Susan Blackmore contracts apocalyptic fever

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ah yes, letting billions die is only one option. I overreacted there a bit.

Why is there so much resistance to dealing with the fact that the climate is changing, never mind the reason, and we'd better cope.

Oh, we'll cope. We'll have no choice. I predict nuclear power will make a big comeback.

~~ Paul

 

[Gayle]

Diamond, will you provide the definition of eco-fascism that you're using?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Indeed none of these choices looks easy, but if we fail to make any decisions then I believe the most likely outcome is that we in the rich west will go on trying to salve our consciences by giving aid to the poorer parts of the world until we realise, far too late, that Gaia is going to chuck us all off whatever we do, and nothing can be saved at all.

Ouch.

~~ Paul

 

[epepke]

How is Susan Blackmore promoting eco-fascism and social darwinism?

Well, I don't think she is.

I think the article is vapid and stupid and almost certainly completely wrong and what I'd expect from a 17-year-old, and I'm not at all surprised that there is a long history of Special Substances involved.

But promoting social Darwinism? No; it takes more than including an arguably Social Darwinist option in a list to do that.

I don't know what eco-fascism means, really, but I think the argument would have to be tighter than it is in order to support any specific -ism. Like, actually arguing for it, not just including it in (an admittedly incomplete and inane) taxonomy. From the premises, her logic, though unpleasant, is solid. It we really believe that Gaia is Queen (as a number of people pretend to do, but I think they're lying), then the logical conclusion is to let as many people as possible die. In the same way, I know that none of the solipsists I've ever met are sincere (because they don't shut the hell up) and none of the separatists I've ever met are sincere (because they don't go somewhere else).

 

[Diamond]

No, I didn't. Thank you for enlightening me. Like the skeptic I am, I accept the evidence. She's not making the right choice here.

No but it does explain the fashion statement.

I'm sorry too, because you should know that I don't fall for this kind of arm flailing. I asked you a question, and I expect you to answer it:

How is Susan Blackmore promoting eco-fascism and social darwinism?

If you are half as much a skeptic as I am, you will provide evidence of your claims.

I'm not half the skeptic you are. First look up social darwinism and then get back to the discussion with a specific question concerning social darwinism. I am not going to spoonfeed you. Nor am I going to carry the weight of have to explain political concepts from first principles.

I do not have the time to enter into a detailed political discussion on this. The point of the piece was that Susan Blackmore was claiming that the world is about to end unless we allow billions to die, deconstruct our civilisation back to the Stone Age or be made extinct by the Earth. Where's the famous Larsen skepticism of THAT claim?

No. You present evidence that she is promoting eco-fascism and social darwinism.

The onus is on you, buddy.

Excuse me, but that was a response to jj's statement not yours. If you think I'm going to be barracked then you're sadly mistaken.

 

[Diamond]

From the premises, her logic, though unpleasant, is solid.

From that syllogism, therefore any apocalyptic argument can be solid. So for example, if the premise that all Christians are going to be raptured, then the outlook for the rest of humankind is bleak.

But the premise is the statement that should be examined. Is the world about to end? (Again? I've heard the claim too many times before)

 

[CFLarsen]

No but it does explain the fashion statement.

How she dresses is completely irrelevant to her arguments. It's a cheap shot, designed to undermine her credibility.

I'm not half the skeptic you are. First look up social darwinism and then get back to the discussion with a specific question concerning social darwinism. I am not going to spoonfeed you. Nor am I going to carry the weight of have to explain political concepts from first principles.

I am well aware of what both social darwinism and eco-fascism means. That's not the point. The point is, you claim that Susan Blackmore promotes these. Explain why.

I do not have the time to enter into a detailed political discussion on this. The point of the piece was that Susan Blackmore was claiming that the world is about to end unless we allow billions to die, deconstruct our civilisation back to the Stone Age or be made extinct by the Earth. Where's the famous Larsen skepticism of THAT claim?

You opened this thread with a claim. It is up to you to back it up.

Excuse me, but that was a response to jj's statement not yours. If you think I'm going to be barracked then you're sadly mistaken.

Nobody is being "barracked" here. You made a claim, you back it up:

How is Susan Blackmore promoting eco-fascism and social darwinism?

It would take a lot less time for you to explain yourself, instead of writing post after post about how you won't explain.....

 

[epepke]

From that syllogism, therefore any apocalyptic argument can be solid. So for example, if the premise that all Christians are going to be raptured, then the outlook for the rest of humankind is bleak.

Indeed. It can.

But the premise is the statement that should be examined. Is the world about to end? (Again? I've heard the claim too many times before)

That's fine. Do so. I said that I thought that the article was vapid and stupid. I thought I was saying so in English, not Swahili or something.

But I don't see how listing a bunch of possibilities that follow from a premise, at least one of which can reasonably be assumed to be Social Darwinism, justifies a conclusion that the article promotes Social Darwinism. I have done many talks and written many essays in which I presented a taxonomy. This does not mean that I agreed with any of the particulars, let alone promoted them. Now, I don't think that Susan Blackmore presented a comprehensive taxonomy, but that's rather a different thing from her being a Social Darwinist.

If that's not what you were trying to say, then perhaps you could clairfy what you were saying. On the other hand, if that's what you were trying to say, then perhaps you could justify the conclusion.

If you would prefer to do neither, well, that would be fairly typical for this forum, and I have written on it before and do not need to belabor the point at this time.

 

[Diamond]

How she dresses is completely irrelevant to her arguments. It's a cheap shot, designed to undermine her credibility.

Her credibility is about her arguments. How ever can I say that she looks ludicrous as well? By the way, I do make the claim that her smoking habits may have affected her sense of reality as well as her dress sense.

I am well aware of what both social darwinism and eco-fascism means. That's not the point. The point is, you claim that Susan Blackmore promotes these. Explain why.

Actually that IS the point. Tell us what social darwinism and eco-fascism means to you and then we'll have a discussion.

You opened this thread with a claim. It is up to you to back it up.

The claim being "Susan Blackmore has contracted Apocalyptic Fever". You have of course missed the big claim and gone for the lesser claims. Why did this escape your attention? Why ignore the premise and focus on the argumentation about her proposed solutions?

Nobody is being "barracked" here. You made a claim, you back it up:

How is Susan Blackmore promoting eco-fascism and social darwinism?

It would take a lot less time for you to explain yourself, instead of writing post after post about how you won't explain.....

Excuse me Claus, the sequence in this case was:

JJ:

Well, the apologists are at it again. It is clear that the OP is removing comments from context, and that the OP is doing a hit-job on Blackmore.

Me:

How did I remove comments from context? I'm not allowed to quote the entire article and you know that.

Tell me how I misrepresented dear Sue.

Claus:

No. You present evidence that she is promoting eco-fascism and social darwinism.

The onus is on you, buddy.

So you were answering my question to jj by repeating a question you'd already asked. Perhape you think this is an impressive debating tactic but it doesn't impress me.

 

[CFLarsen]

Her credibility is about her arguments. How ever can I say that she looks ludicrous as well? By the way, I do make the claim that her smoking habits may have affected her sense of reality as well as her dress sense.

Do you think that making a joke about her appearance makes people think well of skeptics?

Actually that IS the point. Tell us what social darwinism and eco-fascism means to you and then we'll have a discussion.

No. You are the one making the claim. Don't try to shift the onus here. We are not discussing what you and I think is eco-fascism and social darwinism, but how Susan Blackmore advocates eco-fascism and social darwinism.

The claim being "Susan Blackmore has contracted Apocalyptic Fever". You have of course missed the big claim and gone for the lesser claims. Why did this escape your attention? Why ignore the premise and focus on the argumentation about her proposed solutions?

I have of course "gone" for the claims which I - and others - find unsubstantiated. Why don't you just explain what, in the article, makes her advocating eco-fascism and social darwinism?

So you were answering my question to jj by repeating a question you'd already asked. Perhape you think this is an impressive debating tactic but it doesn't impress me.

I can live with that. Can you live with not being able - or just willing - to back up your claim about Susan Blackmore's alleged eco-fascism and social darwinism?

How well does that reflect of skeptics?

 

[Geckko]

I'm sorry too, because you should know that I don't fall for this kind of arm flailing. I asked you a question, and I expect you to answer it:

How is Susan Blackmore promoting eco-fascism and social darwinism?

If you are half as much a skeptic as I am, you will provide evidence of your claims.

Ever the one to throw myself into the middle of a good stoush!!!!

I reckon this apparent tiff between CL and Diamond is simply a case of misunderstanding. This is the way I see it:

CL Larsen is asking Diamond to provide evidence that Susan Blackmore is promoting eco-fascism ans social Darwinism (he says so clearly in my quote).

BUT, I don't believe Diamond ever made such a claim. He/she merely wrote:

What follows could fairly be described as eco-fascism and social darwinism. Don't believe me? Read the article.

I don't see where Diamond claims that the article or the writer is promoting anything, simply that what is written (whether promoted, advocated or not) can be fairly desrcribed as stated.

The response to this should really be to ask oneself "could that be fairly described?" This doesn't require the writer to be advocating these actions, merely that what is described by the writer "fairly" fits Diamonds characterisation. No further evidence or proof is needed (in fact what more evidence is possible for an exercise in English comprehension!!???!!), it only requires an analysis of the article.

So could it be fairly described as "eco-fascism" and "social Darwinism"?

I think a few others seem to agree that one of the options would FAIRLY fit a description of social Darwisin.

Not sure about the eco-fascism bit as I would interpret that to require in the articale and advocation of central compulsion (hence no options - do what you are told) by an undemocratic process. I am not sure that is present, but I am willing to read other take.

 

[CFLarsen]

There is no confusion. Only missing answers from Diamond.

 

[T'ai Chi]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/1149444d186bdaf2b.jpg[/qimg]

Wait a sec...

[qimg]http://estrigious.com/mel/Rbrite.jpg[/qimg]

 

[CFLarsen]

Wait a sec...

[qimg]http://estrigious.com/mel/Rbrite.jpg[/qimg]

I thought you were above personal attacks?

 

[Geckko]

There is no confusion. Only missing answers from Diamond.

Only if you can show where Diamond claimed that Susan Blackmore was "promoting" or "choosing" something. Those were your claims, not Diamond's.

This is my first encounter with you and you seem to be bullying people.

 

[CFLarsen]

Only if you can show where Diamond claimed that Susan Blackmore was "promoting" or "choosing" something. Those were your claims, not Diamond's.

What follows could fairly be described as eco-fascism and social darwinism. Don't believe me? Read the article.

That is a claim that Susan Blackmore does promote eco-fascism and social darwinism. To argue otherwise is to spin.

This is my first encounter with you and you seem to be bullying people.

Holding people to their claims is not bullying. It is being skeptical.

 

[Geckko]

That is a claim that Susan Blackmore does promote eco-fascism and social darwinism. To argue otherwise is to spin.

You have just made a claim, not enumerated a proof.

Holding people to their claims is not bullying. It is being skeptical.

I would agree with you. But you are putting words in other peoples mouths in this instance and then demanding they justify those words.

 

[Roboramma]

You have just made a claim, not enumerated a proof.

Diamond didn't say that it contained references to eco-facism and social darwinism, he said it was eco-facism and social darwinism. What could that mean other than that it promotes those viewpoints?

If I said, "your post is just bullying and evasion", would I be saying that you refered to those things, or that you were actually doing those things? (Note, I'm saying neither about your post, it's just an example pulled out of a hat.)

 

[CFLarsen]

You have just made a claim...

Which I backed up.

I would agree with you. But you are putting words in other peoples mouths in this instance and then demanding they justify those words.

I refer you to (Diamond's) post #18 in this thread.

 

[Geckko]

Diamond didn't say that it contained references to eco-facism and social darwinism, he said it was eco-facism and social darwinism. What could that mean other than that it promotes those viewpoints?

I always like to refer back to the actual quote. Diamond wrote:

What follows could fairly be described as eco-fascism and social darwinism. Don't believe me? Read the article.

If one of the options presented was, for example, kill all Africans to reduce the popluation Diamond might have extended his sentence to read ....

What follows could fairly be described as eco-fascism and social darwinism and racist.

It reads as only a characterisation of what is written, not what Susan Blackmore is "promoting" or "choosing".

Having said that, Diamond may well have meant to imply that Susan Blackmore was "promoting" these options. But the OP does not state that and it is not right to add the extra intepreatation oneself.

If I said, "your post is just bullying and evasion", would I be saying that you refered to those things, or that you were actually doing those things? (Note, I'm saying neither about your post, it's just an example pulled out of a hat.)

If you said "your post is just bullying and evasion" you would be saying something about the nature of my post, not the content. Diamonds OP says something about the content, vis. he thinks one of the options represents "social-Darwinism" while one or more is "eco-fasicm". I can see nothing in Diamond's short OP that takes that one step further to attach these to Susan Blackmore's intentions or beliefs.

Anyway, I think this is all a bit of a side show. I don't know who Susan Blackmore is, but she definitely does lay claim to a belief that:

In all probability billions of people are going to die in the next few decades

and

The carrying capacity of the earth is possibly a billion or two; it's certainly far lower than the current plague of humans

I find that opinion extreme to say the least.