Althouse: "Once you understand that to the credentialed-instead-of-educated, the Constitution is a wish-fulfillment device..."

October 20, 2010

"Once you understand that to the credentialed-instead-of-educated, the Constitution is a wish-fulfillment device..."

"... rather than, you know, an authoritative text, it all makes sense. And there’s no real need to know or care about the words in the text, since it means whatever you want it to mean at the moment."

Says Glenn Reynolds, linking to my post on Coons, O’Donnell, and the Separation of Church and State.

A word needs to be said about the mocking laughter that instantly erupted from the law students in the audience. Presumably, that sound meant we are smart and you are dumb. Where did they learn to treat a guest at their law school — Widener Law School — with such disrespect? They hooted O'Donnell down, and she never got a chance to explain her point. What does that say about the climate for debate in law schools? Not only did they feel energized to squelch the guest they politically opposed, but they felt sure of their own understanding of the law.

I've been studying law myself since 1978, and I still puzzle over things and try to work my way through problems. If a speaker at my school makes a statement that sounds outlandish to me — me with 32 years of studying law — I may display a puzzled expression or a smile, but I hear the person out and entertain the possibility that he has a point and that even if the point is wrong, I will have learned some new perspective on the ways of being wrong or how another human being's mind works. I try to create that atmosphere in the classroom.

What is the atmosphere at Widener? Is there no intellectual curiosity? No love of debate? No grasp of how complex constitutional law problems can be?

ADDED: Here's the video:

260 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 260 of 260

jr565 said...: Further, if Darwinism is in fact true, then isn't Hitler a hero wrongly maligned? he tried breeding a superior race and removed impediments to its evolutionary movement forward (the Jews and other undesirables).
Why should evolutionists blanche at the implications of their movement?
Certainly not all evolutionists these days are nazis, but that in no way discounts the tremendous impact Darwinism had on its day and on the science of the time, eugenics, and that these helped fuel the nazis to their ultimate goal which led to the extermination of millions of lesser humans.
But as Darwin said: "[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races."

Is that morally wrong? Darwin himself blanched at such suggestions, and suggested that empathy should guide people in their interactions (so even he recoiled at some of the implications of his theory). But is empathy a moral virtue or an evolutionary flaw? If it weakens the race which is in a struggle to survive, then is it moral to in fact have empathy. The Nazis, fueled by the science of the day (Evolution and eugenics) and their belief that they were the Master Race (and thus the most capable of evolving forward) simply ignored the empathy part in the furtherance of their plans. It was still Darwinism and Eugenics though. And it wasn't particular to the Nazis alone. It was the science of the day. to suggest that somehow everyone was practicing eugenics and Darwinism, at the time, BUT the nazis again smacks in the face of reality. THe nazis were a progressive bunch, and down with science, especially a science which proved their superiority.; 10/20/10, 7:20 PM
Anonymous said...: JAY said: "You couldn't name 2." (about massacres caused by religion)

Uh, you may need to brush up on your reading comprehension because that was never said by anyone, at all.

But I'm glad to see you're fighting against strawmen.

Further,
Ever heard of the Holocaust? I'll grant you it wasn't directly dictated by religion, but the fact is, if you were Jewish you died

Is probably one of the dumber things I've ever read.

You've beclowned yourself so much that I actually feel sorry for you.; 10/20/10, 7:20 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @jr565:

Do you have some kind of evidence for Darwin's time machine? I mean, he must have had one, because he invented eugenics, according to you, and it was practiced thousands of years ago and advocated by Plato in Republic.

Your ideas about what evolution is are self-refuting. You have clearly never even cracked a textbook on the subject. You have clearly never read Mein Kampf either. Instead, you rely on selective or made-up quotes harvested from creationist websites. I know because I've encountered them, and refuted them, many times before.

All your talk about racial survival and purifying races in nonsense, to a biologist. Hitler never mentions Darwin once in his writings or speeches. His speeches are all about God and Christ--I will produce literally hundreds of quotes if you wish. And HE never cracked a book on biology either--the only reason you think that what he says sounds like evolution because you don't know anything about evolution.

You're just playing stupid Godwin's Law games. Even if Hitler had written Origin of Species, evolution by natural selection is still true. It is a scientific theory with no moral imperatives whatever contained in it.; 10/20/10, 7:27 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: What Darwin observed was not an "ism". It is part of biology, not an ideology, and doesn't state what should be done. That's the difference between normative and positive statements. Darwin wasn't ultimately making value judgments.; 10/20/10, 7:28 PM
collegebound said...: @Jr565:
Darwin's theory establishes the existence of evolution based on the survival of the individual with the best characteristics (such as a longer beak for some birds, etc...).
In no way does it state all you said about humans having no soul and so on. You can interpret the implications of Darwin's findings any way you want, just like the Nazis and Social Darwinists did, but the theory of evolution is a scientific theory, not a social one.; 10/20/10, 7:32 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @jr565:

Further, if Darwinism is in fact true, then isn't Hitler a hero wrongly maligned? he tried breeding a superior race and removed impediments to its evolutionary movement forward (the Jews and other undesirables).

You will find no biology text anywhere where they say killing people is a good thing, or any thing about master races.

Slow rabbits get eaten, more often than not, then fast rabbits. Form this you somehow magically get that killing slow rabbits makes rabbits "better" and that is a good thing that people "should do". But rabbits that run at light speed and are sterile have no descendants.

It's the environment that determines fitness. You don;t have any idea what you are talking about. It's like trying to argue with a second grader who thinks airplanes are physically impossible--he puts his fingers in his ears and says over and over "WHAT GOES UP MUST COME DOWN THAT'S GRAVITY". Your understanding of evolution is just as childish.

See, you have a cartoon of evolution that you made up which bears no resemblance whatever to the actual science. You're just as ignorant of biology as Hitler was.; 10/20/10, 7:32 PM
jr565 said...: Ritmo wrote:
Darwin didn't have anything to do with subjective hierarchies like "better" or religious talk of "souls". He was not addressing these things.

Wrong, Darwin refuted the idea of souls, and his argument was a direct argument against religion. Further he addressed the idea of races in a state of war. The more evolved races, are in fact better. They are more evolved. They are civilized. The civilized are more evolved than the savages? Are you not aware of the 12 different hierarchies that evolutionits believed in. The lower ones, not much better than apes. The higher ones, their intellectual and evolutionary superiors. What do you mean Darwin wasn't talking about BETTER? Why should animals evolve if not to get better? What is Survival of the FITTEST if not survival of the better? Is Darwin suggesting that weak is better than strong? Of course not.

"We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
S; 10/20/10, 7:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey when President Obama frames the debate over national health care in terms of a moral obligation in front of a group of religious leaders, where is all the outrage by you leftists?

Or when leftist Democrats frame welfare as a moral obligation, where is all the outrage by you leftists?

Seriously, where are the posts about "theocracy" when that happens?; 10/20/10, 7:34 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @jr565:

Caught you, liar.

Your Darwin quote is cribbed from creationists. It is a lie. And it's a famous one, you idiot.

Here's the REAL quote:

hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Keep on lying for Jesus, you'll get to heaven that way. Asshole.

You've never even cracked the book. And you pretend to be the good and holy one protecting us from evil Darwin. Fucking liar.; 10/20/10, 7:38 PM
collegebound said...: JAY said...
We don't tolerate religious expression in public places because we know the horrors that it brought in the past.

Hysterical.

You couldn't name 2.

The ignorance displayed by the leftists here is simply staggering.

Staggering.

10/20/10 3:35 PM

Thats where I got the quote from.

Also, good job on the strawman fallacy, but if you could possibly reply with intelligent comments instead of insulting me, it would be nice. What in the Holocaust comment (which I admit wasn't my best one ever) makes you say I "beclowned myself"?
If you did reply with an argument instead of petty insults, I would love to think my statement over if you make valid points; 10/20/10, 7:38 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @jr565

Why should animals evolve if not to get better?

WHAT GOES UP MOST COME DOWN BALLOONS ARE IMPOSSIBLE SMARTY MAN HURR DURR

An ignoramus AND a liar, Jesus is proud.

What was the subject of the original post? People taking words out of context to make someone look bad.

You're fucking guilty and you proved it to EVERYONE.; 10/20/10, 7:40 PM
jr565 said...: Gabriel Hana wrote:
You will find no biology text anywhere where they say killing people is a good thing, or any thing about master races.

Slow rabbits get eaten, more often than not, then fast rabbits. Form this you somehow magically get that killing slow rabbits makes rabbits "better" and that is a good thing that people "should do". But rabbits that run at light speed and are sterile have no descendants.

It's the environment that determines fitness. You don;t have any idea what you are talking about. It's like trying to argue with a second grader who thinks airplanes are physically impossible--he puts his fingers in his ears and says over and over "WHAT GOES UP MUST COME DOWN THAT'S GRAVITY". Your understanding of evolution is just as childish.
<br.
No, you have a reading comprehension. What does this have to do with MY understanding of evolution. I'm not talking about MY view of evolution. I'm talking about how the nazis used evolution, and Darwinism and eugenics to murder six million people. Sorry if you can't get the implications of your beloved theory, and the social impact it had on not just nazism but on the Eugenics movement of the day which also affected the science in this country.

Suggesting that I have some miscomprehension of modern day evolutionary theory has NOTHING to do with what the nazis viewed as evolution or Darwinism or Eugenics at the time, and where it brought them. The issue is not about my views, and nowhere did I express my views of evolution. This were the views espuosed by the Nazis, and eugenecists of the day. Has evolution evolved since then,certainly? HOwever, give history it's due.
what was the subtitle of Origin of the Species?
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Make that of what you will, but also note that the Struggle for Life and the idea of the Favored Race was prominent in Nazi germany, and while they had inherent bigotry towards Jews even before then, it was the pedigree of eugenics and Evolutionary theory that allowed them to base their destrction of inferior races, and the kiling of the infirm. Which to them was not a moral evil, but simply a chance to better their race. It was scientific and cutting edge no less. And what was the science? Eugenics and Darwinists. Sorry if you can't handle the truth.; 10/20/10, 7:42 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @jr565:

Let me save you some time, liar for Jesus.

Here's a list of all the fake creationist quotes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

Now you don't have to waste our time with them.

How can you be so stupid? You've absolutely ZERO research. Your fucking lies have been debunked for DECADES! There's been BOOKS written about them.

And you think we've never SEEN THEM BEFORE HUNDREDS OF TIMES?

Keep lying for Jesus. That'll teach those godless atheists, right?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-1.html; 10/20/10, 7:44 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: I'm talking about how the nazis used evolution, and Darwinism and eugenics to murder six million people.

THE NAZIS DID NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION GENIUS. THEY MADE UP THEIR OWN SHIT. THEY BURNED DARWIN'S BOOKS.

Liar for Jesus.

Hitler, in a speech in 1922:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.

HE GOT IT FROM THE BIBLEm, JACKASS, AND TOLD MILLIONS OF PEOPLE PUBLICLY THAT'S WHERE HE GOT IT.; 10/20/10, 7:46 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @jr565:

Hitler, in Mein Kampf:

Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.

SOUNDS JUST LIKE RICHARD DAWKINS! EVOLUTIONISTS ALWAYS TALK THE IMAGE OF THE LORD!

Jackass. Liar.

You never read Darwin, you never read Mein Kampf, you just regurgitate quotes from creationists and try to pretend you know what you're talking about.

Oh, you did Jesus a big favor today. You made Christians look so WISE and LEARNED and HONEST and INTELLIGENT.; 10/20/10, 7:51 PM
jr565 said...: Gabriel Hanna wrote:
hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Ha, I was hoping you would qoute the second half. As I said, even Darwin when thinking of his theory recoiled at the implications and said that empathy or sympathy would allow us to care for those sick and infirm, even though they may bring down the species. But here he's falling back on morality, probably christian morality, even though he didn't believe in one. Sympathy would be a negative characteristic, in evolution, not a positive one. Why, because sympathy would lead to the degeneration of a domestic race; as its essentially allowing the worst animals to breed. Not good for a species survival.
All the nazis did is take that notion and ignore the part about sympathy. Because to them, caring for the weak or the subhuman jews only leads to the degeneration of a domestic race. You might argue that the Nazis were simply more evolved than Darwin when it came to his idea of survival of the fittest.. They removed the one thing that kept their race from being pure, and which would lead to the dissolution of their race.
Now take away religious based morality or christian ideals that a human life has a soul and is above animals and what do you have? on what grounds is behaving sympathetically towards a group of people that are going to cause their master race to become less pure?
Is it simply wrong to treat people without sympathy? Not in the law of nature.; 10/20/10, 7:53 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @jr565:

Books banned in Nazi Germany, liar for Jesus:

http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm

Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism

The following list attempts to include that part of literature which absolutely must be removed from public libraries or from commonly accessible commercial lending libraries, because of its destructive and damaging tendencies towards the cultural and public goals of the Nazi revolution.

All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.

You're not just arguing with me. Other people are going to click the links and see for themselves that YOU LIED.; 10/20/10, 7:57 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "You will find no biology text anywhere where they say killing people is a good thing, or any thing about master races."

Slow rabbits get eaten, more often than not, then fast rabbits.

Not by OTHER RABBITS, you MOE-RON!; 10/20/10, 8:00 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @jr565:

Now take away religious based morality or christian ideals that a human life has a soul and is above animals and what do you have?

Judging from you, a guy who thinks it's okay to tell stupid lies that have been debunked before that all over the internet, a guy who thinks it's okay to pretend he's read books he hasn't read, a guy who has never bothered to learn anything whatever about a science before he pronounces that it's all wrong and all a plot by HITLER, a guy who thinks Darwin had a time machine, and a guy who keeps digging when he's in the bottom of a whole, and a guy too stupid to think that on the Internet people can check for themselves.; 10/20/10, 8:00 PM
collegebound said...: to both JAY and jr565:

Morality does NOT have to be religious!!!
There are philosophy courses in many universities that deal with moral justice and the definition of morality. I have listened to one in Harvard, and no where was any kind of deity mentioned.; 10/20/10, 8:01 PM
jr565 said...: Gabriel Hanna wrote:
Hitler, in a speech in 1922:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

Note the date, jackass. 1922! When did the third reich rise to power? This is common among evolutionists who don't like people criticizing darwin, or afraid that their precious evolutionary theory could dare be used by a genocidal madman to commit mass murder. Sorry but it happened. Hitler may have been a christian in his youth, and may have said somet things to try to assuage the church at the time, but he was no Christian as the Fuhrer.
Here's what Hitler REALLY thought about religion and christianity:
‘Religion is an … organized lie [that] must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master. When I was younger, I thought it was necessary to set about [destroying religion] … with dynamite. I’ve since realized there’s room for a little subtlety …. The final state must be … in St. Peter’s Chair, a senile officiant; facing him a few sinister old women … The young and healthy are on our side … it’s impossible to eternally hold humanity in bondage and lies …. [It] was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed upon our peoples …. Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six divisions of SS men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their death with serenity in their souls.’

Doesn't sound like someone who really gives two shits about religion does it? And I suppose Hitler wasn't really a socialist even though the nazis were referred to as the National Socialists. Nope, no socialism there. Hitler was a right wing religious nut who never even heard of Darwinism or Eugenics!
Crazy talk.; 10/20/10, 8:04 PM
DinobotPrime said...: collegebound

There were no Catholics, only Christians that were persecuted by the Roman empire.If you are talking about the Holy Roman Empire, it's more complicated than that. It's the persecution of Catholics, Calvinists and Protestants by whoever was in power at that time period.; 10/20/10, 8:09 PM
jr565 said...: Collegebound wrote:
Morality does NOT have to be religious!!!
There are philosophy courses in many universities that deal with moral justice and the definition of morality. I have listened to one in Harvard, and no where was any kind of deity mentioned.

No, morality doens't have to be religious. But if its not based on a moral universe, and a higher authority, then all it is is philosophy. Which philosopher is right? You could say that HItler is more immoral then Ghandi, but all that is basing it on are the criteria that you find moral. Sympathy may be a trait that you find moral. But why is that right? If you look at sympathy logically it may very well be that sympathy in fact hurts you, and why go against your own bottom line. You might then say it's selfish and selfishness is immoral. But then again, who are you to say so? Why isn't someone who says greed is good just as moral as you, or even more so? What is the basis on which you judge morality? Yourself? Then if you don't think something is immoral it isn't Bu then by the same token if someone else thinks the complete opposite is moral then what do you do? How do you convince that person he's wrong, other than saying he's wrong? Appeal to logic?
Well logic might suggest different things. A person saying greed is good or greed is bad which is better. Well, which person has more stuff at the end of the day? Why is that not better then the guy who needs to rely on govt to make ends meet? Logic might say that acting in self interest is the only morality, and giving 10% to charity only means you have 90% of what you had before, which is bad.
So logic doesnt' work. Then what? Appeal to a higher authority? BUt there isnt' one. THere is no objective right or wrong.; 10/20/10, 8:13 PM
DinobotPrime said...: collegebound
Don't you know that the French king Louis XIII under the political influence of Cardinal Richelieu supported the Protestant cause rather the Catholic cause because he feared for France's safety.
Most so called Christian wars are wars for political dominance and territory as well as taxes. Religious beliefs was a blanket excuse by each side to conduct their wars; 10/20/10, 8:19 PM
jr565 said...: Gabriel Hanna wrote:
Why should animals evolve if not to get better?

WHAT GOES UP MOST COME DOWN BALLOONS ARE IMPOSSIBLE SMARTY MAN HURR DURR

An ignoramus AND a liar, Jesus is proud.

What was the subject of the original post? People taking words out of context to make someone look bad.

You're fucking guilty and you proved it to EVERYONE.

Ah,durr! Idiot! Duh! Goober! You're like the people chittering about O'Donnell's incomprehension of the Constitution. And now you resort to the name calling which is characteristic of your side. Don't have the facts to back you up."Impossibly smart man , Ah, DURR! IDiot! Duh! Goober!"
And I notice that the more you can't back up what you say the more you get angry and hurl the invective.
"Impossibly smart man Hurr Durr. Ah, DURR! Idiot! Duh! Goober!"

I'll repeat again.Why should animals evolve if not to get better? What is Darwing talking about when he says survival of the FITTEST? Are the fit not the ones more capable of survival then the less fit? Do the fit not survive and the weaker ones die out? Is FIT or Strong then not a positive trait? Are animals better that are weaker and die off? Animals evolve and are therefore more capable of survival.And the ones that can't dont. Law of nature. Don't get your mind too wrapped around the word "better" as a moral or personal judgement (as in vanilla ice cream is BETTER than chocolate). Rather view it as is it better to be able to survive or not survive? Those animals that adapt or evolve are BETTER equipped to survive than those that can't. In the case of Man, we operate under the same principles. To Darwin, the evolved man, was BETTER than the non evolved man, just as a man is better than a chimp. The evolved man is enlightened, has a bigger brain, can speak 7 languages. The chimp is a chimp. Since we evolve from chimps we are higher than the chimp. And the less evolved races are scarcely better than chimps. Some are a LITTLE better (more evolved) but pale in comparison to the evolved englishmen of the day (as per Darwin).; 10/20/10, 8:27 PM
jr565 said...: Gabriel Hanna wrote:
, a guy who thinks it's okay to pretend he's read books he hasn't read, a guy who has never bothered to learn anything whatever about a science before he pronounces that it's all wrong and all a plot by HITLER, a guy who thinks Darwin had a time machine

WHAT GOES UP MOST COME DOWN BALLOONS ARE IMPOSSIBLE SMARTY MAN HURR DURR!

Ok, who said that evolution is all wrong and a plot by hitler? No, I said Hitler was influenced by Darwin's ideas of the survival of the fittest, and the furtherance of the species and used said ideas, along with eugenics, to kill 6 million people. He may have still been a bigot and there might still have been a nazi germany, but the nazis relied on "science' of eugenics and darwinism to futher their goals. It was simply natural to view races as inferior, as that is was the implication of both darwin and eugenics in fact was. There are more evolved races, and the less evolved ones need to be removed, or sterilized or breeded out. and the stronger races of course know they're more evolved and have science to back up their racism. Carrie Buck was just one generation of imbecile too many.
Believeing in eugenics and darwinism was not some mystical idea at the time and the nazis weren't the only ones to be influenced by said ideas? Darwinism and eugenics were THE thing that the smart people, many of them progressives believed in as a matter of course. Why are the nazis somehow expempt from being influenced by Darwin? because they did bad things with the idea? Why not accept the implications of the theory and recognize that it has some serious racial and moral implications that aren't nice. If you believe in the theory, then accept those. ANd note this doesn't meant that because Nazis believed in darwin that therefore everyone who believes in evolution is a nazi. It's simply saying that the nazis believed in darwinism and used said ideas to kill 6 million people.
And why would darwin need a time machine. He came first, then eugenics came. Then Hitler came on the scene and was influenced by both. Darwin didn't know hitler was going to come, but even Darwin was aware of the implications of his theory. Evidenced by the quote you thought you had me on when I only posted half of it. Thanks for posting the remaining half. Without sympathy Darwinism is a pretty ugly thing. Survival of the fittest can be pretty bleak. ANd the weak and infirm and lower races, COULD be viewed as the weak that dont' survive, while the strong are the ones that do. One can't not have that view if you are a darwinist? SO then, why is Hitler wrong in wanting to make the master race more pure? ANd dont' bring sympathy into it, as that is one of those outdated religious moralities that everyone has evolved past.
Explain why Hitler was wrong in moral terms, and then explain why that morality you used to judge hitler is right or wrong, and on what authority. If you want to argue on Darwinistic terms though, isn't Hitler more right than wrong? Stronger race survives, lesser ones go, get rid of the weak links. If sympathy in fact dilutes the race and causes the weak links to breed and therefore grow (thus creating more weak links,due to their poor bloodlines) then isn't sympathy doing a disservice to the races survival? Just questioning the implications of your theory, dude.; 10/20/10, 8:49 PM
Methadras said...: What does that say about the climate for debate in law schools?

All that says is that law schools in America are nothing more than a large part of the Democrat machine. Considering the many state bars are basically the Democrats largest contributers.; 10/20/10, 8:50 PM
former law student said...: There were no Catholics, only Christians that were persecuted by the Roman empire.

They were all Catholics, Dude, led by Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, et al all the way down to JP II and Benedict of the present day. Heretics are not Christian.; 10/20/10, 9:06 PM
former law student said...: Re chickenhawks: People gave their lives so that you could enjoy your rights, and you're bitching about paying a little cash.; 10/20/10, 9:08 PM
jr565 said...: Darwinism and eugenics and racism were not limited to the Nazis by the way. Think of the story of Ota Benga.
In 1906 evolutions, or eugenecists got Ota, a pygmie and put him in the zoo with the other apes.
He was described as an emblematic "savage" and was studied to learn how the "barbaric races" stacked up against caucaisans on intelligence tests. Where did they get this notion of him as a savage?
This was put on as science exhibit. What science? Evolution maybe?
Scientific America wrote of the pygmies:
"They are small, ape-like, elfish creatures ... while they exhibit many ape-like features in their bodies, they possess a certain alertness which appears to make them more intelligent than other Negroes ... They live by means of hunting and snaring, eking this out by means of thieving from the big Negroes ... They have seemingly become acquainted with metal only through contact with superior (read "better") beings."
Later he was put in the cage with the apes. The darwinist who put him in the cage believed in the hierarchy of the species you see, and the pygime was no superior being, though probably above the ape he was housed in the cage with.

When some black preachers complained about the treatment of this guy the Times' response was: "The reverend colored brother should be told that evolution ... is now taught in the textbooks of all the schools, and that it is no more debatable than the multiplication table."
Yep, no more debatable than the multiplication talbe. That pigymy was simply not evolved as everyone else, not even a human really. Its all evolution. Where did this guy get his cockamamie ideas? From Darwin perhaps? From eugenics perhaps?; 10/20/10, 9:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Sadly, now I have another reason to be embarassed to be an alumni of Widener Law. The other reason is because Widener is a 4th tier overpriced law school and the only one that accepted me.; 10/20/10, 9:22 PM
collegebound said...: Will:

Right, sorry I wasn't paying attention. I know that there hadn't been any separations so there were only Christians, not Catholics, Orthodox and so on.
I stand corrected.
Also, I agree that a lot of "religious" wars were based more on greed than anything else, but all religious atrocities/massacres can be said to be religious only in name.

jr565:
I wasn't debating the essence of morality, just saying that your comment earlier about Darwin using morality, therefore christian morality, was not necessarily true. you can be atheist and have a moral system is all I'm saying; 10/20/10, 9:36 PM
The Monster said...: Sometimes I believe people think that since Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution, his letter to Danbury Baptist is kind of an additional clause.

I'm sure that people think that, but since Jefferson's signature does not appear on the Constitution, it isn't true.

Jefferson is, however, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, which says that we are endowed by our Creator with certain rights, and closes by invoking Divine Providence.; 10/20/10, 9:47 PM
Anonymous said...: The Widener Law School has an interesting history, having been founded by the late extremist and legal apologist for segregation, Alfred Avins. Only after the ABA forced the school to clean up to get accreditation, did it boot Avins and affiliate it with Widener College of Pennsylvania. I still wonder what kind of school it is...I would prefer not to have a degree from that school, but that's only because I'm familiar with its very strange and tortured history.; 10/20/10, 9:58 PM
Anne M Ford said...: @william...it should be noted that the long arc of Darwinism includes the eungenics movement and forced sterilizations.
As well as survival of the fittest, which, in case you lefties don't understand, means if you cannot provide for yourself, you might as well disappear. No such thing as social justice under Darwin.; 10/20/10, 10:43 PM
Milwaukee said...: "Survival of the fittest." is a tautology. We are defining "fittest" as the ones who survive. Darwin hated the church and hoped through his work to undermine religion.

While there are examples of micro-evolution, such as different squirrels on the North and South Rims of the Grand Canyon, there are no cases of macro-evolution. Human eyeballs work or they don't, and no amount of gradual evolving is going to spring an eyeball on us. Pigeons may grow wings of longer length, but only up to a point.

Wasn't this post about how the credentialed class really doesn't know their elbow from a hole in the ground? Credential inflation is alive and well. Or is this about the Constitution as written compared to its currently twisted form?

And "Milwaukie Guy": We'll add "frightfully lacking in imagination to this list, as well as an inability to correctly spell the name of a large city alongside a larger lake.

Milwaukie guy said...

I'm an atheist of the Presbyterian variety [God's actual religion, no foolin'].; 10/20/10, 10:52 PM
chickelit said...: I thought that the last of Wideners went down with the Titanic.

Just sayin'; 10/20/10, 10:55 PM
Milwaukee said...: One Catholic complaint against the Harry Potter books is the lack of God. There is no God, just good and evil "and those too weak to use power". No where is a deity identified. In the Chronicles of Narnia Aslan is clearly Christ. The God figure is established in the Simarillion for the Ring Trilogy.

What is the point of discussing ethics and morals if there is no sense of a greater being from whom such things spring?; 10/20/10, 10:58 PM
traditionalguy said...: I enjoyed commenting with Alex today. Alex made several comments about God Is Dead and atheism is stronger now than 48 years ago. Both of those are relevant opinions that you often hear expressed by well educated guys. The radical theologian, Tom Altizer, riffed off Neitzsche and Blake to create his own massive philosophical system to prove that God was once alive but has willed His own death to set man free from God centered religion. Alex sounds very much like an Altizer disciple. That being the case no amount of reasoning will get through to Alex because Altizer creates true believers. I took several courses in religion and philosophy under Altiser in the mid 60s. In person he was like a classic old testament prophet spouting out revelations from his spirit, but few took him seriously, and I believe that hurt his feelings. What do they say...a prophet is without honor in his home town. I still wish him well, but fear for his soul.; 10/20/10, 11:08 PM
Jeff said...: Biden teaches constitutional law at Widener. Small wonder the students are ignorant and boorish.; 10/20/10, 11:22 PM
Chas said...: Widener Law School, where Joe Biden used to teach Con Law. nuff' said; 10/20/10, 11:25 PM
Anonymous said...: One thing law school did for me and likely does for many others is provide an exposure to many things and offers a safety net if their true passion doesn't work out.; 10/21/10, 7:53 AM
Shannon said...: Ms. Althouse,

You are condemning an entire law school based on an 8 minute video of a 90 minute debate? Mind you, the debate was open to the general public many of whom filled the seats that day. I had the opportunity to actually be present to watch the debate live from beginning to end. If any atmosphere was created in the room that day it was due to Ms. O'Donnell's constant attacks on Mr. Coons and attempts to avoid serious questions by answering with Tea Party rhetoric. Ms. O'Donnell began answering her very first question by attacking Mr. Coons "fancy education" and lack of knowledge on Constitutional issues.

As a teacher of law "sometimes" yourself, I would hope that you operated at a higher level of professional responsibility than to put down an entire school of law based on an 8 minute dialogue.; 10/21/10, 8:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Thats where I got the quote from.

Stupid:
The "quote" is not relevant to what you said.

At all.

What in the Holocaust comment (which I admit wasn't my best one ever) makes you say I "beclowned myself"?

Um, because the Holocaust had nothing to do with religion being in the public sphere and is not a useful example of having anything to do with that.

That's why.; 10/21/10, 9:09 AM
Unknown said...: I'm confused, is the author upset because the students laughed, or because O'Donnell was unaware of one of the major tenets on which this country was founded and got called on it?

Watch the video, O'Donnell couldn't have made it any worse for herself if she tried. First she asked the question/made the statement that the "separation of church and state" wasn't in the First Amendment, which is what garnered the initial reaction. If there was any doubt as to whether she was making a sarcastic comment or actually asking if that was in there was cleared up later, when she brought it up again. She sinks herself at the 7.05 mark. If she was going to use the out that the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution (which is true), there was her opportunity. Coons then used the exact verbiage. She relied skeptically, "That's in the first amendment?" at the 7:18 mark. The smile tells it all, she just didn't know.

It's not partisan politics, it's basic, high school-level knowledge of American history. She wasn't being laughed at for her views. Nor is this an example of "I'm smart, you're dumb", and the crowd belittling her. But if you have a debate at a law school, common sense should dictate that the vast majority of the people in attendance will have at least a basic understanding of the Constitution. Nobody laughed at her for forgetting what the 16th Amendment was. But the First Amendment? The one that gives us freedom of religion? Free speech? You don't even need to read much of the Constitution to get to it.

People settled in our land to escape religious persecution, and with that in mind our founding father built the separation of church and state into our Constitution. It may well be a conservative/liberal debate as to what that constitutes and how the Constitution should be interpreted. It is of virtually no-debate that it exists. Are these students being unreasonable by demanding that their elected leaders have at least a rudimentary knowledge of our Constitution?; 10/21/10, 10:06 AM
Unknown said...: I'm confused, is the author upset because the students laughed, or because O'Donnell was unaware of one of the major tenets on which this country was founded and got called on it? Vilifying these students is a pathetic smoke screen to skirt the real issue.

Watch the video, O'Donnell couldn't have made it any worse for herself if she tried. First she asked the question/made the statement that the "separation of church and state" wasn't in the First Amendment, which is what garnered the initial reaction. If there was any doubt as to whether she was making a sarcastic comment or actually asking if that was in there was cleared up later, when she brought it up again. She sinks herself at the 7.05 mark. If she was going to use the out that the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution (which is true), there was her opportunity. Coons then used the exact verbiage. She relied skeptically, "That's in the first amendment?" at the 7:18 mark. The smile tells it all, she just didn't know.

It's not partisan politics, it's basic, high school-level knowledge of American history. She wasn't being laughed at for her views. Nor is this an example of "I'm smart, you're dumb", and the crowd belittling her. But if you have a debate at a law school, common sense should dictate that the vast majority of the people in attendance will have at least a basic understanding of the Constitution. Nobody laughed at her for forgetting what the 16th Amendment was. But the First Amendment? The one that gives us freedom of religion? Free speech? You don't even need to read much of the Constitution to get to it.

People settled in our land to escape religious persecution, and with that in mind our founding father built the separation of church and state into our Constitution. It may well be a conservative/liberal debate as to what that constitutes and how the Constitution should be interpreted. It is of virtually no-debate that it exists. Are these students being unreasonable by demanding that their elected leaders have at least a rudimentary knowledge of our Constitution?; 10/21/10, 10:07 AM
former law student said...: People settled in our land to escape religious persecution

But also to exclude other faiths. Catholics, for example, had to live in Maryland, which notably passed the Toleration Act allowing Christians of whatever denomination to live there.; 10/21/10, 2:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Do you people really think the typical American wants to see all this debate? I read through over 100 accusatory and bickering posts. What could be accomplished if you people tried to reconcile and use all this squandered brain power to help each other create something better? Cross party lines and do something noteworthy for all of humanity, not just your team. Usher in a better tomorrow for everyone. Be a role model.; 10/21/10, 3:59 PM
jr565 said...: Ritmo wrote:
Slow rabbits get eaten, more often than not, then fast rabbits.

Not by OTHER RABBITS, you MOE-RON!

Why are you comparing rabbits to humans? Some animals don't compete with each others (like rabbits) others do, like say lions, apes, Stags. Haven't you watched any nature shows?
A DUR! MO-RON!; 10/21/10, 5:20 PM
Anonymous said...: I can see Russia from my house!!

Yours Truly,

Maverick; 10/21/10, 6:06 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Competition doesn't mean you get to literally eat your opposition, Jeffrey Dahmer.; 10/21/10, 6:15 PM
collegebound said...: JAY:
First of all, you're an arrogant idiot. Not just to me, but to everyone you have talked to on this thread. Each time someone has had a different view, you have replied with insults and name-calling to try to establish your superiority. I'm not saying you haven't made any good points, just that your posts would be about half their length if you were being respectful.

On to the point, the quote did have relevance to what I said earlier, as you were saying two religious massacres could not be named, and i named three. The only reason I posted your whole comment (again full of intolerance) was because you said my quote did not exist in any earlier posts.

For the Holocaust point, I admit that religion wasn't exactly prominent in this case, but the main criteria of discrimination was culture/religion, since jews were targeted. That's why I included it in my list, but I recongnize that it was out of place.; 10/21/10, 7:22 PM
Milwaukee said...: While 6 million Jews were murdered by Hitler's regime, 5 million others were also murdered. Many of them were Catholic Priests and Nuns, and Lutheran ministers. Religion did have something to do with it: They were willing to stand up to Hitler because they knew he was evil, and that it would cost them their lives. I believe Hitler hated them because they knew how evil he was.

Sometimes it isn't the faster bunny that survives: it's the one most willing to hide. Again: "survival of the fittest" means we are defining fittest as the ones who survived. The book Freakonomics describes how police officers in squad cars in pairs are more likely to die in the line of duty than those alone. Single officers are more willing to wait for back up before engaging a dangerous circumstance. All the rabbits die sooner or later: why this one lives long enough to leave lots of descendants and that one didn't depends on more factors than just speed. Otherwise we wouldn't have any tortoises left.

When did we leave the discussion of over-credentialed people? Amongst teachers in my state there are a number of universities offering Masters in "Professional Development". These consist of a check for $15,000 followed by one-week-end-a-month sessions for about a year, and a very long paper. I have never heard of anybody successfully writing the check not getting the degree. My former district went from about 1/3 with Masters to 3/4 with Masters. Salaries went up, but test scores continued to lag. There has been a corresponding rise in people with doctorates in Education, without any corresponding increase in student achievement.

My son graduated from high school in 2003, and has not yet completed a Bachelor's degree. Yet one of his classmates has a degree in French and Political Science. With that she lives at home and works part-time in a law office. The para-legals make more money than she. Another with a degree is working the phones helping the deaf who type in. She reads their posts and calls pizza take out places and the like for them. A valuable service to be sure, but not one that necessarily requires a college degree. Is my son really missing out on that much, considering the cost of a college education and the poor return on investment?

Are we still talking about how the insufferable-know-it-alls are too ready to jump down somebody's throat for voicing an opinion different from theirs? I just received an interesting post on how to use a picture of the sunrise over Lake Michigan to calculate that the earth is round and what the diameter might be. The Chinese wisemen, at some point in time, decided the Earth was not round. In spite of reasons to believe otherwise, they didn't. It wasn't until the Europeans arrived that they were willing to change their opinion on this. They were so sure of the non-roundness of the world they weren't even willing to investigate the question, it was so preposterous.; 10/21/10, 7:52 PM
jr565 said...: Ritmo wrote:
Competition doesn't mean you get to literally eat your opposition, Jeffrey Dahmer.

Why not? Animals don't eat their competition? And humans wouldn't literally eat their competition, they would simply, in the war of the races kill off the lesser kinds because they were more suited for survival. Darwin himself talked about this. War doesn't necessarily mean literal war (though it could) but rather the war for surival. The races (and again there were hierarchies for humans) would compete for resources. And the stronger would, inevitably kill off the weaker. That's what survival of the fittest means. It's true in the animal kingdom and true amongst the human races too. Darwin was a great way for racists to justify their racism towards savages (and Darwin was one of those bigots -he'd have rather been raised by an ape than some of those "savages" he mentions) who were beneath them. Not only was the englishman superior to the pygmies and the negroes (who were closer to monkeys) there was now "scientific evidence" to back this up. Notice the skulls of these savage races, clearly they are much closer to the apes. They have not evolved to the same degree as the europeans. Survival of the fittest applies equally to humans as well as animals, since humans are in fact animals, descended from them, a few steps up from apes.; 10/21/10, 8:12 PM
amba said...: we are smart and you are dumb.

It helps to remember the formula:

Only dumb people think they're smart. Smart people are just smart enough to know how dumb they are.

It follows that the people who are proclaiming themselves the smart ones are actually the dumb ones.; 10/21/10, 10:52 PM
collegebound said...: jr565 said...

"And now you resort to the name calling which is characteristic of your side."

Most unfortunately, name-calling has never and probably never will be limited to one side.
Democrats are called "Obamunists" by those they call "fundies", and so on...

I agree that name-calling is despisable and a logical fallacy, as it replaces actual reasoned arguments, but you have no right to say name-calling or insults are "characteristic" to any group less broad than humanity as a whole.; 10/22/10, 12:32 AM
collegebound said...: jr565 said...

"Sympathy would be a negative characteristic, in evolution, not a positive one."

Where the hell did you read that in the quote "Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature." that is the closest mention of sympathy I found in this thread? Darwin is saying that sympathy has evolved from a social instinct from a commonly accepted way of life that is what makes us human, and capable of good. how does THAT tell you the Darwin thought sympathy was a sign of weakness?

Also, please stop the bullshit about Nazis being Darwinists. Throughout history, even before Darwin, people have twisted scientific theories to make them say what they wanted. the "superior race" thing has been used for centuries by conquerors and others.
All that Darwin ever stated was his theory about natural selection and evolution. Connections to society and race conflicts were later established by those who had an interest in doing this.; 10/22/10, 12:42 AM
jr565 said...: Collegebound wrote:
All that Darwin ever stated was his theory about natural selection and evolution. Connections to society and race conflicts were later established by those who had an interest in doing this

Have YOU read Darwin? What is the subtitle of the Origin of The Species? "the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. "
But, Darwinists say, that only meant other animals. Not humans! Surely not humans.
Well, lets go to an expert on Darwin and find out, the truth. How about Darwin himself?
in CHAPTER ONE (so you don't have to go far) he asks the following question:
"He who wishes to decide whether man is the modified descendant of some pre-existing form, would probably first enquire whether man varies, however slightly, in bodily structure and in mental faculties; and if so, whether the variations are transmitted to his offspring in accordance with the laws which prevail with the lower animals."
Or, do the laws of nature that govern animals also govern man.
What law is this? "Namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die."
Ok, so where would nazis get an idea about certain races being more evolved than others. I should say Certain RACES Of MEN. Namely, the european, versus the savage pygmies or what have you? Darwin has the answer again:

"It might also naturally be enquired whether man, like so many other animals, has given rise to varieties and sub-races, differing but slightly from each other, or to races differing so much that they must be classed as doubtful species?"
I'm sure he's going to answer no to this one. We're all equal in Evolution as humans right? BZZT.
Heres's that inevitable wars between the races, but not the positive results (beneficial variations!)

"The enquirer would next come to the important point, whether man tends to increase at so rapid a rate, as to lead to occasional severe struggles for existence; and consequently to beneficial variations, whether in body or mind, being preserved, and injurious ones eliminated.
Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct?"
THe answer sadly, is yes.
"We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals."
Humans the same as the lower animals. Survival of the fittest applies there too.
THIS IS ON THE VERY FIRST PAGE OF ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES. For all this talk of how Darwin only applies to bunnies and animals but not to humans how can you not read THE FIRST PAGE?
Andy you're college bound?; 10/22/10, 8:12 PM
jr565 said...: Sorry one typo on my part, that should say The Descent of Man and not THe Origin of the Species.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-01.html

Chapter one, second paragraph.; 10/22/10, 8:52 PM
jr565 said...: ALos to put Darin into context, note that Darwin was comparing blacks to baboons after the emancipation proclamaition, and the civil war had been fought.

Lest it be said that Darwin singled out only blacks, he also had unkind words for the irish and applied his theories towards them:

"A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. . .Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan they produce many more children. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: 'The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits..."

Those carless, squalid, unaspiring Irisman. What do you mean Darwin didn't have social views or apply his views to man; 10/22/10, 9:10 PM