Speaking of Eugenics by Kwicko

Mike, thanks for this

The 91 year old freshman state senator will now have to resign, but think how many of our law makers think like Martin Harty but aren't dumb enough to say so.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2011 3:04 AM

KWICKO

Well, yeah - and that's why he'll have to step down: he inadvertently admitted the GOP's (or TPTB's) real agenda by saying it out loud.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2011 3:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Well, yeah - and that's why he'll have to step down: he inadvertently admitted the GOP's (or TPTB's) real agenda by saying it out loud.

At some point you'll see that this is not a partisan issue, and that, in fact, there are no parties.

I see how you come to where you are. You're in Texas, the republicans always win, so the resistance is always expecting a democrat victory would bring something different. But if you look but national, you see its not so.

And, yes, you're more or less correct on why: they don't care that someone says it, or that it slips our, but when it does, they will feel the need to loudly oppose it so that we will associate them with opposition to the idea.

Sort of like texas dems and republican corporatism

But really, I think thats what will happen in reaction to eugenics and why.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2011 3:39 AM

But this is not the same type of eugenics you like to talk about, DT. At least, I don't think so. I really think it would be clearer if you found a different word for your type of eugenics, to distinguish from this "classic" type spouted by this senile legislator.

Anyway, a lot more people think this way than are stupid enough to admit. I agree with that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2011 4:46 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Doing evil is bad.
Doing evil, badly, is unforgiveable.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2011 8:31 AM

HKCAVALIER

And who wants to bet this guy is pro-life?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2011 9:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
And who wants to bet this guy is pro-life?

LOLOL.

Here's his voting record (nothing in it about abortion issues):

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/membervotingrecord.aspx?
member=376946

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
But this is not the same type of eugenics you like to talk about, DT. At least, I don't think so. I really think it would be clearer if you found a different word for your type of eugenics, to distinguish from this "classic" type spouted by this senile legislator.

Anyway, a lot more people think this way than are stupid enough to admit. I agree with that.

Outside of this forum, no humans appear to disagree on the use of this word, but to clarify once more:

The same thing done with more subtlety is still the same thing. I will not back down on my correct use of the language.

To wit:

Racism, if done more subtly than in the 50s is still racism. If, instead of having a sign that says "white's only" you make it so that it's basically technically impossible for a black person to join, because each member must pass a personal face-to-face interview with a racist, than it's still racism.

Class warfare: If you no longer have noble titles, but you make the barrier of entry to certain parts of society so dependent on economic or social status, you still have a class barrier.

Anti-semitism: If you are no longer rounding up jews and putting them in camps, but rather oppose the rights of jews to live in property they own in palestine, or the rights of peopel to practice judaism, it's still discrimination.

War: You no longer make declarations of war, but people with guns are still shooting your enemy, even if they're not your guys with guns doing the shooting, but some mercenaries hired, or robots shooting or dropping bombs on your enemy, it's still war.

Theft: if you do not break in to someone's home with a gun or drag them into an alley to take stuff off their person, but you use a computer to transfer their funds or property assets into your account, or control, even if you're a corporation... it's still theft.

So, if you are still trying to clean the gene pool by removing the "undesireables" or preventing them from reproducing, even if you do it through propaganda and economic manipulation rather than direct violence, it's still eugenics.

The UN Convention on Genocide does not say "Only if done through a direct use of force."

It says:

Quote:

Article 1
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 3
The following acts shall be punishable:

* (a) Genocide;
* (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
* (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
* (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
* (e) Complicity in genocide.

Personally, I don't really give a damn about the Nuremberg trials. If *Anything* came out of the holocaust it was this document, set down as international law, as a response to prevent this from happening again.

My separation of the word "eugenics" for that subset of genocide that targets either a fraction of that population or does not inflict its means through the use of force is the common one used for the last half century, and used, basically, by everyone in the political debate.

Even though it *is* under this charter "Genocide" I don't use the stronger word for other cases out of respect to the people of Rwanda, Cambodia, the Ukraine and others upon whom wholesale destruction by force was thrust.

Even the complete cutting off of food and medical supplies by Clinton to Iraq that directly or indirectly causes 1/2 million to 1 million deaths classifies as "Genocide" in my book, but Israel in Gaza I would call "Eugenics."

I don't think a weaker word than "Eugenics" is needed for anything which fits the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, a document as historically important as the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution or Declaration of Independence.

I may disagree with the UN and what it does, but that doesn't bear on the treaty, any more than my disapproval of the British Monarchy leads me to reject the Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights, or my dislike of the US govt. to reject the Constitution or Declaration of Independence.

Are we clear?

3.b "Conspiracy to commit genocide," if as defined by 2b: "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" if done under the definition of one of the intially stated goals of eugenics "to remove undesirable elements populations or races from the gene pool" is Eugenics.

Eugenics is conspiracy to commit genocide.

"Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part"

If taken in the context of

"Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group"

or

"Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group"

or

"Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group"

by say, poisoning their water supply, or their food, or thereby limiting, with the intent of removing undesirable elements of the gene pool; preventing the reproduction of undesirable elements; or outright eliminating undesirable elements... of a population, in part, or in whole...

What does it matter what weapons you use to accomplish these ends? It does not alter the ideology that underlies them, and it does not put you right with the text as it is written.

I yield on an awful lot of things, I'm not about to yield this one. The definition is really clear. It's not subjective, and it is not opinion.

The only difference between people like Martin Harty and people like Nick Rockefeller is that the former is are outdated morons with no concept of discretion.

All of that, congrats to Frem for nailing this one far more concisely than I:

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Doing evil is bad.
Doing evil, badly, is unforgiveable.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
And who wants to bet this guy is pro-life?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

Oh, I'm sure he'd approve of *selective* abortion

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2011 4:59 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Naughty Kwicko. Didn't we warn you about using the E word. Wash your mouth out, young man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2011 5:01 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Outside of this forum, no humans appear to disagree on the use of this word, but to clarify once more:

Outside of this forum, no one has these discussions any more.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2011 6:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Outside of this forum, no humans appear to disagree on the use of this word, but to clarify once more:

Outside of this forum, no one has these discussions any more.

2.7 million results. I guess they do. It was the most recent suggestion for an addition to the public school curriculum. Yes, they do, and good for them, because it's a major topic. It's as important as war, poverty, famine, disease and more important than crime, politics and much more important than celebrities, or any of 50 or so problems which don't exist.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2011 6:28 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

I'd get about the same amount of responses if I googled 'button'. Doesn't mean that button is currently a hot topic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 4:55 AM

EDIT: wait, damn, nevermind. I made a promise and I was going to try to keep that promise.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 6:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'd get about the same amount of responses if I googled 'button'. Doesn't mean that button is currently a hot topic.

I guess it means button is a word with a definite meaning. Perhaps it's a hot button topic.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 9:52 AM

HARDWARE

Why is there a word that defines racism as practiced against Jews? Is it a worse kind of racism than that practiced against any other people?

End eugenics is not a bad thing. Breeding a better human. The problem comes in when it comes down to; who decides?

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 10:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
So, if you are still trying to clean the gene pool by removing the "undesireables" or preventing them from reproducing,

I'm not arguing about the method. I am arguing about WHY they are "undesirable."

If they are "undesirable" because you personally can't stand people with [fill in the blank] characteristics, and you feel they don't contribute to society, then it is eugenics.

If they are "undesirable" because while the characteristics in question contribute to society (e.g. intelligence, industry, creativity, courage), they threaten your plans for world domination (e.g. you don't want smart or creative people who might challenge your authority), it's NOT eugenics.

In your conjectures about eugenics, you have included targets in both groups. For example, targeting slavs would be eugenics. Targeting brave people would not.

You should get a different word for the second group of folks. That's all I'm saying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 4:14 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

When I first read this I was going to write a very nasty response about what I'd like to do to this person, I mean Siberia, yikes, but then I read his age and the idea of sending _him to Siberia and watching him freeze to death didn't sound as amusing as before, I have a heart after all.

Yeah, this is more "eugenics" oritnted than most things we see written today in America.

I'm going to take myself and my faulty genes out of the gene pool by getting "fixed" as soon as the need arises. I cannot in good conscience reproduce and pass on my crappy genes, especially in regards to MH things, I'd not doom my worst enemy to suffering from my brain, much less the person I would love most in the world, flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone. So no babies for me. Plus I don't have the stammina to take care of babies 24/7, I love kids but I won't be having them. I do think it is important for people with disabilities to think seriously before they choose to reproduce, educate themselves about the risks, consider how a child of theirs would feel if the disability was inherrited etc. If they still want to to reproduce and have babies then I don't think society should forcibly stop them, it is a person's right to reproduce if they see fit.

This is a sensative issue and I think some people with disabilities think I'm controversial about it, saying the things I say. All I can do is speak from my experiences/opinions. I have a coworker with serious depression and a bit more and a close family member with sz, and she really wants to have a baby. Even though I wouldn't be willing to have a baby in her shoes I do believe that she has the right to make that choice for herself. She knows the risks, she isn't touched, she is stable and capable of making that decision for herself. And I wish her and the child well, I hope it is fortunate and doesn't inherrit the genes etc.

I don't like Hardware's "breeding a better human" idea, I'm glad he wouldn't actually persue it, I know he knows better. ... ?

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 1:35 AM

I am concerned that several people on this list have supported the idea of manipulating the gene pool in any way, even subtly and without force. The idea that we can be "better" as a species if certain people refrained from reproduction, that is "eugenics" whether one uses force to act on it or not. It is disturbing to me.

I don't think it is biologically sound for us to see human life as disadvantageous because of a specific "flaw." For every one disability or flaw, there are 5000 good and healthy things about that person that can be passed on.

Having said that, I of course support each person's individual choice not to reproduce. I just don't think that is a decision we should make for anyone else, even in wishful thinking.

Just my opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I am arguing about WHY they are "undesirable."

Byte nailed it. It's still the same. You can call dysgenics the intentional breeding of an eloi as that was the word Galton used to the breeding degenerates, but it's still a subset of eugenics.

I just dug up lots of refs, and everyone said that eugenics was the promotion of noble blood to the exclusion of other elements. Since noble lines have always been dependent on a slave race or class, the breeding of one not capable of rebelling is still eugenics, but a subclass of it.

Mostly, though, I don't think this is an issue. The main issue is the removing of groups which are not the noble line, are a threat to it, are not desired, and are considered by the eugenicists to be inferior.

Eugenics is this genetic manipulation, it's a subset of genocide, and dysgenics would be a subset of it.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:09 AM

Riona

So, psychological warfare works. They don't need to kill you to remove you from the gene pool.

Do you really think that anyone else *doesn't* have flawed genes? There are 33,000 genes in the human genome. How many people will have a perfect set. say, 2^33000? That would be one in 33 billion. I guess there are zero of those.

Eugenicists are very keen on removing celtic blood from the species. Not their tribe after all.

Still would seem a shame to remove that singing voice from the gene pool.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I am concerned that several people on this list have supported the idea of manipulating the gene pool in any way, even subtly and without force. The idea that we can be "better" as a species if certain people refrained from reproduction, that is "eugenics" whether one uses force to act on it or not. It is disturbing to me.

I don't think it is biologically sound for us to see human life as disadvantageous because of a specific "flaw." For every one disability or flaw, there are 5000 good and healthy things about that person that can be passed on.

Having said that, I of course support each person's individual choice not to reproduce. I just don't think that is a decision we should make for anyone else, even in wishful thinking.

Just my opinion.

You pretty much nailed it, except that the last part: People are not the masters of their own judgment, that's what all that propaganda is about, TPTB making the choices for them. If you allow that, the fact that all people will elect for suicide is a certainty.

Think about it. Enough manipulation, and anyone can get this result. If they're allowed to do it, they will always succeed. We will be gone in one generation.

People need to be educated about why they made that decision. Once everyone is informed, if they still opt for suicide, I can't stop them, but psychological studies show that even suicides are a momentary glitch, and they would all take it back if given a second chance.

If people don't want children themselves, maybe they should donate their flawed genes to those who cannot have children of their own.

It's not a war if no one fights back, it's just a slaughter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It's still the same.

I disagree.

Purposely weeding out genes one prizes in oneself, but would like to see absent in others for the sake of easing competition, is not eugenics to me.

Purposeful acts to destroy intelligence, creativity, independence, and courage so that you end up with a population that is easier to control is selective breeding. Not eugenics.

Eugenics is about passing on "good" genes. It is not about keeping "good" genes to oneself, and keeping everyone else from getting them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 10:09 AM

Ooh, selective breeding. I like that. It suggests something done to cattle before they are processed for their meat.

Which is about what agenda is actually going on here, and describes it accurately. Well done CTS.

Perhaps we should call all of these subsets of selective breeding, which is a subset of genocide.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Perhaps we should call all of these subsets of selective breeding, which is a subset of genocide.

Yes. Good summary. That makes much more sense to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:19 AM

I accepted Galton's term dysgenics, but in the end, it's not up to us: If this is what eugenicists do, and they described it as eugenics, and then they did it, and then they said that was eugenics, then it is. It's like how I keep getting accused of of labeling people socialists. I don't calling anything socialist that didn't call itself socialist.

We have to deal with the languages people apply to themselves. If we don't, we lack a common language to communicate ideas.

Byte was much closer earlier when she said that what was desired and undesirable had nothing to do with an objective "superior" but rather the desirable end results of the people doing the manipulation.

But now, the major goal of eugenics is global depopulation, or "population control" as they call it. And because they call it that, we should as well.

No one is calling anything that they themselves do "selective breeding" in humans, so I won't call anything that.

Possibly, an eloi dysgenic plan falls under "population control" because it is a form of controlling a population, not by reducing its numbers, but disabling its ability to fight back.

This doesn't apply to introducing things like "sterility" though.

Thing is, if you are a member of an elite, be it nobles, or zionists or whoever, that believes themselves to be superior, then their desire to see commoners and goyim devolve is not that they are trying to remove something they see as "superior" to themselves, because they don't. They see it as "threateningly close to their level" the same way the british say the chinese. They never said "Oh, the chinese are smarter than us" but rather "almost as smart as us" ergo, a threat. Threats will threaten the perfect race, because they stand more chance of displacing it than the truly inferior.

Ergo, it's still eugenics.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:37 AM

Hmm, all right. I'm willing to use population control then.

The thing is, it seems that there are some of us here who are willing to buy into the idea that the world sucks because various groups are trying to get rid of various other groups, and it might be working on a subtle level.

Ideally, we've just identified eugenics (whatever form it takes) as being related to population control, and when someone says eugenics and means a form of population control, or vice versa, we won't even have to blink to understand what it is they're really saying. Whether that's among our group discussing the issues or spotting dangerous supporters of TPTB in prominent industry and government positions by quotes on and off the record, that's a useful association either way.

In short, arguing about what to call the phenomenon is much less important than us agreeing that the phenomena appears to exist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 1:37 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
It's like how I keep getting accused of of labeling people socialists. I don't calling anything socialist that didn't call itself socialist.

And you keep wondering why I call teabaggers teabaggers...

By the way, how many children do you have?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 1:56 PM

That's getting a little personal, Kwicko.

I'm a victim of the population control myself, but even though they pretty much made me sterile and even though I'm unbalanced, I'm holding on until I can make a difference. *shrug*

Doesn't mean DT's wrong...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 3:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
We have to deal with the languages people apply to themselves.

But that language also has to have an objective meaning. If I call myself a vegetarian, it doesn't mean I am. You have to check to see if I am eating meat of any kind, cause you know, that is what "vegetarian" means.

Quote:
If we don't, we lack a common language to communicate ideas.

All we need is a dictionary. I disagree we have to use the same language as the whatever people call themselves. WBC calls themselves "Christians," but it doesn't mean what they stand for represents Christianity. TBTB may call what it is practicing "eugenics," but it doesn't mean what they do represents eugenics. We have to look deeper than that, and tease out what exactly they are doing vs. the classical definition.

Quote:

But now, the major goal of eugenics is global depopulation, or "population control" as they call it. And because they call it that, we should as well.

By your standard then, shouldn't you call it "population control" instead of eugenics?

Cause I don't see anywhere that they calling what they are doing "eugenics."

Quote:
They never said "Oh, the chinese are smarter than us" but rather "almost as smart as us" ergo, a threat. Threats will threaten the perfect race, because they stand more chance of displacing it than the truly inferior.

Ergo, it's still eugenics.

That is assuming that there is a trait such as "British" or whatever that they are trying to promote. Can you identify what that trait is? What is the "good" gene they are trying to advance? Cause, you know, without identifying what exactly is desirable, you can't have eugenics.

All I have seen so far from your arguments is TPTB, whoever they are, are targeting certain characteristics. That is, you've identified various groups they might be excluding, but you haven't identified what group or main characteristic they ARE including.

And I strongly disagree that dysgenics is a subset of eugenics. I think, as Byte said, that both are subsets of selective breeding.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 3:32 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

DT, you haven't heard me sing yet. :) If I really wanted children I could adopt, then they couldn't blame me when they get older, say I birthed them and thus doomed them to a fate. But like I said I don't have the stammina to look after babies 24/7, so I feel I'm making the right choice for myself on multiple levels. And it is true that you don't have any kids, so why do I have to have them?

:)
People need to decide for themselves whether they rperoduce and I think they should educated themselves on the stats and then go ahead if they want to. I know of someone who had genetic odds stacked against him and there's nothing wrong with him, had a brief stress related depression episode but it passed and is no longer relevent and I wouldn't consider that a flaw worth noting anyway. But I've made my choice and I stand by it.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 3:39 PM

KWICKO

I think you took me the wrong way, Byte. DT pointed out that someone else had fallen victim to psy-ops for not wanting to reproduce. I'm simply trying to find out if DT has fallen for that spiel himself.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:00 PM

Fair enough.

It's true, isn't it, you posted this thread. I forgot where you stood within the context of the conversation. Sorry Kwicko. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I think you took me the wrong way, Byte. DT pointed out that someone else had fallen victim to psy-ops for not wanting to reproduce. I'm simply trying to find out if DT has fallen for that spiel himself.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

Mike, I'm in no disagreement with you on this.

ETA: They got to my whole family actually. All of them, good responsible liberals, removed themselves from the gene pool. No point in surviving the holocaust after all...

CTS,

Vegetarians don't eat a diet of strictly vegetables. If they did, they wouldn't live long, because they're humans, not herbivores. Instead, they eat fruits, nuts seeds and berries, and sometimes milk and eggs, which are even less vegetables. We call something "vegetarian" because it conforms to "what vegetarians eat." If it has no milk or eggs, we call it "vegan" because of what vegans eat, though they both have the same route word.

Ergo: A word means what it is used to mean, not what its roots define. We went through this some time ago on why liberal didn't mean alcoholic

Seriously, though, if you want to be understood, then you use the language everyone else uses.

Eugenia, the noble blood, was what eugenicists sought to protect. Some Eugenicists, like Galton, abhored the idea of maintaining a lesser race, and termed the backsliding of a superior race into a lesser genepool "dysgenics." HG Wells at least suggested the idea of a slave race, and termed them Eloi. Many noble groups over the ages have favored the maintenance of a slave race. Many modern eugenicists or population control advocates also do.

ETA: Outside of FFF I have 300 million americans to communicate with where I have never encountered dissent on the meaning of the word. There was no dissent here until a week ago or two when one of our local eugenicists argued. I'm a terrible debater, but I'd rather lose an argument on FFF than the ability to communicate with the rest of the species.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 6:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Vegetarians don't eat a diet of strictly vegetables.

I never said they did. I know perfectly well what "vegetarian" means. What I said was:

"You have to check to see if I am eating meat of any kind, cause you know, that is what "vegetarian" means."

Redirecting the argument, we have to use the objective definition in the dictionary to communicate with people. We cannot rely on labels people place on themselves to define what those labels mean.

Quote:
Seriously, though, if you want to be understood, then you use the language everyone else uses.

Which is defined in the dictionary, not by the people who label themselves.

Quote:
Many noble groups over the ages have favored the maintenance of a slave race. Many modern eugenicists or population control advocates also do.

But that doesn't mean the creation and maintenance of a slave race is eugenics. (Eugenicists can also also favor socialism, for example, but that doesn't mean socialism is a subset of eugenics.)

Maintenance of a slave race is selective breeding, not eugenics. It may happen that some eugenicists are also selective breeders. Eugenicists may also be racists. But they are all distinct concepts. It is possible to be one thing and not the other two things.

Let's look at the dictionary again:

Quote:
eu·gen·ics
/yu'd??n?ks/ Show Spelled[yoo-jen-iks]

–noun ( used with a singular verb )

the study of or belief in the possibility of IMPROVING the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Now let's look at how Wikipedia defines "selective breeding."

Quote:
Selective breeding is the process of breeding plants and animals for particular genetic traits.

As you can see, "selective breeding" doesn't specify which kind of particular trait, and is therefore a broader umbrella than eugenics. Eugenics and Dysgenics both are subsets of "selective breeding" and not the other way around.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 7:25 PM

CTS

Make yourself some chamomile tea, and sit down and chill to pandora if splatter platter isn't your sort of thing

If I say "eugenics" everyone understands I mean "weeding out the undesirables" If I say "eloi" everyone knows I mean "intentionally breeding a slave race" Let's just leave it at that. I really don't care about semantics of the english language. A buck gets you a nickel that nothing truly revolutionary will every be discussed in english anyway.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 8:28 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Unrelated, but since DT mentioned it, if anyone wants to watch my youtube singing videos they can, keep in mind they were filmed almost 3 years ago since that was the only time my friends could film me and make time to put them online, not to mention I lost the password. Just go to youtube . com and search RionaEire, there are 5 videos.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
If I say "eugenics" everyone understands I mean "weeding out the undesirables" If I say "eloi" everyone knows I mean "intentionally breeding a slave race" Let's just leave it at that.

Yes, I understood, which is why I never argued it before.

But you started defending your use of the term against whoever was arguing about it. And you know I can't resist correcting someone who is wrong on the internet. Haha.

I'm just here on RWED to waste time anyway. I can waste it with this or some other thing. Doesn't make too much difference in the end, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 5:46 AM