Re: Teilhard de Chardin - new documentary

On Tue, 04 Jun 2024 12:37:27 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 15:12:44 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
 

Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 14:01:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
 

Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

[cutting to the quick again]
 
You claim that there are a variety of types of eugenics and accuse me
of being one-sided in my selection of a particular type, yet you are
curiously reluctant to state what type of eugenics you think applies
to Teilhard's ideas and why you think it does apply.
 
Feel free to come back to me when your hand gets tired waving, and you
are prepared to state what you actually think.
 

Maybe you should start by admitting, given the evidence of the many quotes
you have been provided of Teilhard himself, that Teilhard was actually
incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy and stop squirting
squid ink to cloud that issue.

 
So you don't want to explain what *you* mean by eugenics but you want
me to agree that Teilhard subscribed to it anyway. I suggest you need
to stand back and reflect on your line of argument here.
 

Regardless of type Teilhard was incorporating eugenics. Slattery was
focused on the negative type with sterilization and you are too. I am
looking at it more broadly and maybe extending Teilhard the benefit of the
doubt, that he was incorporating a positive type instead, unless it can be
shown otherwise. Again I am backing away from Slattery?s polemics as he may
have taken his critique too far. But positive eugenics ain?t that great
either.

 
 
Having said that there are various types of eugenics, some negative,
some positive, your persistent refusal to identify which type you are
accusing Teilhard of has become tedious. 
 
*I* described what I think might be the type he was referring to and
gave two concrete examples that would fit with that. You might want to
reflect on how your disdain for Teilhard is stopping you from
endorsing things like genetic research into Down's Syndrome and
campaigns against FGM.
 

That’s a bit of a reach. At least you admit to Teilhard’s use of eugenics
concepts but turn around and insinuate I’m ok with FGM.

Yet again, when you have nothing to attack, you just make something
up.

I've had enough of your crap.

All that from my
providing numerous quotes where Teilhard references eugenics.
>
Did Teilhard ever make explicit references to somehow curing Downs trisomy
or ending FGM? The latter cultural practice has little if any connection I
can see to eugenics. You are a spinner.

>
I must admit that your arguments here have served one useful purpose
for me; I was aware that Teilhard predicted the development of the
Internet but I was not aware that he had also predicted the
development of genetic engineering. Thank you for that.
 

So that’s your uncritical fanboy takeaway?
>
>