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

piglet17 · Post by **piglet17** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:46 pm

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

Simon_Peter · Post by **Simon_Peter** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:48 am

Hello Pig,

Your name suits, your choice of topic.

Insults aside, i am very concerned with what your talking about. Not the fact the content of this discussion is just wrong, but the conclusions you gathering from it.

Now Let me quote you.

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

I understand exactly what your trying to communicate, apart from the obvious. Your almost saying, that if i'm blue then i might not be brown. If i am a lemon i might not be an orange. But the most startling thing you have said is this.

Lastly, if you're perplexed how Darwin could believe in Evolution

Why the hell would i be perplexed at that, he invented the damn theory. Then you said:

could it be because he initiated or popularized the theory of Evolution ?

Well firstly you asked a question, that no one would ask. And then answered it. Do you understand that Guru, was asking a question about the logical steps in your initial post. Because you just cobbled together some stupid things. And then put a question mark.

Lastly you said that abortion was worse than the holocaust, that my grandfather was in. And shed blood for the protection of the free world. But then you said, no, both are not holocausts, because no humans died....

Dude you seriously need some moral and ethical debating skills!!

Or just learn to keep your pig mouth closed. I am not being offensive, i am merely reffering to you, your name. actually i shortened it your actual name is Piglet17 so i knocked off the number, and a few letters, but hey thats what friends do Pig.

piglet17 · Post by **piglet17** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:32 pm

21 Insults aside, i am very concerned with what your talking about.

No problem. i neither censor nor seek censorship of people. Even when they themselves explicitly state that they're committing insult. Nor, if you're nonchristian, do i imagine you'd have anythin to worry about here if you're the one doing the insulting. i find that permitting you to speak for yourself does a much better job than i could of revealing yourself

Why the hell would i be perplexed at that, he invented the damn theory.

R u "Furrowed Brow" ?

firstly you asked a question, that no one would ask.

To the contrary: firstly Furrowed Brow in 9 asked me:

9 Darwinists? How did you get believers in evolution in that...?

Then i, to help him, asked him in 10:

10 could it be because [Darwin] initiated or popularized the theory of Evolution ?

Becuz i, like you, thought he should've been able to put the 2 together himself

21 Do you understand that Guru, was asking a question about the logical steps in your initial post. Because you just cobbled together some stupid things. And then put a question mark.

Being Christian nonevolutionists, if i wrote "stupid," i might either be censored or threatened with censorship for violating rules or the Index of Forbidden Words here.
As maybe nonchristian, or nonevolutionist, you have nothing to worry about.
So don't worry about it.
Also, don't bother identifying what you found "stupid." It might be easier for us to guess. Or funner.
Like goat and Jim Walker (www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm) seem not to have problems taking Hitler at his word, perhaps we can just take you at your word "stupid" against my things and believe you without question.

Lastly you Do mention Guru.
R u tryin to perplex me ?
If you know you're not Furrowed Brow (aka Guru), and u know i was addressin him in 10: why ask me "Why the h*** would ["Simon_Peter"] be perplexed at" the connection between "Darwinist" and "Evolution" ?

you said that abortion was worse than the holocaust. But then you said, no, both are not holocausts, because no humans died

To the contrary: i wrote in post 10:

10 ...But if both Hitler plus [Guru] were somehow right...that neither Jews nor unwanted human fetuses are innocent humans: then both are nonholocausts.

21 Dude you seriously need some moral and ethical debating skills!!

How so dude ? Are you blaming me, even to the extent of "immorality," simply because you either ignore, or can't read, my words "But if" ?
"If" is a conditional word. Post 10 presented alternative potential views of what ones, including Hitler and Furrowed Brow, might consider holocausts or nonholocausts. Based on their beliefs

Or just learn to keep your pig mouth closed...

Thas kinda what prejudiced people (like Hitler and Political Correctness) often do. Suggest or seek to silence those who disagree with them. By force or censorship. After they fail to by free and open debate. (By the way Evolutionists also mostly seem to choose censorship over open discussion on Evolution vs Design in US public schools). So i should add that to my next thread title: Was Hitler pro-Hitler's choice of abortions, Darwinist, and against our First Amendment ?
Thanks for your thoughtful contribution

Simon_Peter · Post by **Simon_Peter** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 2:05 pm

Piglet,

Wow man, you really tested me then phew thank God that i am big person.

Sorry for calling you pig, i apologize.

I had family that died in world war 2, and your calling them lower than human. I will not let them die in vain. I will rise above ignorance in general, i am not saying your ignorant, i am saying ignorance in general. This has been very difficult. This has been an education i will not soon forget. So finally you have shown me what the bible means.

Thank you, can we talk about something else now?

piglet17 · Post by **piglet17** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:22 pm

Wow man, you really tested me

Tested ? How so ?

I had family that died in world war 2, and your calling them lower than human.

To the contrary of your false accusation: where ?

I will not let them die in vain. I will rise above ignorance in general, i am not saying your ignorant, i am saying ignorance in general. This has been very difficult. This has been an education i will not soon forget. So finally you have shown me what the bible means.

What ?

Thank you, can we talk about something else now?

In this thread ?
Start your own. If you'd like.
Ok ?

Simon_Peter · Post by **Simon_Peter** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:34 pm

hey

...im just asking you to stop talking about it

piglet17 · Post by **piglet17** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:07 pm

Thanks, but i'm declining

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 1:20 pm

Moderator Intervention

Simon Peter wrote:Hello Pig,

Your name suits, your choice of topic.

Insults aside, i am very concerned with what your talking about. Not the fact the content of this discussion is just wrong, but the conclusions you gathering from it.

piglet may not mind, but the rules do more than protect individual posters. They are also there to maintain an overall level of civility in the discourse. Thus, comments like the above should be avoided.

piglet17 wrote:Being Christian nonevolutionists, if i wrote "stupid," i might either be censored or threatened with censorship for violating rules or the Index of Forbidden Words here.
As maybe nonchristian, or nonevolutionist, you have nothing to worry about.
So don't worry about it.

The moderators include members of the whole gamut of viewpoints. We do not selectively enforce rules based on the members viewpoint. Rules are enforced when individual posters violate them.

In addition, comments regarding the moderating should be made via PM to one of the moderators, as per the rules.

Let's stay on topic and not get into personal comments.

piglet17 · Post by **piglet17** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 1:58 pm

The moderators include members of the whole gamut of viewpoints. We do not selectively enforce rules based on the members viewpoint. Rules are enforced when individual posters violate them.

i hope that's true. Thank you for at least stating it. But please don't censor others on my account. Since i'm pro free speech, pro First Amendment.

In addition, comments regarding the moderating should be made via PM to one of the moderators, as per the rules.

Why ?
Which rule ?
Can't moderators participate in debates ?
And if they do, can't they be responded to ?
Especially when they initiate it ?
This is re your word "comments." This isn't a "challenge."
i jus ask you identify which rule to me, i din't c that one.
i won't condemn or seek to censor you if you write it here.
Especially since i'm the one who initiated this thread.
Thanks so much

byofrcs · Post by **byofrcs** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:38 pm

piglet17 wrote: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

I feel that you are presenting a disingenuous attempt at trying to conflate Hitler's ideas on National Socialism with Darwinism and induced abortion and managing to annoy everyone. Personally I feel your Bull-in-a-china-shop approach to debate is a crap technique.

Miscarriages are around 10-50% of pregnancies depending upon age. We can use the 10% figure as that is for the bulk of pregnancies and the maths is easier. Live births globally are around 205 Million (globally) and of these around one-third are unintended, and about 22% of all pregnancies end in induced abortion (ref: Guttmacher Institute).

So it would appear that man is beating God (nature) two to 1. How do we let God win ?. Simple; ready access to reliable and low cost contraceptives plus education programs to hammer home the message about their use.

That is really it. There is no fancy "Darwinism" conspiracy at work, just women getting pregnant for a variety of reasons and choosing to abort not out of some ideology of Darwinism that they read about but because they do not want another child (or any children at all). Children are a huge drain on resources. I have three (all planned...but then I *am* what you would consider a "Darwinist") and so far they have cost us as a rough guess around GBP 400,000 (pound sterling - around 800,000 USD) in lost earnings. I have had a vasectomy so we do not plan any more (this is more personal "Darwinism" I guess). We've got 1st world health and social welfare system to fall back on but in the lesser developed world that doesn't really exist.

piglet17 · Post by **piglet17** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:16 pm

I feel that you are presenting a disingenuous attempt at trying to conflate Hitler's ideas on National Socialism with Darwinism and induced abortion and managing to annoy everyone.

Your ignorance is annoying, so i guess we can call it even

Personally I feel your Bull-in-a-china-shop approach to debate is a crap technique.

That's nearly identical, at least your second to last word is, to my impression of yours

Miscarriages are around 10-50% of pregnancies depending upon age. We can use the 10% figure as that is for the bulk of pregnancies and the maths is easier. Live births globally are around 205 Million (globally) and of these around one-third are unintended, and about 22% of all pregnancies end in induced abortion (ref: Guttmacher Institute).

So it would appear that man is beating God (nature) two to 1.

Despite how much you and/or Satan try to beat God, you'll fail

How do we let God win ?. Simple; ready access to reliable and low cost contraceptives plus education programs to hammer home the message about their use.

Win what ? God's not political

That is really it. There is no fancy "Darwinism" conspiracy at work, just women getting pregnant for a variety of reasons and choosing to abort not out of some ideology of Darwinism that they read about but because they do not want another child (or any children at all).

That's really................no idea of what my thread title is. Not at all

Children are a huge drain on resources. I have three (all planned...but then I *am* what you would consider a "Darwinist") and so far they have cost us as a rough guess around GBP 400,000 (pound sterling - around 800,000 USD) in lost earnings. I have had a vasectomy so we do not plan any more (this is more personal "Darwinism" I guess). We've got 1st world health and social welfare system to fall back on but in the lesser developed world that doesn't really exist.

Since you seem to tie the two togeher: how is your Darwinism connected in the least to your planned parenthood of three ? Even if you're just guessing

Debating Christianity and Religion