You didn’t demonstrate that “all humans and all ideologies are capable of extremism.” You demonstrated that Nazis are extremists. Do you honestly not see the difference or are you simply muddying the waters so you can argue in bad faith?
FWIW, in my experience as a scientist and science educator, “Darwinism” isn’t a real term used by anyone besides religious nut jobs looking to create a straw man. Just so you know.
Scientific advances are not extremist. People who understand the scientific method and make use of scientific advances are not extremists. People who use scientific advances to commit atrocities are extremists.
Edit: and you still didn’t demonstrate that “all humans and all ideologies are capable of extremism.”
What’s wrong with using the term Darwinism? I think it’s a good umbrella category to include the varieties of evolution theory such Lamarckism, neo-darwinian evolution, modern evolutionary synthesis and extended evolutionary synthesis. What term do the people who aren’t “nut jobs” use?
I’ve made some pretty decent claims about the universality of extremism. I’d love for you to point me to a community of humans who haven’t done something extreme.
What term do the people who aren’t “nut jobs” use?
Evolution. If we’re feeling pedantic or spicy, “the theory of evolution.”
And you still didn’t address the fact that understanding and believing in a scientific advance does not make one an extremist. It doesn’t place you in the same ideological group as people who use that scientific advance for a crime. People who believe the theory of gravity are not “gravitationalists” or “Newtonians.” Moreover, if I use gravity to commit a crime, that doesn’t implicate everyone else who believes that gravity exists. I understand how nuclear reactions work; does that make me a “nuclearist” and therefore complicit in the bombing of Hiroshima?
I’d love for you to point me to a community of humans who haven’t done something extreme.
Secular humanists. There are a number of others I could cite if I felt like pushing your buttons, but I’ll stick with the single option so you don’t get distracted.
Therefore adherents of a religion are also not implicit in extremism, right? Pretty sure that’s the original point of the meme…
It seems that we’re mostly in agreement that it’s the broad category of humans who are culpable. Whether secular or sectarian, humans continuously harm others, intentionally or not.
Therefore adherents of a religion are also not implicit in extremism, right?
That’s literally laughable. Religion is a conscious choice to believe in something for which there is no evidence (which is colloquially known as “faith”). Allowing evidence to provide an understanding of how the natural world works is not the same as choosing to be a part of a community that is not based on reality.
It seems that we’re mostly in agreement that it’s the broad category of humans who are culpable
Correct. However, we differ in our definition of extremism, which I define as intolerance of others, willful ignorance of the natural world, and desire to restrict the rights of others based on their interpretation of Bronze Age manuscripts.
It is laughable, especially coming from someone making homage to Neils Bohr. Did he not choose to lend assistance to the building of the bomb? Of course he advocated for peace after the fact…
I believe that all people should be held accountable for their actions, regardless of their beliefs. You probably believe that nuclear science justifies the nuclear proliferation. I don’t.
I define extremism as violence upon others. Both secularists and religionists are capable and culpable.
You didn’t demonstrate that “all humans and all ideologies are capable of extremism.” You demonstrated that Nazis are extremists. Do you honestly not see the difference or are you simply muddying the waters so you can argue in bad faith?
I’m actually claiming that Darwinism is extremist and that it is implicated by name in the murder of tens of millions of people.
FWIW, in my experience as a scientist and science educator, “Darwinism” isn’t a real term used by anyone besides religious nut jobs looking to create a straw man. Just so you know.
Scientific advances are not extremist. People who understand the scientific method and make use of scientific advances are not extremists. People who use scientific advances to commit atrocities are extremists.
Edit: and you still didn’t demonstrate that “all humans and all ideologies are capable of extremism.”
What’s wrong with using the term Darwinism? I think it’s a good umbrella category to include the varieties of evolution theory such Lamarckism, neo-darwinian evolution, modern evolutionary synthesis and extended evolutionary synthesis. What term do the people who aren’t “nut jobs” use?
I’ve made some pretty decent claims about the universality of extremism. I’d love for you to point me to a community of humans who haven’t done something extreme.
Evolution. If we’re feeling pedantic or spicy, “the theory of evolution.”
And you still didn’t address the fact that understanding and believing in a scientific advance does not make one an extremist. It doesn’t place you in the same ideological group as people who use that scientific advance for a crime. People who believe the theory of gravity are not “gravitationalists” or “Newtonians.” Moreover, if I use gravity to commit a crime, that doesn’t implicate everyone else who believes that gravity exists. I understand how nuclear reactions work; does that make me a “nuclearist” and therefore complicit in the bombing of Hiroshima?
Secular humanists. There are a number of others I could cite if I felt like pushing your buttons, but I’ll stick with the single option so you don’t get distracted.
Therefore adherents of a religion are also not implicit in extremism, right? Pretty sure that’s the original point of the meme…
It seems that we’re mostly in agreement that it’s the broad category of humans who are culpable. Whether secular or sectarian, humans continuously harm others, intentionally or not.
That’s literally laughable. Religion is a conscious choice to believe in something for which there is no evidence (which is colloquially known as “faith”). Allowing evidence to provide an understanding of how the natural world works is not the same as choosing to be a part of a community that is not based on reality.
Correct. However, we differ in our definition of extremism, which I define as intolerance of others, willful ignorance of the natural world, and desire to restrict the rights of others based on their interpretation of Bronze Age manuscripts.
It is laughable, especially coming from someone making homage to Neils Bohr. Did he not choose to lend assistance to the building of the bomb? Of course he advocated for peace after the fact…
I believe that all people should be held accountable for their actions, regardless of their beliefs. You probably believe that nuclear science justifies the nuclear proliferation. I don’t.
I define extremism as violence upon others. Both secularists and religionists are capable and culpable.
At 20 comments on this post, maybe that’s enough thread-sitting, @[email protected].