TheArtfulDodger wrote:Lunalle wrote:
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...
-
-
-
