The Final Solution

[bhsmte]

It is not my opinion. It's all a part evolution theory. "The idea of "social Darwinism" originated in the class stratification of England, and has often been used as a general term for any evolutionary argument about the biological basis of human differences. Drawing on social Darwinism, supporters of the 20th-century eugenics movement sought to "improve" human genetic stock, much as farmers do in agriculture."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/

The only think that matters about scientific theories, is whether they make accurate predictions and have empirical evidence to support them.

Just like all the scientific theories, you rely on everyday of your life.

You are anti-evolution we get it. Your personal faith belief requires you to deny and demonize the theory. Bad news though, no matter how hard you try to do the same, the theory isn't going anywhere. I am quite sure, this causes great turmoil for you.

 

[Loudmouth]

For a bit of background on this tired old argument . . .

In philosophical ethics, the term "naturalistic fallacy" was introduced by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica.[1] Moore argues it would be fallacious to explain that which is good reductively in terms of natural properties such as "pleasant" or "desirable".

Moore's naturalistic fallacy is closely related to the is–ought problem, which comes from Hume's Treatise. However, unlike Hume's view of the is–ought problem, Moore (and other proponents of ethical non-naturalism) did not consider the naturalistic fallacy to be at odds with moral realism.

The phrase "naturalistic fallacy" can also be used to refer to the fallacious appeal to nature, a mistaken claim that something is good or right because it is natural (or bad or wrong because it is unnatural). See below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy​

 

[joshua 1 9]

The only think that matters about scientific theories, is whether they make accurate predictions and have empirical evidence to support them.

We are talking about policy in the health care profession. Perhaps at some levels people are not allowed to question when, where or how these policies are developed. That does not change the fact that health care is very policy oriented. I had a very close friend that was a nurse and she felt she had to quit her job and get out of nursing at least in the hospitals because a part of her job was to kill people that did not meet the guidelines to keep them going. How do we decide who does and who does not have the right to live? It is determined by policy that is to some degree influenced by Social Darwinism concept that some are more worthy of life then others.

 

[Armoured]

We are talking about policy in the health care profession. Perhaps at some levels people are not allowed to question when, where or how these policies are developed. That does not change the fact that health care is very policy oriented. I had a very close friend that was a nurse and she felt she had to quit her job and get out of nursing at least in the hospitals because a part of her job was to kill people that did not meet the guidelines to keep them going. How do we decide who does and who does not have the right to live? It is determined by policy that is to some degree influenced by Social Darwinism concept that some are more worthy of life then others.

*ugh* why can I not look away?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Irrelevant.

That is it, that is the only defense you can muster up to defend your cause? That is the best you can do?

 

[Loudmouth]

We are talking about policy in the health care profession.

You aren't talking about the theory of evolution which never states that we should kill the less fit. Stop side stepping the issue.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is it, that is the only defense you can muster up to defend your cause? That is the best you can do?

There is nothing to defend. Your misconceptions of the theory do not impact the theory itself. The problem is that you are using Hitler as your filter for what is moral.

 

[bhsmte]

We are talking about policy in the health care profession. Perhaps at some levels people are not allowed to question when, where or how these policies are developed. That does not change the fact that health care is very policy oriented. I had a very close friend that was a nurse and she felt she had to quit her job and get out of nursing at least in the hospitals because a part of her job was to kill people that did not meet the guidelines to keep them going. How do we decide who does and who does not have the right to live? It is determined by policy that is to some degree influenced by Social Darwinism concept that some are more worthy of life then others.

Wow, can you make more stuff up, out of thin air.

I have been in healthcare for over 20 years and NO ONE decides who lives or dies or has part of their job to be to kill people.

The turmoil you have inside, in regards to a theory you must demonize, is getting the best of you.

 

[Armoured]

You aren't talking about the theory of evolution which never states that we should kill the less fit. Stop side stepping the issue.

Nor is he talking about "policy in the health care profession".

 

[Loudmouth]

*ugh* why can I not look away?

It's the ethics version of a car wreck.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I am still waiting for you to show us where it says that we should kill the less fit within the theory of evolution.

You do not see the connection between social Darwinism and ethnic cleansing? This is rather elementary stuff, maybe you are overlooking it because of its simplicity. This was the attitude in Nazi Germany, they tried to ignore that there was a problem. Even there are people that deny the Holocaust ever happened. In some countries this sort of denial is against the law.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I have been in healthcare for over 20 years and NO ONE decides who lives or dies or has part of their job to be to kill people.

The decision has been made before you get them. In general when they kill someone they do it under the pretense that they are giving them pain killer to make them a little bit more comfortable. As you know there can be a thin line there between enough to ease the pain and pushing them over the line.

To be sure this is my own personal conviction. The Bible says to choose life, so that is what I believe. They have living wills so people are given the choice to end their life if they want. I had a friend that had a stroke and he could not talk. He had a living will and his wife executed it and they cut off his water and he dehydrated and died. I did not agree with it. But I was not a part the decision to allow him to die from lack of water. We are told: " "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink."

 

[Loudmouth]

You do not see the connection between social Darwinism and ethnic cleansing?

Where is the connection between the theory of evolution, social Darwinism, and ethnic cleansing? You are the one who claims there is a connection, so let's see it. Where in the theory of evolution does it say that we should kill or sterilize the less fit?

 

[Armoured]

You do not see the connection between social Darwinism and ethnic cleansing? This is rather elementary stuff, maybe you are overlooking it because of its simplicity. This was the attitude in Nazi Germany, they tried to ignore that there was a problem. Even there are people that deny the Holocaust ever happened. In some countries this sort of denial is against the law.

Social Darwinism is not Darwinism. The Theory of Evolution is precisely as culpable for ethnic cleansing as the Theory of Gravity is for a murderer throwing someone off a roof.

 

[bhsmte]

The decision has been made before you get them.

What decision and by whom?

 

[Armoured]

The decision has been made before you get them.

This is getting ridiculous. People are trying to have a real conversation with you. You could do them the basic common courtesy of not doing... whatever it is you're doing.

 

[bhsmte]

This is getting ridiculous. People are trying to have a real conversation with you. You could do them the basic common courtesy of not doing... whatever it is you're doing.

Serious desperation is setting in.

 

[Loudmouth]

What we have is one of the most basic logical fallacies, an appeal to nature. Just because something is natural does not make it good or moral. Deadly infections happen naturally. Does this mean we should do nothing to stop them, or even encourage them? No. We fight against natural processes all of the time. We dam rivers to stop them from flooding. We build shelters to keep us out of the elements. We treat people with ailments that occur naturally. To simply point to the fact that the less fit tend not to reproduce as much does not mean we should encourage that process.

It's such a simple concept, yet those who want to smear a theory they don't like seem to not understand it.

 

[bhsmte]

Great material in this thread for; fundies say the darndest things.

 

[Armoured]

Great material in this thread for; fundies say the darndest things.

Are they still going?