The Satanic Character of Social Darwi...
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#111 Aug 18, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> I love to debate arrogant little children. Here is one source little boy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Pgufs-B2LlgXX
Have you got anything other than a utube video, I mean the latter (if factually based) must have something to back it up, otherwise you may as well paste an episode of the Flintstones.

So again, have you got anything to back up your assertion?

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#112 Aug 18, 2014
Mugwump wrote:
Have you got anything other than a utube video, I mean the latter (if factually based) must have something to back it up,
I believe you're saying that you don't have the discernment to recognize truth when you hear it. So you evidently believe what the mainstream media tells you! I believe that means that you're incurably stupid.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#113 Aug 18, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> I believe you're saying that you don't have the discernment to recognize truth when you hear it. So you evidently believe what the mainstream media tells you! I believe that means that you're incurably stupid.
But you believe what is posted on utube as a valid source ?

FFS are you about 15 years of age?

Forget the videos, I asked you to back up your claim that the majority of scientists support forced vaccination - why can't you do that without resorting to utube videos ?

Ahhhh....

Got it

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#114 Aug 18, 2014
Mugwump wrote:
But you believe what is posted on utube as a valid source ?
I believe that Dr. Russell Blaylock M.D. is an authoritative voice and that the social media is an important alternative but it is only for those with the power of discernment.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#115 Aug 18, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> I believe that Dr. Russell Blaylock M.D. is an authoritative voice and that the social media is an important alternative but it is only for those with the power of discernment.
Got it , your "evidence" is a utube video of ONE MAN who you think supports your position but nothing else.

Don't bother responding, if I am going to watch utube videos , it will be of a cat playing a harpsichord, not to actually use it as a verifiable source.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#116 Aug 18, 2014
Mugwump wrote:
if I am going to watch utube videos , it will be of a cat playing a harpsichord,
Then that would be appropriate for your level of intelligence and social conditioning.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117 Aug 18, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> It's very natural for rabid dogs and maladjusted atheists to manifest their natural instincts. And it's both easy and proper to be thoroughly disgusted with right-wing Christian fascists. And just as "Christian" right-wingers refuse to examine evidence against them, the same is true for the vast majority as atheistic fanatics.
For a proof that I'm right about neo-Darwinists holding on to the same evil presuppositions as the social Darwinists in the documentary, just consider the unanimous agreement among mainstream scientists today on the subject of forced vaccinations. It's the same fundamental axiom: "We must consider what's best for humanity as a whole."
Obviously, the mere fact that neo-Darwinists refuse to be consistent and follow-through with their fundamental beliefs wherever applicable is just a sign of cowardice; it doesn't mean that they have truly renounced their religious views.

Psychopathology fully elucidated.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#118 Aug 18, 2014
Mugwump wrote:
Got it , your "evidence" is a utube video of ONE MAN who you think supports your position but nothing else.
I stand with highly acclaimed scholars, the best informed, award-winning journalists and the world's most courageous political activists. And they are all opposed to the false prophet power (Rev. 13). It's interesting that all my enemies are thrilled by the deceit and satanically crafted propaganda of that power, but you shouldn't trouble yourself with what the world's greatest dissidents are saying. My advice to you is revere your leaders. You will be rewarded double for you unthinking devotion and approval of their evil deeds. http://everythingimportant.org

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#119 Aug 18, 2014
Mugwump wrote:
Got it , your "evidence" is a utube video of ONE MAN who you think supports your position but nothing else.
I stand with highly acclaimed scholars, the best informed, award-winning journalists and the world's most courageous political activists. And they are all opposed to the false prophet power (Rev. 13). It's interesting that all my enemies are thrilled by the deceit and satanically crafted propaganda of that power, but you shouldn't trouble yourself with what the world's greatest dissidents are saying. My advice to you is revere your leaders. You will be rewarded double for your unthinking devotion and approval of their evil deeds.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121 Aug 19, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> It's very natural for rabid dogs and maladjusted atheists to manifest their natural instincts. And it's both easy and proper to be thoroughly disgusted with right-wing Christian fascists. And just as "Christian" right-wingers refuse to examine evidence against them, the same is true for the vast majority as atheistic fanatics.
For a proof that I'm right about neo-Darwinists holding on to the same evil presuppositions as the social Darwinists in the documentary, just consider the unanimous agreement among mainstream scientists today on the subject of forced vaccinations. It's the same fundamental axiom: "We must consider what's best for humanity as a whole."
Obviously, the mere fact that neo-Darwinists refuse to be consistent and follow-through with their fundamental beliefs wherever applicable is just a sign of cowardice; it doesn't mean that they have truly renounced their religious views.
Here you double down on your own double talk.

I do not support forced vaccinations, and I am a neo-Darwinist. Furthermore my position is perfectly self consistent because there is nothing in neo-Darwinism that connects to any philosophy that one should be forced to do something just because someone else decides its "good for humanity".

In fact, I would point this in exactly the opposite direction. As someone who respects the scientific method and understands its strengths and limitations, I am with Karl Popper who would have strenuously disagreed with forced vaccination. His book "Open Society and its Enemies" specifically rejects the Platonic notion of "wise control from the elitist centre", and allows that people have a perfect right to choose their own course, on the basis, consistent with the scientific method, that any human's knowledge is only ever partial and incomplete, therefore nobody is in a position to declare what everyone should do.

There is an arrogant liberal hard left, but they are schooled for the most part in social sciences that often fail to meet the standards of the scientific method, they are infused with doctrinaire and elitist attitudes, and they are often out of touch with reality, in my experience. They do not speak for Darwinism and for that matter Darwinism hardly speaks to them. This situation is righting itself as the disciplines of biology and neuroscience increasingly come to bear on social sciences, largely replacing the doctrinaire formulations of Freud and Marx etc. But the beast is dying too slowly.

Interestingly, one of your own favourite authorities, the execrable Noam Chomsky, is one of their leading lights.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#122 Aug 19, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> You misread what I wrote. I referred to the unanimous agreement among mainstream scientists today on the subject of forced vaccinations, which presupposes the fundamental axiom of the Social Darwinists: "We are morally required to do what is best for humanity as a whole."
And do you realize that you broke your promise to not address my posts in any way?
I wrote that I would not respond to your genetic moroning posts.

I didn't misread what you wrote.
You post is completely superfluous and even adding more nonsense.
The fundamental axiom of the Social Darwinists had nothing to do with: "We are morally required to do what is best for humanity as a whole." The central axiom of SD is that the strong should see their wealth and power increase while the weak should see their wealth and power decrease. Because this supposedly is the basic rule of life as seen its biology. And BECAUSE this is supposedly the basic rule of biology, one should NOT interfere and just let the natural follow its course freely and unhindered. That's why SD is so strongly connected to laissez-faire capitalism.

The fundamental axiom "We are morally required to do what is best for humanity as a whole" is the very essential of RELIGION. Hence religion meddles and interferes with about EVERYTHING in life:
- how you should dress yourself
- what you eat
- what you drink
- how you should behave, especially women
- how and when sex
- what to read
- how to think and what to think
- who to marry

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#123 Aug 19, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
I do not support forced vaccinations, and I am a neo-Darwinist.
In fact, I would point this in exactly the opposite direction. As someone who respects the scientific method and understands its strengths and limitations, I am with Karl Popper who would have strenuously disagreed with forced vaccination. His book "Open Society and its Enemies" specifically rejects the Platonic notion of "wise control from the elitist centre", and allows that people have a perfect right to choose their own course, on the basis, consistent with the scientific method, that any human's knowledge is only ever partial and incomplete, therefore nobody is in a position to declare what everyone should do.
If neo-Darwinist academics, journals and organizations are only secretly opposed to forced vaccinations, then obviously they can't be trusted for what they say about science since they have the moral fortitude of the presstitutes.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#124 Aug 19, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text>If neo-Darwinist academics, journals and organizations are only secretly opposed to forced vaccinations, then obviously they can't be trusted for what they say about science since they have the moral fortitude of the presstitutes.
Ah! So it's a conspiracy!

(Which reminds me: Meeting at my place next Tuesday. Bring your own Evolution/Satanic ritual items.

Pie and coffee following the ceremony)

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#125 Aug 19, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
I do not support forced vaccinations, and I am a neo-Darwinist. Furthermore my position is perfectly self consistent because there is nothing in neo-Darwinism that connects to any philosophy that one should be forced to do something just because someone else decides its "good for humanity".
You are not grasping my argument or the logic of the Social Darwinists' documentary. Briefly stated, let's adjoin the two independent axioms that you personally oppose being joined together in a single axiomatic system: the science of neo-Darwinism and what neo-Darwinists say is "best for humanity overall." As revealed in the documentary, that neo-Darwinian construct is incredibly evil. And to that revelation I add that that neo-Darwinian system exists today in the form of forced vaccinations. Furthermore, neo-Darwinists, including the neo-Darwinian buffoons on this forum, are complicit in that incredible evil by their willful ignorance and silence. That system is Satanism.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#126 Aug 19, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
Interestingly, one of your own favourite authorities, the execrable Noam Chomsky, is one of their leading lights.
The only valid criticisms of Noam Chomsky that I know of are listed here:



If you have anything that factual and tangible, please post a link.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#127 Aug 19, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> You are not grasping my argument or the logic of the Social Darwinists' documentary. Briefly stated, let's adjoin the two independent axioms that you personally oppose being joined together in a single axiomatic system: the science of neo-Darwinism and what neo-Darwinists say is "best for humanity overall." As revealed in the documentary, that neo-Darwinian construct is incredibly evil. And to that revelation I add that that neo-Darwinian system exists today in the form of forced vaccinations. Furthermore, neo-Darwinists, including the neo-Darwinian buffoons on this forum, are complicit in that incredible evil by their willful ignorance and silence. That system is Satanism.
There is not a single point in any of your posts that address the things we were saying. NOTHING. You only refer back to your documentary which is basically been debunked by us. This concludes to the fact that you are not able to address our arguments.

"the science of neo-Darwinism and what neo-Darwinists say is "best for humanity overall"
???????
???????
???????

Also you are a protestant follower of Martin Luther who was an ardent anti-Semitist of the first order and who inspired Nazism directly for the Holocaust. You are an anti-Semitist.
Your religion is also and constantly interfering with our lives: what to drink, what to eat, what to think, how to think, how to dress, how (women) to behave and to be submissive, when sex and what sex, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

DON'T interfere with our lives. We don't want your demands how to live.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#128 Aug 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
You only refer back to your documentary which is basically been debunked by us.
Debunking with eyes closed. That would be a nice magic trick if you could really pull it off.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#129 Aug 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
You are an anti-Semitist.
So you don't believe the funnel of smoke who correctly acknowledged that Noam Chomsky is one of my "favourite authorities." Please understand that Chomsky is Jewish and a Zionist.

Here are some other Semites that I greatly love for their stand against Zionism:



https://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#130 Aug 19, 2014

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#131 Aug 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
Also you are a protestant follower of Martin Luther...
Your religion is also and constantly interfering with our lives: what to drink, what to eat, what to think, how to think, how to dress, how (women) to behave and to be submissive, when sex and what sex, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
You're a liar and a marvelously deceived religious fanatic.
I stated my religious affiliation. I am a Millerite. But you are so greatly deceived that facts mean nothing to you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Truth is might 222,761
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr River Tam 32,582
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr replaytime 79,965
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr Regolith Based Li... 163,763
What's your religion? 9 hr Zog Has-fallen 4
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
Science News (Sep '13) Sep 8 Ricky F 4,001
More from around the web