JRNovember 10, 2015 at 8:49 PM
Your "Darwin's own words" is about as honest as the doctored PP video. And you still haven't explained why you are obsessing about Darwin.
The Thought CriminalNovember 11, 2015 at 1:34 AM
Considering the only words you've quoted from Darwin were the often quote-mined "aid we must give" passage, and you quote mined even that, and I've given entire paragraphs, two or three at a time, with what he cited in those paragraphs and other paragraphs and entire letters to support my point about them, I'm entirely justified in pointing that out.
The defenders of the phony post-war, eugenics free Charles Darwin who has to be lied into existence, ignoring what he and those whose eugenics were inspired by him said, never quote him in full, ever. And they never put what he said in a full context of what he said.
And, as I've explained, at length. over, literally dozens of posts why I've written so much about the direct relationship of Charles Darwin to eugenics in both the English language and the German language and, inevitably, for that, his relationship with Nazi eugenics, your claim that I "still haven't explained" CONFIRMS MY POINT THAT YOU PEOPLE DENY WHAT'S LAID OUT, EXPLICITLY RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES.
Are you so blind that you can't see the evidence of your own behavior that you provide as you believe you're refuting my point that you only see what you choose to, being willfully blind to all else?
Update: Here, for example is an old and very out of date index to just what I'd written on that topic as of two years ago, containing none of the many posts I've written on the topic, generally in response to the complaints of Darwin's champions, many of them online atheist ideologues, since then.
The only reason anyone needs to write about history is to tell the truth about it, especially when a massive lie about it is not only widely believed, but is required to be believed by those who pretend to be all about evidence and the truth. And, as Darwin's theory of Natural Selection has spawned and continues to spawn eugenics in various degrees of depravity and both proposed and accomplished criminality, up to and including mass murder, it is one of the more justified topics of recent history to explore in relation to the primary documentary evidence. People who don't think that Darwin's own words and the words of the criminals who cited those words to justify their crimes are worth going over carefully are too dishonest to be safely considered part of the educated population.
Update: Tempting as it is to post the idiotic, vulgar, stupid and base comment that I am holding back as further proof of the degeneracy that generates atheism, I'm disinclined to do that and side track this demonstration unwittingly provided by another atheist would-be wit which proves my point made yesterday.
I understand why you are "obsessing" about Darwin.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't understand is why I should care what you "obsess" about. It's your choice to write, my choice to read. If I don't like what you write about, I don't fell compelled to comment on your choice of topic.
Maybe the "obsession" is in the eye of the beholder; literally.
It is a mystery, isn't it. What is even more of a mystery is how JR and Simels and "Skeptic Tank" and Thunder Boy and the rest of those in that group obsess over what I haven't said as reported by a few serial liars among them. I dare say there has been more focus on what I really haven't written at those places since I stopped being a regular there than there was while I posted comments there.
DeleteAnd, really, it's li'l ol' me they're obsessing over, not Darwin and Galton and Haeckel and the ones whose massive written record has to be presented to establish what they really did say. If they'd only bother to read the primary source material without practicing their habit of making it say what they wanted it to, they'd find that I haven't misrepresented it.
I was sincere when I said the first time I looked into that primary source material, I really did expect it to contain the exculpatory evidence that the St. Darwin cult said it did. I wasn't exactly obsessed with that being true but, considering who was saying it, I thought it would be true. I didn't see what I expected to find when I read it, I am quite sure that as soon as I saw the glowing citations of exactly the inventor of eugenics, Galton and the proto-Nazi Haeckel my mouth might have fallen open. Not to mention Darwin's own assertions about the benefits of culling the inferior out of the human species, the biological ranking of people, not only on the basis of disability but, also, ethnic and racial grouping and his breezily asserting the benefits of entire races being exterminated and that was before I'd started going through the letters and the evidence as provided by his own children and others who knew the man.
I know I don't qualify as an expert but I think I've been a careful student of the material. I don't think it's exactly turned into an obsession, yet. I don't own an anti-Darwin bumper sticker or pin.
As usual, you haven't actually answered the question, although judging from that post I'm fairly sure you aren't actually capable of coherently understanding a question, never mind answering one.
DeleteAnd you prove what I said in that post,. yet again. even as I have pointed it out many times. It's downright pathological how you only see what you choose to see.
DeleteThis is a real break through in understanding the etiology of your form of pathological atheism. Though it doesn't explain the non-pathological type in which that particular irrational symptom doesn't manifest, it might explain most of it. Especially as it is consonant with my realization that as atheists don't believe it's a sin to tell a lie, the only restraints on their lying is either a mere disinclination to lie or a belief they can get away with it. In this case, among themselves, they can get away with it because so many of their fellow atheists are inclined to tell the same obvious lie that they wish to be true and, so, they know they'll get away with it. It's worked in academia for far too long, though, where there are supposed to be some standards of enforcement that prevents getting away with it. Yet academics whine and cry at the consequences in their general credibility.