Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You

> Someone comes into a group like this, makes a bunch of assertions and gets
> jumped on by a dozen people, trashing his statements. 

Actually I never meant to post a thing to talk.origins. I only hit
"post reply" and whatever groups were posted by the previous poster
end up seeing my reply.

My preferred topic is American History. I was drawn into a discussion
of Social Darwinism when I made the claim that much of what Darwin
wrote has been rejected... which now seems to be the consensus of most
of the posters in this thread; but Carol Lee Smith challenged the
assertion. Now that everyone else is saying that it's a given, I've
made my case.

Carol's challenge is at 
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.OSF.3.96.1031122092344.19981U-100000%40alpha1.csd.uwm.edu

> No one comes to his
> defense. 

It wouldn't really make a difference if someone does or doesn't. What
matters to me is whether what I am saying is consonant with the
documented evidence.

All of the insults, ad hominems, bashing, piling-on, etc., is really
imbecilic. I think those who really care about the issues at hand look
right past it.

> The only discussion is about how the assertions are wrong in one
> way or another.

There are also a lot of posts that are also just chest-pounding
insults. I sense that many of the posters in this thread were probably
picked on a lot in elementary school, and have now developed a
psychological condition in which they must "get back" at their
childhood bullies by engaging in discourse that is less than
dignified.

> Many, if not most, of the people at least seem familiar
> with the issues. 

I don't sense that many have read Darwin's Descent of Man very
carefully.

> But that person apparently perceives the situation
> completely differently: that it is his attackers who are in the minority,
> the "audience" is on his side and the people arguing against them are
> destroying their credibility by doing so.

For me its not a question of minority or majority. 50,000 Frenchman
can be wrong. I post for the audience of common sense, integrity,
honesty, and straightforward discourse. I do believe that that
"audience" is a broad one and that they see the common sense of the
situation. Those who choose to pile on with attacks are not the
general audience. They are the insecure, ideological zealots who lack
self-esteem so they are reduced to bully tactics, etc.

> If I was in such a situation (and I have been, more or less) I might
> persevere if I thought I was right, but I'd be under no illusion that my
> opponents' credibility was suffering.

The credibility of anyone who argues that Darwin never articulated a
racism based on the theory of natural selection is terribly suffering.
Common sense adjudicates that, regardless of how many dozens come into
this thread and pound their feet screaming otherwise.

> Or maybe it is just because I'm only reading talk.origins and he is getting
> a lot of support in the other groups from people who are trimming the
> cross-posts . . .

Nope. I'm generally a voice crying in the wilderness. The "support" I
look to are credentialled scholars who publish in academic presses on
these issues. I think their views are far more significant that those
of zealous usenet hacks who are only about an inch deep.