On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:07:55 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > > Hi Craig Weinberg > > Ghandi didn't increase anybody's taxes, > which makes everything he did right. >
Sounds like a position Jesus would approve of. <http://futureprimate.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/61440_452139411520705_1795875294_n3.jpeg> http://futureprimate.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/61440_452139411520705_1795875294_n3.jpeg > > > [Roger Clough], [[email protected]] <javascript:> > 12/15/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Craig Weinberg <javascript:> > *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> > *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], [[email protected]] >> 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], [[email protected]] >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> [email protected]. >>>> 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 [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]. >>> 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 [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]<javascript:> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] <javascript:>. > 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/-/u7RFpnuOTqoJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
