|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 23, 2019 5:11:07 GMT
Hitler was actually a Darwinian evolutionist. In fact the basis for the holocaust was Darwinian ideas of human evolution. Wrong, chucklehead. No, he's not wrong. He's right. The Nazis believed that survival of the fittest should apply to humans as well as plants and animals.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Mar 23, 2019 5:19:12 GMT
jamescfinn
When were those photos taken?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 23, 2019 8:32:09 GMT
Hitler was actually a Darwinian evolutionist. In fact the basis for the holocaust was Darwinian ideas of human evolution. That's not exactly true. While he did borrow (and distort) certain ideas from Darwin, his idea of darwnism and "survival of the fittest" was more in a cultural and racial sense, not a biological/evolutionary one. The term "Darwinism" is often used to simply mean "weeding out the weak/undesiriable" and can be used for any number of things that don't actually involve biology (economic darwinism for instance). When Hitler used the term darwinism, he was refering to social darwinism, not biological darwinism. It's possible he didn't even accept human evolution:
"Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They've occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place"
I actually agree he probably wasn't a Christian (he despised the idea of his Messiah being a pacifist jew), but he definetly believed in some sort of higher power and possibly a Creationist.
The Nazis believed in racial theory. “Higher” and “lower” races competing for dominance to progress human evolution. This idea was taught by Darwin and some of his early students. In his book Mein Kampf evolutionary ethics plays a major role. For instance in the chapter on “Nation and Race” he makes it clear how he is against racial mixing and explains how he thinks it violates evolutionary principles. ”Any crossing of two beings not exactly on the same level produces something in-between the levels of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb to the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating [ie.; breeding] the superior with the inferior, but in the total victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker or, else, sacrifice his own greatness. Only the born weakling will view this as cruel. But he is only a weak and limited individual after all; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher evolution of organic living beings would be unthinkable. “In his second book he wrote. ”The struggle for survival in turn contains the precondition for evolution. Nature out of the multitude of creatures that are born spares the few healthiest and most robust, in the struggle for survival.”So Hitler clearly advocated biological evolution. The fact that he also often based his view of war and conquest on evolutionary ideas concerning survival of the fittest and the struggle for survival shows that evolutionary ideas were behind his evil and barbaric savagery, not Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 23, 2019 10:16:42 GMT
Hitler was actually a Darwinian evolutionist. No he wasn't, shit for brains. He actually expressed some doubts about the reality of common descent and had ideas about species that are directly contradicted by Darwin's theory.
Wrong again, shit for brains. Here he was influenced by the long discredited idea of social Darwinism, which was invented by Herbert Spencer, who misappropriated Darwinian theory to justify his own political biases, which were ironically close your yours.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 23, 2019 10:20:53 GMT
The Nazis believed in racial theory. “Higher” and “lower” races competing for dominance to progress human evolution. This idea was taught by Darwin and some of his early students. No it wasn't, shit for brains. Fundamental to Darwinian theory is that there is no such thing as higher or lower anything. Guess you were too busy reading your bible when you should have been reading your text book in high school biology.
No he didn't, shit for brains. Like you, he was a complete dumbass ignoramus about what evolutionary theory actually says, as evidenced by the idiotic quotes you posted.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Mar 23, 2019 15:09:59 GMT
Hitler was actually a Darwinian evolutionist. In fact the basis for the holocaust was Darwinian ideas of human evolution. Wrong, chucklehead. Hitler actually opposed Christianity, & the Catholic Church in particular. He had many Christian clergy (both Catholic & Protestant) sent to the concentration camps, & even wanted the Pope to be sent to one as well.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 23, 2019 15:24:35 GMT
That's not exactly true. While he did borrow (and distort) certain ideas from Darwin, his idea of darwnism and "survival of the fittest" was more in a cultural and racial sense, not a biological/evolutionary one. The term "Darwinism" is often used to simply mean "weeding out the weak/undesiriable" and can be used for any number of things that don't actually involve biology (economic darwinism for instance). When Hitler used the term darwinism, he was refering to social darwinism, not biological darwinism. It's possible he didn't even accept human evolution:
"Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They've occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place"
I actually agree he probably wasn't a Christian (he despised the idea of his Messiah being a pacifist jew), but he definetly believed in some sort of higher power and possibly a Creationist.
The Nazis believed in racial theory. “Higher” and “lower” races competing for dominance to progress human evolution. This idea was taught by Darwin and some of his early students. In his book Mein Kampf evolutionary ethics plays a major role. For instance in the chapter on “Nation and Race” he makes it clear how he is against racial mixing and explains how he thinks it violates evolutionary principles. ”Any crossing of two beings not exactly on the same level produces something in-between the levels of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb to the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating [ie.; breeding] the superior with the inferior, but in the total victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker or, else, sacrifice his own greatness. Only the born weakling will view this as cruel. But he is only a weak and limited individual after all; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher evolution of organic living beings would be unthinkable. “In his second book he wrote. ”The struggle for survival in turn contains the precondition for evolution. Nature out of the multitude of creatures that are born spares the few healthiest and most robust, in the struggle for survival.”So Hitler clearly advocated biological evolution. The fact that he also often based his view of war and conquest on evolutionary ideas concerning survival of the fittest and the struggle for survival shows that evolutionary ideas were behind his evil and barbaric savagery, not Christianity. "This idea was taught by Darwin and some of his early students."
No it wasn't, Darwin himself was actually an abolitionist that despised slavery and even refered to a former slave as "a very pleasant and intelligent man"
"For instance in the chapter on “Nation and Race” he makes it clear how he is against racial mixing and explains how he thinks it violates evolutionary principles."
That has nothing to do with what Darwin actually proposed. That's Social Darwinism, all Hitler did was take some things Darwin proposed and completely distorted them (which seems to be what you're doing as well)
"So Hitler clearly advocated biological evolution."
No he didn't, I already showed you a quote where he seems to at least question common descent.
"The fact that he also often based his view of war and conquest on evolutionary ideas concerning survival of the fittest and the struggle for survival shows that evolutionary ideas were behind his evil and barbaric savagery, not Christianity."
No he didn't, again he took some ideas Darwin proposed and completed distorted them. Darwin referd to "survival of the fittest" in a purely natural/biolgoical sense, Hitler used it in a racial/cultural sense. Do you really believe an abolitionist like Darwin would have been fine with Hitler's racial views?
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Mar 23, 2019 16:08:56 GMT
clusium
Please tell them. What upsets me is Pope Francis I's concern about Pope Pius' canonization process and his sensitivity to the Jewish concerns in his canonization. IT IS NONE OF THEIR FREAKING BUSINESS!!! They had problems also with St. Theresa Benedicta's canonization. I really like her as a TOC. Need I say more?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 23, 2019 16:27:09 GMT
lowtacks86 Who the fuck said anything about slavery? “The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.”- Charles Darwin The descent of man Acccordig to Hitler’s secretary this is what he believed about human evolution: ”Science does not yet clearly know from which root human beings have arisen. We are certainly the highest stage of evolution of any mammal, which evolved from reptiles to mammals, perhaps through apes, to humans. We are a member of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living organisms. And in nature the law of the struggle rules from the beginning. Everything incapable of living and everything weak will be eliminated.”And I already showed you a quote where he clearly does advocate biological evolution. Whether he distorted or twisted them or not is beside the point. The fact is strategy and motivation was based on the evolutionary ideas of survival of the fittest and the struggle for survival.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 23, 2019 16:53:05 GMT
lowtacks86 Who the fuck said anything about slavery? “The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.”- Charles Darwin The descent of man Acccordig to Hitler’s secretary this is what he believed about human evolution: ”Science does not yet clearly know from which root human beings have arisen. We are certainly the highest stage of evolution of any mammal, which evolved from reptiles to mammals, perhaps through apes, to humans. We are a member of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living organisms. And in nature the law of the struggle rules from the beginning. Everything incapable of living and everything weak will be eliminated.”And I already showed you a quote where he clearly does advocate biological evolution. Whether he distorted or twisted them or not is beside the point. The fact is strategy was based on the evolutionary ideas of survival of the fittest and the struggle for survival. "Who the fuck said anything about slavery?"
You basically did, you implied Darwinism promotes racial superiority even though Darwin himself despised slavery.
“The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.”
Admittingly Darwin himself had some antiquated views on colonialization (he was an 18th British noble), but that has nothing to do with Darwinism, that was just his own outdated politics, he never actually tried to tie that with his biological studies, he even was even quoted as being against "ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species" and against ill-treatment of native people. BTW that last quote you gave wasn't him really promoting the idea of exterminating "savages" but rather lamenting on the inevitably of European expansion.
"And I already showed you a quote where he clearly does advocate biological evolution. " Which furthers my point that you don't actually know for sure that he even accepted human evolution if there's two contradicting narratives. Even in that quote you gave it seems like Hitler isn't entirely sure about human evolution: "perhaps through apes, to humans." That doesn't sound like a definitive hardline stance, at most maybe considering the idea of human evolution.
"Whether he distorted or twisted them or not is beside the point."
So is that you tacit admission Hitler did distort what he was actually saying and that's not what Darwinism actually proposes? Because that's not what you were saying earlier.
"The fact is strategy was based on the evolutionary ideas of survival of the fittest and the struggle for survival."
So what? It's not his fault someone else took his idea and misapropriated it. Do you also blame Einstein for the atomic bomb and killing thousands of Japanese because some other scientists decided to use his ideas to build one even though he was personally against it? That's the level of absurdity you're arguing.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 23, 2019 17:37:33 GMT
lowtacks86 Who the fuck said anything about slavery? “The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.”- Charles Darwin The descent of man Acccordig to Hitler’s secretary this is what he believed about human evolution: ”Science does not yet clearly know from which root human beings have arisen. We are certainly the highest stage of evolution of any mammal, which evolved from reptiles to mammals, perhaps through apes, to humans. We are a member of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living organisms. And in nature the law of the struggle rules from the beginning. Everything incapable of living and everything weak will be eliminated.”And I already showed you a quote where he clearly does advocate biological evolution. Whether he distorted or twisted them or not is beside the point. The fact is strategy was based on the evolutionary ideas of survival of the fittest and the struggle for survival. "Who the fuck said anything about slavery?"
You basically did, you implied Darwinism promotes racial superiority even though Darwin himself despised slavery.
“The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.”
Admittingly Darwin himself had some antiquated views on colonialization (he was an 18th British noble), but that has nothing to do with Darwinism, that was just his own outdated politics, he never actually tried to tie that with his biological studies, he even was even quoted as being against "ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species" and against ill-treatment of native people. BTW that last quote you gave wasn't him really promoting the idea of exterminating "savages" but rather lamenting on the inevitably of European expansion.
"And I already showed you a quote where he clearly does advocate biological evolution. " Which furthers my point that you don't actually know for sure that he even accepted human evolution if there's two contradicting narratives. Even in that quote you gave it seems like Hitler isn't entirely sure about human evolution: "perhaps through apes, to humans." That doesn't sound like a definitive hardline stance, at most maybe considering the idea of human evolution.
"Whether he distorted or twisted them or not is beside the point."
So is that you tacit admission Hitler did distort what he was actually saying and that's not what Darwinism actually proposes? Because that's not what you were saying earlier.
"The fact is strategy was based on the evolutionary ideas of survival of the fittest and the struggle for survival."
So what? It's not his fault someone else took his idea and misapropriated it. Do you also blame Einstein for the atomic bomb and killing thousands of Japanese because some other scientists decided to use his ideas to build one even though he was personally against it? That's the level of absurdity you're arguing.
LOL Do you know what the full title of Darwin’s most famous book is?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Mar 23, 2019 17:50:54 GMT
clusium
Please tell them. What upsets me is Pope Francis I's concern about Pope Pius' canonization process and his sensitivity to the Jewish concerns in his canonization. IT IS NONE OF THEIR FREAKING BUSINESS!!! They had problems also with St. Theresa Benedicta's canonization. I really like her as a TOC. Need I say more?
Pope Pius XII did help Jewish people during the Holocaust.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 23, 2019 18:46:14 GMT
"Who the fuck said anything about slavery?"
You basically did, you implied Darwinism promotes racial superiority even though Darwin himself despised slavery.
“The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.”
Admittingly Darwin himself had some antiquated views on colonialization (he was an 18th British noble), but that has nothing to do with Darwinism, that was just his own outdated politics, he never actually tried to tie that with his biological studies, he even was even quoted as being against "ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species" and against ill-treatment of native people. BTW that last quote you gave wasn't him really promoting the idea of exterminating "savages" but rather lamenting on the inevitably of European expansion.
"And I already showed you a quote where he clearly does advocate biological evolution. " Which furthers my point that you don't actually know for sure that he even accepted human evolution if there's two contradicting narratives. Even in that quote you gave it seems like Hitler isn't entirely sure about human evolution: "perhaps through apes, to humans." That doesn't sound like a definitive hardline stance, at most maybe considering the idea of human evolution.
"Whether he distorted or twisted them or not is beside the point."
So is that you tacit admission Hitler did distort what he was actually saying and that's not what Darwinism actually proposes? Because that's not what you were saying earlier.
"The fact is strategy was based on the evolutionary ideas of survival of the fittest and the struggle for survival."
So what? It's not his fault someone else took his idea and misapropriated it. Do you also blame Einstein for the atomic bomb and killing thousands of Japanese because some other scientists decided to use his ideas to build one even though he was personally against it? That's the level of absurdity you're arguing.
LOL Do you know what the full title of Darwin’s most famous book is? Origin of the Species? If you're refering to "Descent of Man", that still doesn't back up your narrative, quite the opposite:
Introducing chapter seven ("On the Races of Man"), Darwin wrote "It is not my intention here to describe the several so-called races of men; but to inquire what is the value of the differences between them under a classificatory point of view, and how they have originated."[15] In answering the question of whether the races should rank as varieties of the same species or count as different species, Darwin discussed arguments which could support the idea that human races were distinct species.[16][17] This included the geographical distribution of mammal groups which was correlated with the distribution of human races,[18] and the finding of Henry Denny that different species of lice affected different races differently.[19] Darwin then presented the stronger evidence that human races are all the same species, noting that when races mixed together, they intercrossed beyond the "usual test of specific distinctness"[20] and that characteristics identifying races were highly variable.[21] He put great weight on the point that races graduate into each other, writing "But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed",[22] and concluded that the stronger evidence was that they were not different species
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 23, 2019 18:58:17 GMT
Hitler was actually a Darwinian evolutionist. Most Christians are. In fact the basis for the holocaust was Darwinian ideas of human evolution. Another basis for the Holocaust was the century old antisemitism of the Christian churches.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Mar 23, 2019 19:49:29 GMT
Phludowin
Well look who did NOT study money and banking.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Mar 23, 2019 19:51:48 GMT
clusium
Despite his act of charity and bravery, he is still hated. Since when did the RCC become the world's police?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 23, 2019 20:36:41 GMT
LOL Do you know what the full title of Darwin’s most famous book is? Origin of the Species? If you're refering to "Descent of Man", that still doesn't back up your narrative, quite the opposite:
Introducing chapter seven ("On the Races of Man"), Darwin wrote "It is not my intention here to describe the several so-called races of men; but to inquire what is the value of the differences between them under a classificatory point of view, and how they have originated."[15] In answering the question of whether the races should rank as varieties of the same species or count as different species, Darwin discussed arguments which could support the idea that human races were distinct species.[16][17] This included the geographical distribution of mammal groups which was correlated with the distribution of human races,[18] and the finding of Henry Denny that different species of lice affected different races differently.[19] Darwin then presented the stronger evidence that human races are all the same species, noting that when races mixed together, they intercrossed beyond the "usual test of specific distinctness"[20] and that characteristics identifying races were highly variable.[21] He put great weight on the point that races graduate into each other, writing "But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed",[22] and concluded that the stronger evidence was that they were not different species
The origin of species is not the full title. ‘On The Origin of Species By Way of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 23, 2019 20:43:21 GMT
Origin of the Species? If you're refering to "Descent of Man", that still doesn't back up your narrative, quite the opposite:
Introducing chapter seven ("On the Races of Man"), Darwin wrote "It is not my intention here to describe the several so-called races of men; but to inquire what is the value of the differences between them under a classificatory point of view, and how they have originated."[15] In answering the question of whether the races should rank as varieties of the same species or count as different species, Darwin discussed arguments which could support the idea that human races were distinct species.[16][17] This included the geographical distribution of mammal groups which was correlated with the distribution of human races,[18] and the finding of Henry Denny that different species of lice affected different races differently.[19] Darwin then presented the stronger evidence that human races are all the same species, noting that when races mixed together, they intercrossed beyond the "usual test of specific distinctness"[20] and that characteristics identifying races were highly variable.[21] He put great weight on the point that races graduate into each other, writing "But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed",[22] and concluded that the stronger evidence was that they were not different species
The origin of species is not the full title. ‘On The Origin of Species By Way of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’ Just like according to the Bible, Israel's character as the chosen people is unconditional as it says in Deuteronomy 14:2, "For you are a holy people to YHWH your God, and God has chosen you to be his treasured people from all the nations that are on the face of the earth"?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 23, 2019 20:55:51 GMT
Origin of the Species? If you're refering to "Descent of Man", that still doesn't back up your narrative, quite the opposite:
Introducing chapter seven ("On the Races of Man"), Darwin wrote "It is not my intention here to describe the several so-called races of men; but to inquire what is the value of the differences between them under a classificatory point of view, and how they have originated."[15] In answering the question of whether the races should rank as varieties of the same species or count as different species, Darwin discussed arguments which could support the idea that human races were distinct species.[16][17] This included the geographical distribution of mammal groups which was correlated with the distribution of human races,[18] and the finding of Henry Denny that different species of lice affected different races differently.[19] Darwin then presented the stronger evidence that human races are all the same species, noting that when races mixed together, they intercrossed beyond the "usual test of specific distinctness"[20] and that characteristics identifying races were highly variable.[21] He put great weight on the point that races graduate into each other, writing "But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed",[22] and concluded that the stronger evidence was that they were not different species
The origin of species is not the full title. ‘On The Origin of Species By Way of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’ That still doesn't back up your argument, no where in "Origin of the Species" (or any of Darwins writings) is the idea of "survival of the fittest" used in regards to some races being more "evolved" than others. Darwin had some antiquated views sure, but again he still accepted all races were the same species which actually at the time was considered a radical idea amongst many.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 23, 2019 21:08:06 GMT
The origin of species is not the full title. ‘On The Origin of Species By Way of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’ That still doesn't back up your argument, no where in "Origin of the Species" (or any of Darwins writings) is the idea of "survival of the fittest" used in regards to some races being more "evolved" than others. Darwin had some antiquated views sure, but again he still accepted all races were the same species which actually at the time was considered a radical idea amongst many. LOL Have you actually read ‘The Descent of Man’?
|
|