. Latvia
70. Albania
71. Bulgaria
72. Belarus
73. Georgia
74. Romania
75. Moldova
76. Russia
77. Armenia
78. Ukraine
79. Zimbabwe


Of course, I wouldn't expect you to get your facts right, especially the inconvenient ones that disagree with your preconceptions.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,13:00   

Flint:
       
Quote
What this article is talking about isn't isolated conviction as to the truth of anything. He's very explicitly talking about conviction in defiance of enormous quantities of evidence to the contrary. He thinks that makes a difference. So do I. You don't even seem to recognize that it relates.

No, I agree that there are negative consequences that flow from evidence-wary mindsets. Does Christianity, or fundamentalist religion in general, often encourage a blinkered viewpoint? Certainly we can be awfully pig-headed and impervious to evidence that clashes with our belief. But for the author's argument to have any force, bad things must follow. So what are the bad things?

1) Has America's preoccupation (relative to Europe's) with "bible thumping" hurt us in science or trade? Can't see that it has. Why not? Perhaps religion itself often encourages critical thought. Let's take a second look at the Jews. In order to master the Talmud, one must master the mindset behind it, and this process engenders the logic and hypothesis-building that nurtures science. Christianity doesn't boast the same level of intellectual commitment on average, but Christian philosophy can get pretty daunting nonetheless. Pagan philosophy was similarly drenched in mysticism; heck, even Enlightenment figures usually grounded their ideas in religious concepts.

2) Have societies become less stable by adopting religious dogma? No....in fact, quite the opposite.

You say in response that religion harms individual achievement by closing minds to evidence. Now it's true that scientists (especially prominent ones) are disproportionately atheistic, but there are (and were) plenty of first-rate religious scientists, so what about them? First-rate science has been accomplished by many different types of individuals, and even those who abandoned their religion often used it as a starting-point to intellectual inquiry. Perhaps religion leads to scientific complacency in the modern world. Historically, however, it seems that religion provided the spark of curiosity that led to empirical inquiry. And atheism doesn't necessarily lead to clear thinking, as many a Chinese and Russian scientist will tell you.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,13:05   

Ghost:

I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from now. When you speak about the "philosophy of Darwinism" this really has nothing whatsoever to do with Darwin's actual explanation of the evidence. Nor does it really have anything to do with biology at all. It's a phrase you coined to form free-associations in your mind with loss of belief in your particular god, which in turn is causing social degeneration from your perspective. Much as I might coin the phrase "the philosophy of baseballism" to symbolize what I might consider a trend toward medical problems resulting from too much fast food. You would be expected to understand that's what I meant, knowing (as you would) that I belong to a cult that hates baseball and blames it on anything and everything I ALSO hate.

Quote
The struggle for survival needn't involve cruelty, but the most conspicuous examples often do, and people notice that the meek often end up in the bellies of their predators.

I'm going to presume here that you understand that this has little to do with how evolution works. Most of the "superior" variations (always with respect to differential reproductive success) have more to do with ensuring a food supply than anything else. But we understand, do we not, that the people you're referring to really have little clue what evolution IS; they are justifying antisocial behaviors based on common misunderstandings.

But what you carefully avoid mentioning is that the cure for such misunderstandings is GOOD education, not anti-science propaganda. And of course I also trust we both understand that a quality education will do nothing to prevent antisocial behaviors; at best we can replace the current set of excuses and rationalizations.

Quote
People need standards, whether they're intellectual, physical, or moral. Without a higher guide, logic can turn on itself, and then the rationalisations begin.

Amazingly enough, I agree with you here. Standards, customs, protocols, traditions, routine practices, these things are very important for our basic sanity. But you're barking up the wrong tree if you think scientific explanations of observations undermine standards in any way. I personally believe that the Golden Rule is a truly excellent rule of thumb. I need not reject tested explanations of biological change over time to recognize this, or to follow that rule as well as I can.

Now, I may be wrong but I think you are saying that your particular magic book, by virtue of its wide distribution and "installed base" of believers, is the best guide available, for better or worse. Yeah, maybe it has a lot of contradictions, or a lot of recipes we no longer honor, a lot of tall tales to illustrate moral principles that some damfools take literally.

The Bible-program is riddled with bugs, but for some people it works. Personally, I think these people could lose the godball nonsense and yet lose none of their morality. And those who use the Bible as an excuse for antisocial behavior would use anything you could substitute, same as those who abuse misunderstandings about biology. You do NOT need to be irrational to have moral standards.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,13:06   

Craaaaap... Greece is 43rd, and it's one of the most religious countries in Europe... Maybe it's because we're Orthodox? Which sect provides the more happiness in your book, Ghost?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,13:14   

Quote
Perhaps religion itself often encourages critical thought. Let's take a second look at the Jews. In order to master the Talmud, one must master the mindset behind it, and this process engenders the logic and hypothesis-building that nurtures science.


Can you provide some more... context to your explanation? I fail to understand how trying to force your mind into one particular mould of thinking (whichever that may be) encourages the creativity and objectiveness the scientific thought requires.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,13:18   

Ghost:

Quote
Does Christianity, or fundamentalist religion in general, often encourage a blinkered viewpoint? Certainly we can be awfully pig-headed and impervious to evidence that clashes with our belief. But for the author's argument to have any force, bad things must follow. So what are the bad things?

I think this is a legitimate question. Did you read the entire editorial I linked to? Clearly, he's not talking about people whose religious faith does NOT require them to reject inconvenient evidence and/or adopt bigoted postures toward personal differences. He's talking about those who *substitute* fundamentalism for reason and knowledge, and then try to spread ignorance.

But I'm in the same position you are here, trying to identify the harm done. Is Kurt Wise harmful? No, probably not. I work with a couple of excellent, highly skilled engineers who are YECs. Fortunately, their delusions do not overlap the requirements of their profession. In general, my observation has been that creationists have a roped-off blind spot. They are entirely rational, even rigorously logical, outside the ropes. It's always startling to me when that line is crossed, and their eyes glaze over. Almost like a post-hypotic command - say the keyword, and their mind disengages entirely.

So actual harm is difficult to demonstrate. I could only point out that the scientific advances are rarely if ever made by creationists, especially in biology. As a society, we advance despite, not because of, brainwashed ignorance. We can (and do) absorb large numbers of bigots. But as far as I'm concerned, this doesn't mean we should *encourage* bigotry. I suggest we'd be a LOT better off with more biologists and fewer bigots.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,13:42   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 05 2006,17:11)
Second, most people, no matter how often you tell them they shouldn't, take their moral cues from nature in absence of something better. The struggle for survival needn't involve cruelty, but the most conspicuous examples often do, and people notice that the meek often end up in the bellies of their predators. A sort of moral heuristic takes over; I see that the jerks get ahead, and lacking any higher code, I'll follow their path to success. This, in turn, will maximise my reproductive opportunities. Who's to tell me otherwise?

Bill, this argument founders on the fact that the vast majority (something like 80%) of Americans do not believe in evolution in the first place. Of the remainder (and subtracting out those who neither know nor care anything about evolution or creationism), I doubt you're going to find too many murderers, rapists, etc.

You simply cannot impute behavior based on a physical theory to people who do not subscribe to that theory. Are you going to claim that someone who believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that God created man in his own image is influenced in his or her behavior by a theory that contradicts both of those beliefs? If so, how?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,14:18   

Faid:
             
Quote
Can you provide some more... context to your explanation? I fail to understand how trying to force your mind into one particular mould of thinking (whichever that may be) encourages the creativity and objectiveness the scientific thought requires.

I'm a lazy typist, so here goes:
             
Quote
The distinctive character of the Talmud derives largely from its intricate use of argumentation and debate. Some of these debates were actually conducted by the Amora'im, though most of them are hypothetically reconstructed by the Talmud's redactors ("This is what Rabbi X could have argued...") As in the Mishnah, the Amora'ic Rabbis encouraged multiple opinions and interpretations. Whereas the Mishnah usually limits itself to a brief statement of the conflicting views, the Talmud tries to verify the integrity of the positions of the Tanna'im and the Amora'im. Prooftexts are quoted to corroborate or disprove the respective opinions.
The process of deduction required to derive a conclusion from a prooftext is often logically complex and indirect. Every effort is made to uphold the correctnesss (i.e., the logical consistency) of the opinions ascribed to the Rabbis, though this often requires forced and unconvincing intepretations of the evidence.

The proof is in the kugel, as the Jews kick everyone's a$$ in intellectual achievement. Although the Greeks had the lead for a while....

MidnightVoice:
Hmmmmm.....I don't know what to make of it. On the one hand we have the cross-national surveys, which support your position, but on the other hand we've got this study, which replicated this study. Even though there are naysayers, and studies which show insignificantly positive results, I think the general trend is clear (also see here), if occasionally disputed.

Eric:
     
Quote
Bill, this argument founders on the fact that the vast majority (something like 80%) of Americans do not believe in evolution in the first place. Of the remainder (and subtracting out those who neither know nor care anything about evolution or creationism), I doubt you're going to find too many murderers, rapists, etc.

I don't know, I think a lot of thugs embrace a "law of the jungle" type mentality, and this attitude is engendered by evolution. Remember, you don't have to embrace a belief in order to have your worldview overlap with its penumbra.

Flint:
     
Quote
Did you read the entire editorial I linked to? Clearly, he's not talking about people whose religious faith does NOT require them to reject inconvenient evidence and/or adopt bigoted postures toward personal differences. He's talking about those who *substitute* fundamentalism for reason and knowledge, and then try to spread ignorance.
[....]
So actual harm is difficult to demonstrate. I could only point out that the scientific advances are rarely if ever made by creationists, especially in biology. As a society, we advance despite, not because of, brainwashed ignorance. We can (and do) absorb large numbers of bigots. But as far as I'm concerned, this doesn't mean we should *encourage* bigotry. I suggest we'd be a LOT better off with more biologists and fewer bigots.

Perhaps in purely objective terms, it's not the presence but the proportion of fundamentalists that matters. All I know is:

1) A third of America shares a great deal of my worldview; yet

2) Science is still with us. And what did Reed Cartright say about the University of Georgia's boasting a world class evo program? Sounds like us Gawguh fundies have failed miserably in our science-gutting......how are we doin' in Bama?

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,14:31   

Um...
Quote
Every effort is made to uphold the correctnesss (i.e., the logical consistency) of the opinions ascribed to the Rabbis, though this often requires forced and unconvincing intepretations of the evidence.

??? ?

Speaking Of Greeks (and 'pagan' philosophy): If you have read Protagoras, then maybe you know that Socrates and Protagoras, by the end of their debate, change their minds?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,14:52   

Hey all you football/soccer fans, I need your opinion: do your think the refs will fix the World Cup final, or will it be on the level? I don't know much about the sport, but something hasn't seemed quite right about this tournament.....the way the brackets have been set, the penalties, etc. I know that some people suspect that the NBA finals are fishy, and there's a little evidence to back em up, but what about Soccer/Football? I don't have any strong opinions (honest), so here's yer chance to show off what you know.....all speculation welcome.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,15:11   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 05 2006,19:52)
Hey all you football/soccer fans, I need your opinion: do your think the refs will fix the World Cup final, or will it be on the level? I don't know much about the sport, but something hasn't seemed quite right about this tournament.....the way the brackets have been set, the penalties, etc. I know that some people suspect that the NBA finals are fishy, and there's a little evidence to back em up, but what about Soccer/Football? I don't have any strong opinions (honest), so here's yer chance to show off what you know.....all speculation welcome.

I doubt the World Cup is fixed. Seen zero evidence so far. Referees are under a lot of pressure and mistakes get made. It is hard to judge exactly what happened in many incidents and refs don't have the luxury of slow motion replays from various angles.

I am glad Potugal are out. Their cheating/exploiting style of play in this competition was anoying to watch.

So France v Italy for the final. Hoping for a good match.

EDIT: Wow, what a change of subject. However I could not resist replying. (It is the worlds biggest sporting event is the only defence I can offer)

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,15:12   

Well, I don't think there are reasons to believe any results were rigged so far... Which team do you think is the refs' 'favorite'?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,15:19   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 05 2006,19:18)
I don't know, I think a lot of thugs embrace a "law of the jungle" type mentality, and this attitude is engendered by evolution. Remember, you don't have to embrace a belief in order to have your worldview overlap with its penumbra.

But if your belief is based on a complete misapprehension of the theory, how can your behavior be in any said to be based on that theory? As I pointed out before, do you hold Christianity responsible for all the atrocities committed in the name of a completely wrong interpretation of its teachings?

And if someone is completely unfamiliar with a theory, or worse, completely disagrees with that theory, how can their behavior be in any way ascribed to that theory?

And, if your theory is correct, we should see a correlation between people who believe in evolution and people who are criminals. I doubt you can show any such correlation. Let's look at people who absolutely believe in evolution—evolutionary biologists. How many of them are "thugs"? Now let's look at the number of people who definitely do not believe in evolution: young-earth creationists. What do you suppose the prison population looks like in terms of numbers of evolutionary biologists as opposed to numbers of young-earth creationists?

As I've said before, the Theory of Evolution is no more a prescription for a just society than the Theory of General Relativity is. If someone used the Theory of Relativity to justify the notion that heavier people should be able to crush the life out of lighter people, would we hold Einstein responsible for such a ridiculous belief? The Theory of Evolution provides absolutely no justification for a society where the strong oppress the weak. It's a radical misinterpretation of the theory to think so. Just because ecological studies often differentiate between predators and prey, does that mean society should categorize people as either "predators" or "prey"?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,22:12   

Paley,

1) I am not brilliant or intimidating, although I am gratified you find me so, after all you keep bringing it up.

2) What were global societies like prior to 1859? Were there still thugs and ruffians and all round naughty persons? Did naughty persons use any justification they could for their naughtiness?

Like I said, regardless of whether you consider me to be the equal of a Talmudic debator, this latest nonsense of yours is logically fallacious bullshit and nothing more. A convenient distraction from your distinct lack of a geocentric "model".

Louis

P.S. As for the footy, well I am glad the Portugese are out of it, after all they were doing so much diving in the last three matches I imagine they are currently in a decompression chamber preparing for life on the surface. That Renaldo needs someone to have a quiet word with him. As for match fixing, highly unlikely.

--------------
Bye.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2006,02:55   

Quote
All I know is:

1) A third of America shares a great deal of my worldview; yet

2) Science is still with us.

This argument always brings me up short. To draw an exact parallel not pre-poisoned by religious blinkers, imagine someone arging for more polio on the grounds that the US dominates the Olympic games, trying to imply that polio can't be harmful and might be beneficial. This only works when arguments that could be made straight ahead are instead made by implication and misdirection. ALL of Ghosts arguments are made this way.

I can only repeat that those producing the scientific advances and those who share this worldview are entirely different populations, without any meaningful overlap at all. The reason for this mutual exclusivity can be traced beyond mere statistical observation to actual cause and effect. Those who reject evidence produce no science. Advances are made by those who escaped the trap, not those who fell victim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2006,09:23   

With the website acting up, let me just leave everyone with a nice essay for now.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2006,10:20   

So a card-carrying member of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative and grimly Christian think tank, examines the greatest works (in his opinion) produced by Christians in Christendom (falsely advertised as the best of all humanity everywhere), and marvels that, why, they're all produced by (ghasp!;) Christians. God must be real.

And the Chinese must be giggling.

  
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2006,10:44   

Paley, don't you have a model to build and present?
Drop the bullshit pseudo-sociology and get back to your pseudo-cosmology, please.  You violate your own promises by drifting down these other paths.  (Big surprise to those of us who know you as a Christian, and  thus know you to be inherently dishonest, but still... Maintain the pretense!)

Shirley Knott

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2006,12:46   

The thing is, Bill seems like he's probably smart enough to have made some contributions, however small, to the edifice of human knoweldge. Unfortunately, he's beholden to the creation myths of a pre-scientific, almost preliterate society of 5,000 years ago, and instead of doing creditable work in, oh, I don't know, quantum chemistry, he's wasting his time arguing that evolution is partly responsible for the notional collapse of society and trying to come up with an internally-consistent geocentric cosmology.

Sigh. A mind, as Dan Quayle once pointed out, is a terrible thing to lose.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2006,14:46   

Quote (Louis @ July 06 2006,03:12)
P.S. As for the footy, well I am glad the Portugese are out of it, after all they were doing so much diving in the last three matches I imagine they are currently in a decompression chamber preparing for life on the surface. That Renaldo needs someone to have a quiet word with him. As for match fixing, highly unlikely.

Normally I want the team that knocks England out to go-on and win the cup. Not this time. Portugal's style of cheating/ref influencing really anoyed me.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2006,08:29   

I see the site is back up, not that it does me any good, having missed my window of opportunity to post another installment. Oh well, I'll try to get it in next Tuesday. Let's hope Wes has fixed the kinks by then.....

Eric:
       
Quote
{I}nstead of doing creditable work in, oh, I don't know, quantum chemistry, he's wasting his time arguing that evolution is partly responsible for the notional collapse of society and trying to come up with an internally-consistent geocentric cosmology.

Naaah, even if you accept evo-science as true, my "failure" to pursue a scientific career derives 90% from my temperament, which predates the religious conversion. Funny thing is, even though God made all the difference in my inner world, my lifestyle remains pretty much the same. I never did get into drinking, drugging, skirt-chasing, etc, so I didn't have to give up a lot of bad habits. I actually have the opposite problem: I have to train myself to be more social so that I can better fulfill my obligations.

S. Elliot:
       
Quote
Normally I want the team that knocks England out to go-on and win the cup. Not this time. Portugal's style of cheating/ref influencing really anoyed me.

Yeah, but I'd like to see Italy win it; I believe it would be their first championship. Of course, France's current team is getting up in years, and this might be their last opportunity to take it, so I don't know who to root for really.

 Mr. Elliot, how are the playoff brackets determined? Is it based on a rigid point system (like the earlier standings) or is it more subjective? It seemed like Brazil got shafted by the playoff structure. But maybe there wasn't any choice.

 As far as other types of possible "fixing", I don't know that "fixing" would be done to benefit a particular team as much as maximise revenue. In American sports, the TV networks and advertisers benefit by long playoff series, so there's pressure on the league to artificially lengthen the playoffs by calling more fouls against the losing team, etc. Not saying it happens, but people occasionally level these charges against the NBA. In combat sports, it's easier to fix contests, and no one doubts it's happened in boxing and MMA. I also suspect that individual football and baseball athletes have taken payoffs throughout history -- the third Superbowl has always had a fishy fragrance around it, and there's one baseball pitcher who might have tanked a few games in the late 60's (Flint knows who I'm talking about).

Anyway, have there been any gambling scandals associated with soccer/football?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2006,09:38   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 07 2006,13:29)
Eric:
           
Quote
{I}nstead of doing creditable work in, oh, I don't know, quantum chemistry, he's wasting his time arguing that evolution is partly responsible for the notional collapse of society and trying to come up with an internally-consistent geocentric cosmology.

Naaah, even if you accept evo-science as true, my "failure" to pursue a scientific career derives 90% from my temperament, which predates the religious conversion. Funny thing is, even though God made all the difference in my inner world, my lifestyle remains pretty much the same. I never did get into drinking, drugging, skirt-chasing, etc, so I didn't have to give up a lot of bad habits. I actually have the opposite problem: I have to train myself to be more social so that I can better fulfill my obligations.

Gee, Bill, drinking, drugging, and skirt-chasing don't strike me as activities normally associated with professional scientists. Granted, there are exceptions (Richard Feynman comes to mind), but in general I think you've got kind of a weird idea of most scientists' lifestyle.  And living like a hermit is certainly not going to be a problem for a doctoral candidate who's up until five a.m. most nights in a deserted lab tending to his experiments.

So why was it, exactly, that you didn't want to be a scientist? Too much cognitive dissonance?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2006,12:02   

Quote
Gee, Bill, drinking, drugging, and skirt-chasing don't strike me as activities normally associated with professional scientists.
Well if you believe Anne Coulter scientists are liberals so they spend all day drinking, smoking pot and sleeping around so they can have as many abortions as possible. Either that or their gay and don't have abortions so instead they want to adopt kids to destroy the American family.

Quote
Funny thing is, even though God made all the difference in my inner world, my lifestyle remains pretty much the same. I never did get into drinking, drugging, skirt-chasing, etc, so I didn't have to give up a lot of bad habits.
Funny I gave all that stuff up after I stopped caring what God thought about me.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2006,12:41   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ July 07 2006,17:02)
Well if you believe Anne Coulter scientists are liberals so they spend all day drinking, smoking pot and sleeping around so they can have as many abortions as possible.

Well, Anne advocates the killing of liberals (is John Walker Linde a "liberal"?), which should do wonders for America's standing in the sciences, and should really do wonders for the number of future Nobel laureates who are Americans.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2006,08:18   

Quote (ericmurphy @ July 07 2006,14:38)
drinking, drugging, and skirt-chasing don't strike me as activities normally associated with professional scientists.

Hmmmm.  For those of us who got our degrees in London in the sixties and early seventies............

Never mind, I would not want to corrupt you  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2006,12:49   

Quote (MidnightVoice @ July 08 2006,13:18)
 
Quote (ericmurphy @ July 07 2006,14:38)
drinking, drugging, and skirt-chasing don't strike me as activities normally associated with professional scientists.

Hmmmm.  For those of us who got our degrees in London in the sixties and early seventies............

Never mind, I would not want to corrupt you  :D

Question: was this before you got your graduate degree and started working as a professional scientist, or after?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2006,14:15   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 07 2006,13:29)
I never did get into drinking, drugging, skirt-chasing, etc,

Translation:  He couldn't get laid.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2006,14:18   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 07 2006,13:29)
I actually have the opposite problem: I have to train myself to be more social

Translation;  He has no social skills.

Which, I suppose, explains why he couldn't get laid.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2006,14:27   

I will try to get back to this thread's original topic.

Paley, what do you think the effect of the Planet of the Apes films has been on America's moral fabric? Has it harmed or benefitted Christianity?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2006,14:35   

Quote
Funny thing is, even though God made all the difference in my inner world, my lifestyle remains pretty much the same


Translation: I'm still a reactionary a$$hole, but it's okay because I'm saved and you're not. So there.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2006,15:09   

Quote
 
Quote


Racists don't rationalize their beliefs with Christianity? Must have missed the memo on that one.


Some do, like the Klan and many members of the Christian Identity sect. Most rely on Darwin. But don't take my word for it; log on a neonazi/racist website and run a poll; I predict that Darwin will come out on top.


Paley, do you have the slightest evidence for this? Because this smells exactly like another one of those "Liberals all read Foucault" generalizations that you pull out of your butt from time to time...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2006,15:49   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 08 2006,20:09)
Quote
 
Quote


Racists don't rationalize their beliefs with Christianity? Must have missed the memo on that one.


Some do, like the Klan and many members of the Christian Identity sect. Most rely on Darwin. But don't take my word for it; log on a neonazi/racist website and run a poll; I predict that Darwin will come out on top.


Paley, do you have the slightest evidence for this? Because this smells exactly like another one of those "Liberals all read Foucault" generalizations that you pull out of your butt from time to time...

Maybe this will help, Paley:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/nazis.htm

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2006,04:53   

Quote (ericmurphy @ July 08 2006,17:49)
Question: was this before you got your graduate degree and started working as a professional scientist, or after?

Before, during and after.  It was a fun time, but all good things come to an end eventually, and I got old and responsible - or older and somewhat more responsible.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2006,09:53   

You know what's funny? Out of all the Panda's Bum barflies, I bet that Eric gets the cutest ladies. Here's why:

1) He lives in San Fran, where there's a lot of cuties (esp Asian cuties)

2) He works in a law firm and bikes a lot, so he's fit and well dressed

3) He comes across as a nice guy, yet isn't afraid to assert himself

4) He doesn't try to position himself as a stud. This is the dead giveaway. I've had a lot of male friends who are amazingly successful with the ladies, and every single one undersells his appeal to the opposite sex. You have to go out with these guys, see their dates, and notice women's reactions before understanding the true situation, because you won't get it from them.

5) Eric doesn't have a need to belittle others (for the most part. Alas, he needs to ease up on Dave. Just stick to the facts, Sir). This suggests someone who's relaxed and self-confident.

I suspect Faid might give him a run for his money, though. Don't deny it, Faid -- we know all about you Greek guys.... :D  :D  :D

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2006,11:52   

I deny any and all wild allegations!

Besides, I'm an MD- and we all know how doctors fare with the ladies: Just a tad better than behind the wheel.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2006,12:00   

Well, Italy just beat France, and our wonderful media is already sulking. The article did mention a
match-fixing scandal engulfing Italy.....sounds pretty serious. Is this thing pretty common in soccer?

This source mentions several scandals.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2006,12:17   

Well it's not that common, and that's why this scandal gets so much publicity here... It's a shame European football doesn't pay more attention to us Greeks; they might learn a thing or two about scandals. :p

What Zidane did tonight was pretty lame, btw. And it might have costed France the title.  :angry:

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2006,13:43   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 09 2006,14:53)
You know what's funny? Out of all the Panda's Bum barflies, I bet that Eric gets the cutest ladies. Here's why: etc. etc. etc.

****

5) Eric doesn't have a need to belittle others (for the most part. Alas, he needs to ease up on Dave. Just stick to the facts, Sir). This suggests someone who's relaxed and self-confident.

If only, Bill. Although, by American standards…

Anyway, I try to keep my criticisms to people's arguments, not their person, and try to keep the ad hominem attacks to a minimum. I do have to confess, however, that AF Dave's incredible bone-headedness has on occasion caused me to lose my temper. But in general, even with Dave, I've mostly confined my criticism to the utter lack of substantiation he has provided for virtually every claim he's ever made on any subject.

But in any event, given his disparaging comments about just about the entire scientific community, I don't feel too bad about it.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,00:54   

Eric,

Gop said:

Quote
 I bet that Eric gets the cutest ladies. Here's why:  


and then proceeds to list your qualities.

Not that I am denying the analysis of your posting habits and character by our ephemeral chum, but I think he's got a crush on you.

Isn't that just ADORABLE!?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,02:10   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 07 2006,13:29)
Yeah, but I'd like to see Italy win it; I believe it would be their first championship.

Their fourth, actually.

 
Quote
Mr. Elliot, how are the playoff brackets determined? Is it based on a rigid point system (like the earlier standings) or is it more subjective? It seemed like Brazil got shafted by the playoff structure. But maybe there wasn't any choice.


The playoff structure is decided well before the tournament starts.  Brazil got into their bracket by being the winner of their group.  They had the misfortune of having to play France so early, because France actually finished second in their group.  I would not say that they were shafted, however, since you have to win your way to the finals, no matter who you play.

 
Quote
Anyway, have there been any gambling scandals associated with soccer/football?


Yes.  There was a scandal involving some referrees not too long ago in Germany.  Also, the current scandal involves Italian club teams.  No players have been implicated, however.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,05:43   

I can't help but notice that Paley couldn't come up with any proof that White Supremacists admire Darwin. Did the site he got those black-on-white crime stats off of support him?

And, of course, he's ignoring my questions about Planet of the Apes and society. Typical.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,05:48   

Quote (Louis @ July 10 2006,05:54)
Eric,

Gop said:

 
Quote
 I bet that Eric gets the cutest ladies. Here's why:  


and then proceeds to list your qualities.

Not that I am denying the analysis of your posting habits and character by our ephemeral chum, but I think he's got a crush on you.

Isn't that just ADORABLE!?

Louis

The same thought crossed my mind. Can't say I've ever been the subject of a crush by a BAC before, but you find out something new every day. :-)

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,05:53   

I suspect this crush is just another one of Paley's sillyass PR moves to distract us from his inability to construct a coherent argument or indeed to say anything that makes sense. If you assume GOP's posts here are all a big joke, they suddenly fall into place.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,06:20   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 10 2006,10:53)
I suspect this crush is just another one of Paley's sillyass PR moves to distract us from his inability to construct a coherent argument or indeed to say anything that makes sense. If you assume GOP's posts here are all a big joke, they suddenly fall into place.

I am pretty much convinced Paley is just posting for fun. But not absolutely certain.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,06:39   

Arden/Steve,

He's either taking the chronic micky (Americans read: fucking with us) or he is a creationist double think fruitcake of the first water.

I agree with Steve, I can't decide which. I reckon it's Loki trolling humour, but I could be wrong.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,06:42   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 10 2006,10:53)
I suspect this crush is just another one of Paley's sillyass PR moves to distract us from his inability to construct a coherent argument or indeed to say anything that makes sense. If you assume GOP is a big joke, it suddenly falls into place.

Fixed it for ya!

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,07:36   

Quote (GCT @ July 10 2006,11:42)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 10 2006,10:53)
I suspect this crush is just another one of Paley's sillyass PR moves to distract us from his inability to construct a coherent argument or indeed to say anything that makes sense. If you assume GOP is a big joke, it suddenly falls into place.

Fixed it for ya!

Well, some of us know the GOP is a joke in one way, a world class disaster in another   :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,09:39   

Wow, you guys really miss Dave. Anyhoo, you'll be happy to know that I plan on posting a rough sketch tonight and a full installment either tomorrow or Wednesday. The delay is due to a combination of sinus trouble, medical appointments, and a nasty workload spike.

A.C.
         
Quote
I can't help but notice that Paley couldn't come up with any proof that White Supremacists admire Darwin. Did the site he got those black-on-white crime stats off of support him?

The proof is abundant and quite obvious. I notice that despite repeated requests, none of you wish to test your ideas by going undercover and running a poll at a white nationalist site. Gee, I wonder why. Well, since you guys are chicken, I'll back it up tonight. You've been warned.
         
Quote
And, of course, he's ignoring my questions about Planet of the Apes and society. Typical.

Because I thought you were joking. Could you please explain your point, cause I don't get it (I've never seen Planet of the Apes, by the way).

Louis:
       
Quote
Not that I am denying the analysis of your posting habits and character by our ephemeral chum, but I think he's got a crush on you.

Wow, talk about being stuck in primary school. You know what's funny about this? Despite being a "homophobe", I'm probably less threatened by gay sex than any of you. Like I said before, people often think I'm gay because I don't have the neurotic need to "prove" my heterosexuality. Besides, this fella's got my heart.....


......especially if he beats this guy:



Matt took advantage of a rookie mistake the first time, but it ain't gonna happen again. GSP in three.

Oh yeah, you heard it here first: Chuck Liddell by ground n' pound T.K.O. over Wanderlei Silva.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,10:42   

I did a little bit of poking around on some AN sites, and I found far more references to Christianity than to both Darwin and the theory of evolution combined.  The following quote, attributed to Darwin, came up a few times.  I have no idea if it's accurate or not, but for the sake of research, here it is:

Quote
CHARLES R. DARWIN ONRACE-MIXING

Charles Darwin, 1849

When two distinct races are crossed, it is notorious that the tendency in the offspring to revert to one or both parent forms is strong, and endures for many generations.

The Earl of Powis formerly imported some thoroughly domesticated humped cattle from India, and crossed them with English breeds, which belong to a distinct species; and his agent remarked to me, without any question having been asked, how oddly wild the cross-bred animals were.

These latter facts remind us of the statements, so frequently made by travellers in all parts of the world, on the degraded state and savage disposition of crossed races of man. That many excellent and kind-hearted mulattos have existed no one will dispute; and a more mild and gentle set of men could hardly be found than the inhabitants of the island of Chilce, who consist of Indians commingled with Spaniards in various proportions. On the other hand, many years ago, long before I had thought of the present subject, I was struck with the fact that, in South America, men of complicated descent between Negroes, Indians, and Spaniards, seldom had, whatever the cause might be, a good expression.

(1) Livingstone,- and a more unimpeachable authority cannot be quoted,- after speaking of a half-caste man on the Zambesi, described by the Portuguese as a rare monster of inhumanity, remarks, "It is unaccountable why half-castes, such as he, are so much more cruel than the Portuguese, but such is undoubtedly the case."

An inhabitant remarked to Livingstone, "God made white men, and God made black men, but the Devil made half-castes."

(2) When two races, both low in the scale, are crossed the progeny seems to be eminently bad. Thus the noble-hearted Humboldt, who felt no prejudice against the inferior races, speaks in strong terms of the bad and savage disposition of Zambos, or half-castes between Indians and Negroes; and this conclusion has been arrived at by various observers.

(3) From these facts we may perhaps infer that the degraded state of so many half-castes is in part due to reversion to a primitive and savage condition, induced by the act of crossing, even if mainly due to the unfavourable moral conditions under which they are generally reared.

1.. Journal of Researches, 1845, p. 71.

2.. Expedition to the Zambesi, 1865, pp. 25, 150.

3.. Dr. P. Broca, on 'Hybridity in the Genus Homo,' Eng. translat., 1864, p. 39.

No man in his senses would expect to improve or modify a breed in any particular manner, or keep an old breed true and distinct, unless he separated his animals.

It is a very surprising fact that characters should reappear after having been lost for many, perhaps for hundreds of generations. But when a breed has been crossed only once by some other breed, the offspring occasionally show a tendency to revert in character to the foreign breed for many generations - some say, for a dozen or even a score of generations. After twelve generations, the proportion of blood, to use a common expression, of any one ancestor, is only 1 in 2048; and yet, as we see, it is generally believed that a tendency to reversion is retained by this very small proportion of foreign blood.

How strongly these domestic instincts, habits, and dispositions are inherited, and how curiously they become mingled, is well shown when different breeds of dogs are crossed. Thus it is known that a cross with a bull-dog has affected for many generations the courage and obstinacy of greyhounds; and a cross with a greyhound has given to a whole family of shepherd-dogs a tendency to hunt hares.

Some species have a remarkable power of crossing with other species; other species of the same genus have a remarkable power of impressing their likeness on their hybrid offspring.

I think these authors are right, who maintain that the ass has a prepotent power over the horse, so that both the mule and the hinny more resemble the ass than the horse; but that the prepotency runs more strongly in the male-ass than in the female, so that the mule, which is the offspring of the male-ass and mare, is more like an ass, than is the hinny, which is the offspring of the female-ass and stallion.

Charles Darwin, The Variation of Plants and Animals under Domestication, 2nd ed., John Murray, London, 1875, vol. II, pp. 8; 19; 21; 62-63; The Origin of Species, 1st ed., Penguin, London, 1968; pp. 196; 239 (see also 1875: 1/43); 275; 287 (see also 1875: 2/43).


--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,11:02   

By the way, Eric:

What the #%$@'s a BAC?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,12:11   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 10 2006,16:02)
By the way, Eric:

What the #%$@'s a BAC?

Born-Again Christian.

I assume, since you claim to have been a "liberal" (whatever that means) earlier in life, that you have been "reborn," as that term is usually understood by evangelical Christians.

Even if you're not, technically, "born-again," the fact that you are a biblical literalist, young-earth creationist, and geocentrist, of all things, means that from my perspective you're indistinguishable from one anyway.

And for the record, I doubt you're less homophobic than I am.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,12:59   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 10 2006,14:39)
Quote
I can't help but notice that Paley couldn't come up with any proof that White Supremacists admire Darwin. Did the site he got those black-on-white crime stats off of support him?

The proof is abundant and quite obvious.

Indeed, it is.  But alas for Paley, it doesn't prove what he wants it to.

See, Paley, I ***did*** do the necessary research.

From my website:


Creationists, Hitler and Evolution

by Lenny Flank

© 1999

A common charge made by creationists is that evolutionary theory is "evil" and is the source of racism in general, and of dictatorial killers in particular. The most often-heard assertion is that Hitler and his racist genocide were the product of "evolutionary philosophy". Henry Morris, for instance, flatly declares, "However one may react morally against Hitler, he was certainly a consistent evolutionst." (Morris, "Evolution and Modern racism", ICR Impact, October 1973) Morris adds: "The philosophies of Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche--the forerunners of Stalin and Hitler--have been particularly baleful in their effect: both were dedicated evolutionists." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974 p. 33)

How accurate is this creationist finger-pointing? Not very. The creationists are apparently unaware of the fact that Stalinist Russia rejected Darwinian evolution as "bourgeois" and instead embraced the non-Darwinian "proletarian biology" of Lysenko and Michurin (a disaster from which Russian genetics and biological sciences has still not completely recovered). As for Hitler, even a cursory reading of his book Mein Kampf reveals that the true source of Hitler's inspiration and exhortations came from a source that creationists, understandably, would rather not talk about.

Hitler's goal was the "purification" of the "Aryan race" through the elimination of "subhumans", which included Jews, gypsies, Asians, black Africans, and everyone else who was not a white Aryan. Despite the creationists claims that this was based on Darwinain evolutionary theory, Hitler's own writings give quite a different story. The ICR claims that "Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) over and over again in his book." (ICR Impact, "The Ascent of Racism", Paul Humber Feb 1987) Like so many of ICR's claims, this one is simply not true---a quick scan of several online English translations of Mein Kampf shows only ONE use of the word "evolution", in a context which does not refer at all to biological evolution, but instead to the development of political ideas in Germany: "This evolution has not yet taken the shape of a conscious intention and movement to restore the political power and independence of our nation."

Had ICR made even a cursory reading of Mein Kampf, they would have seen a quite different source for Hitler's racist inspiration than the one they would have us believe. White Aryans, Hitler writes, are the special creations of God, the "highest image of the Lord", put here specifically to rule over the "subhuman" races: "Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise." (all quotes from Hitler, Mein Kampf, online version) Actions which aid the "subhumans" at the expense of the Aryan master race, Hitler declared, were an offense against God: " It is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions."

Rather than basing his racism on any evolutionary theory, Hitler based it squarely on his view of white Aryans as the favored people of God. In fact, Hitler solemnly declares that his program of removing Jews and other "subhumans" from the earth is a divine task forced upon him by the Lord Almighty: "What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproductionof our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purityof our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that ourpeople may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the Creator of the universe."

Hitler concludes: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord," adding "Compared to the absurd catchword about safeguarding law and order, thus laying a peaceable groundwork for mutual swindles, the task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission." For Hitler, removing the subhumans from earth was not a matter of biology or evolution---it was a divine mandate from God Himself, the "work of the Lord", a "truly high mission".

Even in discussing racial purity and "race-mixing", Hitler chooses not the words of evolutionary biology or eugenics, but points instead to his divinely holy mission: "Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrifying clarity that in every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people. North America, whose population consists in by far the largest part of Germanic elements who mixed but little with the lower colored peoples, shows a different humanity and culture from Central and South America, where the predominantly Latin immigrants often mixed with the aborigines on a large scale. By this one example, we can clearly and distinctly recognize the effect of racial mixture. The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood. The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the Eternal Creator."

The goal of the "folkish government", then, Hitler declares is to "finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created."

"The folkish-minded man, in particular," Hitler concludes, "has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."

In Mein Kampf, Hitler makes an emotional appeal to God to aid him and his Nazis in their divine task: "Then, from the child's story-book to the last newspaper in the country, and every theatre and cinema, every pillar where placards are posted and every free space on the hoardings should be utilized in the service of this one great mission, until the faint-hearted cry, "Lord, deliver us," which our patriotic associations send up to Heaven to-day would be transformed into an ardent prayer: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the hour comes. ' " Later, when Nazi troops swarmed over Europe, each of them wore an army-issue belt buckle inscribed with the words "God is With Us".

The invocation of God and the Bible in support of racism continues with modern hate groups in the US. Aryan Nations, which also calls itself the Church of Jesus Christ Christian, begins its web site by proclaiming "Praise Yahweh" and its intention to "serve the Lord of Glory and His Holy Race". The American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan note that only those of "Christian faith" can be members, and asks every new recruit "Do you believe in Jesus Christ?" The White Camelia Knights of the Ku Klux Klan declare that "at some point God's people must take action in the defense of our Christian, racial and political beliefs". The Camelia KKK website also explicitly states "We base our beliefs on our Biblical interpretations, not ignorance, superstition or blind hatred." How does the Camelia KKK justify its opposition to "race-mixing"? "White Christian Israelites are under God’s law and covenant. The other peoples of the earth are under nature’s law, which God also created. . . Nature’s law, which is a creation of YAHWEH, dictates that kind reproduce after kind. The different people of the world were never supposed to mix." The Imperial Klans of America declares, "We are a gathering of White Christian men and women." The National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan website declares that they "reverently acknowledge the majesty and supremacy of Almighty God and recognize his goodness and providence through his Son Jesus Christ. We avow the distinction between the races of mankind as decreed by the Lord our God, and we shall ever be true to the maintenance of His Supremacy."

None of these racist websites mentions "Darwin" or "evolution" as a justification for any of their beliefs. All of them talk about "God" and "The Creator" instead.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,14:34   

Ok, after scuffling through some of the sorriest search engines known to man, I've found a position statement that outlines what WN/White Supremacy's all about. It even includes a cute little poll! I found this bit rather provocative:
                 
Quote
Proposition zero. White Nationalists shall form an ethnic group that behaves as an evolutionary unit.

The word "evolutionary" is no accident, as "JohnJoyTree" explains on the next page:
                 
Quote
Observably, successful groups often have a core of doctrine that is written down. You see it in many successful and expanding group. Islam has the Koran, the jews have the Talmud, etc.

It's the other half of the Collective Evolutionary Strategy - the memetic bit, the bit that reproduces itself by being copied, not by sex.

Like the genes, this bit evolves, even though it's not biological, because the ideas are always being changed and added to, and those modifications that are more attractive and successful tend to spread, if only because the sub-groups that follow them grow and thrive.

This evolution can produce wonderfully succesful elements by the usual process - sheer chance, followed by active selection in response to the environment.

And apparently, 58% don't have a bone to pick with the use of the term, "evolutionary unit". Most of the rest probably don't either.

Stormfront houses the largest collection of white nationalists on the web. Now let's turn our attention to Jared Taylor's American Renaissance. According to the September 1997 issue:
               
Quote
Christianity, Pro and Con

The AR readers' survey, published in the previous issue, reveals considerable disagreement among subscribers about the effects of Christianity on the struggle to preserve Western Civilization. AR itself takes no position on this question, but in this issue two thoughtful readers offer alternate views.


While you're at it, check out the two positions. Here's a sample of the first:
   
Quote
I. How Christianity Harms the Race
   – by Michael W. Masters

“The Roman empire did not die any differently, though, it's true, more slowly, whereas this time we can expect a more sudden conflagration . . . . Christian charity will prove itself powerless. The times will be cruel.”  
– Jean Raspail, introduction to the 1985 edition of The Camp Of The Saints

Christianity, which many believe to be the noblest moral system ever conceived, must now share blame for the dissolution of the West. A faith that once served as an anchor for Western civilization has become a source for the same self-flagellating guilt that typifies liberalism. Today, Christianity's public expression differs only cosmetically from Marxism in its attitudes towards economic redistribution, equality and racial integration.
How has Christianity sunk so low – and our people with it? The answer is that it has subverted inbred traits of altruism that help family and tribe survive, and has transmuted those traits into agents of passivity and surrender. Christianity has universalized altruism, thus stripping us of our defense against multiracialism. Today's Christianity drives us to betray our own interests to whoever asks. At the same time, a preoccupation with eternal reward in the world to come blinds some Christians to the consequences of their actions today.

The other essay, while vigorous, seems a little desperate:
   
Quote
To be sure, it is not given to all men – not even to all good men – to believe. To those men I would say: If you love your race and its heritage, do not mock the Church. Respect it, honor it, and even – yes – join it. As a duty to your ancestors, in solidarity with the ancient traditions of your people, as an act of participation in the faith that suffuses our culture, stand with the believers even if, in your hearts, you do not believe.  

I know that what I propose is difficult, even shocking. It is contrary to today's cult of the individual. It requires that personal qualms be set aside in the name of something greater. But for those who think in terms of race it should not be difficult to understand that there is something greater.

Those of you who were reared in the faith will find unsuspected solace in the familiar music and liturgy of your childhoods. Also, churches are not subject to civil rights laws and many are therefore the only fully segregated public institutions in America. Support the faith, work to restore its dignity and traditions and, eventually, the faith may become your support.

Those who do not believe should remember that it is a matter of pride among the liberals to flaunt their atheism. This is because they see religion as one of those loathsome things from the past, like “racism” and “sexism,” that must be destroyed. It is no coincidence that Communism persecuted the church. Therefore, do not side with the Bolsheviks against your own people. Whether you call yourself a racialist or a conservative or a reactionary, if you join the assault on Christianity you league yourself with those who hate Western man. It is precisely now, when the crisis is worst, that men of the West must march together and be guided by the same light.

Rather than turn their backs on the faith of their fathers, non-believers should ask themselves whether our people can be saved if our faith is not restored. Can it be a coincidence that racial consciousness in the West collapsed at precisely the moment liberalism invaded the Church? There have been many deeply religious European societies that took pride in race and nation. Has there even been a non-religious one that did? Do we even know whether whites can build a racially conscious society on material grounds alone? Those who think of Christianity as an obstacle and a stumbling block should ask themselves whether it may be that Christianity must be cured of liberalism before the West can be cured.

Europe is the faith and the faith Europe. Those who would be faithful to Europe but not to the faith will find that Europe cannot be Europe without the faith. Even if some biologically authentic remnant of the race succeeds in securing a material corner of the earth, it will have established a nation without an identity and a body without a soul?

Here's the AR reader's survey:
               
Quote
Two thirds of respondents believe in God, a figure lower than the national average of well over 90 percent. Fewer than half practice a religion, however. Of those who practice religion, the great majority are Christian, but among the respondents were two Odinists, a Buddhist, a mystic, a Nature-worshiper and a Swedenborgian (!;). Two claim to practice religions of their own. One Jewish subscriber does not believe in God but nevertheless practices Judaism

Since the survey members were older and well-educated, the level of disbelief was not a complete surprise, but it still seems awfully large.

But does Darwinism directly influence racist ideology? Well, here's a list of prominent racist scholars:

Kevin B. McDonald

J. Phillipe Rushton

Chris Brand

Richard Lynn, Hans Eysenck, and all the rest at the Charles Darwin Research Institute

And lest we forget, let's give a hand to the founder of the Eugenics movement, and cousin of Chucky.........

Francis Galton!!

This should give you something to chew on. Time to update that essay, Mr. Flank. By the way, if you like fruit, get a load of them apples!!!!!

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,14:48   

Well, I encourage everyone to look at all the neo-Nazi and Klan websites that you can find.  Count how many times they mention "evolution" or "darwin".  Count how many times they mention "god", "jesus christ" or "the creator".

See which number is larger.

(shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,16:45   

Quote
Like the genes, this bit evolves, even though it's not biological, because the ideas are always being changed and added to, and those modifications that are more attractive and successful tend to spread, if only because the sub-groups that follow them grow and thrive.

Bill, just because you see the word "evolves," or "evolved,"or "evolution," it doesn't mean the author is talking about the Theory of Evolution.

There are lots of kinds of evolution. I'm sure theologians even talk about the evolution of the Church over time.

Further, just because someone subscribes to the theory of evolution doesn't mean every belief they have, every action they take, is routed in evolutionary theory.

You do have this unfortunate tendency to lump everything of which you disapprove into the category of "evolution," Bill. I wish you'd get over it.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,21:53   

Ghosty,

Who said anything about gay sex or homosexuality? Honestly, the places your "christian" mind goes to!

A crush doesn't have to be sexual, what of platonic love? What of simply admiring and loving someone? Who said anything about you wanting to have sex with Eric? Tsk tsk Ghosty. With your pictures of nice muscley wrestler men and your rapid denial of homosexual desires (despite no such accusation) methinks thou doth protext too much.

As for primary school antics, remind me, who was it that made a silly post about which "Panda's Bum" regular gets the most girls? Who posts comments like "I'll destroy it on wednesday or thursday" and has yet to make ONE SINGLE SOLITARY cogent point or argument?

Not me buster, nor any of the regular posters.

Seems like it's just you Ghosty, out there in the desert of your stupidity.

Like I have said several times, either you are a very effective Loki troll, or a total gibbering moron. The way and things you post allow for no other options. Either way, you are definitely not to be taken seriously, you've yet to say anything actually worth considering beyond "Huh? What the galloping fuck is this moron mangling now? Oh lordy lordy Mary-Lou! It's utter mindfarted google scraped nonsense!".

Have a nice day, do let us know when you have something more meaningful to contribute other than your role of second best online punchbag after Delusional Dave the Flying Fuckwit.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Nebogipfel



Posts: 47
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,05:16   

Quote (Louis @ July 11 2006,02:53)
Like I have said several times, either you are a very effective Loki troll, or a total gibbering moron.

Oh I don't know. I've always pictured Mr. Ghost as a bright 14 year-old who, even by adolescent standards, takes himself far, far too seriously.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,05:16   

Louis:
   
Quote
Ghosty,

Who said anything about gay sex or homosexuality? Honestly, the places your "christian" mind goes to!

A crush doesn't have to be sexual, what of platonic love? What of simply admiring and loving someone? Who said anything about you wanting to have sex with Eric? Tsk tsk Ghosty. With your pictures of nice muscley wrestler men and your rapid denial of homosexual desires (despite no such accusation) methinks thou doth protext too much.


Ummm Louis, I don't mean to question your commitment to liberalism, but you're "outing" yourself as a closet "homophobe". It would be like me teasing an online stranger about his religion or race: "Hey, Louis, are you a Jew? Huh? Huh? No shame if you like bagels. You a Jew? You seem like one. I'm just saying."

So what other minority groups do you secretly dislike? ???  You can tell Uncle Paley; being a conservative, I don't care about political correctness.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,05:28   

It's funny that liberals are all homophobes and racists and all that.  I mean, just look at the white supremacists.  They must be liberals.  Nice consistency GoP.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,06:12   

Quote (GCT @ July 11 2006,10:28)
It's funny that liberals are all homophobes and racists and all that.  I mean, just look at the white supremacists.  They must be liberals.  Nice consistency GoP.

Makes sense to me. I've never met a black, Jewish, or gay liberal in my life. Paley's account explains that neatly.

Perhaps we've judged his geocentric model too harshly.

Now if you don't mind, I have to get back to my copy of the Foucault Reader.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,07:13   

GCT:
 
Quote
It's funny that liberals are all homophobes and racists and all that.  I mean, just look at the white supremacists.  They must be liberals.  Nice consistency GoP.

Now that you've brought it up, I've always found the liberal obsession with hate groups a little weird. I suspect part of the problem is that they see their secret thoughts in hate literature. Look at the condescending way liberals treat blacks; they refuse to hold blacks to the same moral standards as whites (don't believe me? Then show me, for example, the white person who could get away with calling New York "hymietown" and still be treated as a moral figure within liberal circles.) It seems the attitude is, "Well, we don't expect as much from black people." Look at Jared Diamond, who spends a whole book claiming that all people are equal, except whites (who are inferior). Look at where most liberals live. I could go on, but I gotta catch an appointment.
 
A.C.
 
Quote
Makes sense to me. I've never met a black, Jewish, or gay liberal in my life. Paley's account explains that neatly.

Perhaps we've judged his geocentric model too harshly.

Now if you don't mind, I have to get back to my copy of the Foucault Reader.


Before you do, would you please attempt to rebut my post on white supremacists? All I got in reply was shrugs and weak handwaving. You have all day, since I'm gone until Wednesday. And if you ever carry out that Jesus vs. Darwin poll on a WN site, let me know.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,07:21   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 11 2006,12:13)
Before you do, would you please attempt to rebut my post on white supremacists? All I got in reply was shrugs and weak handwaving.

I guess you missed my earlier post: "I did a little bit of poking around on some AN sites, and I found far more references to Christianity than to both Darwin and the theory of evolution combined."

So far, I think even that beats your "I found this post on a message board."

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,07:46   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 11 2006,12:13)
Now that you've brought it up, I've always found the liberal obsession with hate groups a little weird. I suspect part of the problem is that they see their secret thoughts in hate literature. Look at the condescending way liberals treat blacks; they refuse to hold blacks to the same moral standards as whites (don't believe me? Then show me, for example, the white person who could get away with calling New York "hymietown" and still be treated as a moral figure within liberal circles.) It seems the attitude is, "Well, we don't expect as much from black people." Look at Jared Diamond, who spends a whole book claiming that all people are equal, except whites (who are inferior). Look at where most liberals live. I could go on, but I gotta catch an appointment.

Well, that makes perfect sense.  The hate groups who profess how much they hate liberals are really less racist than the liberals who protest them.  And, liberals protest them because they see their secret thoughts in the hate literature.  Plus, liberals condescend toward blacks somehow, although I'm not sure how, especially because they denigrate whites in a book.  The best part is that this comes from a person that earlier in this thread talked about how non-racist he is then followed it up with a generalization about Jews.

Oh, I just read on the news that down is up and up is down.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,07:50   

Quote

Before you do, would you please attempt to rebut my post on white supremacists? All I got in reply was shrugs and weak handwaving. You have all day, since I'm gone until Wednesday. And if you ever carry out that Jesus vs. Darwin poll on a WN site, let me know.


No, you're the one who came up with the stupid idea, so the burden of proof is on you, much like geocentrism, faked moon landings, Hispanics not wanting to work and coming to America to loaf, and Star Wars causing the collapse of Western Civilization. One website that uses the word 'evolution' does not prove your case. You're familiar with white supremacist websites, which I am not, so it should be easy if you're right. Find me several such sites, chosen more or less at random, and find me a plurality of them that mention 'Darwin'. Then find several that mention Jesus/God/Creator, and tell us which is more numerous. If your theory is correct, which I'm sure it is, you should be able to give us 20 links with citations, and I'm sure far more of them will mention the Origin of Species than Jesus, God, or the Creator, or the Bible. You could also answer Improvious's response as well.

Get to it, your whole intellectual credibility here is on the line.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,08:02   

Ghosty,

I LOVE your new strategy, it's just SO much fun! I am apparently a homophobe because I made a joke about YOU having a crush on Eric. You are killing me, surely laughing this much is not good for me!

To even begin to be a homophobe I would have to have said something derogatory about homosexuals, or at least implied it. Look back at what I have actually said Ghosty, you'll find no such thing there. Guess why you'll not find it? Because I don't think it. Looks like my liberal gay loving card is still fully marked! #### Ghosty, when ARE you going to try reading for comprehension?

Secondly, I said you had a crush on Eric, I did not say you want to have sex with Eric. See the difference? Forgive me if I doubt it. Of course feel free to make your silly slurs and misquotes as usual, like I have said, you are fooling no one but yourself.

As for your analogy with Jews, ummmmm nope sorry, that dog don't hunt son. Where did I say anything remotely like "Hey Paley, gay are ya? You seem gay, d'ya like ass Paley? Do ya? Huh? Just a sweet little piece of man ass? Nothing wrong with liking ass Paley." Precisely nowhere. Nice try, F- at best.

What I did say was:

a) that you singled Eric out for special praise, and I jokingly mentioned that this was because you have a crush on him. I also explained that crush=/=sexual desire.

b) That you protest far too much at my little joke. Did I hit a nerve Ghosty? Do you really have a crush on Eric? Is he your godless liberal of choice? Note I am NOT saying that you want to have sex with Eric. After all you can love him for his posting talents and wonderous manners in a purely asexual manner, but love it still is. Can you not love another man without it being sexual, Ghosty? I love my father and my brother and some of my male friends, but I don't want to have sex with any of them. Geeeez Ghosty, little girls have crushes on pop stars before their first pube sprouts and they even know what sex is! Trust me, I'm not coy, if I wanted to say you wanted to have sex with Eric, I would have said it!

Mind you that being said, your opposition to homosexual marriage, your biblical pronouncements (do you support Levitican law Ghosty?), your over reaction to and misunderstanding of an innocent comment, your rushed denial of homosexual desires and your regular posting of photos of nice muscley wrestler chaps does rather suggest some psychological traits. Of course it's far from conclusive, but it could be seen to be the symptoms of a flaming closet case. Do try to understand the conditional tense in that sentence Paley. There's a good boy. After all we all know that being homosexual is fine and dandy, it's YOU that thinks it's bad or insulting.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,08:22   

Oh and P.S. Please please please please get the following through your thick skull:

1) Not everyone on this board is American or lives in America. We realise it is the centre of the universe to some of you Yanks, but do try to work out that other places exist. Other places that contain about 5.75 billion people who aren't American, and despite what you might think, aren't ruled by America. Guess how I know this? I am British, and we used to think just like you do about Britain, we were wrong then, and the problems of being wrong still linger. We've been there and done it, and most of us have enough sense to be proud of most of it, but not proud of the stupid, jingoistic bits.

2) "Liberal" is not an insult. Nor is American liberalism the sum total of liberal thought. Go East Ghosty, come to Europe, we've had liberalism for centuries (vaguely!;). ####, some of us (me included) even LIKE Americans, that's how tolerant we are!

3) Learn the difference between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. I am getting tired of the "left vs right" falsely dichotomous bullshit of American political discussion, there are other political axes to move along. We know you're in the top right hand corner next to Hitler, but the diametric opposite of you is NOT in the top left hand corner with Mao. Nor does liberalism equate to socialism or communism. You can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. You can be liberal and expect people to demonstrate certain responsibilities AND try to get the state to provide a safety net for when things go awry. It really isn't either or Ghosty. Try to think in ways other than "Them and us", it makes life lots nicer.

4) Eric was right, please please please learn that evolutionary biology is not the Source of All Evil (TM patent pending). It's just a description of how the world works in certain circumstances. Please learn that your babble, sorry bible, can be metaphorical and that 21st century theology (####, 17th century theology) doesn't insist on blinked literalism and geocentric bullshit.

5) Stop wasting time with the fucking Nazis and KKK and get on with your geocetric "model". Sinusitis aside, you have been bleating about your forthcoming destruction of evil atheist science and your replacement of it with good and holy god centred Jescience for months on end. Enough already, shit or get off the pot will you?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,13:21   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 11 2006,11:12)
I've never met a black, Jewish, or gay liberal in my life.

I know you probably have never met him, but Jesus was an unmarried, dark skinned liberal Jew.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,13:34   

Quote (GCT @ July 11 2006,11:28)
It's funny that liberals are all homophobes and racists and all that.  I mean, just look at the white supremacists.  They must be liberals.  Nice consistency GoP.



Dangit! We're missing Seinfeld!

I know! And Keith Olbermann!

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,13:48   

Quote (Louis @ July 11 2006,02:53)
Ghosty,

Who said anything about gay sex or homosexuality? Honestly, the places your "christian" mind goes to!

A crush doesn't have to be sexual, what of platonic love? What of simply admiring and loving someone? Who said anything about you wanting to have sex with Eric? Tsk tsk Ghosty. With your pictures of nice muscley wrestler men and your rapid denial of homosexual desires (despite no such accusation) methinks thou doth protext too much.

Well, several studies have shown that people with strong expressed anti-gay views tend to be the most aroused by watching gay porno clips.  I.e., they themselveshave strong homosexual tendencies.

I wonder if Paley falls into that category, as well.  He certainly does seem awfully obsessed with what people do with their penises.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,13:51   

Quote (MidnightVoice @ July 11 2006,18:21)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 11 2006,11:12)
I've never met a black, Jewish, or gay liberal in my life.

I know you probably have never met him, but Jesus was an unmarried, dark skinned liberal Jew.  :D

And there WAS that whole "John the Beloved" thingie . . . .

;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,19:55   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 11 2006,18:48)

I wonder if Paley falls into that category, as well.  He certainly does seem awfully obsessed with what people do with their penises.

Born-again Christians are all completely obsessed with sex, especially gay sex. What's up with that, anyway?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,02:14   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 11 2006,18:48)
Quote (Louis @ July 11 2006,02:53)
Ghosty,

Who said anything about gay sex or homosexuality? Honestly, the places your "christian" mind goes to!

A crush doesn't have to be sexual, what of platonic love? What of simply admiring and loving someone? Who said anything about you wanting to have sex with Eric? Tsk tsk Ghosty. With your pictures of nice muscley wrestler men and your rapid denial of homosexual desires (despite no such accusation) methinks thou doth protext too much.

Well, several studies have shown that people with strong expressed anti-gay views tend to be the most aroused by watching gay porno clips.  I.e., they themselveshave strong homosexual tendencies.

I wonder if Paley falls into that category, as well.  He certainly does seem awfully obsessed with what people do with their penises.

You are obviously a homophobe.  Any atheist evilutionist liberal who even says anything about gays is really a homophobe who hates gays (and blacks) and is just feeling guilty about his own hate, so he tries to act like he's tolerant.  GoP says so, it must be true.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,02:26   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 12 2006,00:55)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 11 2006,18:48)

I wonder if Paley falls into that category, as well.  He certainly does seem awfully obsessed with what people do with their penises.

Born-again Christians are all completely obsessed with sex, especially gay sex. What's up with that, anyway?

It's because fundies have no social skills, which means they never get invited to parties, which means they never get laid, and are therefore resentful of people who DO get laid.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,05:46   

Louis:
   
Quote
) "Liberal" is not an insult. Nor is American liberalism the sum total of liberal thought. Go East Ghosty, come to Europe, we've had liberalism for centuries (vaguely!. ####, some of us (me included) even LIKE Americans, that's how tolerant we are!

Yeah, the term "liberal" means something different to Europeans. But on the whole, Britian and the rest of Europe is far more "progressive" and "leftist" than America. In fact, American Democrats would be considered a little to the right on the European political spectrum.
   
Quote
3) Learn the difference between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. I am getting tired of the "left vs right" falsely dichotomous bullshit of American political discussion, there are other political axes to move along. We know you're in the top right hand corner next to Hitler, but the diametric opposite of you is NOT in the top left hand corner with Mao. Nor does liberalism equate to socialism or communism. You can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. You can be liberal and expect people to demonstrate certain responsibilities AND try to get the state to provide a safety net for when things go awry. It really isn't either or Ghosty. Try to think in ways other than "Them and us", it makes life lots nicer.

Why would you think I have an affinity for Hitler's policies? He was a socialist who stifled political expression and murdered millions of people. Or do you dispute that Hitler was disloyal to his own economic program?
 
Quote
11 That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
12 Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13 We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
14 We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
15 We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
16 We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalisation of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small trades people, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
17 We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
18 We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
19 We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.
20 In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.
21 The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centres, by prohibiting juvenile labour, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

Of course, Hitler also supported immigration restrictions and a few other tenets of cultural conservatives, but this aspect has been greatly exaggerated:
 
Quote
When the Nazis came to power in 1933 one of the first acts Hitler did was to legalize abortion. By 1935 Germany with 65 million people was the place where over 500,000 abortions were being performed each year. Although Hitler and his government encourged Aryan women to produce a lot of children, he left the matter of abortion and all its facets in the hands of a decidely pro- abortion medical establishment. Even in the midst of Nazi propaganda aimed at increasing the Aryan population, scores of Aryan women still chose to abort their unborn children. The medical publication Deutsches Aerzleblatt reported the abortions in Germany each year reached a half-million.

Further, a Nazi decree of October 19, 1941 established abortion on demand as the official policy of Poland. Hitler, however, expressed dissatisfaction with this policy. Abortion, he believed, should NOT be limited to Poland. He therefore ordered that abortion be expanded to all populations under the control of the "Ministry of the Occupied Territories of the East."

On July 22, 1942, the Fuhrer exhibited a highly positive attitude towards abortion as an indispensable method of dealing with the non-German populations in countries under Nazi control. "In view of the large families of the native populations," he asserted, "it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible." Hitler also personally announced that he "would personally shoot" any "such idiot" who "tried to put into practice such an order (forbidding abortion) in the occupied Eastern territories.

Despite contemporary attempts to characterize Hitler as opposed to abortion, the historical evidence clearly and overwhelmingly supports only one possible conclusion: Hitler and his regime were adamantly pro-abortion. To depict Hitler as anti-abortion is a ludicrous as calling him anti-genocide or pro- Jewish. Both Hitler and his government had little regard for human life perceived as subpar, whether born or preborn.

 
Quote
I LOVE your new strategy, it's just SO much fun! I am apparently a homophobe because I made a joke about YOU having a crush on Eric.

Glad we can agree on something. But it's OK; I'm sure you didn't mean any harm. And I don't care if you think I'm gay; it's just funny that you apparently find the lifestyle so distasteful.
 
Quote
b) That you protest far too much at my little joke. Did I hit a nerve Ghosty? Do you really have a crush on Eric? Is he your godless liberal of choice? Note I am NOT saying that you want to have sex with Eric. After all you can love him for his posting talents and wonderous manners in a purely asexual manner, but love it still is. Can you not love another man without it being sexual, Ghosty? I love my father and my brother and some of my male friends, but I don't want to have sex with any of them. Geeeez Ghosty, little girls have crushes on pop stars before their first pube sprouts and they even know what sex is! Trust me, I'm not coy, if I wanted to say you wanted to have sex with Eric, I would have said it!

This passage made me laugh so hard that I lost the rest of my voice. Dude, you clearly have issues with homosexuality. Why this is, I don't know, and couldn't care less. I didn't know that complimenting Eric would bring forth a rush of free associations involving sprouting pubes and homoerotic male bonding, but apparently this thicket's rather thorny, so I'll leave it alone. I'm having too much fun seeing the Liberal Mind in action. Carry on... :D  :D  :D

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,05:59   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 12 2006,10:46)
Why would you think I have an affinity for Hitler's policies? He was a socialist who stifled political expression and murdered millions of people.
 

Not a chance, Bill. Hitler was no more a "socialist" than Mussolini was. Does a "socialist" normally ban all unions as soon as he obtains political power?

Hitler gave a lot of lip-service to socialist programs during his tenure (as, I cannot fail to point out, our own administration does). The Volkswagen program (which failed to deliver a single car to a single German family during its entire existence) is only the most obvious example. Hitler was a fascist in every sense of the word, which is why the major industrialists backed him.

If you think the NSDAP actually confiscated war profits from the Krupps, the Messerschmidts, the IG Farbens, the Henkels, etc., you really need to do some remedial reading on the subject.

In short, there was nothing about Hitler's rule that was even remotely socialist.

Just because the name of the party was the National Socialist Workers Party doesn't mean the part was in any way "socialist," Bill. Any more than the "Healthy Forests Initiative" is in any way interested in preserving the National Forests.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,06:12   

Eric, please read the link - it discusses the nationalisation of businesses and price controls under Hitler's watch.

Flank, how can I be a repressed homosexual and a frustrated heterosexual? Or am I bi? Get your story straight.  ;)


Improvious:
 
Quote
I guess you missed my earlier post: "I did a little bit of poking around on some AN sites, and I found far more references to Christianity than to both Darwin and the theory of evolution combined."

No I didn't: I just recognise blatant cherry-picking when I see it. Aryan Nations is affiliated with the Christian Identity sect, so of course it's going to attract the "Christians". Using AN as to represent the movement is as misleading as using, say, the National Alliance. That's why I used the umbrella Stormfront website as a proxy for the neonazi movement -- it's far more comprehensive. And I used more than a "post"; I used two separate polls on two different web sites. I also linked to the leading "scientific" thinkers in the movement. Read the links.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,06:17   

One more thing, Bill. Hitler was in favor of abortion, including forced abortion, as a tool for achieving racial purity and for reducing population growth among ethnicities he considered "inferior."

If you think this makes Hitler a "liberal," or a "socialist," someone has been reading you some very scary bedtime stories about liberal and socialist bogeymen.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,06:26   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 12 2006,11:12)
Eric, please read the link - it discusses the nationalisation of businesses and price controls under Hitler's watch.

Bill, I've read dozens of books on the Nazi party (my Dad, a staunch Republican, is fascinated by the Third Reich), and I'm pretty familiar with the history of the regime.

Yes, many businesses in Germany were nationalized. Do you think that means the workers in those business got to share in the profits? Do you think that nationalization might possibly have had something to do with placing the country on a war footing? Do you think the owners of those businesses were turned out onto the street? Why do you suppose all those famous industrial families backed Hitler to the end? Because he was impoverishing them?

Price controls had one purpose, Bill: to keep the war popular. Trust me, they had nothing to do with Hitler's love for the common people. When the end arrived, in the form of the Red Army, Hitler's goal (thwarted somewhat by Speer and others) was to annihilate the German people who had disappointed him so.

Are these "liberal" or "socialist" policies, Bill? Maybe in your dreams.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,07:26   

Eric:
     
Quote
Yes, many businesses in Germany were nationalized. Do you think that means the workers in those business got to share in the profits? Do you think that nationalization might possibly have had something to do with placing the country on a war footing?

Which was partly motivated by his need to cover for his economic bungling:
     
Quote
Kershaw makes the same point and suggests that it was this fear of social unrest, heightened by serious food shortages in Germany during the fall of 1935-themselves largely the result of government policies-that played the major role in Hitler's decision to reoccupy the Rhineland in March 1936, considered one of his "brilliant" strokes precisely because it was so unexpected-Germany was unprepared militarily or economically to carry out any extended effort in support of what even Hitler conceded to intimates was nothing more than a bold bluff.

What caused those food shortages?
     
Quote
These facts were well known the the time, both within and without Germany. Roberts and others had written about them, attributing the food shortages to Hitler's centralized agricultural policy, which had virtually eliminated food imports while implementing government controls. The predictable result: Germany produced less food, causing both shortages and price increases. According to Roberts, wheat went up 15 percent, eggs 50 percent, butter 40 percent, potatoes 75 percent, and most meat 50 percent-all despite "official" and ineffectual price controls which Hitler for appearances' sake refused to lift. Well into Hitler's "miracle," Kershaw notes, "poor living-standards, falling real wages, and steep price increases in some necessities...(were) the dismal reality behind the 'fine facade of the Third Reich.'"

And how did Hitler feel about free trade? Let's look:
   
Quote
Commenting in early 1937 on Goring's Four Year Plan for economic self-sufficiency, Roberts had presciently predicted the inevitability of either war or Hitler's fall from power. " There are 34 vital materials without which a nation cannot live, and unfortunately, Germany is worse off than any other great state insofar as these are concerned," he observed. "Whereas the British Empire is largely dependent on outside sources for only nine of these, Germany has only two in ample quantities-potash and coal. That means she must turn to the foreigner for all of her supplies of 26 of these and for part of six more. Yet this is the Power that sees fit to launch a plan for complete self sufficiency. It is ludicrous, unless she looks forward to obtaining control of the vast raw materials of central Europe or the lands beyond the Ukraine by some adventurous foreign policy...That is (Hitler's) basic dilemma. If he persists in the (economic) policies he has enunciated, he plunges Europe into war; if he abandons them, he can no longer maintain his position within Germany."

It's not that Hitler lacked contrary advice. Kershaw tells us that in October 1935 Price Commissioner Carl Goerdeler sent Hitler in October, 1935, "a devastating analysis of Germany's economic position." According to Kershaw, Goerdeler "favored a return to market economy, a renewed emphasis upon exports, and a corresponding reduction in the rearmament drive-in his view at the root of the economic problems...If things carried on as they were, only a hand-to-mouth existence would be possible after January 1936." But Goerdeler was ignored and later dismissed. Instead, Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, to widespread popular acclaim, and Goring unveiled his Four Year Plan, putting the economy firmly on a war footing.

Hitler himself apparently never had a clue that the economic policies he had followed for the first three years of his regime were responsible for his production problems. By 1936, Kershaw makes clear, Hitler believed his own press clippings regarding his economic acumen. Thus, for Hitler, the food crisis only confirmed his preconceptions. In the secret memorandum on which Goring's Four Year Plan was based, Hitler wrote, "We are overpopulated and cannot feed ourselves from our own resources. The solution ultimately lies in extending the living space of our people, that is, in extending the sources of its raw materials and foodstuffs." That is, the problem is not my fault and the answer is war, not economic reform.

[all emphases mine]

Sounds like the New York Times taught Hitler everything he knew about economics. And now "the paper of record" reaches out to a new generation.

Quote
Price controls had one purpose, Bill: to keep the war popular.

On the contrary -- price controls made the war necessary. Not that the Nazis complained.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,07:58   

Is it just me, or is Ghosty resorting to the third grade tactic of, "I'm rubber, you're glue.  Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,08:54   

Quote
On the contrary -- price controls made the war necessary. Not that the Nazis complained.


Paley, the very passage you quoted says otherwise- once again.    
Quote
But Goerdeler was ignored and later dismissed. Instead, Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, to widespread popular acclaim, and Goring unveiled his Four Year Plan, putting the economy firmly on a war footing.


Hitler was looking for WAR, not prosperity. He strove to make Germany self-sufficient, regardless of the cost... Because he was eager to sound the war drums. Hence the reducing of imports, controlled trade agreements, new working opportunities in local industry... And of course, demolishing the unions and filling up the treasury as much and as soon as possible.

(Edit: Haha, check this site. Just type in your views, and supposed results, and then see if they agree with what schoolkids are taught today. But I suppose that's just the liberals taking over the world, right?)

Look, judging from this, and from your pathetic quotemining results to prove nazis are evolutionists (the quote you provided was your greatest failure so far: Even I wouldn't think it would be that hard to get some nazi support for ToE from the net -especially to the GoogleMaster), I think it would be better if you quit stalling and just went back to proving geocentricism. The stars in their immobile Sphere are not in your favor these days...

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,09:36   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 12 2006,12:26)
Eric:
           
Quote
Yes, many businesses in Germany were nationalized. Do you think that means the workers in those business got to share in the profits? Do you think that nationalization might possibly have had something to do with placing the country on a war footing?

Which was partly motivated by his need to cover for his economic bungling:

Yep. But that doesn't make him a socialist. It's not like fascist governments don't have economic policies, Bill.

None of your other points supports your contention that the NSDAP was in any way, shape, or form, a socialist party. Hitler was as close to a pure fascist, and his party was as close to a purely fascist party, as we are (with any luck) ever likely to see.

The Nazis were a far-right party, Bill, not a far-left party. No amount of quote-mining is going to change that fact.
     
   
Quote
   
Quote
Price controls had one purpose, Bill: to keep the war popular.

On the contrary -- price controls made the war necessary. Not that the Nazis complained.

Bill, the war was a foregone conclusion as soon as Hitler became Chancellor (in the same way that war with Iraq became an inevitability as soon as Bush became president).  Hitler's mismanagement of the German economy had nothing to do with any sort of "socialist" philosophy of government. National Socialism was the antithesis of any sort of "socialist" economic policy. The only purpose any of Hitler's economics policies served was to further the end of global domination by force of arms. If Hitler needed to appease the masses by the use of price controls or promises of automobiles for everyone, so be it.

Face it, Bill: Hitler is a child of the Right, not the Left. To state otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand what National Socialism was all about.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,09:46   

Paley logic:

1) 'Nazi' is short for 'National Socialist'.
2) Socialists are leftists.
3) Liberals are leftists.
4) Liberals believe in evolution.
5) Therefore, liberals and anyone who believes in evolution is a Nazi.

swoooosh!!!!!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,09:54   

Well, Arden, I think you've published the fully polished and fully formed version of Paley's gecontric theory.  I know it was tough work to extract that from his ravings, and I imagine the uninitiated might be puzzled at the lack of things like planets and stars, but... the cognoscenti get it, as Paley intended they should.

Thanks!

hugs,
Shirley Knott

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,10:27   

See, Eric, the problem with history is that it involves a lot of "chicken/egg" issues. Hitler was like all politicians: he wrote and said a lot of crap to get elected, with only some of it intersecting his true beliefs. This, in conjunction with the secrecy and complexity of the Nazi government, makes it very difficult to separate planned events from contingency.
    Take the holocaust, for instance. How much of the Holocaust superstructure (gas chambers, etc) was planned from the very beginning? No one knows: some historians argue that genocide was always the goal of Nazi policy; others claim that it evolved to suit Hitler's wartime needs. Yet all real historians agree that the holocaust happened. Same thing with Lebensraum; Hitler obviously embraced this concept before his rise to power (the concept predates Mein Kampf by over 25 years). This doesn't change the fact that his economic principles necessitated a quick and widespread application of the idea. Hitler's cultural fascism, economic socialism, and racial theorising intertwined to motivate his policies. In fact, syndicalist economic ideas inspired fascism's economic core. Georges Sorel inspired many of the Italian fascists, and Sorel himself sympathised with much of Mussolini's actions. Liberals really screwed the 20th century from both ends.
 
Quote
National Socialism was the antithesis of any sort of "socialist" economic policy.

As I've said, syndicalist economics formed the core of fascism, and since a syndicalist is simply an impatient Marxist, Hitler's quarrel with communism was only a quibble, pinko textbooks to the contrary.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,10:30   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 12 2006,14:46)
Paley logic:

1) 'Nazi' is short for 'National Socialist'.
2) Socialists are leftists.
3) Liberals are leftists.
4) Liberals believe in evolution.
5) Therefore, liberals and anyone who believes in evolution is a Nazi.

I forgot, there's one more:

6) Therefore, Hitler was a liberal.



(Knowing Paley, Stalin probably was a liberal too. And anyone else Paley disapproves of, as well.)

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,10:34   

Quote

As I've said, syndicalist economics formed the core of fascism, and since a syndicalist is simply an impatient Marxist, Hitler's quarrel with communism was only a quibble, pinko textbooks to the contrary.


Right. Hitler had all those Communists killed just to cover up how much of a liberal he was.

You mean EVERYONE'S textbooks, Paley. (Except maybe David Irving's.)

Paley, are you just messing with us, or are you REALLY this much of a shit for brains?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,10:39   

In fact, I'll go one step further and argue that Erasmus Darwin* and Karl Marx killed more people than the rest of the world's madmen combined.





*The real "author" of The Origin of Species, Charles himself not being competent to write a comic book. Laugh all you want, the truth will out someday.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,10:50   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 12 2006,15:39)
In fact, I'll go one step further and argue that Erasmus Darwin* and Karl Marx killed more people than the rest of the world's madmen combined.


*The real "author" of The Origin of Species, Charles himself not being competent to write a comic book. Laugh all you want, the truth will out someday.....

Paley, you really need to find a girlfriend or something.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,10:51   

A.C.:
   
Quote
You mean EVERYONE'S textbooks, Paley. (Except maybe David Irving's.)


Hey, look it up if you don't believe me. The Nazi/Communist divide was based on an internecine squabble between two shades of pink. That's why Hitler slandered Christianity in private; if there's one thing a liberal can't abide, it's a doctrine that espouses personal responsibility. Hitler's heart lay with Odin, not Jesus. As several have discovered.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,10:54   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 12 2006,15:51)
A.C.:
   
Quote
You mean EVERYONE'S textbooks, Paley. (Except maybe David Irving's.)


Hey, look it up if you don't believe me. The Nazi/Communist divide was based on an internecine squabble between two shades of pink. That's why Hitler slandered Christianity in private; if there's one thing a liberal can't abide, it's a doctrine that espouses personal responsibility. Hitler's heart lay with Odin, not Jesus. As several have discovered.

I'm noticing a trend, here. YOU make a stupid statement, and suddenly it's OUR responsibility to disprove it.

Again, aren't you supposed to be off proving a flat earth, or something?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,11:08   

Quote
*The real "author" of The Origin of Species, Charles himself not being competent to write a comic book. Laugh all you want, the truth will out someday.....


Yeah. Right after we find out about the fake moon landings.

Paley, seriously. If you really think that Hitler's policies had anything to do with even the fundamental principles of Communism, you've got some major reading to do.

{Edit: And of course Paley had to maintain his reputation as a quote artist (and to make his post appear more valid), so he provides a link -about Nazis and Pagan religions! Whoa, that showed us!  :p }

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,11:17   

Ghost, here's an idea: Why don't you provide us with a Hollow Earth model? I'm sure you can do it with your QM hocus-pocus, and you'll get to prove you're smarter than those Pagan Liberal Scientists the Nazis had!

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,11:31   

OK, 18 seconds of "googletrawling" brought this:
 
Quote
Having combed their literature, Professor Gregor has shown beyond a shadow of doubt the affinities, too long ignored, between fascism and Marxism-Leninism. (It was Don Luigi Sturzo who provided the reductio ad absurdum: Fascism was black communism and communism was red fascism.) Richard Pipes has written that "Bolshevism and fascism were heresies of socialism."

Recalling that Mussolini began his political career as a distinguished Italian socialist, Gregor writes: "Fascism’s most direct ideological inspiration came from the collateral influence of Italy’s most radical ‘subversives’ — the Marxists of revolutionary syndicalism."

Even Nikolai Bukharin, the leading Soviet ideologist whom Stalin purged, began to have misgivings about the Revolution and began to allude to the fascist features of the emerging system. Gregor writes:

By the early 1930s, the ‘convergence’ of fascism and Stalinism struck Marxists and non-Marxists alike. . . . By the mid-1930s, even Trotsky could insist that ‘Stalinism and fascism, in spite of deep difference in social foundations, are symmetrical phenomena’ . . . .

Fascist theoreticians pointed out that the organization of Soviet society, with its inculcation of an ethic of military obedience, self-sacrifice and heroism, totalitarian regulation of public life, party-dominant hierarchical stratification all under the dominance of the inerrant state, corresponded in form to the requirements of Fascist doctrine.

Left liberals have frantically denied the "Janus" notion that Marxism-Leninism and fascism have a common origin. With scholarly skill and an enormous amount of reading has Professor Gregor made such denials as dated as the Communist Manifesto.

[my emp]


Here's another source.

Here's another:
Quote
The best way to learn the nature of fascism is from the fascists themselves. To wit....

I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. ... What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.

Adolf Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930.
We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak ... and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.

Gregor Strasser, National Socialist theologian...

Quote
Ernst Roehm, a dedicated socialist, leader of the SA, second only to Hitler in power in the National Socialist Party, in a letter to a friend, observed how often his street thugs switched back and forth between Roehm's National Socialist gangs and the Communist gangs, uncertain on whose side they rightly belonged.

In his, Road to Serfdom, Hayek remarks upon how, during the 1930s, the propagandists of both parties recognized the relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice versa and how university professors in the U.S. and Britain noticed that students returning from study in Germany could not decide whether they were Marxists or fascists, but were certain only that they hated, Western Civilization.

Of course, this article details several differences between classical Marxism and Fascism, but the differences are dwarfed by the underlying unity.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,11:43   

HAHA good job, Ghost.

A quote from Trotsky comparing Stalinism to Fascism (Gee, I wonder why?), Another by a Nazi theologian explaining why Marxists are not true Socialists (edit: and why capitalists are bad- big deal), and another that describes how thugs switched back and forth between Nazi and Commie gangs (torn by ideological inner conflict, no doubt).

My question was simple: How are Hitler's economic policies simillar to ever the fundamental principles of Communism?

"Underlying unity" indeed. Maybe you should actually read that site, instead of trying to find quotes to use. I know I will.

Come on, you can do better than that.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,11:44   

Um, no, you were supposed to be explaining how Hitler was a closet Communist, which is what you were claiming.

Please, pay attention to the question. You're starting to act like Dave Hawkins.

The SA wanted straight Communism, which was a big reason Hitler had them killed once he came to power.

I think your standards for 'proving' that Hitler was a communist are much more lax than your standards for 'proving' that he wasn't a Christian. You're happy to take one anticapitalist quote as solid proof that he was a communist, but you also assume all those glowing things Hitler said about Jesus were all just window dressing to get elected.

Now, please. Flat Earth. Get to work. Your scholarly credibility is hanging by a thread.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,11:48   

Or Hollow Earth. I know it's not in the Bible, but neither is Geocentricism (at least that's what any Fundie Christian who is not a crackpot would swear, as we all know).

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,11:52   

Quote (Faid @ July 12 2006,16:43)
HAHA good job, Ghost.

A quote from Trotsky comparing Stalinism to Fascism (Gee, I wonder why?), Another by a Nazi theologian explaining why Marxists are not true Socialists, and another that describes how thugs switched back and forth between Nazi and Commie gangs (torn by ideological inner conflict, no doubt).

My question was simple: How are Hitler's economic policies simillar to ever the fundamental principles of Communism?

"Underlying unity" indeed. Maybe you should actually read that site, instead of trying to find quotes to use. I know I will.

Come on, you can do better than that.

No, actually he can't.

Funny, he's probably googling "Hitler and Communism" or something like that, and getting almost nothing but references detailing how Hitler had all the German Communists murdered in the 1930's. (And all the Commissars murdered in the USSR in the 1940's.) Which he has to ignore.

But hey, thanks to Bill, we now know that 'Communist', 'Liberal', 'Nazi' and 'Darwinist' are all synonyms. We owe him some kind of thanks for that.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,12:54   

<sigh>

Here's a site that lists some of Hitler's economic policies:
           
Quote
•&#61472;On 2nd May, 1933, Adolf Hitler ordered the Sturm Abteilung (SA) to arrest
Germany's trade union leaders. Robert Ley formed the Labour Front (DAF), the
only union organization allowed in the Third Reich.
•&#61472;A pay freeze was introduced in 1933 and this was enforced by the Labour Front.
Wages were now decided by the Labour Front and compulsory deductions made
for income tax, and for its Strength through Joy programme. The Labour Front
issued work-books that recorded the worker's employment record and no one
could be employed without one.
•&#61472;The government banned the introduction of some labour-saving machinery.
•&#61472;Employers had to get government permission before reducing their labour force.
•&#61472;The Nazi government gave work contracts to those companies that relied on
manual labour rather than machines. This was especially true of the government's
massive autobahn (motorway) programme.
•&#61472;The Nazis concentrated on rearming. Thousands of Germans worked in factories
producing weapons.
•&#61472;Conscription into the German armed forces helped to reduce the numbers of
unemployed.
•&#61472;Hitler also encouraged the mass production of radios. In this case he was not only
concerned with reducing unemployment, but saw them as a means of supplying a
steady stream of Nazi propaganda to the German people.
•&#61472;Youth unemployment was dealt with by the forming of the Voluntary Labour
Service (VLS) and the Voluntary Youth Service (VYS), these planted forests,
repaired river banks and helped reclaim wasteland.
•&#61472;Women in certain professions such as doctors and civil servants were dismissed,
while other married women were paid a lump sum of 1000 marks to stay at home.
•&#61472;In the summer of 1935 Adolf Hitler announced the introduction of Labour Service
(RAD). Under this measure all men aged between the ages of nineteen and
twenty-five had work for the government for six months. Later women were also
included in the scheme and they did work such as teaching and domestic service.

This is classic New Deal socialism. And yes, Hitler and Mussolini were outspoken admirers of FDR.

So let's see:

1) Hitler embraced fascism, a political system based in large part on syndicalist ideas;

2) His economic policies imposed heavy-handed price, wage, and labour controls, expanded the bureaucracy, formed tightly-regulated cartels administered by the government (as well as business leaders), reduced trade, and instituted public works projects to alleviate unemployment. When he wasn't forming shell companies to funnel sweetheart loans into his rearmament program, of course. Smells leftie to me.

Now I've quoted several sources to back up my views, and here's one more:
       
Quote
As part of that denial, an essay by Steve Kangas is much reproduced on the internet. Entering the search phrase "Hitler was a Leftist" will bring up multiple copies of it. Kangas however reveals where he is coming from in his very first sentence: "Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production". It does? Only to Marxists. So Kangas is saying only that Hitler was less Leftist than the Communists -- and that would not be hard. Surely a "democratic" Leftist should see that as faintly to Hitler's credit, in fact.

At any event, Leonard Peikoff makes clear the triviality of the difference:



Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

Which sounds just like the Leftists of today.


And all I get in return is an attempt at redefinition ("Hitler wasn't a classic Marxist, so he can't be a commie!" Problem is, nobody can be a classic Marxist in the real world -- the attempts always devolve into socialism), and weak, fact-free bleatings based on Lenny Flank's Talk Origins agitprop.

Get some new material already. Hitler was a Darwin-lovin' pagan pinko, and the sooner you come to grips with that, the better.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,13:02   

Hey Paley, who was this, uh, "God" and "Creator" that Hitler kept talking about in _Mein Kampf_ . . . . . . ?

Anyone we know . . . .?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,13:12   

Odin.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,13:30   

Quote
•&#61472;The Nazis concentrated on rearming. Thousands of Germans worked in factories producing weapons.
•&#61472;Conscription into the German armed forces helped to reduce the numbers of unemployed.


Yup. These convince me. Sure fire signs of Communism. How could I have doubted you?

The invasion of the Soviet Union just sealed the deal.

 
Quote
This is classic New Deal socialism.


So FDR's New Deal policies were actually Marxism? First a flat earth, now this! I learn new things every time I engage with Paley!

 
Quote
And yes, Hitler and Mussolini were outspoken admirers of FDR.


They were? Everything I've read showed Hitler hated FDR! Pinko historians again, I guess.

Oh, BTW, why did Hitler have all the German Communists sent to concentration camps or killed after he came to power? Was he just hung over that day, or terribly confused?

Since you know the white supremacist sites so well, please dig up some quotes where Hitler lauds Darwin.

 
Quote
Odin.


Don't think so:

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”

“The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.”

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago — a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.

“Then indeed when Rome collapsed there were endless streams of new German bands flowing into the Empire from the North; but, if Germany collapses today, who is there to come after us? German blood upon this earth is on the way to gradual exhaustion unless we pull ourselves together and make ourselves free!

“And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited.”

“And now Staatspräsident Bolz says that Christianity and the Catholic faith are threatened by us. And to that charge I can answer: In the first place it is Christians and not international atheists who now stand at the head of Germany. I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity. If many wish today to take threatened Christianity under their protection, where, I would ask, was Christianity for them in these fourteen years when they went arm in arm with atheism? No, never and at no time was greater internal damage done to Christianity than in these fourteen years when a party, theoretically Christian, sat with those who denied God in one and the same Government.”

“I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence.”

(I bet all Hitler's Odin quotes and Darwin quotes must be in the same place.)

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,13:50   

sigh indeed.

 
Quote
This is classic New Deal socialism. And yes, Hitler and Mussolini were outspoken admirers of FDR.


More handwaving, Ghost? Did FDR arrest all the trade union leaders? fire women from highly-paid jobs, to make them work in the factories? Did he fire the jews to give their jobs to Anglo-Saxons? Also, was FDR a Communist? (wait, I guess you probably think he was...)

Here comes the clue train, last stop is you: Hitler, (like FDR) had to fight unemployment. and that's where just about all simmilarity ends. Not to mention any simillarity with the Socialist manifesto.
I already explained you that Hitler was getting ready for WAR. And all his policies were for that. Or would you show me where he gave the workers control over industries? where he actually turned against the German Capital and claimed all their means of production? "bureaucracy" is not part of the economic theory of Marxism or Communism, Ghost. You can have an amazing amount of bureaucracy and live in a capitalistic country- with that bureaucracy in total cahoots with the capital. Oh and don't get me started about how renouncing machinery over human workforce is part of socialism... Maybe you should read a book from time to time.
But you already know all that: The whole world knows it. That's why you get all your ideas from your wacky right-wing sites and can't find a serious source that supports them. That's why you already moved the goalposts, and got to Hitler being a "leftist" -which can mean anything you want it to, right?

Hitler was a product of RIGHT extremism, Ghost. Fascism was (and still is) the murderous lunatic relative the great right-wing family has locked in the attic and pretend he doesn't exist.

The sooner you come to terms with that, the sooner it will stop haunting your dreams.


Also:
Quote
When he wasn't forming shell companies to funnel sweetheart loans into his rearmament program, of course. Smells leftie to me.

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Oh boy, that sinus infection sure messed up your sense of smell...

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,13:59   

Quote (Shirley Knott @ July 12 2006,14:54)
Well, Arden, I think you've published the fully polished and fully formed version of Paley's gecontric theory.  I know it was tough work to extract that from his ravings, and I imagine the uninitiated might be puzzled at the lack of things like planets and stars, but... the cognoscenti get it, as Paley intended they should.

Thanks!

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Ooooh! I've always wanted to be part of the cognoscenti!

I think Paley's logic can show just as decisively that all liberals are German.

Have you noticed how GoP has slid from an attempt to prove Hitler was a communist to contenting himself with proving that Hitler was actually FDR? If you accept that communists are pinkos and FDR was a pinko, it all works.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,15:09   

Faid:
   
Quote
Or would you show me where he gave the workers control over industries? where he actually turned against the German Capital and claimed all their means of production?

Show me a Communist country in which "the workers" actually own the industries. As for government control, please re-read my last post. It seems you forgot this part:
   
Quote
Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

Which sounds just like the Leftists of today.


   
Quote
You can have an amazing amount of bureaucracy and live in a capitalistic country- with that bureaucracy in total cahoots with the capital. Oh and don't get me started about how renouncing machinery over human workforce is part of socialism... Maybe you should read a book from time to time.

Like one on the Khmer Rouge? Cambodians don't view Pol Pot as The Great Urbaniser, but then again, our media tried to cover up the genocide initially, so perhaps many people are still unaware of this progressive reformer. Stalin does not represent the entire spectrum of Communist thought.
   
Quote
More handwaving, Ghost? Did FDR arrest all the trade union leaders? fire women from highly-paid jobs, to make them work in the factories? Did he fire the jews to give their jobs to Anglo-Saxons? Also, was FDR a Communist? (wait, I guess you probably think he was...)

No, but the New Deal's public works projects and bureaucratic bloat sure resembled Germany's failed strategies. And the growth in the federal government continues to haunt America.
   
Quote
But you already know all that: The whole world knows it. That's why you get all your ideas from your wacky right-wing sites and can't find a serious source that supports them. That's why you already moved the goalposts, and got to Hitler being a "leftist" -which can mean anything you want it to, right?

I found serious sources -- you just didn't pay attention. Nobody's still rebutted my contention that fascism has its economic roots in syndicalism. Not even Lenny Flank, who knows the movement well. Tells you something, doesn't it?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,16:15   

Paley, do you know what a "blithering idiot" is?

You are blithering again.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,16:30   

Quote
serious sources


Yeah right. Ghost, you don't quote anything that's not on the FrontPage all-time favorite list.

So tell me, Paley: Who was Hitler like? Lenin? Stalin? Trotsky? Pol Pot? FDR? Chairman Mao before the 'cultural revolution? Chairman Mao after it? Or just your everyday "leftist"?

I did not forget that part, my ever-evading will-o-the-wisp... it's the part that shows your goalpost-moving. You cannot possibly make an ideological connection between Socialism and Nazism besides the vague reference of the name, and that's why you resort to picking stuff here and there to try and assemble a Frankestein of an argument: Stalin had accumulated all power, Pol Pot had rejected technology, FDR had bureaucracy in federal goverment... ergo, Hitler was a "leftie".

(oh and it seems you don't read me, Ghost... I explained what FDR and Hitler had in common. Did you miss it?)

Good job, Paley. It's hard to top this up- unless you ever get to present that Hollow Earth model.

Oh, and about syndicalism: Do you even know what it means, Ghost? Do you know in what spirit syndicalist ideas influenced the birth of Fascism? (Do you even know that the very first emergence of fascism was in opposition to Marxism?) Do you think that Hitler would consider himself a 'syndicalist'? What do you think the leaders of the trade unions would say, if they learned that they were being prosecuted by a syndicalist?  :D

Here's a hint, Ghost. Don't parrot words you can't understand, and read a book or two.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,18:26   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 12 2006,15:51)
That's why Hitler slandered Christianity in private; if there's one thing a liberal can't abide, it's a doctrine that espouses personal responsibility. Hitler's heart lay with Odin, not Jesus.

Okay, here's where I give up this whole argument. When someone characterizes Hitler as a liberal, it's pretty clear that he's so utterly, thoroughly in the weeds when it comes to political philosophy that there isn't time between now and universal heat death to straighten him out.

Give me a break, Bill. Hitler, a liberal? That's astronomically more absurd than calling Rushdoony an evolutionist.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,19:45   

Quote (ericmurphy @ July 12 2006,23:26)
                   
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 12 2006,15:51)
That's why Hitler slandered Christianity in private; if there's one thing a liberal can't abide, it's a doctrine that espouses personal responsibility. Hitler's heart lay with Odin, not Jesus.

Okay, here's where I give up this whole argument. When someone characterizes Hitler as a liberal, it's pretty clear that he's so utterly, thoroughly in the weeds when it comes to political philosophy that there isn't time between now and universal heat death to straighten him out.

Give me a break, Bill. Hitler, a liberal? That's astronomically more absurd than calling Rushdoony an evolutionist.

Well, assuming GoP isn't just bullshitting us for cheap laughs in lieu of writing up his flat/hollow earth theory, you have to understand, we're not discussing this with a person who has reasoned this through in any recognizable way. GoP, obviously, is a conservative. BUT, he is not one of those thoughtful, intelligent conservatives we used to hear about, who can think things through in a subtle way, but a wingnut. An early 21st-century, American Reactionary. And wingnuts do not think through subtle political distinctions. Or even semi-subtle ones that 8th-graders can understand. They've thrown all that out. To people like Paley, there are 2 kinds of people -- good conservatives, people like himself -- and others, bad people. As long as you're not a fellow American Christian Conservative like Paley, or at least perceived to be such, whatever other category you might actually occupy does not matter. You're failing to be a good American conservative, and as such, further distinctions are nitpicking. You're just the enemy, and he's under no obligation to understand you. In this system, if you're a liberal, that's the same thing as a communist, which is the same thing as a Nazi. They're all the same, since they're not his model of a 'Conservative'. So this is why Paley can, with a straight face, call FDR a communist, or Hitler a liberal.

Additionally, in this worldview, there are numerous pigeonholes of where certain belief systems belong, and if you have that belief system, it automatically puts you in that 'Other' category. Evolution is a perfect example -- to wingnuts, evolution is something only liberals accept, so if you accept evolution, you're a liberal, and, by extension, a Communist. This is how Paley can compare Darwinism and Stalinism, claim they're 'just as bad', and expect people to take him seriously. In his way of thinking, this is actually logical.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,19:58   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 13 2006,00:45)
To people like Paley, there are 2 kinds of people -- good conservatives, people like himself -- and others, bad people. As long as you're not a fellow American Christian Conservative like Paley, or at least perceived to be such, whatever other category you might actually occupy does not matter. You're failing to be a good American conservative, and as such, further distinctions are nitpicking. You're just the enemy, and he's under no obligation to understand you. In this system, if you're a liberal, that's the same thing as a communist, which is the same thing as a Nazi. They're all the same, since they're not his model of a 'Conservative'. So this is why Paley can, with a straight face, call FDR a communist, or Hitler a liberal.

Additionally, in this worldview, there are numerous pigeonholes of where certain belief systems belong, and if you have that belief system, it automatically puts you in that 'Other' category. Evolution is a perfect example -- to wingnuts, evolution is something only liberals accept, so if you accept evolution, you're a liberal, and, by extension, a Communist. This is how Paley can compare Darwinism and Stalinism, claim they're 'just as bad', and expect people to take him seriously. In his way of thinking, this is actually logical.

I gotta say, Bill, it's rapidly reaching the point where I can't take you seriously about anything anymore. I mean, I always kind of thought the geocentrism thing for you was sort of an intellectual exercise; you know, a challenge you'd set for yourself just to see if you could do it.

But when you start spouting absolute nonsense like lumping FDR, Stalin, and Hitler all in together with liberals, then I realize I'm talking to someone who can't make any kind of distinctions at all, let alone subtle ones. Okay, FDR certainly can lay claim to being a liberal. And Hitler and Stalin had more similarities than differences, but their similarities had nothing to do with socio-economic principles (neither of them can reasonably be said to have had socioeconomic principles). And to classify either one of them as a "liberal" is so laughably, comically, hilariously stupid that I honestly can't even come up with an analogy.

Stick with the geocentrism, Bill. You're less wrong about that than you are about your politics.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,22:02   

Ghosty,

A measely quote mine? The best you can do to slander me is a measely quote mine? Taking a quote out of context and deliberately distorting the manner and detail it was posted in is the pinnacle of your reply?

Shit, you're pathetic!

Stop wasting your time with this Hitler/Nazi nonsense, not only are you having your arse handed to you here by others more educated in political and social history than I, but you are obviously and deliberately avoiding the geocentrism thread because you are having your arse handed to you finely minced there.

Oh I know you don't think you are, but you are. You seem to think googling up phrases that appear to say what you want them to say proves a thing. We all know it doesn't, because every claim you have made that relies on these phrases is tissue thin. Even cursory analysis shows them to be total crap.

Call me a homophobe all you like Ghosty old fruit, it doesn't make it true, as anyone capable of reading what I have written for even the barest comprehension can tell.

Nice try though. I am always amused by your lack of intellectual honesty, rigour and abilities. Your religion must be a truly frightening thing to destroy your ability to reason so totally. You have my pity.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,22:42   

Quote (ericmurphy @ July 13 2006,00:58)
I always kind of thought the geocentrism thing for you was sort of an intellectual exercise; you know, a challenge you'd set for yourself just to see if you could do it.

That is what I was expecting. Shame we were wrong, it might have been fun. I was hoping that ghost had at least a rough explanation for some observations though.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,23:07   

Steve,

Rough, yes.

Explanation, no.

Observations, no.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,08:23   

Faid:
       
Quote
Oh, and about syndicalism: Do you even know what it means, Ghost? Do you know in what spirit syndicalist ideas influenced the birth of Fascism? (Do you even know that the very first emergence of fascism was in opposition to Marxism?) Do you think that Hitler would consider himself a 'syndicalist'? What do you think the leaders of the trade unions would say, if they learned that they were being prosecuted by a syndicalist?  

Here's a hint, Ghost. Don't parrot words you can't understand, and read a book or two.

I guess you're right; I've just been parroting words that I don't really understand, so I decided to do a Google search on the word "syndicalism". This Wikipedia entry was the first hit. Here's what the editors had to say:
       
Quote
Syndicalism refers to a set of ideas, movements, and tendencies which share the avowed aim of transforming capitalist society through action by the working class on the industrial front. This idea was founded by Georges Sorel. This emphasis on industrial organisation was a distinguishing feature of syndicalism when it began to be identified as a distinct current at the beginning of the twentieth century. Most socialist organisations of that period emphasised the importance of political action through party organisations as a means of bringing about socialism. Although all syndicalists emphasize industrial organisation, not all reject political action altogether. For example, De Leonists and other Industrial Unionists advocate parallel organisation both politically and industrially. For syndicalists, labor unions are the potential means both of overcoming capitalism and of running society in the interests of the majority. Industry and government in a syndicalist society would be run by labor union federations.

Uh-oh, Hitler closed down the trade unions, therefore he can't be a syndicalist I guess. But wait.......
       
Quote
Starting shortly before World War I, especially in latin countries of Europe and the Americas, several former theorists and militants of syndicalism moved to nationalism and authoritarianism giving birth to a nationalist-syndicalist tendency who strongly influenced fascism and corporatism. Georges Sorel and Robert Michels are the most prominent among them.

What does "strongly influenced fascism" mean, Faid? Since this book larnin' stuff is new ta me, could you define these big words? Thanks.

Anyway, shaken and confused, I decided to pursue this idea further. I typed in "National syndicalism" and clicked on the first link. Hmmmmm...."Wikipedia" must be Greek for "Wingnut", however, because this source seemed to reinforce the completely baseless contentions on the previous site. For example:
       
Quote
National Syndicalism is typically associated with the right-wing labor movement in Italy which would later become the basis for Benito Mussolini’s National Fascist Party.

Wsssheeew, they used the term "right-wing", so no wingnuts they. Problem is, they talk about a guy named "Mussolini". Who's he, Faid?
Well, let's read a little more:
       
Quote
National syndicalists imagined that the liberal democratic political system would be destroyed in a massive general strike, at which point the nation’s economy would be transformed into a corporatist model based on class collaboration (see the Nazi model of Volksgemeinschaft).

Some famous advocates of National Syndicalism are the Italian Alceste De Ambris, British Union of Fascists leader Sir Oswald Mosley, and Italian Fascist Party member Sergio Panunzio.
[<spit-take>whaaaat? I, for one, am outraged at these lies!]

Volksgemeinschaft
   
Quote
Volksgemeinschaft is a Nazi term for "people's community". It was an attempt by the German Nazi Party to establish a national community of unified mind, will and spirit. It could only be achieved by gaining control of all aspects of cultural and social life (Gleichschaltung). Theatre, literature, the press and children's activities were all controlled by the Nazis. The people's community was visioned by Nazis are purely German, classless national community that was dedicated to the state and war.

Oh &%^$. Did they just use the word "classless"?

Let's try once more:
   
Quote
Although the broadest definitions of fascism may include every authoritarian state that has ever existed, most theorists see important distinctions to be made. Fascism in Italy arose in the 1920s as a mixture of syndicalist notions with an anti-materialist theory of the state; the latter had already been linked to an extreme nationalism. Fascism in many ways seems to have been clearly developed as a reaction against Communism and Marxism, both in a philosophic and political sense, although it opposed democratic capitalist economics along with socialism, Marxism, and liberal democracy. It viewed the state as an organic entity in a positive light rather than as an institution designed to protect collective and individual rights, or as one that should be held in check. It tended to reject the Marxist notion of social classes and universally dismissed the concept of class conflict, replacing it instead with the struggle between races, and the struggle of the youth versus their elders. This meant embracing nationalism and mysticism, and advancing ideals of strength and power as means of legitimacy, glorifying war as an end in itself and victory as the determinant of truth and worthiness. An affinity to these ideas can be found in Social Darwinism. These ideas are in direct opposition to the ideals of humanism and rationalism characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment, from which liberalism and, later, Marxism would emerge.

Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. The fascist state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production. Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality.

Fascism attracted political support from diverse sectors of the population, including big business, farmers and landowners, nationalists, and reactionaries, disaffected World War I veterans, intellectuals such as Gabriele D'Annunzio, Curzio Malaparte, Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger to name a few, conservatives and small businessmen, and the poor to whom they promised work and bread. In some countries, like Romania and Hungary (and to a lesser extent in other states), Fascism had a strong base of support among the working classes and extremely poor peasants. The broad appeal of support for Fascism makes it different from other totalitarian states.

Let's compare this passage to my first source:
   
Quote
Syndicalism is one of the three most common ideologies of egalitarian, pre-managed economic and labor structure, together with socialism and communism. It states, on an ethical basis, that all participants in an organized trade internally share equal ownership of its production and therefore deserve equal earnings and benefits within that trade, regardless of position or duty. By contrast, socialism emphasises distributing output among trades as required by each trade, not necessarily considering how trades organize internally. Both syndicalism and socialism are compatible with privatism, unlike communism. Communism rejects government-sanctioned private ownership and private earnings in favor of making all property legally public, and therefore directly and solely managed by the people themselves.

Syndicalists often form alliances with other workers' movements, including socialism, communism, and anarchism.

Wow, this "reading" is harder than I thought. No matter how I try, I can't shake my earlier assertions. Let's try once more:
 
Quote
Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process. These corporatist assemblies are not the same as contemporary business corporations or incorporated groups.[You don't say! Paley]
[....]
Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe a practice whereby an authoritarian state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy. This usage is particularly common in the area of East Asia studies, and is sometimes also referred to as state corporatism.

In Italian Fascism, this non-elected form of state 'officializing' of every interest into the state was professed to better circumvent the marginalization of singular interests as would happen by the unilateral end condition inherent in the democractic voting process. Which would better instead recognize or 'incorporate' every divergent interest as it stands alone into the state "organically", thus being the inspiration behind their use of the term Totalitarian, perceivable to them as not meaning a coercive system but described distinctly as without coercion in the 1932 Doctrine of Fascism as thus;

"…(The state) is not simply a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the individual…" & "…Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State…" but rather clearly connoting "…Far from crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his fellow soldiers…"

This prospect in Italian Fascist Corporativism claimed to be the direct heir of Georges Sorel's Anarcho-syndicalism.[Hey! that's Lenny's party! Paley] Wherein each interest was to form as its own entity with separate organizing parameters according to their own standards, only however within the corporative model of Italian Fascism each was supposed to be incorporated through the auspices & organizing ability of a statist construct. This was by their reasoning the only possible way to achieve such a function, i.e. when resolved in the capability of an indissolvable state.


I give up.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,09:03   

Can't say it's unbiased (read: it challenges liberal claims), but this is a good essay that shows how national syndicalism evolved into Italian fascism. Now it's clear where Hitler and Roosevelt got their economic ideas.

Arden: Check out this liberal. After discussing the evidence on both sides, he concludes:
Quote
It seems Hitler, like many modern-day politicians, spoke out of both sides of his mouth. And when he didn't, his lackeys did. It may have been political pandering, just like many of our current politicians who invoke God's name to gain support.

Also, it seems probable that Hitler, being the great manipulator, knew that he couldn't fight the Christian churches and their members right off the bat. So he made statements to put the church at ease and may have patronized religion as a way to prevent having to fight the Christian-based church.

In fact, Anton Gil notes in his book, An Honourable Defeat: A History of German Resistance to Hitler, 1933-1945: "For his part, Hitler naturally wanted to bring the church into line with everything else in his scheme of things. He knew he dare not simply eradicate it: that would not have been possible with such an international organisation, and he would have lost many Christian supporters had he tried to. His principal aim was to unify the German Evangelical Church under a pro-Nazi banner, and to come to an accommodation with the Catholics."

In other words, while he was certainly evil, he also usually knew which wars he could win (at least until 1941) and only fought those. He knew he could beat the Polish, French, and British armies and he allegedly counseled the Japanese against attacking the U.S.; he also requested that they open up a front against Russia. He couldn't beat the church in open warfare--so he took control and then attacked them piecemeal while making statements to put them at ease. Think about it--how many other times did Hitler break his word or ignore a treaty? He said whatever would make things easiest, and then ignored it later.

Author Doug Krueger notes that "so many Germans were religious believers that Hitler, if not religious himself, at least had to pretend to be a believer in order to gain support." He adds, "If the [Christian] message won converts, it would seem that most Nazis were probably [Christians] too. After all, would appeal to divine mandate win more theists or atheists to the cause?" He also points out that "Even if Hitler was not a [Christian], he could still have been a theist. Or a deist" (www.infidels.org/library /modern/doug_krueger/copin.html).   Remember that being a non-Christian is not equal to being an atheist.

When all is said and done, Krueger says that anecdotal evidence from those close to him near the end of his life suggests that he was a at least a deist, if not a theist. Krueger concludes: "So here's what evidence we have. There is a certain worldview, Nazism. Its leader, Hitler, professes on many occasions to be religious, and he often states that he's doing the will of god. The majority of his followers are openly religious. There is no evidence anywhere that this leader ever professed to anyone that he is an atheist. He and his followers actively campaign against atheism, even to the point of physical force, and this leader allies himself with religious organizations and churches. This is the evidence. So where does atheism fit in?" As Krueger notes, there seems to be no real evidence that Hitler was an atheist. On the other hand, since one could never be sure when he was speaking his real thoughts and when he was simply riling up the masses, it's difficult to say for certain.


The issue's much more complicated than either you or Flank make it. By the way, Lenny, have you updated your essay yet? Or will you continue to pretend that it's the final word on the matter?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,09:13   

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Paley, you fell riiiiight for it dint'you?

Since you decided to google 'syndicalism" as well as "fascism" Did you also happen to check "Fascism and Ideology? did you happen to google "Corporativism" as well? But wait, you don't have to :

It's already in the quotes you posted.

I won't bother doing the work for you, ghosty. When you really understand what the difference between syndicalism (that is an anarchist movement in principle) and corporativism (which is exactly the opposite) is, you get back to me. Matter of fact, get back to me when you can explain in your own words what those movements are, instead of resorting to selective quoting like AFDave.
Oh and, when you understand that rejecting classes is NOT consistent with socialism, just because it mentions the word (that was a good one, I must say).

In the meantime, check these juicy bits from your OWN quote:
Quote
Fascism in many ways seems to have been clearly developed as a reaction against Communism and Marxism, both in a philosophic and political sense, although it opposed democratic capitalist economics along with socialism, Marxism, and liberal democracy. It viewed the state as an organic entity in a positive light rather than as an institution designed to protect collective and individual rights, or as one that should be held in check. It tended to reject the Marxist notion of social classes and universally dismissed the concept of class conflict, replacing it instead with the struggle between races, and the struggle of the youth versus their elders. This meant embracing nationalism and mysticism, and advancing ideals of strength and power as means of legitimacy, glorifying war as an end in itself and victory as the determinant of truth and worthiness. An affinity to these ideas can be found in Social Darwinism. These ideas are in direct opposition to the ideals of humanism and rationalism characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment, from which liberalism and, later, Marxism would emerge.


Gee, I guess reading IS hard for you, right Ghosty?

You see, the really fun part is that, if I had quoted these sources, you'd be all "ooh the wise evos can only quote wikipedia" and such. So I let you do the honours, and you didn't disappoint me.

Remember this feeling you have now, Ghost. It's what (via AFDave) it has become known as the "Portuguese Moment": You have realised you've bitten more than you can chew, and you resort to selective quoting, with editing little comments to make it sound like it supports your views (for a minute there I thought I was in the Creator God" thread)... and all you can manage to show is your complete ignorance of any form of social or economic movement and its history (that doesn't come from your right-wing wackos).


So! Read a book or two, and when, in a couple decades, you finally learn what all those big words you use really mean (like what Anarcho-syndicalism stood for, why Corporativism is it's exact political opposite when distribution of power is concerned, What the concept of classes -and Nationalism- is and also the position of Socialism and Fascism on them, and of course the very history of Fascism itself) get back to me and maybe we'll have an intelligent conversation.

...but I doubt it.

BTW, keep up the good work. I know that filling in for AFDave is hard, but you're doing great so far... and it's only for another 5 days, anyway.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,10:00   

Quote
Can't say it's unbiased (read: it challenges liberal claims), but this is a good essay that shows how national syndicalism evolved into Italian fascism. Now it's clear where Hitler and Roosevelt got their economic ideas.

Arden: Check out this liberal. After discussing the evidence on both sides, he concludes:


A LIBERAL? You mean, you'd trust the word of some Leftie Commie Nazi, Paley?

Here's some homework for you, Paley, since you don't do much 'science' anymore: find me ONE place where Hitler mentions Odin.

And don't waste my time with essays on the Third Reich or articles on Heinrich Himmler. Just ONE place where Hitler mentions Odin. Hitler was a notorious blowhard, and if Odin was the huge influence on his thinking you say it is, it should be easy to find plenty of places where he talks glowingly about it, certainly nearly as many as the dozens of times where he talks about how it was his cosmic destiny to defend Christendom from the Jews.

Still no theory why Hitler had all the German communists killed? Just a terrible misunderstanding?

Like I said, I think Planet of the Apes is really responsible for the degeneration of Western Christian Civilization. Google it yourself if you think you can disprove me!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,10:41   

Faid:
               
Quote
Since you decided to google 'syndicalism" as well as "fascism" Did you also happen to check "Fascism and Ideology? did you happen to google "Corporativism" as well? But wait, you don't have to :

It's already in the quotes you posted.

Yes, and that's why I followed it up with this:
               
Quote
Syndicalism is one of the three most common ideologies of egalitarian, pre-managed economic and labor structure, together with socialism and communism. It states, on an ethical basis, that all participants in an organized trade internally share equal ownership of its production and therefore deserve equal earnings and benefits within that trade, regardless of position or duty. By contrast, socialism emphasises distributing output among trades as required by each trade, not necessarily considering how trades organize internally. Both syndicalism and socialism are compatible with privatism, unlike communism. Communism rejects government-sanctioned private ownership and private earnings in favor of making all property legally public, and therefore directly and solely managed by the people themselves.

Syndicalists often form alliances with other workers' movements, including socialism, communism, and anarchism.

Look at the post if you don't believe me. I don't want to spoon-feed you, but the point of contrasting the two passages was simply to show two things:

1) Syndicalism, despite superficial differences, shares the same core values with the other two branches of lefty ideology (socialism and communism).

2) Whatever distinctions the unholy trinity may have, all three philosophies end up in the same place when implemented.

Of course there are differences in the theoretical models; this means nothing, however, because all three are impossible to realise in the real world. That's why "communist" nations turn totalitarian. And who picks up the reins? The government, that's who. This is also why I mentioned the Mefo bills in an earlier post; I was trying to show that the "reversal" of bank nationalisation under Hitler's watch was only skin deep. And Hitler would have agreed:
             
Quote
"Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."

(Quoted in Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, London, T. Butterworth, 1940)

In short, Faid, your academic distinctions don't amount to a hill o' beans -- Hitler was a socialist in everything but name (oh wait.....). And your hee-hawing and insults don't change what Hitler did and said.
           
Quote
You see, the really fun part is that, if I had quoted these sources, you'd be all "ooh the wise evos can only quote wikipedia" and such. So I let you do the honours, and you didn't disappoint me.

No, I wish you would try to support your ideas more. I find your strategy ("Wait until my opponent supplies the evidence, then requote, highlight, and spin") a little lame, to be honest. I don't share your horror of citing sources.
         
Quote
So! Read a book or two, and when, in a couple decades, you finally learn what all those big words you use really mean (like what Anarcho-syndicalism stood for, why Corporativism is it's exact political opposite when distribution of power is concerned, What the concept of classes -and Nationalism- is and also the position of Socialism and Fascism on them, and of course the very history of Fascism itself) get back to me and maybe we'll have an intelligent conversation.

Yah, yah, I'm sure that all the liberals can whip out their microscopes and spot all the differences, but those who deal with historical evidence say otherwise. Face it -- syndicalism (a lefty philosophy that Wikipedia groups with Communism and Socialism) influenced the development of fascism. Oh, wait, this anarchist disagrees:
         
Quote
As can be seen, far from "mostly" going over to fascism, the Italian Syndicalist Union (and so the vast majority of self-proclaimed syndicalists) was at the forefront of resisting fascism and experiencing fascist violence. Bob Black's reference to support his claim is discovered to be lacking in substance, referring as it does to a few pre-war Marxist-syndicalist intellectuals and "leaders" who could not convince the majority in their own organisation of their new found nationalism and left it. Far from showing that the "Italian syndicalists mostly went over to Fascism," it, in fact, shows the opposite -- the syndicalists who later became fascists could not convince the majority of the USI of their ideas. The USI, rather than embrace nationalism, remained true to its syndicalist principles and resisted fascism. Like the anarchists, the syndicalist organisation experienced repression and, ultimately, destruction, at the hands of the Fascist gangs. Hardly what would be expected if they "mostly went over to Fascism."

Rather than show a failure of revolutionary and anarcho-syndicalism, the events in Italy provide yet more evidence of the failure of Marxism as a revolutionary theory. Not only were the syndicalists who became fascists mostly Marxists, the Socialist and Communist Parties helped defeat both the revolution and the resistance to fascism. Unfortunately, rather than look at the actual history of the rise of Italian Fascism and its relation to syndicalism, Bob Black (and others) seem intent on slandering a whole movement based on the actions of a handful of so-called "leaders."

[Paley's helpful emphasis]


Come back when you have evidence.

Arden:
     
Quote
A LIBERAL? You mean, you'd trust the word of some Leftie Commie Nazi, Paley?

Sure, if they support their side with evidence. Besides, you don't trust anything conservatives (excuse me, "wingnuts") have to say, so what else can I do?

     
Quote
Here's some homework for you, Paley, since you don't do much 'science' anymore: find me ONE place where Hitler mentions Odin.

And if I do? You'll just spin it or ignore it. Like you're doing right now with the evidence that Hitler wasn't really a Christian. Face it, your hero's Talk Origins essay was exposed as feeble-minded propaganda, and now you're just trying to move the goalposts. But I might actually look into it tomorrow. Gotta run for now. Please tell me what you think about Hitler's Christianity in light of the evidence Mr. Adams adduces. Be as detailed as possible -- or don't. I'm betting you'll wimp out as usual.

 
Quote
Still no theory why Hitler had all the German communists killed? Just a terrible misunderstanding?

Maybe for the same reason that many Christians have persecuted the Jews, despite the close relationship between their two religions? Goodness, is this argument lame.

Really guys, try to deal with the evidence in the future.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,11:36   

Quote
Come back when you have evidence.


You mean, the thing you don't?

Paley, did you even read my answer? I don't need to "shy away" from links, not only because, as usual, your sources actually support my argumrnts, but because I have arguments. I can explain to you what syndicalism and corporatism is, and why they are different, even if one was derived from the other in a way. You, however, cannot, as you have clearly demonstated. You don't even know what you are talking about.
Seriously, what part do you think needs clearing up? the one where I tell you that Corporatism demands a Strong State in principle, while syndicalism has affiliations in principle to anarchism? Maybe the part that Socialism relies on class struggle, while Fascism rejects it? What? But you don't need my "academic distinctions", Ghost... It's right there in your own sources.
Oh and, did your sinus infection (which I seriously doubt exists) cause selective blindness? You DID notice those little bits from your OWN quotes, that demostrate the fundamental differences of Fascism and Socialism, and how they were in direct opposition? Or do you think these are "minor details", and the real issues are "fixing wages and prices"? Shows how much you know.
Are you a Satanist, Ghost? You must be, since both Christians and Satanists have priests who wear garments and perform rituals... :p
Or do you think that Totalitarianism=Socialism? That's even more ludicrous, since it would imply that all non-democratic states in the history of the world, from the military Juntas of Banana republics (or Greece, heh) to the dynasties of the Pharaohs, were socialistic. Nice job, Friedrich.
(And btw, what happened to the profits of the German capitalists under Hitler's "socialist" reign?)
Sorry you took my telling you that you know nothing about these issues as an insult, Ghost. It was not. I was stating a fact. And forgive my tone, but I always get annoyed when I see someone who obviously has not done any reading on his own parrot 'arguments' and try to back them up with googletrawling and quotemining.
And don't worry, I feel the same for Communists and their "wooden tongue", so you have nice company.

Edit: And accusimg ME of "spinning" arguments.... Hilarious. You take a quote that highlights the differenses of Fascism and Marxism, YOU highlight irrelevant parts (like the "classless" one, or the ones about syndicalist influence) but without any explanations, just some ironic comments to make it look like you actually have a point- and then, when I show you what the source really says, I'M doing the spinning? Get real.

Oh and I see you've already gone from "Hitler was a socialist" to  "Hitler was a 'leftie', therefore a socialist" to "Hitler was totalitarian, therefore socialist"... You're going downhill fast, Ghost.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006