Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
its real but not popular at all today
I'm going to assume and correct me if wrong, that you mean that racism is sometimes argued to be scientifically justified. That is true. Some people wrongly claim that racism can be justified by scientific findings.
There is however only one race of hominid species left on earth. The others are all extinct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Let's say for the sake of argument that I have read both the bible and the gita. Let us further say that I don't see any difference in the believability of two claims. What difference is it you are pointing to? What specifically shows the gita to be false?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Ok how are they different? All examples cited are faith based claims evidenced only anecdotally. What about the Vishnu allows you to discount the Vishnu as the one true god and creator of the cosmos?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Myself, I'm fairly self interested, rather than community interested.
That is a common condition. If it were not for self interest overcoming our sense of empathy would we even need ethics?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not unlike saying
SEXUALLY LIBERATED = IMMORAL
SECUALLY REPRESSED = MORAL
Just doesn't seem to logically follow especially since sexual repression can do at least as much harm as sexual liberty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not unlike saying
SEXUALLY LIBERATED = IMMORAL
SECUALLY REPRESSED = MORAL
Just doesn't seem to logically follow especially since sexual repression can do at least as much harm as sexual liberty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think the real question revolves around AXIOLOGY, are "smarter" humans more "valuable"?
There it does matter considering the points I have raised but (IF) there were another race of humans to contrast ourselves with and (IF) those humans were argued to be of a noticeably different average intelligence (THEN) we would have to discuss both the relative value of intelligence and which yard stick we propose to use t ol make this determination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Also, roughly 50% of Christians worldwide are Catholics, so any "appeal to popularity" must conclude that all other Christian denominations are false.
Provided they are mutually exclusive to one another certainly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I believe in the Bible
Ok so then the question becomes what differentiates the bible to me as an outside observer from any book tied directly or peripherally to any religion that the religious proponents in question claim to believe? After all they all believe for equal quality (if not quantity) of evidence. Indeed if these religions are mutually exclusive (that is if christianity being the "correct" religion invalidates them) then there is far more weak anecdotal evidence against christianity (between the many other religions practiced to day there are more non Christians than Christians) than for. That leaves you with a lower quantity of equal quality evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I dont think so- I think I have stated and proved my points
I have addressed all your points. I see no reason to consider the bible more than fiction and whether it is fiction or nonfiction the Yahweh as described therein perpetrates, commands, and allows many acts that by my standard of ethics and morality is observably unethical and immoral. Roderick is at least engaging my points and has some well formed and cogezent (if still logically fallacious) arguments. For example his argument about people emulating the joker is compelling but doesn't actually correlate with the bible (the book actually under discussion) because in the bible the figure I don't want everyone to necessarily emulate is the Yahweh (ostensibly the 'batman' of the peice and not the 'joker') and even if it did... well I addressed that when I was actually addressing the argument itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The author of the Book of Mormon doesn't admit it is a "story".The author of the Quran doesn't admit it is a "story".The author of the Bhagavad Gita doesn't admit it is a "story".Do you believe these books are also 100% true?And if you don't, why not?how so?
In the same way you believe the bible of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
First off interesting topic. It is true that people will justify their immoral behavior and actions by any means necessary. It is also true that these justifications can be dangerous in that otherwise non racist but gullible or poorly educated people could potentially be convicted that racist opinions are scientifically correct.
theoretically from a natural evolutionist standpoint, if objectively observed evidence pointed to some race of humans being higher evolved than others, we would have no choice but to accept it.
At least this can be addressed with reason in the face of some racist(s) attempting to justify racism. Just inform them that in order for some evidence of a difference between one race of humans and another a second race of contemporary (not extinct) humans would first have to be in evidence and that even if this were the case that saying some organism being more "highly" evolved is a nonstarter since natural selection has no intrinsic goal and also that all organisms have had the same length of time to evolve. Once you have pointed this out any argument they may make which does not address these issues becomes invalid whether they accept it or not. After all the goal is not to convince the unconvincable but only to offer a counter argument that takes the power away from their fallacious argument so that they do not convince others who might otherwise hold racist views because of said argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Thank you! I respect your posts a great deal as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
Yes I agree that is a good default position. It is the one I use when assessing arguments about free will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@RoderickSpode
The truth is my dear doctor that Roderick is doing a much better job of supporting his claims and he hasn't really proven anything either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Then surely you understand my continuing skepticism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I have proved it many times
Claims=/=proof
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
Accepting a proposition that cannot be demonstrated and that would appear to be logically inconsistent is the opposite of skepticism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
No. Of course not. I am still struggling. I am just not yet convinced that it does not, in some form, exist (even partially).
Then why exercise skepticism in every instance except for this one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Yes. Not understanding the contextual meaning of the term "gay" in the title is the same as not understanding what is being sstated in the bible.
Well when we talk about owning people and slaughtering whole cities we aren't talking about misinterpretation of a single word we are talking about the things commanded or condoned by the bible and it really does not matter what you want to call them the are still wrong.
The conditions were severe enough that if a servant flees their master, someone else has to take care of them. I think they realized that simply not turning the servant over to their abusive master was not enough. A possible death sentence.
Is it impossible to resolve this issue without owning people as property in perpetuity? Do you have to own people to help them? Thay sounds like the opposite of help. Is having free servants who are paid a living wage impossible? Please stop trying to excuse owning people as property. If you think the practice would be morally abhorrent today then it is morally abhorrent even if people of the day didn't realize it.
Sure. I cant control what I believe. You cannot control what I believe. It is therefore impossible to make laws concerning beliefs rather than actions and by extension criminalizing beliefs is nonsensical and immoral.it would be like making laws concerning being right versus left handed or criminalizing not having rhythm.Off hand I don't see how this conflicts with anything I've said. Was this meant to challenge anything I've said?
The bible criminalizes holding the wrong beliefs. The sentence suggested is death. You can spin it and try to apply apologetics but that is what the book says when taken at face value. If it was inspired by a god that couldn't have made it clearer in translation I don't think much of his omnipotence and if he could I don't think much of his decision not to.
Do you think the authors who wrote about Deborah the prophetess were sexist?I'm not familiar with the work.Deborah was one of the judges, and a prophetess in the Old Testament.
I missed the word about. I thought you were referring to a stand alone book called Deborah the Prophetess which would explain why I haven't heard of it. Misunderstanding.
According to the old testament the Hebrews were the Yahweh's chosen people and set above all others. This is racism against every other possible demographic.Israel was meant to be a messenger to bring God's salvation to all nations. Just like one person (a messenger) is sent to bring God's salvation to other individuals. The bible is so painfully clear about this, and that God is no respecter of nations or individuals, this has has to fall into one of those extreme over-the-top accusations.
Then why are the laws governing owning people different for hebrews than every other demographic of people. That is a double standard based on some imagined difference between "races" of people (an artificial construct) and that is racism.
Are you saying the Batman franchise movies are a bad thing? Should we consider banning them?What do you think should be done about the bible since you're under distress that people are reading it?
You brought up batman. I'm not really saying anything about it... although if it is harmful it would not reduce the harm if it were considered by otherwise rational adults to be real rather than fiction and taught to children as a moral standard that they are meant to accept uncritically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
But TRUTH, OR AT LEAST ITS OFTEN CLUMSY PURSUIT (for me), WILL ALWAYS COME FIRST!
Except in regards to freewill?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the abrahami god is the belieable god
I don't care if it is. It is more than possible to write plausible believable fiction. Even if I were prepared to grant you this point (I'm not) there is no bridge from believable to true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I don't care what qualities some god(s) that we agree don't exist might possess. It doesn't do anything to strengthen your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Unless you can demonstrate otherwise I have no choice but to believe that all the qualities the Yahweh displays are imagined. Also disproving other god(s) which I already didn't believe (assuming that is what you have done) in does not in any way strengthen your claim. All in all it seems like special pleading.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You keep talking about nature god(s) versus non nature god(s). Why does that matter? Please get to your larger point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Why are you repeating yourself? What am I supposed to infer from this information provided I accept it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
gods are nature based but not the abrahamic ones
You mean humans make claims to that effect? That is what you mean right? That some humans have said that their god(s) are nature based and that some humans have claimed that the abrahamic god is not a nature based god. And of course the opposite may hold true in some cases. Some humans might claim that their god(s) are also not nature based and some humans might claim that the abrahamic god is the god of nature and therefore nature based but even if that is the case what does that have to do with literally anything?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I am not prepared to make a black swan fallacy and say that no metaphysical "self" could be contributing in some way but I am prepared to dismiss this self until it is demonstrably and also to dismiss that this self has any free will unless you can demonstrate that cause and effect is not sufficient to explain this self's actions/decisions.Even a "metaphysical self" is (EITHER) caused (OR) uncaused (indistinguishable from random).Ghosts, gods, spirits, angels, unicorns, and mechanical inter-dimensional elves are ALL (EITHER) caused (OR) uncaused (indistinguishable from random).And furthermore, if our "true" "will" comes from "beyond the physical", then we are merely "god puppets" which still doesn't bode well for (any version of) the "freewill" hypothesis.
I do not for my part disagree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
It does seem odd that so many of what are commonly referred to as the ten commandments are wasted on the Yahweh's apparent vanity. No other gods first, not to take the name in vain etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Maybe it should have just said "don't beat your slave" then?
Or even a commandment? Though shall not own people as property perhaps?
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I don't know isn't the wrong answer when you don't know. And your welcome. Becoming irrational is anathema to logical debate and incivility does not facilitate frank conversation.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I agree that neither of us has the answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
There's a term used in the US for the 1890s decade called the Gay 90's. The strange thing is there's very little if any reference to homosexuality attached to this nostalgic time period. But....the term flat out says "Gay".
Yes language changes and evolves. I'm not talking about the term gay I'm talking about homosexuality and the attitude expressed in the bible. Did you have a larger point?
I'm not sure what you mean.
Homeless =/= unhappy. It is not necessarily a preferable situation in every case but if it is preferred to being owned as property then it is immoral to try to force someone to be your property in an attempt to prevent their homelessness.
If it were on a ballot, we'd have to figure out why.
Any idea why we would have to vote on such a thing rather than just letting people do as they like? Because if you value freedom it is in keeping with the stated goal of promoting freedom to make all things permissible and then begin limiting freedoms only if the consequences are worse than the loss of liberty. For example killing people and abusing children are worse than losing the freedom to murder people and abuse children. What about homosexuality is worse than the loss of liberty to the homosexual community?
What I believe is that beliefs cannot be litigated and should not be criminalized.Would you mind expounding on this a bit?Would you mind expounding on this a bit?
Sure. I cant control what I believe. You cannot control what I believe. It is therefore impossible to make laws concerning beliefs rather than actions and by extension criminalizing beliefs is nonsensical and immoral.it would be like making laws concerning being right versus left handed or criminalizing not having rhythm.
Do you think the authors who wrote about Deborah the prophetess were sexist?
I'm not familiar with the work.
Can you give me some examples of racism?
According to the old testament the Hebrews were the Yahweh's chosen people and set above all others. This is racism against every other possible demographic.
We should all be able to watch a movie about a psychopathic clown, without trying to recreate his character in real life. We should all be able to understand that it's just a movie. But....every once in awhile....
We should all be able to read a book about a genocidal, misogynistic, homophobic capricious and vengeful deity, without trying to recreate his character in real life. We should all be able to understand that it's just a book. But....every once in awhile....
Honestly the book is a touch worse though since it is widely held as nonfiction and the movie is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
If you could demonstrate some logical alternatives to cause and effect or indistinguishable from random I really would like to hear them. I truly would like to believe in free will. It is just logically inconsistent with the reality in which I find myself.
Even if I go as far as saying "the jury is still out" I would still have to dismiss the undemontrated proposition of free will for exactly the same reason that I dismiss undemonstrated supernatural claims. Skepticism is the default.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
You are talking about the difference between utility and truth. I cannot simply believe something is true because the belief has utility. I must still be genuinely convinced it is true or I will be unable to maintain belief. I am no longer able to participate or partake in the "beautiful lie".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
To your last post. The diverse issues we are discussing have grown to the point where the conversation has become unwieldy. Decide which of the many discussions we are having here you actually want to continue first and we can start there.
Created:
Posted in:
You have to start with one of two propositions - God or chance.
False dichotomy. Try again. I don't have to start with either of those propositions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Ok well this has become quite the gish gallop Why don't you decide which of these many disparate and unconnected things you actually want to discuss first and we can start there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
There's no way I could get you to quote what you are replying to is there? Because my post which prompted this answering post from you
nature vs non nature gods
Isn't even on the same page so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make without searching through the thread.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
A valid syllogism will still be valid.
Ok I got one. (IF) we have only one universe to observe whose origin is a mystery (if it even has one) (THEN) we have nothing to base our logic on and logic will necessarily have no predictive power.
Also, in order to cause something as complex as the universe, it must also have a significant degree of knowledge.
Snow flakes are complicated. DNA is complicated. Neither requires something knowledgable as a catalyst. Your logic doesn't follow.
It must be able to cause the universe, which requires a significant degree of power.
Avelaches are powerful events but they can be caused by nothing more than the kinetic energy of a sound wave. In other words a force that wouldn't knock over a mouse. Sometimes powerful events are triggered by causes that are not powerful. Your logic doesn't follow.
Even if I grant timeless and spaceless which sounds indistinguishable to me from nonexistentBut why would that be nonexistent?
Because as far as I know in order to exist you need to occupy some space and last for some duration. That is literally how we recognize an existing thing from a thing which doesn't exist. Like you I don't have all the answers and logic doesn't really help in this case but if you are going to rely on logic I don't think you can logically posit a real thing that occupies no space and does not exist for any duration. Logically speaking a thing which occupies no space and lasts for no time just isn't.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. There are straight and gay and bisexual pedophiles. It is clearly something other than sexual orientation because pedophiles have their own sexual orientation that is not governed by their pedophilia. If you can recognize this then we can move on although now we might have to discuss exactly what is wrong with extra marital sex, drugs, or seances before we get back to your actual topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So in simpler terms, theism and associated deities are made up and modified to suit the demands of ignorance.
I am prepared to accept this until any infinite the contrary can be presented.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
I notice that I "always" pick the zinfandel.
This is a cause. A catalyst. The reason you are changing your behavior. See the problem is that I don't think you are going to be able to site or even make up an example that doesn't start with a "why I'm doing a thing" and that is a cause. In your scenario you are actually acting on your desire to make a change in your life and you didn't choose to have that desire. Even if you do have an example where you do a thing for no (discernible) reason that only makes your actions (indiscernible) from random.
I cam appreciate your position and goodness knows I'd like to believe in free will but it just isn't supportable given our current evidence and ot would be intellectually dishonest to practice skepticism in every other case but this one.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I disagree with that. There are some principles of logic that can't change. Two plus two will always be four and not five. Circles can never be square.
These are definitional truths. They are true because of how we define two, four, five circle and square. They are based on linguistic conventions more than logic. I don't mind using language prescriptively but you can't just define something into existence you must actually demonstrate that something which fits your definition actually exists.
However, there are certain effects that necessitate certain causes, so the existence of the effect is evidence of the cause. For instance, if I see an oak tree, I don't need to search around for evidence that there was an acorn in the area at some point in the past. The oak tree itself is proof of that.
We can demonstrate that trees grow from acorns. We have multiple documented cases. We have one universe whose origin we can only speculate on. That gives us a documented sample size of zero and that gives us nothing to base our logic on.
Well, the conclusion of the argument I'm making is a timeless, spaceless, powerful, knowledge entity.
Even if I grant timeless and spaceless which sounds indistinguishable to me from nonexistent but let's go with it why on earth would I grant necessarily powerful or knowledge entity whatever that means?
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Logic is based on the fact that the universe behaves predictably. That the past repeats itself. That is a problem when dealing with an event (if you can call it that) which we cannot observe and does not follow predictable patterns that can be described mathematically.
In any case logically speaking we cannot suggest anything as a cause before we establish that thing as existing. Even if I grant the idea of some sort of prime mover unless you can make a case for your particular prime mover over world creating pixies and flying spaghetti monsters and indeed mindless processes governed purely by naturalistic forces as your timeless spaceless eternal cause then your argument doesn't support your conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
You think that since there was a death penalty for homosexuality in the OT, I should embrace that for today. Adultery had the same sentence.
I don't think anyone should embrace it. Thay does not change what the book says.
In the scenario we're assuming being set free would mean homelessness.
That is his prerogative.
Do you think this scenario is different than the biblical text in question?
Yes. The biblical text in question says owning people as property, buying and selling humans from other nations and in deuteronomy says that you can beat them so long as they don't die too quickly. That is what we are discussing. Not whatever community outreach program you are proposing in an attempt to excuse the bible for condoning owning people as property.
Are you aware that the nations God commanded the Israelites to destroy were set on wiping the Israelites off the face of the earth?
Are you aware that I don't think two wrongs make a right and that I am not necessarily of the opinion that the ends justify the means? The moral implications of armed combatants killing each other aside killing innocent civilians is not justified.
Until you provide a quote, you're just speculating.And your quote:"although it may or may not be the case that the political leaders involved actually believed that they were acting in the name of some god(s)."Yes. And this is no different than committing atrocities for the benefit of the State, just like the communists. If they didn't believe, they couldn'tbe acting on behalf of a god.
Torquemada the grand inquisitor of the Spanish inquisition claimed to believe in and be acting on behalf of god. I am inclined to take him at his word unless there is some way of reading the minds of long dead spaniards.
I'm sorry, I may need clarification here. Are you asking me to provide quotes now?
After softening my claim yes.
Denominations who think all other denominations are wrong I would disagree with on that particular note.
Many southern baptists claim that anyone who is not specifically southern baptist will be going to hell. Why should I believe you rather than them? What differentiates their faith based claim that we are both going to hell from your faith based claim that of the two of us only I am going to hell?
Maybe I should clarify.What they do outside of their job I don't care about. They can be as immoral as they like on their own time. What I meant by them having no related agenda that I would consider immoral, simply means they don't interject their immorality into their work. Like if they tried to close all churches down. I know that's very unlikely, but just using that as an example as extreme as it is.
So a candidate that was openly in support of gay marriage? I regard that as moral and you do not. Should you be able to prevent homosexuals from finding love and starting families indeed stop them from living their lives by their standards being true to their identities just because you read a book that poo poos on the idea?
Whatever reason that person has is their business. It doesn't matter if they vote for religious reasons or not.Do you believe in religious freedom? Do you believe in a pluralistic society?
What I believe is that beliefs cannot be litigated and should not be criminalized.
When Darwin's Origin Of Species came out, men who were already racist attempted to exploit the theory by claiming white superiority. (Yes, the term is nonsensical as the proponents of white supremacy). Evolution (the theory of) doesn't support racism. Atheism doesn't lead to communism. Men who have racism in their heart, will use whatever means to support their racist sentiment.Same holds true with the Bible, Christians, religious, etc. They don't support racism, but people who were naturally racist tried to use the bible/Christianity/religion to supporttheir view. Same exact thing.
Well stated. It is not that the bible makes men racist or sexist however it is that it was clearly written by racist and sexist men.
From what it sounds like, you feel the bible could make an otherwise moral person immoral. That I might one day, after an evening's reading of scripture, just snap and become racist, a witch hunter, homophobe, etc.
You seem like a reasonable and reasonably educated person. You are far from my greatest concern. I do worry about the ignorant, the stupid and the uneducated. An otherwise moral person who is gullible and convinced that the bible is the inerrant word of god might get up to all sorts of mischief and I am really not trying to single Christians out either. Do you believe that muslim belief might lead otherwise moral people to immoral behavior? And while we are on the subject I also am not trying to single out theists. I have the same problem with any secular belief system which endorses racism, sexism, homophobia and the like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do you think a homosexual would be any different than the woman caught in adultery?
Yes because adultery is a separate issue. Two homosexuals engaged in a monogamous relationship are not guilty of adultery so even if you can say what they are guilty of you are falsely conflating something which does not cause harm with something that can (and for now at least we will forgo any discussion of open relationships and other forms of polyamory).
Do you feel that 2 consenting adults committing adultery is moral?
Adultery is like murder it is defenitionally wrong in that it involves betraying a partner who has trust in you. Unless you wish to include other activities under the umbrella of "adultery" (and for now at least we will forgo any discussion of open relationships and other forms of polyamory) then no I do not.
What would you say to this person?
I would say that the servants situation being preferable to some alternative aside they should free their servant and if he decides to remain on his own recognizance then he should be paid a living wage. On a separate note I do not mind questions but I am very careful how I answer them and also to be transparent about my ignorance if it is a question I do not have an answer to.
You seem to be assuming that I've read something that appeared to be immoral.
I have read something that appeared to me to be immoral (multiple genocides). Is your claim that I must by necessity be mistaken in regarding multiple genocides as immoral because god is morally correct by definition and by extension any genocide he committed must also be morally correct?
Some quotes from theocrats that shows what you mean.
How about just some events that would seem to fit the bill? Like the inquisition or the crusades or the genocide of the amalekites? Do you feel that these were not performed "in the name of god"? Or at the very least that this was not considered justification enough by the common members of the society in each example? If you disagree I welcome further discussion of exactly what you think the most common justification given actually was.
Tell me how you know that out of all the communists that ever existed, none of them ever said, whether vocally or in their mind, "well there's no god(s) so we may as well".
I suppose I can't be 100% certain in the same way I cannot be 100% certain that my senses reflect reality and not just some grand illusion or complicated simulation but I strongly suspect and I will tell you why. Because humans tend to do things for a reason not because some particular reason doesn't seem to be in evidence. I also doubt anyone said "there is no big foot so we may as well camp here". If however you can find some event quote or evidence to the contrary I will be happy to admit my fault I'm this regard.
For one, no, I don't think many denominations within Christianity are false.
Perhaps many is the wrong word but some. Also I think that some denominations consider all other denominations to be false and you disagree with them by default.
As far as voting, I would vote for who I thought to be the best candidate. The one who will do the best job. I don't care about their sexual preference as long as there's no related agenda that I would consider immoral, or a violation of freedom.
Are you saying you do not regard the rejection of jesus christ as a personal savior is immoral? Because otherwise you have drawn yourself quite a loophole.
As far as voting against gay marriage. Well, if it's on the ballot, it's not a religious issue. None of our laws are based on religion. Not even the Blue Laws. Therefore, any voter has the absolute right to check whatever box they wish.....in private.
I don't care if it is s religios issue if your vote is being informed by your religios beliefs.
And once Darwinian evolution came on the scene, a number of white bigots saw this as scientific proofthat whites are superior to other races.
Do you know what that made them? Wrong about what the science was actually claiming and could support. For one thing superior is a nonsensical term unless it applies to some goal and evolution guided by the process of natural selection doesn't actually have any specific goal. Even self replicating/survival is a consequence of the process not a goal.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I knew that before I had kids they would do things that would make me angry.
But you have not to my knowledge drowned all your children for making you angry and started again with new children. So it isn't really the same us it?
Created: