Why Did Darwinism Emerge?

[free spirit]

I take it from the last 2 pages of petty insults that phils run out of anything vaguely resembling a decent argument again.

 

[TruXta]

I take it from the last 2 pages of petty insults that phils run out of anything vaguely resembling a decent argument again.

Resorted to the most childish name-calling I've seen for a long time, like Tossarian and Beesonthetwatnow. So yes, there is most definitely not a shred of an argument with phil.

 

[DotCommunist]

normally takes a bit longer, like page 26 or so. Like when he tried to prove god existed using an argument I didn't quite grasp.

 

[Crispy]

normally takes a bit longer, like page 26 or so. Like when he tried to prove god existed using an argument I didn't quite grasp.

That's your fault, dullard.

 

[Old Gergl]

I take it from the last 2 pages of petty insults that phils run out of anything vaguely resembling a decent argument again.

He had one to run out of?

 

[JimW]

I like how Phil slipped in a reference to his Christmas spent playing hobby-horses and no-one's picked him up on it.

 

[phildwyer]

I take it from the last 2 pages of petty insults that phils run out of anything vaguely resembling a decent argument again.

It's more that the argument was settled to (almost) everyone's satisfaction about 3-4 pages ago.

 

[phildwyer]

I like how Phil slipped in a reference to his Christmas spent playing hobby-horses and no-one's picked him up on it.

They're not as quick as they once were around here, it's true.

 

[gentlegreen]

Makes a change from the AGW-deniers at least I suppose ...

 

[phildwyer]

normally takes a bit longer, like page 26 or so. Like when he tried to prove god existed using an argument I didn't quite grasp.

Twenty-six pages? Twenty-six? Try Two hundred and twenty-six...

 

[TruXta]

They're not as quick as they once were around here, it's true.

We're just sick of you is all.

 

[phildwyer]

That's your fault, dullard.

Do you mind cutting out the insults please? We're having a civilized discussion here.

Now, does anyone want to defend Tosserian before the axe falls? Anyone at all?

 

[TruXta]

Why do you bother, phil? What's in it for you? Masochistic pleasure in being the local laughing stock? Some mad belief that you're actually right and we're all wrong? Pre-dementia? Either way it's not doing you any good. I'm sure you've better things to do, play with your kids, hang out with RL friends. Why not be a good lad and take a permanent vacation from these here shores, eh?

 

[Lock&Light]

Do you mind cutting out the insults please? We're having a civilized discussion here.

Now, does anyone want to defend Tosserian before the axe falls? Anyone at all?

You are a hypocrite, Phil.

 

[phildwyer]

Why do you bother, phil? What's in it for you?

In case you hadn't noticed, you are the one responding to my thread.

Not the first time either. Not even the twenty-first, nor even the hundred-and-first.

So perhaps your question might be best formulated while standing in front of the mirror?

 

[TruXta]

In case you hadn't noticed, you are the one responding to my thread.

Not the first time either. Not even the twenty-first, nor even the hundred-and-first.

So perhaps your question might be best formulated while standing in front of the mirror?

Why I'm here is easy. I'm here to laugh and point at the nutter, viz. phildwyer.

 

[phildwyer]

Why I'm here is easy. I'm here to laugh and point at the nutter, viz. phildwyer.

You just keep telling yourself that, and we'll all get along fine.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What was that now, Beesonthetwatnow? Right about what now? I strongly doubt it to be honest, but I'm willing to give Beesonthetwatnow the Benefitofthedoubtnow.

So now, about what now do you think you were right now, Beesonthetwatnow?

Poor phil, reduced to breaking the ed's FAQs by fucking around with the user-name of a poster.

 

[ViolentPanda]

For a writer you're pretty fucking boring at times, phil.

He's not really that kind of writer.

 

[ViolentPanda]

doubt he's getting much other entertainment

Along with sleazing, like.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think it's very important that Tosserian and his ilk should not be allowed to derail this thread, which seems to me on the point of an important breakthrough.

Personally, I think Tosserian should be banned outright. He has clearly shown that his only purpose here is to spread his own brand of Tosserian chaos and disorder among us.

But I do not feel entitled to take such a drastic step unilaterally. So let us put it to the vote. Unless this post receives at least TEN "likes" by 4pm GMT, I shall recommend that Tosserian be banned--permabanned, without the slightest possibility of parole or redemption, now or ever.

Does that sound fair enough?

Fortunately, the mods think your persona is just as big a sack of wind as the regular posters do, so your recommendations will achieve squat, as usual.

 

[ViolentPanda]

1. I'm much younger than Tosserian, far less tedious, and hardly a wanker at all these days. Anyway, the clock is ticking for him--so far he has not received a single vote of support!

You're slightly younger than him, and your degree of tediousness a matter of opinion.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No, you did.

Except you disingenuously decided that any teaching of Darwin's contribution to evolutionary theory is de facto "Darwinism" and that it is the (careless ?) teaching of evolutionary theory to non-scientists that softens them up for neo-liberal economic theories.

Or summat ...

Mostly you appear to be hung up on the old definition of "fitness" issue ...

This is phil's "thing", this "we've agreed... schtick. Phil's definition of "agreed" obviously meaning "I've stated and you've rebutted", as opposed to the normative definition.

 

[phildwyer]

You're slightly younger than him

At least a decade. And Tosserian and I together are still younger than you, Grandad.

 

[ViolentPanda]

At least a decade. And Tosserian and I together are still younger than you, Grandad.

No, you're really not, unless you're 19, which we both know you're well north of.

 

[phildwyer]

This is phil's "thing", this "we've agreed... schtick. Phil's definition of "agreed" obviously meaning "I've stated and you've rebutted", as opposed to the normative definition.

Anyway, to be serious for a second, you have many faults but you're fairly well-read.

You know perfectly well that I'm basically right on this thread (a few exaggerations notwithstanding), concerning the ideological connection between Darwinism and capitalism. I know you know, you know I know you know etc. It is an interesting insight into your character that you can't bring yourself to admit it.

 

[TruXta]

So what if there's a connection? The fact that science is influenced by the society it is done in and by doesn't invalidate it's findings.

 

[phildwyer]

Lay off poor dwyer, you bunch of bullies.

And as for you, I take it that you did Google the phrases I asked you to?

Are you now prepared to admit the existence of Darwinism, which you once so vehemently denied?

If so, my work here has not entirely been in vain.

 

[phildwyer]

So what if there's a connection? The fact that science is influenced by the society it is done in and by doesn't invalidate it's findings.

It historicizes them. It removes them from the realm of transcendent truth, and demonstrates that they are appropriate only to the capitalist phase of history.

It also suggests that anti-capitalists should be very suspicious, at best, of Darwinism.

 

[Lock&Light]

It historicizes them. It removes them from the realm of transcendent truth, and demonstrates that they are appropriate only to the capitalist phase of history.

It also suggests that anti-capitalists should be very suspicious, at best, of Darwinism.

You don't half talk a load of rubbish, Phil.