RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics

RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Termyn8or -> RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics (3/13/2011 10:36:05 AM)
"It used to be taken to test for VD, wasn't it? " It was actually taken to type the blood to find if there is an incompatibility in Rh factor. This could cause problems in pregnancy. Not technically eugenics really, but if you think about it in a way it is. Back in the day it wasn't all that uncommon for someone to have never had a blood test before they got married. Some possibly even never had gone to a doctor back then. It was a concern that the pregnancy might not go well, and certain drugs were administered to minimize the risk. Today even though by hitchin' age one has usually been to 14 specialists, a neurosurgeon and three phychiatrists, people just don't care. Think nine months into the future ? Hell no, they don't care about the next nine minutes. The point though is that eugenics is practiced every day. It's generally taken that good looks indicates good health, true or not. Strong healthy mates are desirable right ? Taking it much further than skin deep beauty is - technically - eugenics. Thoughts of other attributes, like intelligence for example, how else would it be described ? It's like anything else, once they put a name on it, it is then subject to arbitrary judgement based on subjective factors. I'll face facts and come out and say it - I know Women who are so stupid that I wouldn't want MY kids anywhere near them. No matter how good looking they may be I discriminate against them. A terrible thing for me to exclude them for something that probably isn't their fault. But that's the old school thinking. It has "evolved" into "eighteen to eighty, blind, crippled or crazy". No worries, we have no responsibility to society to add productive human beings. Nobody cares. And did those with incompatible Rh factors call off the wedding ? No, but they knew there might be problems and with this strange notion of thinking ahead prepared themselves for the possibility of problems. ETA : Maybe among the bluebloods it's a bit different. "Our kid is going to be descendent from the Duke of Earl and the Earl of Duke". Something like that. T^T

Edwynn -> RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics (3/13/2011 10:53:23 AM)
Good news so far, but just who is it that decides where the line is drawn? Two of my three congenitally incapacitated brothers have contributed to society in significant measure thus forth (BS in Accounting, AS in Computer science), but we can shoot the third (PHD in drunkedness, being that all symptoms were severely manifest in that instance, he somehow lasted 8 years in the "real world" ) if it saves society a few nickels, no consideration of the useful output of the other two. If we propose to do things by the numbers only, let's keep track of things, shall we?

tazzygirl -> RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics (3/13/2011 11:01:42 AM)
So what you are saying is that women are applying a science in an effort NOT to have a relationship with your brothers? Thats sad... truly sad. quote: So then, let's line up all those women who turned elsewise from my congenitally afflicted brothers and shoot them too, along with reprehensible, oops, I meant representative what's-his-name. Its your belief that hearing loss is their only impediment. Families tend to believe that.

Edwynn -> RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics (3/13/2011 11:10:18 AM)
If your reading of what was said is that women were somehow applying "science" to it, when I was in fact pointing out that the complete opposite (i.e., nature) represents real life, then we can leave it to others as to what constitutes "sad" in this exchange.

tazzygirl -> RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics (3/13/2011 11:15:39 AM)
Natural selection has nothing to do with eugenics.

Edwynn -> RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics (3/13/2011 11:31:04 AM)
True enough, thanks for getting with the program here. Though it still informs explanation of the overall societal take on things that you felt the need to ascribe some imagined other shortcomings of three men who, other than the common congenital affliction, are as different as can be, as excuse for doing the right thing yourself and wanting to have the best child come into your world. The less need for making excuses, the less need for insulting others. The simple math there. I was not making the case that things should have been otherwise concerning the intimately known (to my own self, albeit never realized as such until adolescence) "shortcomings" as what came with the package there. Just be proud of yourself for doing what you are doing. No need to insult others, no need to make excuses, etc. That was the whole point, that nature has many considerations in place; yours, mine, and many others who's situation neither of us know.

tazzygirl -> RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics (3/13/2011 11:36:39 AM)
quote: Though it still informs explanation of the overall societal take on things that you felt the need to ascribe some imagined other shortcomings of three men who, other than the common congenital affliction, are as different as can be, as excuse for doing the right thing yourself and wanting to have the best child come into your world. rofl... you believe women these days pick men based upon wanting the best child? Its all about money or how they make the woman feel.

Edwynn -> RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics (3/13/2011 11:50:39 AM)
Keep moving the target, no worries. One of them (congenital Ushers Syndrome) would in fact be quite the attraction, were money the only consideration. And the fact that he is (usually) a Republican voter would take it up a notch further for some (please don't ask for explanation there, you know how it works). I was not intending to place blame anywhere, nor judgment of the situation, nor certainly not judgment upon women, etc. regarding any of this. I was just pointing out a fact, a real life situation, etc., which seems in every instance to gall those with ideologies, etc. Just don't ask me to "explain" any r/l experience here. You get it or you don't. Accept or not, but if you feel the need to insult, expect the return. But I'm lenient this particular day. So far.

PeonForHer -> RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics (3/13/2011 11:51:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Natural selection has nothing to do with eugenics. Agreed. In a fundamental sense it's the opposite of natural selection because it's about artificial design of our evolution rather than natural design. And that's one way in which it can go wrong. Is it self-evident that a better boxer might be bred by means of eugenics? Not if you assume from the outset that 'better' always means Aryan. Make the wrong assumption about what is a 'better human' and you can screw things up very badly. What will 'better' mean, in the future? With the ecological malaise as it appears to be there are some strong reasons to believe that it might well come to mean 'those qualities that will make a human less demanding of natural resources'. What sorts of characteristics in people today lead to their consuming more than others? Arguably, the answer is 'those who are most ambitious, want to build the biggest factories, earn the most money so that they can buy the biggest cars and houses . . . . You get the picture. We're not talking about idlers or those with disabilities here. We're looking at the 'other end of society'. Those people who are rich, powerful and successful and also support eugenics might just end up getting eaten by the very monster they themselves let out of its cage.

PeonForHer -> RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics (3/13/2011 11:55:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl rofl... you believe women these days pick men based upon wanting the best child? Its all about money or how they make the woman feel. And also about having average-looking, symmetrical facial features, apparently. It's been argued that this is some primitive method by which an individual can judge the 'genetic health' of a prospective partner. ;-)

Edwynn -> RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics (3/13/2011 11:59:54 AM)
"Its your belief that hearing loss is their only impediment." Wow. All I can say is "wow". I needed a separate response for that one. I'm glad I was around the kids I grew up with (OK, just some of ), who, even the meanest of them, learned by no later age than 8 to have better sense than to say something like that.

tazzygirl -> RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics (3/13/2011 8:23:09 PM)
quote: So then, let's line up all those women who turned elsewise from my congenitally afflicted brothers and shoot them too, along with reprehensible, oops, I meant representative what's-his-name. You set the bar... you defined the terms. According to you, these women are no better than the idiot in office. Something I completely disagree with. quote: My three brothers who were born with significant hearing loss and a mild but just noticeable speech impediment, and later in life, retinitis pigmentosa (no peripheral vision) have none among them ever one girlfriend in their entire life, and never will. At the time hearing is forming so are the eyes, as well as the backbone. As we learn more about growth and development, many more things will become apparent. You took my comment as mean spirited. Sorry to disappoint you, it wasnt at all. An "impediment" is the word you decided to use. I merely spoke of the occurance. quote: I was not intending to place blame anywhere, nor judgment of the situation, nor certainly not judgment upon women, etc. regarding any of this. Yet you did by lumping the women who didnt look favorably on your brothers into the same ditch as the idiot state senator. quote: Accept or not, but if you feel the need to insult, expect the return. You get what you give. [;)]

Edwynn -> RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics (3/13/2011 8:57:21 PM)
quote: tazzygirl Its your belief that hearing loss is their only impediment. quote: Yes, I see now how I totally took that the wrong way. Thanks for educating all of us here then.

Edwynn -> RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics (3/13/2011 9:01:43 PM)
"Its your belief that hearing loss is their only impediment." Your confusing r/l awareness with "belief" aside ... Yes, I see now how I totally took that the wrong way. Thanks for educating all of us here then. More than you know.

truckinslave -> RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics (3/13/2011 9:16:39 PM)
quote: My three brothers who were born with significant hearing loss and a mild but just noticeable speech impediment, a Hearing loss can be treated. I had a severe speech impediment as a teenager and still had girlfriends; it lingered through my twenties. I have never had enough money for that alone to attract women (although I did have a Porsche 911E for a while that worked pretty well [:D] ) By the time I lost the stutter I was married twice and had had the usual number of girlfriends, relationships, blah blah blah. I would look elsewhere for their relationship difficulties.

Edwynn -> RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics (3/13/2011 9:26:28 PM)
Truckin, I don't know how to explain it. I have a nephew who stuttered just below adulthood (had girlfriends aplenty), perhaps got it sorted out a couple of years before you did, but, point taken, any regards. But this is different. I don't know how to explain it, but the particular "impediment" in question is beyond mere stuttering, and even as manifest in the mildest case, it is immediately apparent to all who hear the first word. PS As for the "it can be treated" comment ... Perhaps, in these cases (Usher's Syndrome), $50,000 to 250,000 might buy one some 5-10 % improvement over the current technology most expensive hearing aids. But we've yet to see anything to address the congenital speech impediment, being that it has nothing to do with stuttering at all, and, as we later found out, nothing to do with their hearing capacity at all. It's just there, and it's not going away. Several thousand hours of speech therapy with minimal return has let everyone in on that fact. That didn't stop those who wanted from getting a degree, and they have a better family than most, so we're all OK here. No worries.

Termyn8or -> RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics (3/14/2011 3:02:02 AM)
"Good news so far, but just who is it that decides where the line is drawn?" That inded is the prime question. If you apply these principles for better or worse, Beetoven would not have been born. Neither would few other people. So who is to judge the possible cost to humanity versus the benefit ? The benefit is obvious, but ruthless exploiters do much better when there are more people to exploit. As such, nobody talks about ZPG anymore. I can see that with my eyes closed. But where to draw the line. You lived after Beetoven and the loss would be "felt" by many. But if he had never existed we would never miss him. Which is better ? I tend to err on the side of survival myself, and I am starting to think that Chiseler was right, everybody is nihilistic. You get too many fish in a tank you get another tank or get rid of some of the fish, for their own good. We can think about eugenics for lowly animals, and it is really for their own good because it is for our own good. But when it comes to ourselves, somehow we are above the laws of nature. Why ? T^T

outhere69 -> RE: Lawmaker advocates eugenics (3/14/2011 6:02:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl What were people thinking? They were thinking, "stop Obama at any cost," Tazzy. That had some seriously long coattails in the state houses, especially when a candidate could be sold as a war hero of the greatest generation. How is a state representative going to stop Obama? Some US rep rode on a state rep's coat tails? Jesus on a pogo stick, you'd have to be nuts to vote in a 92 year old who can't get his shit in one bag, Republican or Democrat. BTW, he resigned several days after making those remarks.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125