In response to KF here: In my view it is no more, or less, slanderous imply a relationship between “Darwinism” and Nazi-ism than it is to imply a relationship between “anti-homosexualism” and Nazi-ism. To point out that the Nazis conviction that the “unfit” should be “culled” may have owed something to their reading of Darwin, is at least equivalent, I would say, to pointing out that the Nazi’s conviction that homosexuals should be “culled” may have owed something to the view that homosexuality is deviant, immoral and dangerous. To say the first is not to say that Darwinists are Nazis; to say the second is not to say that anti-homosexualists are Nazi. To insist that the first is justifiable but the second slander, is, I suggest, to impose a double standard. Moreover, to suggest, as KF does, that by “enabling” posters here to suggest a comparison between the anti-homosexualism of some religious views and the anti-homosexuality of the Nazis I am somehow comparable to the “good” Germans who “enabled of Nazi-ism is at least as “slanderous” as the comparison he objects to. However, I can live with that. The best response, in my view, to slander, is effective rebuttal, not censorship.
I agree with KF that comparisons to Nazis is inflammatory. That is as far as I will go.
What I will say in addition, however, is that KF’s claim that his anti-homosexuality is “principled”, and therefore somehow OK, does not cut any mustard with me. Principles can be wrong. Indeed many evil things have been perpetrated on the basis of “principles”. KF and I disagree on a great many things, including our principles. I will not censor this blog because things are said there that offend KF’s principles. Indeed I will censor this blog as minimally as I possible can. If KF wants to come here and make his case, fine. But I do not run this blog in accordance with KF’s principles. I run it in accordance with my own, which includes the principle of allowing people to make their case, regardless of whether I disagree with it.
I think the anti-homosexuality agenda is profoundly wrong (however “principled”) and leads to great harm, including death. To say that is not to accuse KF of being a Nazi. It is to warn him that “principles” have consequences, and that he should be aware of the dangers that they pose.
I will not respond to any more of KF’s posts at UD with posts on this blog, though I may occasionally respond in comments. If KF wants to discuss this further, he is, as always, welcome to come here and do so. He is of course perfectly aware that I have no right of reply at UD.