Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,243
- 7,491
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nobody expects you to.
No matter how much you may agree with Wells, you still haven't shown that Darwin did. Considering he didn't, you have quite the challenge.
You have not made a case.Nobody expects you to.
A sniveling insinuation, a cheap shot.No matter how much you may agree with Wells,
The quotes have been provided. Wells was simply applying Darwin.you still haven't shown that Darwin did. Considering he didn't, you have quite the challenge.
I was addressing primary sources. Darwin himself.
It is a secondary source.No, fact. And had you actually read, instead of mine for out of context quotes, you'd know it too..
He also believed that inferiority was the result of societal, not biological, influences.
Then prove it wrong. Prove it is misapplied, Darwin.Opinion.
This is the context of your quote.Well, in the case of religion, "should be" according to God.
It is evolution, not religion. You pulled your own quote out of context and responded to your contrived phantom. So tell us what should be according to evolution? Why were they wrong? Other than your opinion?Evolution, like all science, is descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes what is, not what should be.
Then prove it wrong. Prove it is misapplied Darwin.
It is a secondary source.
Prove it. That being since he certainly did address biological differences.
It is evolution, not religion. You pulled your own quote out of context and responded to your contrived phantom.
So tell us what should be according to evolution? Why were they wrong? Other than your opinion?
@dmmesdale, are you going to show us where exactly Darwin said that white people should wipe out non-whites?
Why, so you can move the goalposts, again? The race, tribe quotes were provided. Later, they were applied.@dmmesdale, are you going to show us where exactly Darwin said that white people should wipe out non-whites?
Why, so you can move the goalposts, again? The race, tribe quotes were provided. Later, they were applied.
It is called moving the goalposts. What about that are you not understanding?No, how about you actually show us where, EXPLICITLY, Darwin said that the white man must kill non-whites.
Nothing. Evolution makes no argument over what should be. It only describes what is.
Is it so hard to understand?
It is called moving the goalposts. What about that are you not understanding?
No believer comes here for assessments by nonbelievers. Fiction is not science and Darwin is certainly not empirical science. If you wish to do assessments then start your own thread.Since believers have religious books that are prescriptive and they seem to view scientific writings as a sort of 'religious text' for those who accept science, I wonder if they then also view such writings as prescriptive.
It would explain a lot, I think.
No believer comes here for assessments by nonbelievers. Fiction is not science and Darwin is certainly not empirical science. If you wish to do assessments then start your own thread.
I provided the quote pages ago. Now you are moving the goalposts and denying you are. He does not have to be explicit. His quotes are explicit enough to justify races exterminating races.No, it's me wanting you to be clear. Where does Darwin say, explicitly, that whites should kill non-whites? Because all I read from his work is that the group/groups more adapted to living in a certain area while replace those not adapted to living in that area.
I provided the quote pages ago. Now you are moving the goalposts and denying you are. He does not have to be explicit. His quotes are explicit enough to justify races exterminating races.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?