We should all consider the implications of what Mr. Dawkins has said most carefully. If, as he implies, the elimination of a human being is both moral and desirable because that child doesnt fit the specified criteria, or have the capability of living the type of life defined as good by others, or might cost too much to maintain, should we embrace, rather than condemn, his attitude? After all, a majority of Americans now realize that Progressives, such as Dawkins, are a danger to both cultural progress and society as a whole. If, using Dawkins criteria, it is decided that Progressives should be eliminated, why not? If others decide that the price of allowing Progressives to live is too high, why not just eliminate them wholesale. Such a course of action would even be in keeping with the Progressive ideology. George Bernard Shaw, one of the early leaders of the Progressive movement, upon learning of Hitlers concentration camps and the murder of millions of Jews, didnt condemn the camps or the killing. He only argued that Hitler was killing the wrong people (GBS felt blacks should be exterminated, along with other defectives). I am sure Mr. Dawkins would be one of the first to embrace a society embracing his principles, and stroll happily into his shower along with his family and friends. (Or, like GBS, wed find that Dawkins final solution is only meant for others!!)
Posted on: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 13:56:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015