My Finch Challenge

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I often shorten it to "The Preservation of Favoured Races," and they have a cow over it.

I guess they think they're the only ones qualified to shorten the title.

Because when you shorten it to that name, you are doing to try and elicit an emotional response from people by making it say something it doesn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because when you shorten it to that name, you are doing to try and elicit an emotional response from people by making it say something it doesn't.

They REALLY have a cow when I shorten it to:

The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Either way, it gets passed through the fire [saline] to Molech (the god of abortion/child sacrifice).

Well, mothers who want their babies don’t offer up the fruit of their body to save themselves inconvenience.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They REALLY have a cow when I shorten it to:

The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

Because you're not being sincere about it, and it's clear that you're not being sincere about it either.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, mothers who want their babies don’t offer up the fruit of their body to save themselves inconvenience.

That's true.

But if and when they decide to, they have science on their side.

(With a little help from MasterCard. )

 

[pitabread]

I believe you. The copy I have was edited removing that. You know, I only need to present one copy where it was edited because logically Im not saying all but you are saying none. One disproves your point whereas as your example fails to disprove mine.

The title typically is shorted on the book cover. But on the title page of the book that I've seen always include the full title.

I checked half a dozen different versions listed on the Kobo e-Store and they all include the "preservation of favoured races... etc" on the full title page. Oddly enough the only edit I saw was in one case they removed the "By Means of Natural Selection" phrase in the title, but they still kept the latter portion re: favoured races.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because you're not being sincere about it, and it's clear that you're not being sincere about it either.

Believe me, I'm dead serious when I use the title:

The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

Not so much, when I use the other one.

The longer title I use shows a connection to another book, and both books are, in my opinion, written by the same author.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Believe me, I'm dead serious when I use the title:

The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

Not so much, when I use the other one.

The longer title I use shows a connection to another book, and both books are, in my opinion, written by the same author.

And thus being disingenuous by making the title to say something that is it not saying. Aka lying.

 

[pitabread]

Believe me, I'm dead serious when I use the title:

The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

Not so much, when I use the other one.

The longer title I use shows a connection to another book, and both books are, in my opinion, written by the same author.

You do understand that the title "favoured races" doesn't strictly refer to human races, yes? And that Darwin uses the term "races" to refer to various species in Origin, yes?

You have actually read Origin, haven't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

And thus being disingenuous by making the title to say something that is it not saying. Aka lying.

I see.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

I give up. None is so blind as those who refuse to see.

Why don't you have Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft or at least the English Swiss Confederation on your profile? Is there a significant reason? Has anything changed or are you just using the current colloquial term?

 

[AV1611VET]

You do understand that the title "favoured races" doesn't strictly refer to human races, yes? And that Darwin uses the term "races" to refer to various species in Origin, yes?

That is correct.

QV: Post 212

You have actually read Origin, haven't you?

Negative.

 

[HitchSlap]

That is correct.

QV: Post 212
Negative.

You haven't read it, but you fetishize about it?

 

[pitabread]

Negative.

Exactly.

 

[AV1611VET]

You haven't read it, but you fetishize about it?

Only the title, my friend, only the title.

That's all I need.

 

[pitabread]

Only the title, my friend, only the title.

That's all I need.

Why not read the book itself?

 

[Phred]

That has to be the writings of an atheist who understands nothing of what it means to follow the teachings of christ, a christian, and freely says others lie who disagree with their point. I always find this scary. Christians allow atheists to have their viewpoint but the atheist can be quite intolerant of christians with a different point of view. It’s “disagree with me and you are of bad character (lie).”

Stop trying to blame lying on something other than lying. Slavers were Christian. There were no people back then who were anything else. So you can rant about me all you want but there's truth and there are lies. I'm not the one spreading lies to try and pretend that Christians weren't selling human beings into bondage.

 

[Phred]

You mean like distorting "child in the womb" to "fetus" to justify abortion?

The facts of abortion are that a woman can do with her body whatever she wants. The fetus/baby dies if she chooses abortion and that's regrettable. But whatever it is it has no rights. Just as I don't have the right to demand that you donate blood to me even if I will die without it. That law has been settled for a very, very long time. We can't even take organs from dead people without their permission but you insist that a fetus/baby (whatever you want to call it) has the right to take blood and fluids and nutrients from a woman without her consent. That's simply not right. She is an adult woman (in most cases) and has the right to decide if she wants to be pregnant or not. If that embryo/fetus/zygote/baby dies because she refuses to give it time in her body that's sad but it's her decision. Not yours. Certainly not the government's.

You want to call it a baby because that tugs on emotional heart strings and makes your case to force her to give birth easier. It's all based upon the belief that a soul enters this "whatever" at the moment of conception. You can't even tell me when that is. You can't give me evidence that a "soul" exists.

So I'll tell you what. I'll defend your right to give birth anytime you get pregnant. I'll defend anyone's right to give birth anytime they want. But it's also anyone's right to not be pregnant. One thing we should be doing is teaching kids about contraception. Something else you folks are working against.

Is there any rational course of action you're not against?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Stop trying to blame lying on something other than lying.

What do you suggest blaming lying on?

Slavers were Christian. There were no people back then who were anything else. So you can rant about me all you want but there's truth and there are lies. I'm not the one spreading lies to try and pretend that Christians weren't selling human beings into bondage.

As I said, USA slave owners and sellers and buyers we’re definitely NOT following the biblical instructions on slavery. I know you don’t like those facts but that is the truth.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Why don't you have Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft or at least the English Swiss Confederation on your profile? Is there a significant reason? Has anything changed or are you just using the current colloquial term?

How is this a part of the discussion?