Hi Craig Weinberg 

Ghandi didn't increase anybody's taxes,
which makes everything he did right.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-15, 13:19:10
Subject: Re: Progressives and social darwinism




On Saturday, December 15, 2012 10:00:54 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 

By progressives I obviously meant those that act to change things. 
Which means overthrowing the way the "good, the beautiful and
the true" are thought to be and commonly accepted as. 

Do you think that when Gandhi inspired the colonized Indian subjects of the 
British Empire that he was overthrowing something beautiful? That he was 
changing what was commonly accepted as good?

When progressives went into the American South to fight lynchings and 
segregation, was that some kind of a perverse new take on what was 'commonly 
accepted as good'? How about slavery? Was that good and true and beautiful? How 
about unrestrained abuse of laborers by industry? Also the good old days?

 
Thus one
subverts morality, philosophy and religion, and aesthetics. 
It's a form of social darwinism. The dynamics of social change.

Just because there is an existing condition does not make it worthy of support. 
You are justifying whatever form of tyranny and oppression happened to have 
come before you and denouncing any attempt to restore liberty. That is just as 
much Social Darwinism as anything else. It is to say 'whoever tries to change 
anything is a ruthless bastard, but whoever enforces the existing order or 
regressing to a previous order is a good and moral person.'
 


As with Darwinism, some of these changes have been good. 
Einstein, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Van Gogh certainly 
brought in good new things.

But some are not so good. Nietzsche attempted 
to overthrow morality completely, and the poets, novellists, 
screenwriters and other artists, etc, have had mixed results,
especially to sexual morality and human decency. Now
young men think nothing of executing a kindergarten class. 

Of course, not all attempts at change are good or end up being good. The same 
goes for attempts to prevent change. There are counter-revolutionaries who are 
just as bloody as revolutionaries.  The idea that 'young men think nothing of 
executing a kindergarten class' being related to progressive causes is 
ridiculous. If that were the case, then progressive Scandinavia, France, 
Canada, etc would be awash in massacres. Progressives try to eliminate guns, 
remember?



Twelve-tone music is listenable for a while, but it really has no
unity or beauty.  And popular music has discarded beautiful
melodies and lyrics in favor of whining voices or those singing rap.

Again, if you are over 65, I sympathize. I'm 44, so I remember being a kid and 
what it was like in the 70s when modern art, rock music, and other 
confrontational aesthetics were still big news. I agree with you that culture 
has become more and more degraded during my lifetime and I agree that there is 
something to that beyond just my taste, but really it isn't that important. The 
decay of Amercian culture is not the result of what happened 50 years ago or 
even (much worse in my opinion) what happened in the 80s when Reagan era 
conservatism brought back militarism and overconsumption values. If you want to 
blame something, blame overpopulation and the corruption of American 
institutions. The value of human life is indirectly proportionate to how many 
extra people you have and how imbalanced the society is. Those are the tensions 
which make money more important than making civilization beautiful.



Now living together without marriage has become the norm for
young people, and we have indiscriminate sex and pornography.
These destroy the basic unit of human existence, the family.
Homosexual marriage also invalidates the meaning of marriage.

Living together without marriage, casual sex, and pornography have made life 
enjoyable and bearable for everyone, not just young people. They don't destroy 
anything. The meaning of marriage is up to the consenting adults who 
participate into it - not *you* or your tastes.

If the kind of rigid, backward looking morality that you elevate really was 
better, and really was God's magic recipe for perpetual happiness...why didn't 
it stay that way? Do you think that Satan himself could have convinced truly 
happy married couples to get divorced? That pornography would have been a 
temptation for people who were well served by this Bronze Age ideal? Progress 
triumphed over fundamentalism in the 60s because people were educated enough 
and content enough for the first time to cast off the Calvinist neuroses of the 
19th century and grow up and out into a real world full of real choices - not 
paint by numbers automatism.

Craig




[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-13, 11:33:37
Subject: Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudy 
shows




On Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:43:59 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Alberto G. Corona 

It's much simpler than that, I think.
Progressives hate everything resembles anything 
held to be good, beautiful, or true.

Then your thoughts are simple-minded indeed.

Gandhi, MLK, Einstein were haters of goodness, beauty, and truth? Progressives 
aren't artists or musicians?

You can believe in black and white demagoguery if you like..that's exactly what 
Progressives want to leave behind.

Craig




[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
12/13/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-13, 10:13:03
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study 
shows


You said it:
."...in part because it (evolution) carried a sense of "progress" not found in 
Darwin's idea"



Evolution is descriptive, is the fact. natural selection is the theory that 
explain it. A scientific theory impose constraints with what may and may not 
happen. For example, child caring and risk taking at the same time may not 
happen. 


That why progressives prefer the term evolution rather than atural selection. 
They want no constraints for his will of the transformation of themselves and 
their society according with its will.











2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>



On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:48:45 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 
so awareness and intention are before biology, so you seem to admit a teleology 
before life, like me.

Teleology and teleonomy both predate life. They are what time is made of.


I don`t find this ncompatible ith natural selection (or evolution, as 
left-leaning people likes to call it)

Hahaha, I wasn't aware that the very term evolution was now politicized. 
Actually it looks like Darwin preferred another term:


Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin 
of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because 
evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological 
development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because 
it carried a sense of "progress" not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian 
belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and 
other biologists popularized evolution.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evolution


So the reason that evolution was not Darwin's choice is precisely because he 
understood that it is not teleological.


. You seem to admit natural selection up to a point but you reject it when we 
are talking to sensible human things like the sexual roles. 

Yes, natural selection only shapes things that already exist, it doesn't bring 
awareness or qualities of awareness into existence.

You enjoy the fact that NS made female yenas to behave in ome politically 
correct ways (it seems). but you reject that NS selection make female humans 
behave s is in almost all the rest of the animal kingdom. That funny.

I think it's funny that you think I'm citing some evidence supporting a left 
wing agenda. I'm only showing you that gender is not written in stone. It's 
something that most people are already aware of - although if you are over 60 
then you have an excuse.

Craig




.


2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>

doing





-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/sdpVQn09vMYJ. 

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.






-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/KrxIG-s2MLgJ.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/2pv1RPrPl58J.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to