Basis for belief?

[1over137]

Hey Rick! You're right, they're not 100% free, and as I said, Cuba is not 100% communist.

It is free in the sense that you do not have to directly pay for the services provided. For example I haven't been able to earn a doctorate in philosophy yet, because I do not have enough money to pay the required tuition. However, if I lived in Cuba, I wouldn't be forced to pay tuition. I'd be free to earn a doctorate in philosophy.

Hopefully this example clarifies the use of the word free, which you don't seem to understand. Remember, nothing in life is really free.

Could I there go for a doctorate from Christian theology for free? I would go for it. Study Greek, Hebrew, whole Bible. That would be cool.

[Lunalle]

I don't see why not. I haven't looked at specific schools and what courses they offer though. I'd encourage you to carefully consider things before moving to another country (especially Cuba) though. Cuba is in a very tough spot, because a lot of countries (spear headed by the USA) have a trade embargo against them. As a result, they have an extreme shortage of important goods, primarily medicine.

[TheArtfulDodger]

Hey Rick! You're right, they're not 100% free, and as I said, Cuba is not 100% communist.

It is free in the sense that you do not have to directly pay for the services provided. For example I haven't been able to earn a doctorate in philosophy yet, because I do not have enough money to pay the required tuition. However, if I lived in Cuba, I wouldn't be forced to pay tuition. I'd be free to earn a doctorate in philosophy.

Hopefully this example clarifies the use of the word free, which you don't seem to understand. Remember, nothing in life is really free.

What are you planning on getting a phD in? At least in the sciences, almost all schools in the U.S. that accept you will give you a tuition waiver and some kind of stipend based off of a fellowship, Teacher's Assitanship, or Research Assistantship.

[B. W.]

Now, my answer is science. So I'd like you to appreciate science a bit more. Science doesn't claim ultimate, or divine knowledge. It says "This is our best understanding right now". The application of science is used to make the world a better place. For example, the things encompassed in the Theory of Evolution are applied to develop vaccines. Yes, it operates off a minimal set of presuppositions. It's goal is to make things better, and further develop knowledge, so we can make things even better. It's not static, it is constantly evolving, and improving. I hope that helps cast it in a better light, and people will realize the importance of science.

Darwin's theory of Evolution had an agenda. Here are some quotes that demonstrate this agenda...

Nobody is questioning the importance of science. It's "Science" that they're wary of. Science, one of the many stratagems adopted by man to find truth in our existence, has become the center of a popular modern philosophical view that rejects all other forms of truth-seeking. In my opinion, such a view is exceedingly arrogant if adopted by an actual scientist and blind faith if adopted by a non-scientist.

Darwin had an agenda for his theory of evolution . To demonstrate this agenda, let me quote him...

Darwin - Decent of Man

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man...hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed”

Page - 138-139

“For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descended from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs—as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions”

Page - 642-643

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla”

Page - 162,163

“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman–whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands…We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on ‘Hereditary Genius,’ that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.”

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

-----

Question: Is it ethical to hijack science to promote .ie. justify political power grabbing ends?

Therefore: Let's move to today in the USA to see same influence of Marxist Darwinism on the March

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' testified: "compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions."

Cass Sunstein - Obama's unelected Czar of Policy Making wrote when he was a young 48 years old -2003 - Copied from the link..

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files ... rs-new.pdf

My simplest claim in this essay is that in terms of welfare, it is fully appropriate focus on life-years, not merely lives, and that both academic and public criticisms of the life-years approach are misconceived. The reasons for this conclusion are simple: No program literally “saves” lives; life-extension is always what is at issue. If the goal is to promote people’s welfare by lengthening their lives, a regulation that saves 500 life-years (and, let us say, twenty-five people) is, other things equal, better than a regulation that saves 50 life-years (also, let us say, twenty-five people). A program that saves younger people is better, along every dimension, than an otherwise identical program that saves older people23—a statement that seems controversial only if we see life as a snapshot in which people are frozen at their current points in the age distribution.

Any defense of relying life-years has to come to terms with some equitable objections to what seems to be a form of age discrimination.24 A central goal here is to answer those objections.

...for example, that one hundred white people would receive more welfare from the elimination of a risk of 1/100,000 than would one hundred African Americans. But even if this is so, government should not create an “African-American death discount.”26 The reason is that the welfare difference—assuming that it exists—is at least partly a product of past and present injustice. By contrast, injustice is not the source of the welfare difference between the protection of one hundred children and the protection of one hundred elderly people. Because every old person was once young, an emphasis on life-years does not discriminate against anyone; the very people who lose, in a sense, when older also gained when younger.

In fact the use of statistical lives, rather than life-years, is plausibly taken as a form of discrimination against younger people, because it treats each of their anticipated years as less valuable than those of older people. As I shall also show, an emphasis on life-years does not run afoul of the principles that animate the prohibition on age discrimination. My most modest suggestion, then, is that in producing regulatory impact analyses,27 agencies should do a sensitivity analysis in which they inquire into life-years as well as lives—and take account of that sensitivity analysis in deciding what to do.

Under the life-years approach, older people are treated worse for only one reason: They are older. This is not an injustice.

In this essay, I have suggested that government should focus its attention on statistical life-years, not statistical lives. No regulatory program makes people immortal. The only issue is life extension, and here the length of the extension surely matters. In terms of welfare, a program that saves 10,000 life-years is better than one that saves 1,000 life years, holding all else constant. Behind a veil of ignorance, reasonable people would undoubtedly prefer a program that eliminates a 1/500,000 risk faced at thirty to a program that eliminates the same risk faced at sixty. In welfare terms, a program that saves younger people is unquestionably better than one that saves older people, holding all else constant.

++++

Main Point I would like to make is this: Neo-Marxist use science to justify political power grabs - no different...

I can go on citing the progressive neo-Marxist in the halls of power now but that would take pages of I could quote Obama's -Anita Dunn's remark on loving Mao and Ron Bloom (Obama's Manufacturing Czar) quoting affectionately and lovingly of Chairman Mao and a host of others but space could not contain all the quotes that would make your blood boil...

The point is clear - they are all no different than Darwin the racist... living in a - Cloud Cuckoo Land - of delusional illusions... as do all Communist and progressive socialist do.

The problem the left has is that they think that they can take the Commie out of Communism and the Fascist out of Fascism and evolve it into a kinder gentler form of Marxism.

You can't, and historical truth and the truth of human nature proves beyond all doubt that you can't turn a crocodile into a eagle...
-
-
-

[Lunalle]

What are you planning on getting a phD in? At least in the sciences, almost all schools in the U.S. that accept you will give you a tuition waiver and some kind of stipend based off of a fellowship, Teacher's Assitanship, or Research Assistantship.

Well, that sounds awesome. I've never heard that said before. Unfortunately I live in Canada, not the U.S., and here they don't give tuition waivers for any reason. I've tried really hard to find one, hopefully one day I will (or I'll have more money). I haven't thought much about the details around a doctorate, as it is far in the future, pending some miraculous event.


B.W. I'm not reading your strawman arguments and character assassination attempts. Of course Darwin had an agenda, give me a break, he's not God.

Question: Is it ethical to hijack science to promote .ie. justify political power grabbing ends?

Argh, ethics rears its head again. The answer, of course, is it depends. Philosophers "hijack" science on a very regular basis.

Therefore: Let's move to today in the USA to see same influence of Marxist Darwinism on the March

What the flying f... ?!
LET ME REPEAT MYSELF: I DON'T CONDONE MARXISM,DARWINISM, OR ANY <NAME>ISM. Hopefully that is clear now.

What country do you live in B.W.? How's your knowledge of American history and culture? (If it is based on the American school curriculum, it is terrible.)

Really? Marxist Darwinism? Let it be erased from history like the claims of every other man who oppresses the innocent.

[RickD]

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man...hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed”

Page - 138-139

“For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descended from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs—as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions”

Page - 642-643

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla”

Page - 162,163

“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman–whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands…We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on ‘Hereditary Genius,’ that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.”

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

Is this accurate?!?!?!?!?!

Did Darwin use his racism/sexism as a basis for his evolutionary theory? Or did he use his theory to try to justify his racism/sexism.


He even seems to use his evolutionary beliefs as a justification for genocide here:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

Those of you, especially professing Christians, who see no contradiction between being a believer, and believing in Darwin's evolutionary theory, need to do some deep thinking and praying about this. Frankly, these views by Darwin are pretty disgusting. It's some of the same views that slave traders and slave owners used to justify their atrocities. I think I'm going to puke.

[Lunalle]

Low blow B.W., low blow. Lucky for you to be able to get away with it though.

Rick, I haven't read it, but it is probably accurate. Darwin did use his Theory of Natural Selection to justify his racist/sexist beliefs.

The point that you are missing is people can be very intelligent and progressive in one area, and not another. You do not have to accept a person's ethics to accept the information and data they supply. In the face of Godwin's Law, I'll point out that medical science made huge advances with the data gathered from the Nazis. It doesn't mean you're a terrible person for taking medicine, and you're not a terrible person for accepting the Theory of Evolution, just because one of the people who supplied the groundwork for it was an ignorant racist bigot.

[Ivellious]

I'll get to this later, but you flatly calling Darwin a racist bigot without any context (and cherry-picking quotes while you are at it) is just dishonest at best. Perhaps it would be pertinent to mention that Darwin, despite social attitudes of the time, opposed any form of slavery and said that the concept of "ranking" different races was wrong?

And calling him sexist is hardly fair, either. True, nearly every man in Europe at the time had more rights than women (on frequently religious grounds, for what it's worth). But he treated his wife and other women in his life very well, and even asked various women to help edit and proofread his papers and books. And gave them credit where it was due. Is that particularly sexist-sounding to you?

[Lunalle]

I'll get to this later, but you flatly calling Darwin a racist bigot without any context (and cherry-picking quotes while you are at it) is just dishonest at best. Perhaps it would be pertinent to mention that Darwin, despite social attitudes of the time, opposed any form of slavery and said that the concept of "ranking" different races was wrong?

And calling him sexist is hardly fair, either. True, nearly every man in Europe at the time had more rights than women (on frequently religious grounds, for what it's worth). But he treated his wife and other women in his life very well, and even asked various women to help edit and proofread his papers and books. And gave them credit where it was due. Is that particularly sexist-sounding to you?

Hahaha, wow, I get trashed for not having religious beliefs, and trashed for judging the enemies of religion.

How is it dishonest to give my opinion of someone without context? It is honestly my opinion, and I honestly believe it true. Cherry picking... can you give me an example? Darwin published literature, and there is other literature published about Darwin. Darwin also changed his mind about certain things, being human and all.

I'm not sure why you posted this, except to trash me. Hopefully you will make a better post when you "get to this".

[B. W.]

I'll get to this later, but you flatly calling Darwin a racist bigot without any context (and cherry-picking quotes while you are at it) is just dishonest at best. Perhaps it would be pertinent to mention that Darwin, despite social attitudes of the time, opposed any form of slavery and said that the concept of "ranking" different races was wrong?

And calling him sexist is hardly fair, either. True, nearly every man in Europe at the time had more rights than women (on frequently religious grounds, for what it's worth). But he treated his wife and other women in his life very well, and even asked various women to help edit and proofread his papers and books. And gave them credit where it was due. Is that particularly sexist-sounding to you?

Yes, people cherry pick and only focus on Darwin's theory of evolution without the bigotry of his time and of himself in the theory too

You have that right to do so and also the right to excuse the abuses of power going on in Health and Human Services, EPA, The Justice Department, The IRS, the Halls of power in DC, and say, well, their motives are the best so pure and good because 'we must eliminate the existing social order' (as someone here cited) for socialist Marxism to flourish...

Sorry, don't buy it.

You'll see soon enough when they affect you and disenfranchise your right to organize for political redress for ballot box issues...

The old school terminology for what Lunnelle desires was once called Evolutionary Socialism - later - Social Conflict Theory -- now Progressive...

It was thought to be the softer gentler form of communism... going through evolutionary steps - slowly --- all though out....planned discussed adapting new modes... the goal is the same absolute power.
-
-
-

[Lunalle]

...the goal is the same absolute power.

So, at this point, you're saying conspiracy theory? I really don't think you have any grounds to talk about democracy being superior. Democracy in my country is a joke, and it is worse in yours.

[Ivellious]

Well for the record I was referring to BW's posts about Darwin, not yours, Lunelle...

[neo-x]

What Darwin believed, good or bad, is irrelevant. Evolution has come a long way since darwin. Using darwin with an ethical bullseye is not any proof of negation to evolution science. The mechanisms of life as we see them exist prior to darwin, he simply was the one of the first to study them and point out.

[Lunalle]

Well for the record I was referring to BW's posts about Darwin, not yours, Lunelle...

Ah, okay. I thought you were referring to mine, because I was the one who explicitly said "racist, sexist, bigot". Anyway, "cherry picking" is getting thrown around so much, and being used incorrectly, I'm having a hard time understanding who is accusing whom of exactly what.

Thanks for your post Neo, well said.

[PaulSacramento]

People tend to see what they want to see, to project what they want into things.
Religion and science are no different.
Darwin viewed his findings through the lenses of his culturally bias "eyes".
As do we all to varying degrees.