Was Hitler a pro-choice (i.e. Hitler's choice) Darwinist ?

[piglet17]

One can be Darwinist and not be Hitlerian, one can be pro-choice but not the Dictator. But pro-choiceism has resulted in at least a 6 times greater holocaust and 7 times longer in the USA. So far

[Goat]

You're welcome.
As far as 4 nouns or adjectives in 1 sentence, thanks for your congratulation.
Though i don't think it's 'specially remarkable. U too pulled it off. Congratulations to you too, if you want them.
Strictly i don't compare the Jewish holocaust to abortion. And i imagine Jewish fetuses are executed by abortion also. What i explicitly wrote is that Hitler's holocaust of Jews is much smaller than Roe v Wade's holocaust of innocent life since 1973.
In regard to connection between belief in Evolution and choice-to-abort, since Hitler held to both, maybe he could've told us. If we asked him.
In regard to "pro-choice is a bit like being a Nazi," if you regard human fetuses to be put to death as either guilty or nonhuman, then you'd be right, my logic's "fast and loose." Which means your logic'd be "slow and tight." Kinda like Hitler's Evolutionary logic that if Jews are subhuman and guilty, then we can't compare their holocaust to the abortion holocaust.


But if both Hitler plus you were somehow right (if i read you correctly), that neither Jews nor unwanted human fetuses are innocent humans: then both are nonholocausts.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.
Lastly, if you're perplexed how Darwin could believe in Evolution, or be used as synonym for "Evolution" : could it be because he initiated or popularized the theory of Evolution ?
Thnx

I will have to say that Hitler said nothing about evolution. He might have gotten some clue from Christianity, and from Herbert Spenser (whose ideas were later called 'social darwinism, event though Spencer predated Darwin).

However, considering Hitlers public writings and speeches, it would be more logical for us to equate the motivations from his actions from his Christianity, rather than
'Darwinism' or 'Pro-choice'. The only 'anti-christian' statements that are alleged to have come from Hitler are from the book 'table talk' that is highly suspect, since the originals were destroyed by a very anti-Catholic general , and the stenographers who took the original writings both say that it is not accurate.

The books and public speeches of Hitler had him very strongly claiming his motivations were for the Lord. It very well could be a lie, but that is the claims he made.

[piglet17]

I will have to say that Hitler said nothing about evolution.

To the contrary: He justified His "Aryan race" aggression as survival of the fittest,
and defined His race as the most advanced, and others, in particular slavs, Jews, and blacks, as "subhuman"

He might have gotten some clue from Christianity, and from Herbert Spenser (whose ideas were later called 'social darwinism, event though Spencer predated Darwin).

What "clue" ?
Criticizing the Jewish ManGod for being so weak as to die on a cross ?
Hitler postdated Darwin

However, considering Hitlers public writings and speeches, it would be more logical for us to equate the motivations from his actions from his Christianity, rather than
'Darwinism' or 'Pro-choice'.

That is "logical." Especially His mocking Christ's commandment to love and willingness to die for His enemies.
Unless by "Christianity" you mean religion and not Christ

The only 'anti-christian' statements that are alleged to have come from Hitler are from the book 'table talk' that is highly suspect, since the originals were destroyed by a very anti-Catholic general , and the stenographers who took the original writings both say that it is not accurate.

To the contrary: Mein Kampf, if you ever wasted your time to read it, as well as all His televised and radio speeches, are completely contrary to the spirit of the Bible and the Bible. To say nothing of His murder of God's chosen people in the Bible: Jews.
Even organized religion he wasn't fond of.
Perhaps you, like Hitler, dislike or are ignorant of "Christians" as that term's used in the New Testament

The books and public speeches of Hitler had him very strongly claiming his motivations were for the Lord. It very well could be a lie, but that is the claims he made.

U mean it's possible that politicians and dictators lie or be political ?
i never thought o' that

[Goat]

I will have to say that Hitler said nothing about evolution.

To the contrary: He justified His "Aryan race" aggression as survival of the fittest,
and defined His race as the most advanced, and others, in particular slavs, Jews, and blacks, as "subhuman"

Which, of course, is not 'darwinism' or evolution. It is Spencerism, which predates the origin of species though.

He might have gotten some clue from Christianity, and from Herbert Spenser (whose ideas were later called 'social darwinism, event though Spencer predated Darwin).

What "clue" ?
Criticizing the Jewish ManGod for being so weak as to die on a cross ?
Hitler postdated Darwin

Ah. yes, the quote from 'table talk'. Spurious at best. Want to use something that is not quite likely a creation of Martin Bormann, and not reflective of Hitler himself. Yo do know the stenographers who were there wouldn't vouch for the accuracy of the book< right?


I won't go through the whole bunch of quotes from Hitlers speeches and books. I am sure people have seen them dozens of time.

However, considering Hitlers public writings and speeches, it would be more logical for us to equate the motivations from his actions from his Christianity, rather than
'Darwinism' or 'Pro-choice'.

That is "logical." Especially His mocking Christ's commandment to love and willingness to die for His enemies.
Unless by "Christianity" you mean religion and not Christ

Christianity, Christ and religion are tightly intertwined.

The only 'anti-christian' statements that are alleged to have come from Hitler are from the book 'table talk' that is highly suspect, since the originals were destroyed by a very anti-Catholic general , and the stenographers who took the original writings both say that it is not accurate.

To the contrary: Mein Kampf, if you ever wasted your time to read it, as well as all His televised and radio speeches, are completely contrary to the spirit of the Bible and the Bible. To say nothing of His murder of God's chosen people in the Bible: Jews.
Even organized religion he wasn't fond of.
Perhaps you, like Hitler, dislike or are ignorant of "Christians" as that term's used in the New Testament

In Mein Kempf, and in his speeches, he claimed to be doing the Lord's work.

The books and public speeches of Hitler had him very strongly claiming his motivations were for the Lord. It very well could be a lie, but that is the claims he made.

U mean it's possible that politicians and dictators lie or be political ?
i never thought o' that

Why, yes it is. However, all HIS sources showed he was Christian. He was talking TO christians, and they accepted his words. Either way, the 'super race' stuff was not Darwinism, but Spencerian.

It is hypocritical, full of denial about what Hitler said about himself, and also a straw man attack against evolution.

[piglet17]

Which, of course, is not 'darwinism' or evolution. It is Spencerism, which predates the origin of species though.

U mean Darwin's absurd theory, Evolution, doesn't address human behavior ?
Can't address it ? Hasn't gotten around to addressing it ? Prefers not to address it ? Has nothing, or nothing intelligible, to say about it ? Just because Evolutionists today realize how politically incorrect and stupid they sound, even to themselves, when attempting to apply their theory to human races, doesn't mean Hitler and others haven't.

Were you saying that Spenser died or finished writing before Darwin's "Origin of Species" ?

Ah. yes, the quote from 'table talk'. Spurious at best. Want to use something that is not quite likely a creation of Martin Bormann, and not reflective of Hitler himself. Yo do know the stenographers who were there wouldn't vouch for the accuracy of the book< right?

Wrong. That is: wrong to your thoughtless researchless theme:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a FIGHTER. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and SUMMONED MEN TO FIGHT AGAINST THEM and who, GOD'S TRUTH! WAS GREATEST NOT AS A SUFFERER BUT AS A FIGHTER. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord AT LAST rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His FIGHT FOR THE WORLD AGAINST THE JEWISH POISON. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was FOR THIS that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the DUTY TO BE A FIGHTER for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, TURN AGAINST THOSE by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922 (emphasis added).

There's no shortage of this crap from Hitler. U may be as unaware of him as you may be of Evolution or of the Bible.

www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

Do you Really need (or want) me to show you how much, where, and to what extent Christ's New Testament contradicts Hitler and vice versa (eg: emphasized parts from Hitler's speech--not "table talk"--above) ?

i'd be glad to help you if you do

I won't go through the whole bunch of quotes from Hitlers speeches and books. I am sure people have seen them dozens of time.

?
It seems (no offence intended) that you yourself may have missed at least the one above, if not more, if not all

Christianity, Christ and religion are tightly intertwined.

How so
(other than you stating so) ?

In Mein Kempf, and in his speeches, he claimed to be doing the Lord's work.

Meaning....................he was ?

all HIS sources showed he was Christian.

Hitler's sources ?
Where/when did Christ/the Bible tell Hitler to become dictator ?
To kill anyone ? To kill Jews ?
Is your incredibly "thoughtful" argument that because Hitler's morally warped, therefore Christ is ? The Bible is ?
If so, then your thought appears warped.

For example, contrasting to his Munich speech April 12, 1922 quote above (and this is only partial and a start):
"my Lord and Savior as a FIGHTER."
"He saved others; Himself He can't save/Father forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing" Matthew 27:42/Luke 23:34.

"SUMMONED MEN TO FIGHT AGAINST [JEWS] and who, GOD'S TRUTH! WAS GREATEST NOT AS A SUFFERER BUT AS A FIGHTER."
"We preach Christ crucified...because the foolishness of God is wiser than men and the weakness of God is stronger than men/To those who are called both Jews and Greeks//They said Lord behold here are two swords. And He said to them: Enough/...Return your sword to its place/...Touching his ear He healed him" 1 Corinthians 1:23-25//Luke 22:38 Matthew 26:52 Luke 22:51.

"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man..."
"Love your enemies..." Matthew 5:44.

"the Lord AT LAST rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His FIGHT FOR THE WORLD AGAINST THE JEWISH POISON."
"By His stripe we've been healed...the chastening for our peace was upon Him/
As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that everyone who believes into Him may have eternal life/They said Lord behold here are two swords. And He said to them: Enough"
Isaiah 53:5/John 3:14/Luke 22:38

"I have the DUTY TO BE A FIGHTER for truth and justice..."
"Love your enemies/My kingdom's not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My attendants would be struggling so that I wouldn't be delivered to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom's not of this world...For this I've been born and for this I've come into the world, that I would testify to the truth/Being enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son"
Matthew 5:44/John 18:36-37/Romans 5:10.

Etc etc etc.

He was talking TO christians, and they accepted his words. Either way, the 'super race' stuff was not Darwinism, but Spencerian.

To the contrary: merely because one, or you, calls one "Christian" doesn't make them so

It is hypocritical, full of denial about what Hitler said about himself, and also a straw man attack against evolution.

You're "right." Hitler wasn't hypocritical. Didn't lie. Wasn't politician. Probably wasn't political. Wasn't Evolutionist. His speeches (ww.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm) and writings alone didn't show him to be the most unchristly person who ever lived. And even if he was lying, we should believe him when he calls himself Christian and give him all benefit of the doubt.
Thanks for clearin that up for me goat

[Goat]

Which, of course, is not 'darwinism' or evolution. It is Spencerism, which predates the origin of species though.

U mean Darwin's absurd theory, Evolution, doesn't address human behavior ?
Can't address it ? Hasn't gotten around to addressing it ? Prefers not to address it ? Has nothing, or nothing intelligible, to say about it ? Just because Evolutionists today realize how politically incorrect and stupid they sound, even to themselves, when attempting to apply their theory to human races, doesn't mean Hitler and others haven't.

Were you saying that Spenser died or finished writing before Darwin's "Origin of Species" ?

Nope.. but if you read Spenser's books, he doesn't use natural selection , he uses Lamarkism, and he put things into social contexts, rather than a biological context, which is not anything that is about Darwin what so ever.

[piglet17]

Nope.. but if you read Spenser's books, he doesn't use natural selection , he uses Lamarkism, and he put things into social contexts, rather than a biological context, which is not anything that is about Darwin what so ever.

Killing people is biological (antibiological) to say the least. Races are something biological, to say the least. What does Evolution say about race ?
Does Evolution also "teach" that survival of the fittest should be unconscious but not conscious ? Can't be conscious but can be unconscious ? Accidental but not purposeful ? Stops when people become conscious of it ?
Nothing ? It says nothing accurate or realistic about biology, so i don't expect it to be intelligible on race either. Either social Darwinism, nonsocial Darwinism, "biological" Darwinism, any kind of "Darwinism."

Lastly, Adolph Hitler postdated Darwin. Nor predated him.
Just like Marx, Lenin, and Stalin postdate, and utilize, Darwin's stupidity.

Thnx

[Confused]

Which, of course, is not 'darwinism' or evolution. It is Spencerism, which predates the origin of species though.

U mean Darwin's absurd theory, Evolution, doesn't address human behavior ?
Can't address it ? Hasn't gotten around to addressing it ? Prefers not to address it ? Has nothing, or nothing intelligible, to say about it ? Just because Evolutionists today realize how politically incorrect and stupid they sound, even to themselves, when attempting to apply their theory to human races, doesn't mean Hitler and others haven't.

Were you saying that Spenser died or finished writing before Darwin's "Origin of Species" ?

Ah. yes, the quote from 'table talk'. Spurious at best. Want to use something that is not quite likely a creation of Martin Bormann, and not reflective of Hitler himself. Yo do know the stenographers who were there wouldn't vouch for the accuracy of the book< right?

Wrong. That is: wrong to your thoughtless researchless theme:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a FIGHTER. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and SUMMONED MEN TO FIGHT AGAINST THEM and who, GOD'S TRUTH! WAS GREATEST NOT AS A SUFFERER BUT AS A FIGHTER. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord AT LAST rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His FIGHT FOR THE WORLD AGAINST THE JEWISH POISON. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was FOR THIS that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the DUTY TO BE A FIGHTER for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, TURN AGAINST THOSE by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922 (emphasis added).

There's no shortage of this crap from Hitler. U may be as unaware of him as you may be of Evolution or of the Bible.

www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

Do you Really need (or want) me to show you how much, where, and to what extent Christ's New Testament contradicts Hitler and vice versa (eg: emphasized parts from Hitler's speech--not "table talk"--above) ?

i'd be glad to help you if you do

I won't go through the whole bunch of quotes from Hitlers speeches and books. I am sure people have seen them dozens of time.

?
It seems (no offence intended) that you yourself may have missed at least the one above, if not more, if not all

Christianity, Christ and religion are tightly intertwined.

How so
(other than you stating so) ?

In Mein Kempf, and in his speeches, he claimed to be doing the Lord's work.

Meaning....................he was ?

all HIS sources showed he was Christian.

Hitler's sources ?
Where/when did Christ/the Bible tell Hitler to become dictator ?
To kill anyone ? To kill Jews ?
Is your incredibly "thoughtful" argument that because Hitler's morally warped, therefore Christ is ? The Bible is ?
If so, then your thought appears warped.

For example, contrasting to his Munich speech April 12, 1922 quote above (and this is only partial and a start):
"my Lord and Savior as a FIGHTER."
"He saved others; Himself He can't save/Father forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing" Matthew 27:42/Luke 23:34.

"SUMMONED MEN TO FIGHT AGAINST [JEWS] and who, GOD'S TRUTH! WAS GREATEST NOT AS A SUFFERER BUT AS A FIGHTER."
"We preach Christ crucified...because the foolishness of God is wiser than men and the weakness of God is stronger than men/To those who are called both Jews and Greeks//They said Lord behold here are two swords. And He said to them: Enough/...Return your sword to its place/...Touching his ear He healed him" 1 Corinthians 1:23-25//Luke 22:38 Matthew 26:52 Luke 22:51.

"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man..."
"Love your enemies..." Matthew 5:44.

"the Lord AT LAST rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His FIGHT FOR THE WORLD AGAINST THE JEWISH POISON."
"By His stripe we've been healed...the chastening for our peace was upon Him/
As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that everyone who believes into Him may have eternal life/They said Lord behold here are two swords. And He said to them: Enough"
Isaiah 53:5/John 3:14/Luke 22:38

"I have the DUTY TO BE A FIGHTER for truth and justice..."
"Love your enemies/My kingdom's not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My attendants would be struggling so that I wouldn't be delivered to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom's not of this world...For this I've been born and for this I've come into the world, that I would testify to the truth/Being enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son"
Matthew 5:44/John 18:36-37/Romans 5:10.

Etc etc etc.

He was talking TO christians, and they accepted his words. Either way, the 'super race' stuff was not Darwinism, but Spencerian.

To the contrary: merely because one, or you, calls one "Christian" doesn't make them so

It is hypocritical, full of denial about what Hitler said about himself, and also a straw man attack against evolution.

You're "right." Hitler wasn't hypocritical. Didn't lie. Wasn't politician. Probably wasn't political. Wasn't Evolutionist. His speeches (ww.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm) and writings alone didn't show him to be the most unchristly person who ever lived. And even if he was lying, we should believe him when he calls himself Christian and give him all benefit of the doubt.
Thanks for clearin that up for me goat

MODERATOR INTERVENTION

Enough. If you have something to present, present it in a civil manner with respect to the other debaters and their positions. If you need the link to the forum rules, you can find it here:
ref:Debate Forum Intro and Rules

[piglet17]

MODERATOR INTERVENTION

If you feel you have something on point or to contribute to the argument, then please feel free to contribute it. Censorship, especially biased censorship, if that's what you're threatening, doesn't hold a candle to free speach.

Enough. If you have something to present, present it in a civil manner with respect to the other debaters and their positions.

Enough what?
You haven't shared your side, nor specified any of your "enough" argument in the least. Nor, does it appear, you're necessarily unbiased. Since you select me only.
Are you suggesting that Evolutionists can call nonevolution silly or mythical,
but nonevolutionists can't do vice versa ?

The main point was also Hitler's speeches. Do you have any point on that ?
i specifically pointed out how Hitler's speech was nonchristian. Taking great length, cites, and time. Why not let the other person respond without paternalism ?
Even your paternalism i don't mind, as long as you let the substantiation speak for itself instead of threatening (if you are) to write my posts for me

If you need the link to the forum rules, you can find it here:
ref:Debate Forum Intro and Rules

Would you like to compare any and all of my exact quotes with any and all of those of those i'm debating with ?
If you need to look at them all without bias, they're right here.

Lastly, most of my direct comments to him are questions. Nonrhetorical questions.
Are you upset because i criticize and criticized Hitler ?
i admit, he's not here to defend himself

[Furrowed Brow]

You're welcome.
As far as 4 nouns or adjectives in 1 sentence, thanks for your congratulation.
Though I don't think it's 'specially remarkable. U too pulled it off. Congratulations to you too, if you want them.

Thank you again for showing me what is needed to be able to do it.

Strictly I don't compare the Jewish holocaust to abortion. And I imagine Jewish foetuses are executed by abortion also. What I explicitly wrote is that Hitler's holocaust of Jews is much smaller than Roe v Wade's holocaust of innocent life since 1973.

If you are saying something is smaller than something else then strictly that is a comparison. And by making the comparison in the way you have implies like is being compared for like otherwise why make the size comparison? You could of said the number of amputations has been much smaller than terminations since 1973. That is another size comparison.

In regard to connection between belief in Evolution and choice-to-abort, since Hitler held to both, maybe he could've told us. If we asked him.

I let you tussle it out with Goat as to what Hitler might or might not believe. But for argument sake lets say Hitler subscribed to evolution and proc-choice. How are the subjects connected other than Hitler you are saying Hitler held them. What point explicitly are you making, if any?

Which means your logic'd be "slow and tight."

Nothing wrong in thinking slowly if youre logic is tighter for it.

Kinda like Hitler's Evolutionary logic that if Jews are subhuman and guilty, then we can't compare their holocaust to the abortion holocaust.

Okay so you are saying that "pro-choice" is guilty of justifying their position by hiding behind semantics. Calling a "person" a "fetus" would be the first step in that dehumanising of the unborn. That kind of thing. Terminating foetuses becomes like terminating sub humans. So for either Foetus or subhuman read not human. That is the thrust of your point. But that semantic game is a two way street. Calling a blob of cells a person, humanises a blob of cells.

But if both Hitler plus you were somehow right (if i read you correctly), that neither Jews nor unwanted human fetuses are innocent humans: then both are nonholocausts.

Ah I see. Im a Hitlerian.

Jews are people, babies are people. Mass murder of either Id call a holocaust.

Fetuses are human foetuses. But the question is where do we set the limit that foetuses are people? We may each come to our own opinion on that. But strangely my opinion on the subject has nothing to do with subscribing to evolutionary theory and common descent.

U mean Darwin's absurd theory, Evolution, doesn't address human behaviour ?

Evolutionary theory does address human behaviour. Evolutionary psychology for example. However evolutionary theory is not social Darwinism or propose anything like it.

What does Evolution say about race ?

Well there is debate over the validity of the concept of Race when applied to biology. Heres a link about one proffessor who thinks race is a biological category, others disagree. The subject is moot.

[piglet17]

Thank you again for showing me what is needed to be able to do it.

You're welcome again. i'm sorry and suprised to hear if your 4th grade English teacher didn't get 'round to showin u 4 nouns can be in a sentence and you were forced to wait for me