Carl Sagan refuted

[Lisa Simpson]

So when does the refuting start?

Later, after the re-drinking.

 

[direlect]

You are suggesting here that Carl Sagan was advocating some form of totalitarianism. Show where Sagan ever said that.

Yes. He was suggesting a kind of totalitarianism by advocating racial homogenisation.

 

[LostAngeles]

Which was not intended in and of itself to be a refutation.
...

Then why did you title this thread, "Carl Sagan Refuted" and start with, "These are refutations of excerpts I have taken from Carl Sagan's books:"

Sagan:

I believe the difficulty we all experience is extending our identification horizons...

direlect:

So we must obliterate these tiny differences...

non sequitor. Sagan advocates learning to identify those with a different coloring. religion, or what not as being humans also. You see that as "obliterating" them.

 

[LostAngeles]

Yes. He was suggesting a kind of totalitarianism by advocating racial homogenisation.

Where did he do that? He said, "identification horizons." That doesn't mean let's all become goobacks.

 

[Ducky]

Yes. He was suggesting a kind of totalitarianism by advocating racial homogenisation.

Again, you are putting words in his mouth. Quote me chapter and line of Sagan actually saying that specifically, or admit you put words into his mouth.

 

[Ryokan]

Yay, we've found us a new troll!

direlect, I can't believe they didn't make you a moderator

 

[NotJesus]

If the first excerpt "suggests... a need for radical population reduction,"

You misunderstand. That is precisely what Sagan is not saying. He suggests working with that we have. I suggest a population reduction.
QUOTE]

Obviously, this "radical population reduction" is YOUR idea, not Sagan's. The mystery is why you think the passage you quoted has anything to do with poulation size as an issue. It doesn't.

 

[Ducky]

If the first excerpt "suggests... a need for radical population reduction,"

You misunderstand. That is precisely what Sagan is not saying. He suggests working with that we have. I suggest a population reduction.

Obviously, this "radical population reduction" is YOUR idea, not Sagan's. The mystery is why you think the passage you quoted has anything to do with poulation size as an issue. It doesn't.

This troll has his own forum to spew this. Why slop it around here?

 

[Beerina]

It is based on the ahistorical and untenable assumption that 'humanity' has innate value. Where does this universalist feeling come from? I believe it has its roots in the belief that all men are brothers because they were created by the Lord in His image. This concern with 'humanity' is a naive Western prejudice and the invention of 'mankind' as a classification was simply the most recent refinement of that prejudice.

I have discussed this in more detail at my forum (see sig).

Well, as long as there is no "other group" out there, separate from mankind as a whole, there will be no general coming together in a political sense. Also keep in mind politicians, being what they are, will constantly strive for power.

Some want to bundle humanity under one govenrment -- this gives them power, perhaps that they cannot get in a national government. And of course the national governments want to resist because they have power already. Look at the European parliament struggling constantly to gain more federal type power. Gonna happen eventually since they will ever be pushing for more.

 

[Beerina]

You are suggesting here that Carl Sagan was advocating some form of totalitarianism. Show where Sagan ever said that.

He was a limousine communist, according to his own son.

 

[Belz...]

It is based on the ahistorical and untenable assumption that 'humanity' has innate value. Where does this universalist feeling come from? I believe it has its roots in the belief that all men are brothers because they were created by the Lord in His image. This concern with 'humanity' is a naive Western prejudice and the invention of 'mankind' as a classification was simply the most recent refinement of that prejudice.

I have discussed this in more detail at my forum (see sig).

We have value to US.

 

[Iacchus]

We have value to US.

Yea, we are all freaks of happenstance.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I suggest a population reduction.

And it is very unselfish of you to offer to set a good example....

 

[Belz...]

He was a limousine communist, according to his own son.

I hope you aren't conflating communism with totalitarianism; although they are usually hand-in-hand, they are not the same.

 

[Belz...]

Yes. He was suggesting a kind of totalitarianism by advocating racial homogenisation.

So... he asks for a citation, and you answer with (again) your opinion. Great. Troll on.

 

[Belz...]

Yea, we are all freaks of happenstance.

If you have nothing constructive to say, why don't you simply NOT say anything.

 

[Ryokan]

I hope you aren't conflating communism with totalitarianism; although they are usually hand-in-hand, they are not the same.

Although I agree with you, can you mention one communist state that wasn't totalitarian?

 

[rikzilla]

This is simply an excercise in putting words in Sagan's mouth.

If the first excerpt "suggests... a need for radical population reduction," that's your problem, not Carl Sagan's. He never suggested such a thing. If you think the third excerpt recommends obliterating tiny differences among people, you've misunderstood it at a very basic level.

Far from refuting Carl Sagan, you apparently aren't even up to the task of reading him.

Precisely! This guy is resurrecting Dr. Sagan in straw and thinks we somehow won't notice!

-z

 

[Belz...]

Although I agree with you, can you mention one communist state that wasn't totalitarian?

That's what I said, Ryokan. They're pretty much always together, but they're not equivalent in their definition.

 

[Belz...]

Precisely! This guy is resurrecting Dr. Sagan in straw and thinks we somehow won't notice!

-z

A straw Carl Sagan could still kick direlect's butt at logic, apparently.