Thoughts of Chairman Adolf
posted by Larry Fafarman | 11/04/2008 10:21:00 AM
I'm from Missouri
This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.
About Me
- Name: Larry Fafarman
- Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.
- Incredible bigotry on Houston Chronicle's Evo.Sphe...
- Was Palin misled by tightwad-taxpayer group?
- Stupid Steve's comments on proposed Texas science ...
- Darwinists sensationalize case of fundy teacher
- New website for "Expelled"
- Anything to avoid evolution disclaimers and "teach...
- Video of Judge "Jackass" Jones harangue
- This evil genie belongs back in the bottle
- Drawing for free Expelled DVD's
- Urgent: Comments on new Texas science standards ...
10 Comments:
Just when I thought you couldn't do/say something dumber.
No, science is not a democracy. You have to have something called data in order to partake in the discussion, not merely a "controversy."
My discussions of non-ID criticisms of evolution (see post-label list in the sidebar of the homepage) have lots of data.
"My discussions of non-ID criticisms of evolution ... have lots of data."
This is similar to a "core dump" ... which, if one is a native speaker of ASCII, has some limited comprehensibility.
Jim was the first one to call it "data," dunghill.
Dear Larry,
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2008/03/hitler-evolutio.html
Not that you'll post this, but i thought you might find it interesting.
<3 Erin
So you think that if I don't post comments that have no redeeming social value, that therefore I won't post serious comments?
My answers to that blog post are in my "Darwin-to-Hitler" and "Holocaust revisionism" post-label groups listed in the sidebar of the homepage.
Nazi anti-Semitism targeted fit Jews as well as unfit Jews and so was not a true eugenics-type program. I use the term "eugenics-type" because eugenics programs are generally aimed at improving the human race through selective breeding rather than through extermination. IMO eugenics' influence as a cause of the holocaust was establishing the idea that it is morally OK to get rid of undesirables. Also, as I have said many times, a "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.
To me, the idea of a Darwin-to-Hitler link makes much more sense than the idea of a Jesus-to-Hitler link.
No, I think you don't post comments that you don't like. That's different.
From the article:
Even so, if it Hitler was actually inspired by evolution, that would be a bit of a black mark for evolution. But:
Hitler wasn’t inspired by evolution
Evolution is a process where favorable mutations are selected by nature – that is, mutations that make it more likely the organism will reproduce, will be passed to offspring.
(emphasis added)
Anyway, I'm not going to start the argument about whether the Nazis had a reliable systemic way of identifying Jews. (They may not have, but they did attempt to redefine Jew (Do you feel a sense of kinship with them for that?), and create a pretty darned reliable way of identifying those people, additionally, they let the Jews do most of the work identifying themselves before they started killing them.)
Oh, and regarding:
To me, the idea of a Darwin-to-Hitler link makes much more sense than the idea of a Jesus-to-Hitler link.
It is lucky that the ideas that "make sense" to you are automatically true, otherwise that argument would be completely ridiculous.
Also, from the article:
If you want to know what Hitler really believed, a good place to look would be what he actually wrote in his plan for the revival of Germany - Mein Kampf. . ."The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. . .Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: 'by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
So, maybe a Hitler-to-god link instead?
Erin eructed,
>>>>>> No, I think you don't post comments that you don't like. That's different. <<<<<<<
Wrong, dunghill. Where is the redeeming social value of the following comment:
The instructions work. Anyone who knows anything about computers can see what the dullard did wrong.
That kind of comment just clutters up this blog with crap.
Meanwhile, you heartily approve of other bloggers' arbitrary censorship of comments and commenters merely for not agreeing with them, you disgusting hypocrite.
>>>>>>From the article:
Hitler wasn’t inspired by evolution
Evolution is a process where favorable mutations are selected by nature – that is, mutations that make it more likely the organism will reproduce, will be passed to offspring. <<<<<<<
Hitler was not necessarily directly influenced by evolution theory, but there is strong evidence that he and/or other Nazis were at least indirectly influenced by it. I think some important issues are generally being ignored in the Darwin-to-Hitler debate: (1) Nazi anti-Semitism targeted fit Jews as well as unfit Jews and so was not a true eugenics-inspired program; and (2) A "systematic" holocaust was impossible because of the reasons I stated, and therefore it is doubtful that the Nazis had a plan to exterminate all of the Jews of Europe.
>>>>>> Anyway, I'm not going to start the argument about whether the Nazis had a reliable systemic way of identifying Jews. <<<<<<
But then you start such an argument, bozo --
>>>>>> (They may not have, but they did attempt to redefine Jew (Do you feel a sense of kinship with them for that?), and create a pretty darned reliable way of identifying those people, additionally, they let the Jews do most of the work identifying themselves before they started killing them.) <<<<<<<
Sheeesh.
But you don't describe how they objectively defined "Jew" or what their "pretty darned reliable way of identifying" Jews was. As for letting the Jews "do most of the work of identifying themselves," supposedly many of the Nazis' Jewish victims did not even consider themselves to be Jews.
"Erin eructed,"
Eruct = belch. You're slipping, Larry -- this is not up to your usual pejorative standard. (Perhaps intended as a bit of alliteration?)
"That kind of comment just clutters up this blog with crap."
And how many times have you re-quoted it now?
>>>>> Eruct = belch. You're slipping, Larry <<<<<
Obviously, I chose it because it is alliterative, dunghill.
>>>>>> And how many times have you re-quoted it now? <<<<<<
I am going to keep quoting it, dunghill, because it is the poster child of trollish comments. And when I delete crap like that, I am flooded with more asinine comments about how my no-censorship policy is "hypocritical." The party is over, you lousy trolls.
Post a Comment
<< Home