Ion

Then don't say it.

Because what escapes you that I am saying, is:

the UN Code of Human Rights is being designed since 1945 from the ground up, with chosen inputs from the past and the present.

dk

• dk: ... Darwin's book published in 1859 was titled the "Origin of Species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life", and Darwin’s cousin Galton was the founder of Eugenics. (Darwin on Malthus's book and how he worked out natural selection from that...)
  This seems to me, to constitute strong irrefutable empirical evidence that science and racism have a long and bloody partnership.
  lpetrich:
  That's a big load of bull excrement, O dk. It's clear that you have not really tried to understand Darwin's ideas but instead have tried to make some big villain out of him. Darwin was simply considering the effects of surviving in the world -- that those animals and plants that one sees are those that are efficient at surviving, simply because that efficiency is what has helped them to survive.
  Darwin himself did NOT agree with "Social Darwinism", for him, it was like stating that Napoleon was right and that every cheating businessman was right.
  dk: If you check the historical record Herbert Spencer coined the term Social Darwinism as a justification for laissez fair capitalism, “he attempted to derive the force of morality from the fact and course of evolution. ---- source url ”
  - Additionally.
  “Herbert Spencer (1820_1903) was thinking about ideas of evolution and progress before Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species (1859). Nonetheless, his ideas received a major boost from Darwin's theories and the general application of ideas such as "adaptation" and "survival of the fittest" to social thought is known as "Social Darwinism". It would be possible to argue that human evolution showed the benefits of cooperation and community. Spencer, and Social Darwinists after him took another view. He believed that society was evolving toward increasing freedom for individuals; and so held that government intervention, ought to be minimal in social and political life.” ----- Modern History Sourcebook: Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinism, 1857
  - The irreducible common thread, in my opinion, between Darwin and Spencer was Malthus. Darwin applied Malthusian Principles to biology, where Spencer deduced a social order that justified the extermination and subjugation of the weak as progress. In opposition were Mills, Bethany’s Utilitarianisms and Marx’s Communism. I would agree Darwin’s Theory has been rendered incoherent by science and history. Nonetheless the development of sociology runs through Comte, Mill and Spencer. What nobody can stomach since Hitler, is the idea that war benefits science, and the rational justification orientates upon an axis of -deprivation and +survival. Human Rights don’t played well against a bleak background derived from a philosophy founded upon “Survival of the favoured races”. I would call it a rational philosophy of death because it solves problems with death.
  o
• lpetrich:
  (Ion's request for evidence that Darwin was racist...)
  dk: We can start with 1915 Armenian genocide, move on to WW II Germany or Japan's Eugenics programs, and finish with Moa's Great Leap Forward.
  lpetrich:
  Is this the same dk who had stated earlier that objecting to mass murder was the great no-no of protesting death?
  That Armenian genocide was pulled off by the Ottoman regime, which was officially Islamic -- it's doubtful that they had much knowledge of Darwin's work.
  dk: You need to re-read the history, it was the Young Turks the saw genocide as a solution, and considered themselves secular reformers trained at the best Western Universities. Here’s a list of their stated objectives, The Young Turks: Proclamation for the Ottoman Empire, 1908 . “Ahmed Riza raised a similar point when he criticized missionary activities in the Ottoman Empire, asserting the impossibility of converting a Muslim to Christianity.'s He thought that the way to convert Muslims was to transform them into positivists. He wrote: "Un lien scientifique, une morale universelle, degagee de toute conception theologique, me semble le seul remede capable de realiser l'harmonie et la bonne entente internationales," and therefore "il y a promesse de mariage entre la civilisation musulmane et la civilisation scientifique." ---- Political Ideas of the Young Turks A popular saying amongst the Young Turks was, “"Science is the religion of the elite, whereas religion is the science of the masses.”
  o
• lpetrich:
  Adolf Hitler believed that fighting the Jews was doing the work of the "Almighty Creator" and following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ and his famous temple temper tantrum.
  As to Japan, it was State Shinto belief that Japan was created earlier than the rest of the world.
  dk: The devil also quoted scripture in Luke 4:9, the Temptation of Jesus. Unless you’re willing to hold Hitler up as a reliable source there isn’t much sense in quoting him, and it indicates the weakness of you argument.

dk

I'm sad to hear the Chinese are uncivilized, I doubt the Chinese would agree. Your arguments are a conundrum of circulular analysis indicative of the contradictions that plague the philosophy of science.

dk

DMB you are a Dogmatist. War, famine, petulance, eugenics and genocide are to the social elites a progressive cure for poverty and a prescription for prosperity. Specifically the science of evolution provides a rationalization. For the last 50 years elite academics have been trying to explain with a hodgepodge of revisionists histories a scheme that essentially markets death as a necessary side affect of progress. There's nothing wrong with UN DoHR until some fanatic follows suit.

lpetrich

dk:
If you check the historical record Herbert Spencer coined the term Social Darwinism as a justification for laissez fair capitalism ...

Darwin himself did not agree. And the theory that "might makes right" is at least as old as Plato, who had one of his characters state it in his Republic. And Plato lived long before Darwin was born.

I would agree Darwin?s Theory has been rendered incoherent by science and history.

More likely, O dk, because you stubbornly insist on confusing Darwinian biology with Social Darwinism. If these guys had quoted the Bible in support of Social Darwinism, would you also support it?

(a lot of stuff about how the "Young Turk" nationalists were supposedly both pro-Western and responsible for the Armenian Genocide...)

So what if some of them were at least nominally "positivists". However, for the most part, they were also at least nominally Muslims.

And I don't see how one derives genocide from evolutionary biology.

dk:
Unless you?re willing to hold Hitler up as a reliable source there isn?t much sense in quoting him, and it indicates the weakness of you argument.

So what are you claiming about Hitler's claims? Claims that he's doing what Jesus Christ had done in his famous temple temper tantrum; claims of doing the work of the "Almighty Creator".

dk:
War, famine, petulance, eugenics and genocide are to the social elites a progressive cure for poverty and a prescription for prosperity.

And how is that supposed to be the case? All you've given me are carefully selected quotations that may be misleading or out of context.

Specifically the science of evolution provides a rationalization.

Except that it doesn't.

Ion

I am sad that you are sad, dk.
Any proof for this statement, dk?

DMB

ROTFL :notworthy
I may well be a dogmatist, but how does my asking you to provide evidence prove that? Looks to me like a case of pots and kettles!

Would you care to be more specific about who constitute the social elites who see war, famine, petulance, eugenics and genocide as a progressive cure for poverty and a prescription for prosperity? I don't know who you are on about. How do they misuse evolution to provide a rationalisation?

Who are these elite academics who have been trying to market death as a necessary side effect of progress? (Could you be thinking of supporters of Bush and Rumsfeld?)

As for your last sentence, I simply don't understand it at all. How can a fanatic do anything to wrongfoot the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Ion

Let me say that a 'fanatic' follows the UN Code of Human Rights.

This is better than following the Bible (like Genesis 21:4 amongst others).

dk

I don't follow you. Circumcision was in biblical law symbolic of God's Covenants. I have no idea why you bring this up.

dk

dk: I offered the merits, prosperity and productivity of the Jews around the world for 3,000 years as evidence. Jews live under the Law given in the OT. Now if its your opinion that God legalized slavery, genocide, and divorce in the OT, so your opinion is at odds with the historical record.
dk: Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to name a few. Each of them destroyed the lives of millions of their own people in service to what they marketed as a rational ideology. For example Moa in The Great Leap Forwarded (1959-60) starved 10s of millions of his own people to restructure China.
dk: Could be, but it appears to me most elite academics consider Bush and Rumsfeld intellectually sub par.
dk: Its called “stare decisis” i.e. a principle of law that finds its basis in past precedent. For example Hitler justified his genocidal plans with the atrocities committed by the Young Turks during WWI. The League of Nations had little to say about the extermination of the Armenians, just as the United Nations risks becoming irrelevant today. Clearly the UN is the only strategic vehicle positioned to fight international terrorism, so when the UN supports nations that sponsor terrorism they legitimize terrorism, and that's what the UN DoHR comes to mean.