* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Good Golly, Miss Molly, But We're Zorched By A
Zarch Here, Eh?--Ho Ho Ho
(Apollonian, 18 Jan 19)
(Apollonian, 18 Jan 19)
"Intelligent"?--ho ho ho ho--that's thy moniker?--seriously?--ho o hoh oho (see below-copied). Do thou begin to realize how putridly presumptuous--even outrightly SCHIZOID--thou really are, buddy? Thou say, "Perhaps the reality of seeing their cherished beliefs set forth in full clarity, and thus enabling them to take in at one glance the intrinsic insufficiency...."
Newsflash, sucker: Durocher is almost as bad a writer as thou, and sorry, but perhaps thou could tell us what is given in "full clarity."
"[I]ntrinsic insufficiency," thou presumptuous schizoid?--of what, exactly?--could thou say?--no?--I didn't think so.
"[U]nderstand nothing about Darwin."?--but didn't he indicate presumptuous, fatuous weaklings/inferiors like thou would "fall by the wayside"?--or was that Spencer?--regardless, seems true enough to me--thou art excellent example/instance.
<blockquote>
"Darwin’s actual theories were quite different than that which is preached under his name today."</blockquote> Oh?--is that so?--so then, WHAT was Darwin's "theory," and HOW/WHY is it actually "quite diff."?--tell us, oh sage of presumption, pretension, and fatuity, ho ho ho ho. Are thou missing a massive "leg" to "standing upon"?--ho oho ho ho ho
"[T]houghtful reading of the Origin of Species..."?--but WHAT do thou actually KNOW about "thoughtful," presumptuous one, who can't ever actually say anything of any substance?
Then thou tells us, <blockquote>"And while both versions are incorrect, original Darwinism is at least a philosophy (of sorts) that can be handled by the techniques of reason and criticism, while today’s Darwinistic Dufflepuds propound naught but an incoherent spectacle of catchwords and post hoc rationalizations that their master’s generation would have been ashamed to include under the rubric of science."
</blockquote> But we notice thou actually say NOTHING--for WHY are "both versions" "incorrect," sucker--how?--why? "Rubric of science"?--so WHAT do thou actually KNOW about science, Mr. know-it-all?--tell us, ho ho ho ho
<blockquote>"Notwithstanding the Dawinistic heading, what has actually been accepted amounts to little more than a doughy mass of vague materialism sprinkled with occasional shavings of biomolecular gobbledygook, and this only by the half-educated urban bourgeoisie."</blockquote>
What?--"half-educated urban bourgeoisie"?--takes one to know one, eh? And "gobbledygook," thou say?--ho ho ho ho--don't thou realize thy entire presumptuous mass of moronic assertions-without-any-substantiation at all, whatsoever, which constitutes the entirety of thy posting here, is most PERFECT example of such "gobbledygook"?--ho ho ho ho ho
So, I think I've analyzed quite enough of thy idiot nonsense, buddy, all the rest of thy posting is essentially the same sort of presumptuous crap--WHO do thou think thou art kidding, sucker?--ho ho ho ho oho
--------------------above by ap in response to below-copied-------------------
1, Intelligent Dasein says: • Website
January 17, 2019 at 6:35 pm GMT • 600 Words
Strange to see that this essay has been up for five days now without yet garnering a single comment. This ought to be catnip to Unzitarians of the HBD confession, but nobody has dropped by to say a word. Perhaps the reality of seeing their cherished beliefs set forth in full clarity, and thus enabling them to take in at one glance the intrinsic insufficiency thereof, has dampened their desire for any frank discussion lest the magic circle be broken and the enlivening spirit drain away.
For it is apparent, and has been for many years, that the rather vocal Darwinians such as those who populate this website understand nothing about Darwin. They pay him a sort of grandfatherly homage, they advert to him as a shibboleth, but they do not read him and they certainly do not comprehend him. Any thoughtful reading of the Origin of Species would conduce to the conclusion that Darwin’s actual theories were quite different than that which is preached under his name today. And while both versions are incorrect, original Darwinism is at least a philosophy (of sorts) that can be handled by the techniques of reason and criticism, while today’s Darwinistic Dufflepuds propound naught but an incoherent spectacle of catchwords and post hoc rationalizations that their master’s generation would have been ashamed to include under the rubric of science.
Darwin’s nominal disciples have long since abandoned him for the golden calf of DNA, which they have imbued with every possible power, faculty, and meaning. The folly of this approach will, I trust, be sufficiently clear to the thinking man of today, and will in any case be made apparent to all and sundry in due course of time. Meanwhile, the formless state of these beliefs gives the lie to statements such as this:
virtually everyone accepts the scientific theory of Charles Darwin concerning the emergence and evolution of the various species in the world,
Notwithstanding the Dawinistic heading, what has actually been accepted amounts to little more than a doughy mass of vague materialism sprinkled with occasional shavings of biomolecular gobbledygook, and this only by the half-educated urban bourgeoisie. The wider world cares nothing for such “scientific” [sic] theories, while truly profound men have always been moved to a quite different conclusion as exemplified by Aristotle himself, viz. the epistemological permanence of the world and the inalterability of the major taxa.
Since Darwinism is false in its very beginnings and cannot adequately answer even to rather general matters of life history, it is then the height of absurdity to attempt to apply it to the tense and concrete sociopolitical problems of the present moment. But the devotees of human biodiversity, certain of their beloved “science,” draw precisely the opposite lesson. For them it is HBD which is axiomatic. It is not that HBD is true because Darwinism has shown it to be so on other and unimpeachable grounds, but Darwinism that is true because it agrees with muh HBD! How such an involved and illogical belief could have taken hold among the soi-disant high IQ set is a genuine curiosity.
The passing away of this superficial system will allow for at least the possibility of effective political action regarding questions of race and immigration. The HBD hermeneutic is a scientistic way of dissembling upon the problem by talking about it as if it were something else.
No comments:
Post a Comment