Social Justice, Social Engineering, Eugenics; Right or Wrong?

[teknight]

Trolls?

Haven't you kids learned not to feed the trolls?

And, bud (OP), if you're gonna be the friend of truth, as you appear to try to be, try signing off as Amicus Veritatis (friend of truth, not friend truth...cause then you're just starting another list of words...that leads nowhere).

 

[teknight]

Eugenics, at least as I understand it, is practiced to a very limited degree even now. Women looking to be artificially inseminated search for the donor with what they consider to be the best qualities. People looking for egg donors want those from a woman who has characteristics they consideer desireable. Incest is illegal, in part, because negative recessive characteristics are likely to appear in the offspring produced by such unions.

~~~

Excellent point Boxlicker, and even more pertinent than many think.

There are ethical questions being raised about such medical procedures as human cloning and gene manipulation, both of which have goals similar to that of Eugenics; to improve the genetic quality of the species.

There have been in the recent past, in California of all places, experiments with male and female prisoners to sterilize them to prevent continuance of what some see as a 'criminal gene'.

One can certainly appreciate medical innovations, but they, as in all things, have a moral and ethical factor involved and more so when the State becomes involved with the power to enforce such innovations.

Amicus

You're both off the mark: it's eugenics if the government/ruling body puts out laws saying that such and such people shouldn't be allowed to procreate 'cause they'll ugly up the population.
If I choose to have an attractive, seemingly-healthy mate (or an attractive egg donor) I'm merely doing what mother nature's taught me to do, and it's my choice. I'm trying to give my potential kids the best shot in life (and if the lady's attractive, enjoy the ride as well )

Damn it, I'm feeding the trolls!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Eugenics, at least as I understand it, is practiced to a very limited degree even now. Women looking to be artificially inseminated search for the donor with what they consider to be the best qualities. People looking for egg donors want those from a woman who has characteristics they consideer desireable. Incest is illegal, in part, because negative recessive characteristics are likely to appear in the offspring produced by such unions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
~~~

Excellent point Boxlicker, and even more pertinent than many think.

There are ethical questions being raised about such medical procedures as human cloning and gene manipulation, both of which have goals similar to that of Eugenics; to improve the genetic quality of the species.

There have been in the recent past, in California of all places, experiments with male and female prisoners to sterilize them to prevent continuance of what some see as a 'criminal gene'.

One can certainly appreciate medical innovations, but they, as in all things, have a moral and ethical factor involved and more so when the State becomes involved with the power to enforce such innovations.

Amicus

You're both off the mark: it's eugenics if the government/ruling body puts out laws saying that such and such people shouldn't be allowed to procreate 'cause they'll ugly up the population.
If I choose to have an attractive, seemingly-healthy mate (or an attractive egg donor) I'm merely doing what mother nature's taught me to do, and it's my choice. I'm trying to give my potential kids the best shot in life (and if the lady's attractive, enjoy the ride as well )

Absolutely!! that's what Eugenics is - an effort to find the best genes in order to produce offspring with the most desirable characteristics. The fact that it's an individual, rather than an individual doesn't change that.

I hope you know it's not just looks. Those practicing Eugenics are even more likely to try to increase things like intelligence and talents, such as musical.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Dear Reader,

OG conveniently ignores the fact that Britain pissed in its shoes for years with Adolph Hitler. Their cowardice encouraged his outrages when a dab of testosterone woulda melted him like the Wicked Witch of the West. Britain is the land of eunuchs and cuckolds.

 

[al_Ussa]

Dear Reader,

OG conveniently ignores the fact that Britain pissed in its shoes for years with Adolph Hitler. Their cowardice encouraged his outrages when a dab of testosterone woulda melted him like the Wicked Witch of the West. Britain is the land of eunuchs and cuckolds.

Oh come now, I would have thought a sniveling little racist twit like you would have been a big fan of Hitler. What's wrong? His pedigree not "pure" enough for you?

 

[oggbashan]

The referees, the day before the rowing competition was due to start, declared all the competitors ineligible to compete because of taking illegal stimulants, viz. the Australian beer. After each referee had been given the choice of two cases of Australian beer each or a ducking they withdrew their objections and the competition could proceed.

When the competition started the first five events were won by the Australians who were the only competitors to get their craft over the finishing line. The other rowers were handicapped by double vision, a pounding head, a hangover and a mouth that felt as if it was filled with kangaroo dung.

After a crisis meeting of the referees, hangover cures were allowed to all competitors except the Australians who didn’t need them.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Oh come now, I would have thought a sniveling little racist twit like you would have been a big fan of Hitler. What's wrong? His pedigree not "pure" enough for you?

Franco is more my taste; he limited his murders to communists and socialists.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Apologetic horseshit.

France and Britain were militarily greater than Germany all thru the 30s; what you lacked were courage and testosterone. Silly bitches.

 

[oggbashan]

There was an innovation in the coxed fours. In the men’s event the coxes were female and positioned in the bow of the boat, legs spread and pussies on display. The rowers faced the cox and rowed as fast as they could to get towards their cox’s pussy. Even the last four had broken the previous Olympic record. The banks of the course were covered with rowers thrusting deep into their coxes who seemed to be shouting for more thrust.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No he didn't. He murdered royalists and anyone who was against him, whatever their political views. He, and his allies bombed and shelled towns killing hundreds oif civilians who were not in arms against him.

Og

Like I said, he murdered communists and socialists.

 

[oggbashan]

In the women’s event the coxes were male. After the celebrations the coxes needed CPR and most of the women were seen using strap-ons on each other until their male colleagues offered their assistance. The men didn’t expect their offer to be accepted so readily, nor that the women would refuse to remove their strap-ons. The men needed emollient ointment on their asses before they could participate in further events.

 

[teknight]

Absolutely!! that's what Eugenics is - an effort to find the best genes in order to produce offspring with the most desirable characteristics. The fact that it's an individual, rather than an individual doesn't change that.

I hope you know it's not just looks. Those practicing Eugenics are even more likely to try to increase things like intelligence and talents, such as musical.[/QUOTE]

You're not honestly saying that my natural bias to select the best mate I can is morally questionable, are you? They're not the same thing. Eugenics is a quasi organized attempt to select on a societal level for some traits and exclude others (let them not have dark skin, or some other similar shit, you choose your kink).
My desire to find a healthy made (whose health is in part indicated by their looks, as well as other things) is built into my genes and I can't quite override that...
They are not similar, only in the end result- the desire to have awesome kids.

 

[teknight]

No. Britain's army was miniscule compared with Germany's, and as I said above, where could we send it to confront Germany?

What we needed was the backing of the United States for the League of Nations which was your President's idea. The US, by popular consent of its people, stood aside from world affairs until they were attacked by Japan.

Og

Well, there was lend lease before that, but it was FDR's idea, mostly.

 

[oggbashan]

Well, there was lend lease before that, but it was FDR's idea, mostly.

It was. He wasn't popular domestically for it - until after Pearl Harbor.

Og

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by oggbashan
No he didn't. He murdered royalists and anyone who was against him, whatever their political views. He, and his allies bombed and shelled towns killing hundreds oif civilians who were not in arms against him.

Og

Like I said, he murdered communists and socialists.

Did you ever hear of this place?

 

[Boxlicker101]

JBJ ignores the fact that Britain wasn't prepared for war in the 1930s. We could only have challenged Hitler IF the League of Nations had been prepared to stand up to him.

They, and particularly France, could have stopped Hitler occupying the Rhineland. They didn't. France had troops on the ground but they stood aside to let the German troops cross. The League of Nations didn't oppose Mussolini in Ethiopia either.

How could Britain have opposed Hitler? Where? We had no land frontier with Germany. We couldn't even have sent troops to landlocked Czechoslovakia without another country's consent. While our navy was strong, the army and the air force weren't equipped for a modern war. We could see that very easily from the events of the Spanish Civil War.

When Hitler invaded Poland we declared war. Poland had a coast that we could access but in practice Germany and Russia crushed Poland before we could send any effective help.

Hitler had made it clear that he intended, when he could, to attack the Americas and the US. What did the US do about him?

In practice, Chamberlain, reviled as he has been, took the only actions he could to delay war while Britain rearmed. While Winston Churchill warned loudly, Chamberlain played for the time we desperately needed to equip ourselves for war.

Og

It is, or should be, to the everlasting shame of the USA that we shirked our duties of a great power. We should have been charter members of the League of Nations. We should have gone to Munich and stood shoulder to shoulder with France and England and told Hitler to stay where he belonged. We should not have let our naval and military power deteriorate the way we did.

Of course, now that we are doing the kind of thing we should have done then, people are reviling the USA.

 

[amicus]

JBJ ignores the fact that Britain wasn't prepared for war in the 1930s. We could only have challenged Hitler IF the League of Nations had been prepared to stand up to him.

They, and particularly France, could have stopped Hitler occupying the Rhineland. They didn't. France had troops on the ground but they stood aside to let the German troops cross. The League of Nations didn't oppose Mussolini in Ethiopia either.

How could Britain have opposed Hitler? Where? We had no land frontier with Germany. We couldn't even have sent troops to landlocked Czechoslovakia without another country's consent. While our navy was strong, the army and the air force weren't equipped for a modern war. We could see that very easily from the events of the Spanish Civil War.

When Hitler invaded Poland we declared war. Poland had a coast that we could access but in practice Germany and Russia crushed Poland before we could send any effective help.

Hitler had made it clear that he intended, when he could, to attack the Americas and the US. What did the US do about him?

In practice, Chamberlain, reviled as he has been, took the only actions he could to delay war while Britain rearmed. While Winston Churchill warned loudly, Chamberlain played for the time we desperately needed to equip ourselves for war.

Og

That is one of the most pathetic and weak apologies I have ever read, and I have read many, concerning British pacifism following WW1.

Read 100 historians and you will read 100 different interpretations of the same facts.

The truth is that British politics, for the most part, were sympathetic to the Communist Revolution in 1917, and could not tell the difference between Fascism and Communism; kissing cousins.

Perhaps the omniscient Oggbashan imagines we will all forget the 350,000 British troops stranded on the beaches of Dunkirk, how the hell did they get there if Britain had no way to get troops to defend Europe?

And why in the hell was Britain not prepared for war as many British politicians warned it was coming as early as 1933.

That is by far the worst, absolute worst Post you have ever penned, Ogg; shame on you!

Amicus

 

[colddiesel]

That is one of the most pathetic and weak apologies I have ever read, and I have read many, concerning British pacifism following WW1.

And why in the hell was Britain not prepared for war as many British politicians warned it was coming as early as 1933.


Amicus

They were quite well prepared in one respect they had a good defensive airforce which won the battle of Britain in 1940 and made any German invasion impossible.

It's worth noting Amicus that the American Army in 1939 could just about match that of Belgium for size and capacity. America then had the good fortune of being able to hide behind Britain's skirts for two and a half years before they were persuaded by the Japanese to stop running from the fight... as someone said 100 historians, 100 different stories.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Their airforce was crap....they had radar!

But what isnt known is Hitler rejected a plan to destroy the RAF radar command center.

The German military wanted to fight England in 1944 when the Germans expected to have operational jet fighters, V2 rockets, fleets of submarines, and plenty more goodies. Then the English National Motto woulda become: Wollen Sie schlafen mit mir gehen?

 

[oggbashan]

That is one of the most pathetic and weak apologies I have ever read, and I have read many, concerning British pacifism following WW1.

Read 100 historians and you will read 100 different interpretations of the same facts.

The truth is that British politics, for the most part, were sympathetic to the Communist Revolution in 1917, and could not tell the difference between Fascism and Communism; kissing cousins.

Perhaps the omniscient Oggbashan imagines we will all forget the 350,000 British troops stranded on the beaches of Dunkirk, how the hell did they get there if Britain had no way to get troops to defend Europe?

And why in the hell was Britain not prepared for war as many British politicians warned it was coming as early as 1933.

That is by far the worst, absolute worst Post you have ever penned, Ogg; shame on you!

Amicus

Sorry Amicus Nullorum,

You just contradicted yourself. 350,000 troops rescued from Dunkirk were not all British but many were. That is more troops than the US had in 1939. If we were as unprepared as you think we were, how come we were in France at all?

British politics sympathetic to Communism in 1917? More of your ignorant bullshit. We were fighting them - in Russia.

Fighting Communist Revolution

Our troops were fighting communism on the ground. Only when Hitler invaded the USSR did we have to change our minds about the Communist Regime. As Winston Churchill put it "If Hitler had invaded Hell, I would be willing to make a sympathetic reference to his Satanic Majesty".

Your knowledge even of US history is abysmal.

Og

 

[driphoney]

For any redneck yahoo like myself who happened to stumble through this thread, but is a little lost or just curious about eugenics or the 1920's, you might find this web-site interesting:

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/

Such a friendly little thread.

 

[Boxlicker101]

That is one of the most pathetic and weak apologies I have ever read, and I have read many, concerning British pacifism following WW1.

Read 100 historians and you will read 100 different interpretations of the same facts.

The truth is that British politics, for the most part, were sympathetic to the Communist Revolution in 1917, and could not tell the difference between Fascism and Communism; kissing cousins.

Perhaps the omniscient Oggbashan imagines we will all forget the 350,000 British troops stranded on the beaches of Dunkirk, how the hell did they get there if Britain had no way to get troops to defend Europe?

And why in the hell was Britain not prepared for war as many British politicians warned it was coming as early as 1933.

That is by far the worst, absolute worst Post you have ever penned, Ogg; shame on you!

Amicus

350,00 troops were a rather small number, compared to the size of the military force the allies, including the USA had stupidly allowed Hitler to amass. And, as Og says later, that included Canadian and French and Belgian and Dutch soldiers who didn't want to surrender to the forces that had raped their nations.

For a while, the Btitish did rather suck up to Hitler, because they hoped to make him an ally against Stalin, because the USSR probably had the biggest army in Europe. In the early stages of the ETO, these two bastards werre allies anyhow.

One way or another, it is to their everlasting shame that the USA was not more active then. Of course, now that we are doing what we should have been doing in the 1930's, we are cursed and reviled, even by people on this forum.

 

[oggbashan]

...

One way or another, it is to their everlasting shame that the USA was not more active then. Of course, now that we are doing what we should have been doing in the 1930's, we are cursed and reviled, even by people on this forum.

I find it difficult to avoid criticising the US when the UK is so consistently attacked by Amicus but:

- We have been Allies since 1941.

- We fought side by side in Europe and the Pacific, even if only as junior partners. We in the UK owe a debt of gratitude to the US forces who fought to liberate Europe and the Pacific while remembering that many of ours died too.

- We had been staunch allies together throughout the Cold War even if US and UK interests did not always match.

- UK troops supported US troops in Iraq I and II (even though the UK public were lied to about the justification for Iraq II)and in Afghanistan and are still fighting and dying in Afghanistan.

I think I ought to have a sticker on my computer:

Amicus is an asshole. He doesn't speak for the US, only for assholes.

Og

 

[xssve]

It is amusing, it really is, I cracked a big smile after reading the above Posts by Ogg & TxRad...

Even as the Social Democracies of Europe come crashing down in bankruptcy and Ogg's own new government begins to dismantle the NHS because of bureaucratic overload, Ogg runs to the safety of the majority still refusing to identify and defend his own political stance.

The reason they are crashing is due to the fact that the neo-cons worked so hard to sell them on the deregulation supply side regressive taxation scheme that feeds the sort of financial speculation that wreaked havoc on our own economy so recently - the causes are almost precisely the same: overdevelopment, a "build it and they will buy" concept of economics that benefits those who collect their fees and commissions upfront and leave others holding the risk.

But as for he title, only ami could equate the concept of social justice with social engineering and and eugenics.

Social engineering is almost meaningless as pejorative, it's all social engineering, Prop 8 is one form of social engineering, gay marriage is another, the only question is, which one represents social justice and which one more closely resembles eugenics?

So the humble villagers are going to break out the torches and pitchforks, led by you ami? Lol, having failed to establish elitist credentials, you're now a "man of the people"? What are you gonna do, kick your heels and hold your breath till your face turns blue?

The only consistent thing about you is inconstancy, but that's pretty much what we've come to expect from the corporatist talk radio puppets, you people need to wake up, you're being played big time - the fucking pubs crashed the economy deliberately, specifically to put you all in a foul mood, they're still making money hand over fist while playing on your paranoia as you get kicked out into the street - think Weimar Germany.

"The Ownership Society" is an exclusive club, you don't qualify, that's how it works when you abandon the concept of social justice for "just us" - that circle just get smaller and smaller - in the end there can be only one.

The main difference between neo conservatives and neo liberals, is that neo liberals at least have to pay lip service to social justice, and that gives the voter some leverage - neo-cons like yourself have long abandoned any pretense at social justice or public service in favor of unapologetic looting and rapine, justified by your goddess Ayn "bend-me-over-you-brute" Rand.

So, bend you old lady over, work out your kinks the old fashioned way, and rejoin the human race before you really go as soft as you seem and go postal on somebody.

It's goin' around.

 

[colddiesel]

Their airforce was crap....they had radar!

But what isnt known is Hitler rejected a plan to destroy the RAF radar command center.

The German military wanted to fight England in 1944 when the Germans expected to have operational jet fighters, V2 rockets, fleets of submarines, and plenty more goodies. Then the English National Motto woulda become: Wollen Sie schlafen mit mir gehen?

You are an ignorant clod JBJ. In 1940 the combination of Spitfires and Hurricanes shot down so many Germans the Germans gave up. Radar was inconsequential in that battle because firstly it wasn't that well developed and secondly it was fought almost entirely in daylight and they could see 'em coming!

What The German military thought in 1944 didn't matter a toss because the Germans had already been rolled up by the Red Army at the Battle of Kursk (July August 1943)

The American airforce didnt have a fighter aircraft to match the Spitfire until the P54 Mustang and that wasn't much good until they put British Rolls Royce Engines in it.