Bertrand Russell: The Most Evil Man Of The 20th Century

ajh

New Member
Let us count the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory shall we:

Locked comment section?Check.
A butt-hurt insult laden description box which doesn't address any criticisms leveled at the video,and provides no sources for the claims made in the presentation?Check.
The presenter being a man who according to Wikipedia was involved with the United States conservative parties comparing Obama to Hitler?Triple check!

Ladies and germs,a conspiratorial hat-trick! :facepalm:

 

Sparhafoc

Active Member
Thing is... and anyone with a mote of honesty would agree... he'd never have dared to say anything like that to Bertrand Russell's face. Not because Russell would offer the traditional male threat, but because Russell's incision would have sliced and diced him into mammalian sushi in moments! And Good Golly, he would have remained in perfect gentlemanly accent throughout!

Says it all. What you should or would have said always sounds much more convincing when you are doing it in hindsight and the target's not there to respond!
 

hackenslash

New Member
The only thing I'd say about Russell is that, sometimes, he could be a little too pragmatic. He spoke favourably of eugenics - conceptually of course - and some of the things he expressed would give us pause today. That said, what he talked about as an intellectual exercise and what eugenics became in the hands of some are pretty far removed.

I loved the assertion that the founder of CND advocated nuclear war.
 

Sparhafoc

Active Member
hackenslash said:
The only thing I'd say about Russell is that, sometimes, he could be a little too pragmatic. He spoke favourably of eugenics - conceptually of course - and some of the things he expressed would give us pause today. That said, what he talked about as an intellectual exercise and what eugenics became in the hands of some are pretty far removed.

I loved the assertion that the founder of CND advocated nuclear war.

I think one could even base a eugenics argument solely on compassion.

Assuming, of course, that eugenics was employed solely with respect to aborting early fetuses which possessed seriously debilitating genotypes. The compassion would first of all be for the short and painful life of that individual, and ultimately with the potential to remove a damaging allele from the population.

Of course, it would still require some heavy ethical pondering, not least because being disabled isn't itself a reason why people shouldn't or can't live a relatively normal, and certainly worthwhile life, and we never know when some apparently deleterious allele may provide the platform for a beneficial mutation.

However, I think it's always valid to make arguments for and against, and even for emotionally charged topics, we need to be prepared to try out both sides, not just assume one and reject the other on a-priori or emotional grounds!

Again, thanks to the challenged members (plural unnecessary, really) who would love to jump on any line of attack they can get. I am not actually arguing for eugenics. If eugenics were in place a few decades ago, I wouldn't even exist.
 
Top