Talk:Hitler and evolution/Archive1

Don't know about this, but we hadn't an article on the subject & this seems reasonably good. If someone can rewrite it so it's ours, please continue! (I do like the secular schools bit! That's what I was googling when I found this)   ^Contribs_Talk 07:23, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Don't edit the copied stuff, unless you edit it a lot & remove the copying info from the header.   ^Contribs_Talk 07:30, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

That's sort of what I was building towards. (I wasn't planning to do it all myself, though :P) Pink_(Mowse!) 07:32, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Do it elsewhere & replace the lot then - else it'll be a hybrid sort of thing.  ^Contribs_Talk 07:36, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

*sigh* Yes, your majesty :P Pink_(!) 07:39, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Unless you knock out my preamble and paraphrase it from top to bottom, of course. Thing is, I rather like it & I'd like Ken to see it.   ^Contribs_Talk 07:42, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

We could probably keep it as it is for a while. Pink_{(Now admire my signature)} 07:44, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

I like this but are we sure of all the facts? I found this crticism. I think we should address those points just to ensure that we've got it right. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:53, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

It's not sourced Genghis - could be from anywhere.   ^Contribs_Talk 12:37, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Agreed, but that won't stop people picking holes in our article. All I'm saying is that we should back up our claims quite rigorously. Some anti-evolutionsists make a big thing about Hitler & "Darwinism" so we need to make our rebuttal a water-tight. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:52, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

I think the point still stands. Children were taught to pray to a higher entity - OK, the enforcers definition of higher, not neccessarily any one else's - to reinforce their obedience. Same process, same motivation, different deity. The point still stands for me. Silver Sloth 10:13, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually, looking at the full text of Mein Kampf for the first two quotations we could do with somewhat more lengthy quotations - they would make the case even stronger, and would eliminate the possibility of our being accused of quote mining. --Bob^{bing up} 11:30, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Agreed, Bob, I was worried about that when I first read it on SW. It needs total RWification - volunteers? (I'm busy)  ^Contribs_Talk 12:34, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to have a go at it. Apart from anything else, the jumps between past & present tense are really annoying me. Plus I have a couple of things to add. weaseLOId~ 12:48, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Mmmmm. In fact, now that I've read the text around the "The fox remains always a fox," quote, it's part of an argument against miscegenation under "RACE AND PEOPLE". In the same section he also writes: The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all. which sounds rather like a sort of evolution to me. In short I think what we have is close to a quote mine.--Bob^{bing up} 13:06, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

It would seem that Hitler uses the words "evolution" in differing ways: social evolution, personal evolution and - what looks to me like - biological evolution. Here is another: In our case this term has no meaning. Because everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must admit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have manifested it for the first time. It was then repeated again and again;and the practice of it spread over a widening area, until finally it passed into the subconscience of every member of the species, where it manifested itself as 'instinct.' Again this looks quite close to biological evolution to me. Frankly I think this article goes too far with the "Hitler was a creationist" idea. (Depending, of course, on your definition of "creationist")--Bob^{bing up} 13:22, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

The subsequent Mein Kampf quotes all look quite justifiable though.--Bob^{bing up} 13:30, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

<unindent>I've started on improving it, although I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but I've got a few real world things to do for a while. Feel free to carry on. The 'Hitler on nature' section is mine (but of course you can add to it). The 'comparisons with creationism' bit is the original text from another site & needs work. I think we should tone down the stuff comparing him with creationists; otherwise our argument is no better than theirs. My understanding, after looking through Chapter XI of Mein Kampf, which is where he talks most about animals, is that believed in a kind of evolution, but basically misunderstood what evolutionary theory is really about. He believed in higher & lower (or stronger & weaker) orders of creatures (& races) & that no interaction should take between them. weaseLOId~ 13:55, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm not convinced that we should say that Hitler did not believe in some form of macroevolution - at least for animals. One of teh quotes above is: for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all The phrase "higher development of organic life" sounds like more than microevolution to me.--Bob^{bing up} 15:05, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Legality warning

Having read the WP article, the only jurisdiction where it seems to be actually illegal to possess the thing is Austria. [3] Perhaps our warning should be more directed towards our Austrian readers?--Bob^{bing up} 11:07, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Maybe, but a legal judgement based on a Wikipedia article isn't watertight. Better to be cautious & have the warning say something like "please aware of the laws within your country before accessing the text of Mein Kampf". weaseLOId~ 12:21, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Weve something similar on our Adolf Hitler page. (what's more likely to make someone look at a link than awarning?)   ^Contribs_Talk 12:46, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Ah, if but Human were here

Warning: Extreme Incoherency

At least one of the editors involved in this article/discussion was under the influence of:

• prescription medicine

• alcohol

• illicit drugs

• lack of sleep

• power, absolute power!

• the sheer joy of discovering that an article mentions dinosaurs

• all of the above

and has lapsed into incoherency. Mind this in bear.

Ah, if but Human were here. He would revert your changes and demand to see a writing plan while you were in the middle of editing. And no one would have any objections to Human's actions, because, hey, he's Human—and Human is always right. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:30, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Or perhaps he wouldn't do anything, because this isn't one of his pet articles. Which just hammers home the point even more. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:30, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Stop being such a little bitch RA. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 17:32, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Ace is right (if a bit too abrassive), you aren't making this any easier. NightFlare ...but a^3 + b^3 = c^3 has no integral solutions other than the obvious {1, 1, 1} case.[1][2] 17:34, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Abrasive yes but for god sake, isnt it a waste of time to bitch and moan? Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 17:40, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I'm bitching? I suppose it's better than being the one whose knee-jerk reaction to every darn conflict is shouting We don't need rules!, without realizing the conflict just irrefutably highlighted the necessity of rules. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:42, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I know, Nightflare. But I felt my point was valid—Human could be a real dictator at times, and no one ever calls him on it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:42, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps no one called him on because no one gave a shit? Could it be that some dont take it seriously and that people have better things to do than complain about User:Human on a largely unknown Wiki? Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 17:46, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

You are not everyone, Ace. And you seem to think that Human is on your side with in the sense of "not taking things seriously", yet the fact that he started a fight over Abraham Lincoln demonstrates that he does care. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:58, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

RA I didnt suggest I was everyone and I merely floated the idea that no one else gave a shit. I did not state anything but you appear to be the only one complaining. If I am wrong, fine then. Secondly, I couldnt care less if "human was on my side" whatever that means. I dont care if Human takes it seriously or not because I dont take this site seriously. I think to make it serious does it a grave injustice considering the premise it was set up on. But listening to you bitch and moan and bringing bitching and moaning to anyone that will listen is frankly a pain in the arse. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 18:04, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

RA, any chance we could have a moritorium on the Human bashing for a week or so. You might not like him but there's no need to go overboard. Damo^Hi 17:44, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Alright, alright. When even the bystanders start complaining its time to stop—I'll refrain from bashing Human for the next seven days. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:04, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

RA, stop taking Human's name in vain. If you have a problem with the way I'm editing this article, then say so. Don't pretend it's the ghost of Human saying it. You obviously can't stop picking a fight with the guy, even when he isn't here! weaseLOId~ 18:00, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually, I heartily approve of your changes to the article. I really was just pointing out Human's hypocrisy. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:04, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I find it amazing that, even in the absence of Human, you find it necessary to complain bitterly about what you believe he would have have done if he had, in fact, been here. I mean, complaining about hypothetical actions is taking things a tad too far isn't it?--Bob^{bing up} 18:11, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

RA, may I suggest that you stop bashing Human period. Especially when he is not active. If he returns and offends you then take it up with him in a reasonable manner but while he is absent yelling at him is rather reminiscent of Ken/Conservative's demonising of atheists and evolutionists. There is absolutely no reason why any disagreement should last more than a day or so on this site. People participate here because of some common ideal; either mocking CP, irrationality or woo in general. You may be young and idealistic but us older ones have learned to live and let live. Harbouring a grudge will only exacerbate your bitterness. I took a wiki-break because of something Human did but I got over it and now can't even remember what it was. Sometimes people are wrong or do wrong things but if you want to get on with your life you have to accept it. That's how relationships work, and if you can't accept people for the way that they are, rather than the way you'd like them to be, then don't ever get married. Real life's too important to waste on a internet squabbles. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:52, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm with you on this one Genghis. Agree wholeheartedly. I mean, for goodness sake, the internet is no place to curry bad moods when real life is full of it enough on it own. the internet is for humour and pornography. Real life is the place for bitterness. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 19:06, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

The color of your skin don't matter to me
As long as we can live in harmony

Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?
Seriously, everyone, CTFO. Free hugs for anyone who wants one! Thunderkatz^Ho! 19:07, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Ah, if but Human were here. He would revert your changes and demand to see a writing plan while you were in the middle of editing. And no one would have any objections to Human's actions, because, hey, he's Human—and Human is always right. Essayist RA Talk _Fruitcake! 17:30, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

That's incredibly petty and low class. Fuck you. PFoster 19:10, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Let's draw a line under it fellas. Since opening this thread, I believe RA's now promised to stave off the Human attacks. Everyone else piling attacks on RA is just gonna perpetuate the conflicts. weaseLOId~ 21:37, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I suggest we archive this section without further comment, in order to let bygones be bygones.

Done. weaseLOId~ 16:40, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Re:Hitler and Darwin

Just something you might want to add in your re-write, Weaseloid. Far from enbracing Darwin, it seems that Darwin's works appeared on a list of banned books in the oficial Nazi journal for lending libraries, Die Bücherei, in 1935. If you go to the University of Arizona Library's web exhibit 'When Books Burn', you can see an entry on here for 'Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).' Zmidponk 19:11, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. That should be added in somewhere, but I'm done for today, having spent most of the last six hours on this. Feel free to add it yourself, as I'm finished with the rewrite so anyone is free to edit it or hack it to pieces, whatever. I might come back to this in a few days & add it in if you haven't in the meantime. weaseLOId~ 21:41, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Rewrote

It's taken me the entire evening, but I rewrote the whole thing & it's now completely different from the SkepticWiki version we started with (it's there as an external link). In researching it, I found there is enough to show that actually Hitler did believe in some form of evolution, & probably human evolution, but seems to have had a faulty understanding of it, mixed in with intelligent design ideas, racialism, etc. I took out the quotes about Hitler's views on school prayer, etc. because they're off topic & just seemed to be in there as a smear against YEC conservatives. We don't need to resort to that. weaseLOId~ 21:31, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Nice job, Weaseloid. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:55, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Hm. I didn't know the article was taken from SkepticWiki. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:55, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I went to this article meaning only to fix some of the spelling errors, but I ended up doing a bunch of stylistic edits "for clarity", which for some reason seems to have become an obsession of mine. I have no idea whether that sort of editing is frowned on over here or not, so if anybody wants to undo the stylistic edits I made, I so totally do not mind. (It is a bit easier to read...I just don't want to end up drastically altering and/or hijacking a page behind the smokescreen of "editing for clarity/style". No--when I do finally hijack a page I plan to be totally candid about it. A Writer of Vaudevilles 06:25, 2 November 2008 (EST)

They look good to me. :-) Such editing is more than welcome. If anybody has an issue with any or your re-wording then they are at liberty to re-edit or bring it up here.--Bob^{bing up} 06:35, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Hitler's table talk

Hitler's table talk is quite often seen as an unreliable source, as it is a second hand work, and it makes one wonder why, if Hitler had such different statements in his official works, he would make comments like those featured in that book, knowing that it would all be written down and published. While we need not censor the book's quotes, we should make clear note that the book is a disputed source. InaVegt 06:44, 2 November 2008 (EST)

I suspected that might be the case based on what it is, but Wikipedia's stub about the table Talk doesn't mention whether or not it's reliable, so I didn't mention it either. Feel free to add that in. I freely admit this isn't any area of expertiese for me; just something I regrettable committed myself to rewriting because of problems with the first version of the article. Now I've finished rewriting it, I'm hoping that people who know more than I about this will carry on improving it. weaseLOId~ 14:40, 2 November 2008 (EST)