I suspect that the more sensitive members of this list will think that my last message was unnecessarily pejorative with respect to gangs, and gang members. It would probably therefore be foolish of me to suggest including child-abusing priests, scientologists, and more than a few of the military industrial profiteers in the "better off dead" list.
So I won't. Best to quietly just resume the scholarly discussions about "faith". Don't you think? On Sep 26, 2012 10:03 PM, "Douglas Roberts" <[email protected]> wrote: > Still, irrespective of whomever coined that old "fittest" rubric, dead > gang members are far more productive members of society than live ones, I > suspect. > On Sep 26, 2012 9:48 PM, "Nicholas Thompson" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Darwinism only says that the least prolific will be eliminated. It says >> nothing about degeneracy, unless, of course profligacy is defined as >> “advanced.” Spencer was the social Darwinist, not Darwin. In fact, it was >> SPENCER, who coined “the survival of the fittest”, I believe. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> N**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts >> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 26, 2012 9:03 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] faith**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Well, speaking from my own (apparent) semi-unique perspective: Darwin's >> proposition of "Survival of the Fittest" would seem to scream out for the >> elimination of degenerate components of society which threaten to bring the >> entire species to total extinction.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> And, being an engineer, I cannot but cheer and encourage any activity >> that speeds the destruction of those destructive elements of society. Like >> gang conflicts, for example. And religion, for another. Not that there is >> much difference, really.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> --Doug**** >> >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Roger Critchlow <[email protected]> wrote:**** >> >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote:*** >> * >> >> Tory -**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Why is the idea of two differing but synergistic approaches so >> challenging to so many on this list? Or are you arguing for the fun of the >> game?**** >> >> I'm pretty sure both the Monkey and the Weasel are in it for the >> endorphins released.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I don't think I'm talking about two differing approaches.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Some beliefs are so common that no one even thinks about them. Many >> people deny that they're beliefs at all. Other beliefs extend and explain >> and modify the common ones in different ways. But I say we're all >> believers on this bus, some are just more conscious of it.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- rec --**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- >> Doug Roberts >> [email protected] >> [email protected]**** >> >> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins**** >> >> >> 505-455-7333 - Office >> 505-670-8195 - Cell**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
