Richard Dawkins says Nazi Eugenics "May Not Be Bad"

  • Thread starter Thread starter PoG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WanderAimlessly said:
The Culture of Death is getting more embolden and are starting to show their true colors and source of some of their ideologies. Hopefully, it will be the beginning of the end for the purveyors of these attrocities.
Click to expand...
Please show me proof of your wild allegation that everyone who doesn’t agree with you thinks and talks just like that.
 
Liberalsaved said:
It seems like he doesn’t want religion taught as scientific theory in school. Makes perfect sense to me. The supernatural and science aren’t incompatible in personal beleifs, but they are in the classroom. We have schools for reading, writing, mathematics, science. We have churches for religion.
Click to expand...
I suspct the churches see they are losing folks when they rely on their religious message alone to attract people. So, they are trying to secure the services of the government in spreading their messege. This has a very long history.
 
Liberalsaved said:
Anti-religion extremist? Oh well, I have no real opinion on him, but I don’t expect anything from lifesite to be any more balanced than if there were a paper called “Atheists rock”.
Click to expand...
Liberal-

With all due respect, I think you are proving our point here. For you to claim no real opinion on Dawkins even after all that has been carefully posted for your own review? It’s a bit depraved IMHO 😦 the lengths people will go to in order to justify their own abortion, eugenic and anti-God ideologies.

I just hope for their own sakes these ideas, taken logically further, won’t be their own demise.
 
Can someone summarize what is wrong with managing human reproduction to produce stonger, smarter, and healthier offspring? There is no need to force anyone to do this. It would be perfectly voluntary. Is there an ethical objection? Religious objection?
 
Jennifer123 said:
Liberal-

With all due respect, I think you are proving our point here. For you to claim no real opinion on Dawkins even after all that has been carefully posted for your own review? It’s a bit depraved IMHO 😦 the lengths people will go to in order to justify their own abortion, eugenic and anti-God ideologies.

I just hope for their own sakes these ideas, taken logically further, won’t be their own demise.
Click to expand...
I don’t share his ideas, but I don’t care that he has them. He has a point that makes logical sense, I suppose. On the other hand, eugenics are all about throwing over indivduality for the sake pf perfection. It can be seen either way.
 
PoG said:
You can take what I post or leave it, sir. You can follow the sources or ignore them. It’s your soul.

Evolutionism (from the Dictionary of the History of Ideas)
etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-21
Click to expand...
How about this question.

Do you have any thoughts and ideas of your own rather than all this cut-n-paste you are doing of other’s ideas and thoughts and putting up links to other websites.

What do you think of Pope John Paul II saying that evolution is possible and that there is much evidence for it, but that it must have been started by and guided by God.
 
Dawkins said:
“I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them,” Dawkins wrote Sunday.
Click to expand...

I did want to address this individually. This is the part that seems logical to me.

I share Hoppity’s question; what does this have to do with Catholic teaching? I suspect I know, but I’d like to hear some takes on it.
 
WanderAimlessly said:
The Culture of Death is getting more embolden and are starting to show their true colors and source of some of their ideologies. Hopefully, it will be the beginning of the end for the purveyors of these attrocities.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Keep an eye out for the Fourth Reich. I’m looking directly at George Soros.
 
BobCatholic said:
Agreed.

Keep an eye out for the Fourth Reich. I’m looking directly at George Soros.
Click to expand...
OK, I’m trying to be fair here. But you are lumping a lot of good, intelligent, well-meaning people into one camp and calling them Nazis. Is it too much to ask those who want respect also show it?
 
40.png
Dawkins:
“I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them,” Dawkins wrote Sunday.
Click to expand...
The moral difference is simple.

We don’t kill those who don’t play music well, or don’t run well, or don’t jump high. You take your kid to music lessons, and if he doesn’t play good enough, we don’t kill him.

But since Dawkins thinks abortion is OK, thus he can’t see the moral difference.
 
BobCatholic said:
The moral difference is simple.

We don’t kill those who don’t play music well, or don’t run well, or don’t jump high. You take your kid to music lessons, and if he doesn’t play good enough, we don’t kill him.

But since Dawkins thinks abortion is OK, thus he can’t see the moral difference.
Click to expand...
Oh, come now. You’re making a huge leap of logic between what he says. You can’t asusme that because he discusses eugenics, he wants to kill those who don’t perform.
 
Liberalsaved said:
OK, I’m trying to be fair here. But you are lumping a lot of good, intelligent, well-meaning people into one camp and calling them Nazis. Is it too much to ask those who want respect also show it?
Click to expand...
Tell me.

What “well meaning and good people” think it is OK to dehumanize the unborn and say it is OK to slaughter the innocent?

What “well meaning and good people” say it is OK to slaughter the disabled like Terri Schiavo?

Sorry, I don’t support the culture of death. WW2 Germany happened only because the culture of death got too powerful there. No other reason.
 
BobCatholic said:
Tell me.

What “well meaning and good people” think it is OK to dehumanize the unborn and say it is OK to slaughter the innocent?

What “well meaning and good people” say it is OK to slaughter the disabled like Terri Schiavo?

Sorry, I don’t support the culture of death. WW2 Germany happened only because the culture of death got too powerful there. No other reason.
Click to expand...
And you’re assuming that anyone who even considers the logic of eugenics must automatically agree with all these other things you call the culture of death, and that just isn’t any truer than saying all Catholics have green skin or some other silliness.
 
Liberalsaved said:
Oh, come now. You’re making a huge leap of logic between what he says. You can’t asusme that because he discusses eugenics, he wants to kill those who don’t perform.
Click to expand...
Does Dawkins think abortion is OK? The answer is yes.

So therefore what you just said is wrong, since his brand of eugenics is like this: test the little one for certain desired traits. Not there? Suck them into a sink. NEXT!
Dawkins is also a leader of the movement to gain legal “human” rights for great apes, arguing that since there is no such thing as a soul, there is no moral difference between apes and humans.
Click to expand...
And I forgot to comment on this part of Dawkin’s thinking: Apes should have human rights but not the unborn.

Logic? Nope. Not included in Dawkin’s thinking.
 
BobCatholic said:
Does Dawkins think abortion is OK? The answer is yes.

So therefore what you just said is wrong, since his brand of eugenics is like this: test the little one for certain desired traits. Not there? Suck them into a sink. NEXT!

And I forgot to comment on this part of Dawkin’s thinking: Apes should have human rights but not the unborn.

Logic? Nope. Not included in Dawkin’s thinking.
Click to expand...
You’re putting two and two together and getting five. I think I’m just going to find a nice thread about anime for a bit.
 
Liberalsaved said:
And you’re assuming that anyone who even considers the logic of eugenics must automatically agree with all these other things you call the culture of death, and that just isn’t any truer than saying all Catholics have green skin or some other silliness.
Click to expand...
There is no logic in eugenics.

In order to accept Dawkin’s version of Eugenics, you must believe that human beings are nothing more than animals, and thus we are just existing to be exploited.

I have yet to see a single scientific paper published in the ape or giraffe world. Or see an ethics discussion taken place in the lion’s den. But Dawkins doesn’t get it.
 
Liberalsaved said:
You’re putting two and two together and getting five. I think I’m just going to find a nice thread about anime for a bit.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying Dawkins is consistent by denying human rights to unborn children but advocating them for apes? Allrightey.
 
"Dawkins:
“I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them,” Dawkins wrote Sunday.
Click to expand...
Liberalsaved said:
I did want to address this individually. This is the part that seems logical to me.
Click to expand...
Breeding for musical ability involves one generation trying to limit human freedom of the next. Dawkins would do both: Breed for musical ability and force the child to take music lessons. Would the breeding also include trying to breed out other talents so the child won’t be distracted? Could you imagine a parent telling a child the “You must take piano lessons because we paid 50,000 to fertility doctors.”

Anyway, I think that Dawkin’s logic is strained. A parent might force a child to take music lessons or simply reading lessons or math because such knowledge is good for the sake of the child.

Breeding is always done for the good of the breeder.
 
HoppityRedux said:
Can someone summarize what is wrong with managing human reproduction to produce stonger, smarter, and healthier offspring? There is no need to force anyone to do this. It would be perfectly voluntary. Is there an ethical objection? Religious objection?
Click to expand...
What’s the link to Catholic teaching? I think that eugenics is an obvious assault to human dignity, places scientist in control of procreation, involves destruction of developing embryos and treats human being as consumer products.

From the CCC

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167
2378 **A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."170
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top