NONONONONONONONO
no evolution deniers nooooooooooo
no evolution deniers nooooooooooo
If so, then you are conflating the phenomenon with the explanation that applies that phenomenon.
Wouldn't you agree?
Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang>jurota i refuse to pay my taxes is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win tax is the best thing ever happened to us they tried to kill trump because he's the good guy trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
Do you think dismissing one attempted explanation of History of life on earth and how it evolved is tantamount to dismissing evolution as an empirical phenomenon of biological change over time altogether?
If so, then you are conflating the phenomenon with the explanation that applies that phenomenon.
Wouldn't you agree?
If so, then you are conflating the phenomenon with the explanation that applies that phenomenon.
Wouldn't you agree?
Nah you just twisting what eugenics is AND what dawkiks is saying. Really pathetic
You are missing the key point of eugenics being about selecting heritable traits. In this case the abortion is about selecting the parent that has unfavorable heritable traits. Down syndrome generally isnt heritable, and he isnt talking about forced abortion, just that in his opinion its immoral not to get an abortion of there is prior knowledge of the condition.
Seems like you missed the "repeatedly confirmed" part of scientific theories.
And what parts exactly are you rejecting?
There isnt anything backing up creationism either.
Post automatically merged:
You are missing the key point of eugenics being about selecting heritable traits. In this case the abortion is about selecting the parent that has unfavorable heritable traits. Down syndrome generally isnt heritable, and he isnt talking about forced abortion, just that in his opinion its immoral not to get an abortion of there is prior knowledge of the condition.
Post automatically merged:
Seems like you missed the "repeatedly confirmed" part of scientific theories.
And what parts exactly are you rejecting?
Post automatically merged:
There isnt anything backing up creationism either.
Last edited:
Hep @Bob74h and all the anti-woke soldiers. A new set of 6 studies just dropped about feminists's attitudes toward men:
It turns out that the mysandry attitude of feminist toward men is a myth:
- Sum up of the set of studies on twitter:
- Link toward the set of studies: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03616843231202708
I mean, if you are gonna ignore a litteral paragraph of description of what negative eugenics practices are and how the comment of Dawkins is reflecting this vision.. go for it mate, I won't stop you. Well.. unless of course this vision becomes institutionnal in the future and creates eugenic policies in which case this will mean war, but we are not there yet :)
Selecting heritable traits can be done by different manners. Forced, positive and negative eugenism.
Nazi germany used all of them : Positive eugenism concerning the "aryan race" where reproduction between people considered "pure" were encouraged to reproduce (in fact a specificity of fascism are the pro-natalist policies) and negative eugenism was used to prevent children with "conditions" from being born. Meaning sterilization of the "impure" but also compaign of abortion of the foetus with potential genetics diseases.
Wether or not down syndrome is genetically heritable or not is not the point. The point is that Dawkins in his comment considered this condition as a disability and not a life worth living the same way eugenics at the time were considering lives with disabilities "not worth living"
So, wether you like it or not, Dawkins's vision was eugenistic. This is one of a reasons why we should be careful with the words of members of the "new atheism" movement and their followers on social medias.
It turns out that the mysandry attitude of feminist toward men is a myth:
- Sum up of the set of studies on twitter:
- Link toward the set of studies: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03616843231202708
I mean, if you are gonna ignore a litteral paragraph of description of what negative eugenics practices are and how the comment of Dawkins is reflecting this vision.. go for it mate, I won't stop you. Well.. unless of course this vision becomes institutionnal in the future and creates eugenic policies in which case this will mean war, but we are not there yet :)
Selecting heritable traits can be done by different manners. Forced, positive and negative eugenism.
Nazi germany used all of them : Positive eugenism concerning the "aryan race" where reproduction between people considered "pure" were encouraged to reproduce (in fact a specificity of fascism are the pro-natalist policies) and negative eugenism was used to prevent children with "conditions" from being born. Meaning sterilization of the "impure" but also compaign of abortion of the foetus with potential genetics diseases.
Wether or not down syndrome is genetically heritable or not is not the point. The point is that Dawkins in his comment considered this condition as a disability and not a life worth living the same way eugenics at the time were considering lives with disabilities "not worth living"
So, wether you like it or not, Dawkins's vision was eugenistic. This is one of a reasons why we should be careful with the words of members of the "new atheism" movement and their followers on social medias.
Oh, we're back with the pseudointellectual speech with lots of Latin & Greek words
You can debate and attempt exegesis all you want, evolution won't go away my bunny. You said alot of nothing in that post.
You can debate and attempt exegesis all you want, evolution won't go away my bunny. You said alot of nothing in that post.
Evolution (phenomenon) and Evolution (theory) are the same thing? And also disbelieving in any version of Evolution (theory) is disbelieving in empirical Evolution (observable phenomenon)
If so.. We can stop this right here, because you're just embarrassing yourself by not even making the slightest mental effort in understanding how much on an idiot your look like calling this psudo-science.
Yeah thats not whats happening. But have fun with your fanfiction
Uhm yes it is, because eugenics is about heritable traits.
Thats not the only factor to his opinion, but sure.
And i disagree with that. But thats still not eugenics xD
Nah, a statement stands regardless of who is saying it. Thats why attacking the character of a person in response is a fallacy.
And your attack was retarded on top of it.
I guess you arent willing to respond to my points or questions. . .
Yes obviously the theory is =/= the phenomenon.
But you still seemingly missed the part of scientific theories being repeatadly confirmed. A scientific theory is as good as it gets. And before you bring up scientific laws, there is a law and a theory of gravity. Laws arent above theories in hierarchy.
There is no need to "believe" evidence. But if by "logical evidence" you mean philosophical mumbojumbo, then yeah thats not evidence in scientific context. There is zero evidence for creationism. Creationists really just do personal incredulity on evolution.
And since i think this is where this is going:
Humans are great apes, primates, mammals and chordates
I guess i managed without adhom
I think he is trying to get at evolution being a thing, but the theory not being perfect.
Or he is trying to get at ridiculous macro/micro evolution nonsense.
Post automatically merged:
Uhm yes it is, because eugenics is about heritable traits.
Post automatically merged:
Thats not the only factor to his opinion, but sure.
And i disagree with that. But thats still not eugenics xD
Post automatically merged:
Nah, a statement stands regardless of who is saying it. Thats why attacking the character of a person in response is a fallacy.
And your attack was retarded on top of it.
Post automatically merged:
I guess you arent willing to respond to my points or questions. . .
Yes obviously the theory is =/= the phenomenon.
But you still seemingly missed the part of scientific theories being repeatadly confirmed. A scientific theory is as good as it gets. And before you bring up scientific laws, there is a law and a theory of gravity. Laws arent above theories in hierarchy.
There is no need to "believe" evidence. But if by "logical evidence" you mean philosophical mumbojumbo, then yeah thats not evidence in scientific context. There is zero evidence for creationism. Creationists really just do personal incredulity on evolution.
And since i think this is where this is going:
Humans are great apes, primates, mammals and chordates
I guess i managed without adhom
Post automatically merged:
Oh, we're back with the pseudointellectual speech with lots of Latin & Greek words
You can debate and attempt exegesis all you want, evolution won't go away my bunny. You said alot of nothing in that post.
You can debate and attempt exegesis all you want, evolution won't go away my bunny. You said alot of nothing in that post.
Or he is trying to get at ridiculous macro/micro evolution nonsense.
Last edited:
We're already getting to a rough start with your arrogance, wanting answers to tangential quesitons without really addressing the comment you replied to. Humble yourself , if you wanna move along with this discussion.. Its either we respect each other or we don't talk at all.
So yes the phenomenon observed isn't equivalent to a theory nice.. So Lolsis is logically incorrect @Bisoromi Bear remember this and don't embarrass yourself like that again.
Moving on
I didn't miss any part matter the fact my comment had nothing to do with anything you stated.. Whether or not I hold your opinion or subscribe to my own on the matter you just raised has nothing to with the logical fallacy Lolsis fell into by conflating rejection with theory to rejection observable phenomenon.
So don't jump the gas pedal we can take this slowly and comprehensively
Now this has become a completely different discussion. I don't get why you're assuming that i don't know that theories are tested, assessed, backed by observable evidence , and rectified. I know scientific theories is as good as it gets in science given the amount of data present to provide the best possible explanations given that limited evidnece at hand. Are you saying that these theories represent absolute truth of the reality?
Why are you assuming there needs to be a scientific evidence for everything..and it isn't the universal standard for evidnece
That's isn't the only form of evidnece
There are various types.
https://www.indeed.com/career-advic...ng and,make conclusions with logical evidence.
So yes the phenomenon observed isn't equivalent to a theory nice.. So Lolsis is logically incorrect @Bisoromi Bear remember this and don't embarrass yourself like that again.
Moving on
I didn't miss any part matter the fact my comment had nothing to do with anything you stated.. Whether or not I hold your opinion or subscribe to my own on the matter you just raised has nothing to with the logical fallacy Lolsis fell into by conflating rejection with theory to rejection observable phenomenon.
So don't jump the gas pedal we can take this slowly and comprehensively
Now this has become a completely different discussion. I don't get why you're assuming that i don't know that theories are tested, assessed, backed by observable evidence , and rectified. I know scientific theories is as good as it gets in science given the amount of data present to provide the best possible explanations given that limited evidnece at hand. Are you saying that these theories represent absolute truth of the reality?
Post automatically merged:
Why are you assuming there needs to be a scientific evidence for everything..and it isn't the universal standard for evidnece
That's isn't the only form of evidnece
There are various types.
https://www.indeed.com/career-advic...ng and,make conclusions with logical evidence.
not like he actually said that though.
and you stated "attempted explanation". that kinda does sound like you are missing the part of it being confirmed, repeatedly.
what opinion? i was just outlining what a scientific theory is. there was no opinion involved
this is why i assumed that:
i bolded the juicy parts
fair enough to an extent, this is highly dependent on the premises though.
well if someone makes extraordinary claims about a supernatural being, ye i need actual tangible empirical evidence if you dont want me to go hitchens razor on you and refer to the sagan standard
and you stated "attempted explanation". that kinda does sound like you are missing the part of it being confirmed, repeatedly.
Post automatically merged:
what opinion? i was just outlining what a scientific theory is. there was no opinion involved
Post automatically merged:
this is why i assumed that:
i bolded the juicy parts
Post automatically merged:
fair enough to an extent, this is highly dependent on the premises though.
Post automatically merged:
well if someone makes extraordinary claims about a supernatural being, ye i need actual tangible empirical evidence if you dont want me to go hitchens razor on you and refer to the sagan standard
Last edited:
