Evolution and Racism

[DavWan]

Well Barbarian, I see you have no interest in discussing this reasonably.

Darwin advocated controlling the reproduction of inferior persons. You on the other hand, seem to want to argue that any Eugenics that is not Nazi is not eugenics (or else phrase things very poorly).

This is asinine, and it demonstrates you seem to have no idea of what was advocated from Eugenists. The Nazis did the “hard” version of eugenics. In America and Europe of the 19th century, we had the soft version. Sterilization of the retarded and preventing some people from marrying, which comes close to what Darwin spoke of.

Reading your post I see no attempts to even address what I was talking about. You make use of the amphiboly and the No True Scotsman, as well as the Strawman fallacies. I cannot even recognize a logical response to what I said.

I never said you were evil. I pointed out the fallacies in your philosophies that color your science. That includes the ad hominems.

However this response indicates you will not take part in an honest discussion. Since you haven’t even addressed my points, but instead went on with your misinterpretations of what I said, there is no point to debate any longer.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Well Barbarian, I see you have no interest in discussing this reasonably.

(Barbarian won’t accept Dav’s assertions, so he is being “unreasonable”)

Darwin advocated controlling the reproduction of inferior persons.

I asked you to show us, but you declined to do that.

You on the other hand, seem to want to argue that any Eugenics that is not Nazi is not eugenics (or else phrase things very poorly).

I said that? (Barbarian checks) Nope. Another DavWan misrepresentation.

This is asinine, and it demonstrates you seem to have no idea of what was advocated from Eugenists.

Well, you know how dumb barbarians are…

The Nazis did the “hard” version of eugenics. In America and Europe of the 19th century, we had the soft version. Sterilization of the retarded and preventing some people from marrying, which comes close to what Darwin spoke of.

“Comes close to what Darwin spoke of.” Pretty weak stuff, considering where you started. You’re drifting farther and farther from your first assertions.

Reading your post I see no attempts to even address what I was talking about. You make use of the amphiboly and the No True Scotsman, as well as the Strawman fallacies.

When you first accused me of them, you seemed to have only the vaguest idea of what those things meant.

Only after I pointed this out to you, did you change your argument.

However this response indicates you will not take part in an honest discussion.

Maybe you should accuse me of ad hom, once more, just for good measure.

Since you haven’t even addressed my points, but instead went on with your misinterpretations of what I said

Nope. No sense of irony at all.

 

[DavWan]

:yawn:

 

[Steeltemplar]

Barbarian, I think that if you were a little more pleasant and less sarcastic here, then the discussion with Dav might go better.

Also…perhaps you should stop referring to yourself in the third person. You may think it clever, but I suspect that it does not come off that way.

 

[Namesake]

Barbarian, I think that if you were a little more pleasant and less sarcastic here, then the discussion with Dav might go better.

Also…perhaps you should stop referring to yourself in the third person. You may think it clever, but I suspect that it does not come off that way.

OK, I just gotta chime in here. I think Barbarian has been quite helpful and has not offered an ad hominum attack at all.

What I think has happened is that Dav has been roundly defeated in a debate and he just can’t admit that he is wrong.

The fact of the matter is that Darwin repudiated eugenics clearly. That can be understood if one reads the whole of the literature. That’s what Barbarian has tried so hard to point out.

 

[Steeltemplar]

OK, I just gotta chime in here. I think Barbarian has been quite helpful and has not offered an ad hominum attack at all.

What I think has happened is that Dav has been roundly defeated in a debate and he just can’t admit that he is wrong.

The fact of the matter is that Darwin repudiated eugenics clearly. That can be understood if one reads the whole of the literature. That’s what Barbarian has tried so hard to point out.

I really don’t see that. However, I do see Barbarian being pretty snide - which even if he were right is unnecessary. And, honestly, he does that a lot on these forums and others.

 

[Namesake]

I really don’t see that. However, I do see Barbarian being pretty snide - which even if he were right is unnecessary. And, honestly, he does that a lot on these forums and others.

I can understand how it could be interpreted as snide. However, he is correct in his facts. Often it comes off as snide when it’s really just very well informed and direct. It isn’t pleasant being shown how wrong one is, and that’s all he has done. He tells the truth and people really ought to pay attention.

 

[Steeltemplar]

I can understand how it could be interpreted as snide. However, he is correct in his facts. Often it comes off as snide when it’s really just very well informed and direct. It isn’t pleasant being shown how wrong one is, and that’s all he has done. He tells the truth and people really ought to pay attention.

I was not in this debate and I thought he was being snide. That does not really fit with your theory. I am, after all, not being shown “how wrong” I am.

 

[Steeltemplar]

I was wondering…what do you all make of this letter from Charles Darwin to Francis Galton?

galton.org/letters/darwin/correspondence.htm

LETTER 412. TO FRANCIS GALTON.

Down, January 4th, 1873.

Very many thanks for "Fraser" (412/1. "Hereditary Improvement," by Francis Galton, "Fraser's Magazine," January 1873, page 116.): I have been greatly interested by your article. The idea of castes being spontaneously formed and leading to intermarriage (412/2. "My object is to build up, by the mere process of extensive enquiry and publication of results, a sentiment of caste among those who are naturally gifted, and to procure for them, before the system has fairly taken root, such moderate social favours and preference, no more no less, as would seem reasonable to those who were justly informed of the precise measure of their importance to the nation" (loc. cit., page 123).) is quite new to me, and I should suppose to others. I am not, however, so hopeful as you. Your proposed Society (412/3. Mr. Galton proposes that "Some society should undertake three scientific services: the first, by means of a moderate number of influential local agencies, to institute continuous enquiries into the facts of human heredity; the second to be a centre of information on heredity for breeders of animals and plants; and the third to discuss and classify the facts that were collected" (loc. cit., page 124).) would have awfully laborious work, and I doubt whether you could ever get efficient workers. As it is, there is much concealment of insanity and wickedness in families; and there would be more if there was a register. But the greatest difficulty, I think, would be in deciding who deserved to be on the register. How few are above mediocrity in health, strength, morals and intellect; and how difficult to judge on these latter heads. As far as I see, within the same large superior family, only a few of the children would deserve to be on the register; and these would naturally stick to their own families, so that the superior children of distinct families would have no good chance of associating much and forming a caste. Though I see so much difficulty, the object seems a grand one; and you have pointed out the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race. I should be inclined to trust more (and this is part of your plan) to disseminating and insisting on the importance of the all-important principle of inheritance. I will make one or two minor criticisms. Is it not possible that the inhabitants of malarious countries owe their degraded and miserable appearance to the bad atmosphere, though this does not kill them, rather than to "economy of structure"? I do not see that an orthognathous face would cost more than a prognathous face; or a good morale than a bad one. That is a fine simile (page 119) about the chip of a statue (412/4. "...The life of the individual is treated as of absolutely no importance, while the race is as everything; Nature being wholly careless of the former except as a contributor to the maintenance and evolution of the latter. Myriads of inchoate lives are produced in what, to our best judgment, seems a wasteful and reckless manner, in order that a few selected specimens may survive, and be the parents of the next generation. It is as though individual lives were of no more consideration than are the senseless chips which fall from the chisel of the artist who is elaborating some ideal form from a rude block" (loc. cit., page 119).); but surely Nature does not more carefully regard races than individuals, as (I believe I have misunderstood what you mean) evidenced by the multitude of races and species which have become extinct. Would it not be truer to say that Nature cares only for the superior individuals and then makes her new and better races? But we ought both to shudder in using so freely the word "Nature" (412/5. See Letter 190, Volume I.) after what De Candolle has said. Again let me thank you for the interest received in reading your essay.

Many thanks about the rabbits; your letter has been sent to Balfour: he is a very clever young man, and I believe owes his cleverness to Salisbury blood. This letter will not be worth your deciphering. I have almost finished Greg's "Enigmas." (412/6. "The Enigmas of Life," 1872.) It is grand poetry--but too Utopian and too full of faith for me; so that I have been rather disappointed. What do you think about it? He must be a delightful man.

I doubt whether you have made clear how the families on the Register are to be kept pure or superior, and how they are to be in course of time still further improved.

 

[Namesake]

I was wondering…what do you all make of this letter from Charles Darwin to Francis Galton?

galton.org/letters/darwin/correspondence.htm

Basically he is saying in a reasonably nice way that Galton is probably barking up the wrong tree and there is no way his ideas are worth a hoot.

 

[Steeltemplar]

Basically he is saying in a reasonably nice way that Galton is probably barking up the wrong tree and there is no way his ideas are worth a hoot.

What do you think he means by this?

Though I see so much difficulty, the object seems a grand one; and you have pointed out the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race.

 

[Namesake]

What do you think he means by this?

I think he means the idea is overly exuberant (grand) and unrealistic (Utopian).

 

[Steeltemplar]

I think he means the idea is overly exuberant (grand) and unrealistic (Utopian).

I got that.

What I am getting at is this: Does this mean that he approves of the idea, just thinks it is unfeasible?

 

[Namesake]

I got that.

What I am getting at is this: Does this mean that he approves of the idea, just thinks it is unfeasible?

He is being nice. He doesn’t approve of the idea because it is too far reaching and it isn’t reasonable. Utopia doesn’t exist and is therefore unrealistic.

I suppose you would be more comfortable if he had lashed out about the idea. What you need to keep in mind is that Charles Darwin was a very gentle man. He didn’t lash out. In fact he delayed publishing his discovery of natural selection because he was very concerned about the damage it could do.

What you are observing is Darwin being a gentleman and still discouraging further pursuit of eugenics. It’s kind of subtle though so I understand why some people get a little confused. He was subtle because he was a gentleman.

 

[Steeltemplar]

He is being nice. He doesn’t approve of the idea because it is too far reaching and it isn’t reasonable. Utopia doesn’t exist and is therefore unrealistic.

I suppose you would be more comfortable if he had lashed out about the idea. What you need to keep in mind is that Charles Darwin was a very gentle man. He didn’t lash out. In fact he delayed publishing his discovery of natural selection because he was very concerned about the damage it could do.

What you are observing is Darwin being a gentleman and still discouraging further pursuit of eugenics. It’s kind of subtle though so I understand why some people get a little confused. He was subtle because he was a gentleman.

I could see that reading of it, yes. Thanks for looking at it with me.

 

[Namesake]

I could see that reading of it, yes. Thanks for looking at it with me.

Apparently you are a gentleman too. Thank you for such a kind exchange.

 

[Steeltemplar]

Apparently you are a gentleman too. Thank you for such a kind exchange.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian, I think that if you were a little more pleasant and less sarcastic here, then the discussion with Dav might go better.

Dav was, as you probably noticed, pretty quick with ad hom whenever facts got him frustrated. For people like that, bluntness works better than anything else.

Even if I had been completely passive to his accusations, he wouldn’t have changed.

Also…perhaps you should stop referring to yourself in the third person.

Barbarian observes:
A long habit, from usenet, where formatting was less informative. Not likely to change.

You may think it clever, but I suspect that it does not come off that way.

Never thought of it as “clever.” Merely a convenience. That brings up an interesting point:

snide (snīd) adj. snid·er, snid·est
Derogatory in a malicious, superior way.

Just saying…

 

[Steeltemplar]

Never thought of it as “clever.” Merely a convenience.

How is it convenient?

 

[The_Barbarian]

It was a way of keeping the conversation clear on the NGs. Formatting is primitive there.

It became a habit, and that’s what I do. It hurts no one, and it’s comfortable for me.