View Full Version : Eugenics and Unwanted Sterilization in the United States
Averageman
07-21-18, 09:04
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/
Coerced sterilization is a shameful part of America’s history, and one doesn’t have to go too far back to find examples of it. Used as a means of controlling “undesirable” populations – immigrants, people of color, poor people, unmarried mothers, the disabled, the mentally ill – federally-funded sterilization programs took place in 32 states throughout the 20th century. Driven by prejudiced notions of science and social control, these programs informed policies on immigration and segregation.
Interesting read.
RetroRevolver77
07-21-18, 09:55
Make it simple, no welfare without sterilization.
No “aid for children” without Norplant. That seems reasonable.
Make it simple, no welfare without sterilization.
I see no issues. Can't take care of yourself? Ok then how are you going to care for children?
Some people have to hit hard times before they improve their decision making. I wouldn’t want someone permanently punished for what may be, hopefully, a temporary setback.
Some people have to hit hard times before they improve their decision making. I wouldn’t want someone permanently punished for what may be, hopefully, a temporary setback.
Norplant is not permanent.
RetroRevolver77
07-21-18, 11:25
Some people have to hit hard times before they improve their decision making. I wouldn’t want someone permanently punished for what may be, hopefully, a temporary setback.
You're right, we should just end all welfare, every last tax supported social program. If you fall down into hard times then let the good community or your bible based church help you back on your feet. If no one helps you, then it's likely for good reason.
You're right, we should just end all welfare, every last tax supported social program. If you fall down into hard times then let the good community or your bible based church help you back on your feet. If no one helps you, then it's likely for good reason.
You mean similar to how it was done prior to the Great Depression?
There are absolutely some out there who should not be allowed to breed.
Business_Casual
07-21-18, 12:41
This shameful thinking is the source of much of the Nazi theories that are unacceptable. Be careful here.
This shameful thinking is the source of much of the Nazi theories that are unacceptable. Be careful here.
While some of your views are a little to the left of mine in other threads, I have to agree 100% with your statement above.
Now there is perhaps a fine line between forced sterilization and coerced birth control (like no more $$$ for you if you keep spitting out more welfare recipients).
RetroRevolver77
07-21-18, 13:08
This shameful thinking is the source of much of the Nazi theories that are unacceptable. Be careful here.
If it were just the actual disabled then fine but there's now over 109 million people collecting some form of government social benefits in this country.
We are currently $21T in debt with $114T in unfunded liabilities- we're broke.
How about a real solution since clearly generational welfare support isn't working.
Norplant is not permanent.
Norplant also comes with some significant potential side effects. Today's sterilization techniques don't, although they are permanent.
For the last 30-40 years, Medicaid patients who seek sterilization have a mandatory 30-day waiting period from the time they sign the consent form before they can get the procedure.
ramairthree
07-21-18, 14:07
The concept is distasteful,
But I can’t argue against how much better a society would be if it had tryouts and cuts.
Make it simple, no welfare without sterilization.
Add.. after 2 children no more earn income tax credit and no welfare if you cannot pass a drug test.
Add.. after 2 children no more earn income tax credit and no welfare if you cannot pass a drug test.
Yep. It pays to be a worthless breeder in this country.
I dont know how true this is, but I hearsome country gives you x $ if you have a kid and need financial support.
If you have a second kid, the funding is cut in half or something to that effect. Semms like a step in the right direction from where we are.
You're right, we should just end all welfare, every last tax supported social program. If you fall down into hard times then let the good community or your bible based church help you back on your feet. If no one helps you, then it's likely for good reason.Agreed. Along with donations to charities, churches, and everyone else. Your problem, you deal with it! Why do I have to give you my money.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
As I recall, wasn't Eugenics one of the platforms of the Progressive Movement in the early 20th century, courtesy of Margaret Sanger? We'll probably see this again once the Progressives totally take control.
This shameful thinking is the source of much of the Nazi theories that are unacceptable. Be careful here.
Yep, this is right up there with sicking our military on WWI combat veterans and their family during the bonus march. We did some deplorable shit during the 30s in our flirtations with socialism.
It is one thing to mandate something like Norplant if you are receiving government aid, it would benefit planned parenthood as a program so nobody should bitch. And it's temporary.
Some young people who have jobs and are working still need a little help to get on their feet. I don't mind that kind of temporary assistance if it means they become productive and then contribute to helping the next guy with their taxes.
The problem is we reward people for working LESS and having MORE children. Even those who aren't out to deliberately game the system can still see what is in their best interest.
Years ago I knew a single mother who worked 40+ hours who turned down a offer of a management position because the increase in salary would not offset to loss of benefits she was currently receiving. That's insane.
As I recall, wasn't Eugenics one of the platforms of the Progressive Movement in the early 20th century, courtesy of Margaret Sanger? We'll probably see this again once the Progressives totally take control.
Actually it was the UK that began modern "scientific" eugenics (even though it was hardly scientific) in the early 20th century but it didn't take us too long to jump right on board with the usual suspects.
I personally don't want to go after breeding. Someday, our society will need those kids. A lot of peo0le mature through the process of having children. Obviously there are those that use children as a bank card which is a big problem.
If it were up to me, I would keep some sort of welfare fore those who truly need it, but I would try to make it so they had to do some form of work to get it. Even if it was some form of community service. I would also take the money saved and try to "create more jobs" and try to get people working and taking pride in working. Unfortunately most people just take pride in working the system.
Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk
Actually it was the UK that began modern "scientific" eugenics (even though it was hardly scientific) in the early 20th century but it didn't take us too long to jump right on board with the usual suspects.
And the American Progressive movement had its infancy at the same time as the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Nothing seems to occur in a vacuum does it?
Margaret Sanger promoting Planned Parenthood in predominant Black neighborhoods while Hitler is working on plans for the "Final Solution". Democrats and their allies sure have a rotten history in this Country, from being the slavery party, to eugenics targeting Blacks, to opposition to the voting rights act, and finally the 20th version of slavery in the Great Society movement. Someone needs to produce a TV commercial pointing all of this out.
Averageman
07-21-18, 17:28
I've asked my Mother and Grandmother about how things worked out before people had limitless .gov programs.
The reason Church welfare programs worked was because you usually had to perform some sort of service to earn them and if you took the money from tithing, you couldn't exactly spend it in a frivolous manner in your small community.
I had a Great Uncle who was in charge of Public Works programs during the depression. If you qualified for .gov assistance, he would send you to a job site. If the were laying water lines or building a school, you showed up and worked for your food/money. If you ended up in trouble you were going to work on the road gang to pay your fine. So if public drunkenness was a two dollar fine, you might get twenty cents an hour and meals untill you worked it off.
Also, everyone, even the people living "in town" had a garden. Gardens were the mainstay of feeding your family. All of my Grandparents had huge gardens even until the mid 1970's. They were an ongoing project for the entire family year around.
People were a lot more self and community sufficient. There wasn't a lot of leisure time. Another child was a big deal as farming became more auromated, you were going to have to support them yourself.
My Grandfather was the youngest of 14 and grew up on his Dad's farm in Northern Kentucky and they farmed with horses as the major provider of agricultural power. When he married he farmed with horses until the 1940's when he could buy a tractor and he only had 5 kids.
See how that works?
Eugenics is junk science propagated by people with a severe god complex.
Some on this thread ought to check their tyrannical hearts. Welfare should not be a thing except for MAYBE and I say MAYBE for those that are disable to the point they can't take of themselves. It shouldn't be a "If I want welfare I have to use birth control or get sterilized"....leveraging people who are struggling in life for some supposed good doesn't sound like "loving your neighbor as yourself" to me.
And the American Progressive movement had its infancy at the same time as the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Nothing seems to occur in a vacuum does it?
Margaret Sanger promoting Planned Parenthood in predominant Black neighborhoods while Hitler is working on plans for the "Final Solution". Democrats and their allies sure have a rotten history in this Country, from being the slavery party, to eugenics targeting Blacks, to opposition to the voting rights act, and finally the 20th version of slavery in the Great Society movement. Someone needs to produce a TV commercial pointing all of this out.
ditto this look who got us into most of our wars democrats love to go to war !
don't forget the Japanese internment camps also brought to you by the dems
funny when they speak of slavery and camps and so on like they are the ones against it :) hahahaha but the left are freaking idiot loons who have no moral compass so lying to them is nothing ?
same reason any of them under so called oath ? does not mean squat to them
not for eugenics for help welfare etc..
also not for how its handed out now
need for drug testing for sure
also coupon for food items only so basics nothing fancy
as example cereal ? sure oatmeal only :)
also work in exchange etc...
RetroRevolver77
07-21-18, 18:20
I've asked my Mother and Grandmother about how things worked out before people had limitless .gov programs.
The reason Church welfare programs worked was because you usually had to perform some sort of service to earn them and if you took the money from tithing, you couldn't exactly spend it in a frivolous manner in your small community.
I had a Great Uncle who was in charge of Public Works programs during the depression. If you qualified for .gov assistance, he would send you to a job site. If the were laying water lines or building a school, you showed up and worked for your food/money. If you ended up in trouble you were going to work on the road gang to pay your fine. So if public drunkenness was a two dollar fine, you might get twenty cents an hour and meals untill you worked it off.
Also, everyone, even the people living "in town" had a garden. Gardens were the mainstay of feeding your family. All of my Grandparents had huge gardens even until the mid 1970's. They were an ongoing project for the entire family year around.
People were a lot more self and community sufficient. There wasn't a lot of leisure time. Another child was a big deal as farming became more auromated, you were going to have to support them yourself.
My Grandfather was the youngest of 14 and grew up on his Dad's farm in Northern Kentucky and they farmed with horses as the major provider of agricultural power. When he married he farmed with horses until the 1940's when he could buy a tractor and he only had 5 kids.
See how that works?
Same thing my grandfather told me, everyone had a garden patch, grew their own food and worked wherever they could find jobs. There were no handouts other than people helping each other. People were better then, more grateful. That was a different time though.
In reality, today's welfare programs are designed specifically to accomplish the globalists ultimate goal of genocide of ethnic Europeans. The state essentially takes money from the conservative tax base to fund it's welfare breeding programs to replace that conservative base with more socialist leaning subjects. Eventually the economy crashes and the globalists just have to wait till it all comes crashing down to buy up the broken pieces of those failed nations. They then push the narrative that each system failed because it wasn't left leaning enough and continue the cycle.
Same thing my grandfather told me, everyone had a garden patch, grew their own food and worked wherever they could find jobs. There were no handouts other than people helping each other. People were better then, more grateful. That was a different time though.
In reality, today's welfare programs are designed specifically to accomplish the globalists ultimate goal of genocide of ethnic Europeans. The state essentially takes money from the conservative tax base to fund it's welfare breeding programs to replace that conservative base with more socialist leaning subjects. Eventually the economy crashes and the globalists just have to wait till it all comes crashing down to buy up the broken pieces of those failed nations. They then push the narrative that each system failed because it wasn't left leaning enough and continue the cycle.
People were the same then as now. Plenty of people took advantage of what they could. I'm guessing the mobs and gangsters were just in comic books?!?
People worked where they could and lived where they could. Often in places you would condemn and demolish today
How is America's welfare a genocide of ethnic Europeans?
How was this better? NYC
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180721/6b14b9ccece56276079feacc3a398074.jpg
RetroRevolver77
07-21-18, 18:50
How is America's welfare a genocide of ethnic Europeans?
I already explained it.
Replacement demographics through tax funded breeding programs.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/02/half-immigrant-households-on-welfare-report-says.html
Cagemonkey
07-21-18, 19:28
A Good Book and Education for those who don't know; https://waragainsttheweak.com
And the American Progressive movement had its infancy at the same time as the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Nothing seems to occur in a vacuum does it?
Margaret Sanger promoting Planned Parenthood in predominant Black neighborhoods while Hitler is working on plans for the "Final Solution". Democrats and their allies sure have a rotten history in this Country, from being the slavery party, to eugenics targeting Blacks, to opposition to the voting rights act, and finally the 20th version of slavery in the Great Society movement. Someone needs to produce a TV commercial pointing all of this out.
Let's not forget it was the "Democratic south" that was fighting civil rights and was king of the klan in the 60s. People seem to overlook that in the same way they forget that Lincoln was a Republican and so was Eisenhower when he sent the National Guard to Little Rock.
Agreed. Along with donations to charities, churches, and everyone else. Your problem, you deal with it! Why do I have to give you my money.
I'm hoping you were talking about tax deductions to charities and churches, not saying such giving is frivolous.
As for this: Your problem, you deal with it!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a good thing our immigration system didn't have that mindset when your family came to America?
Every now and again we all need a hand - consider yourself lucky if you haven't.
The problem is offering a hand-up versus a hand-out.
With the availability of various contraceptive's, I have no problem at all with not increasing aide for subsequent births. The problem with such actions are that they have a disparate impact on the children. What do you think going to come first? Quality protein for the kids or cigs for mom and dad?
Eugenics is junk science propagated by people with a severe god complex.
As it was based upon blood theories related to things like dog breeding with no understanding of genetics at all, I completely agree.
I could understand a genetic based program "in theory" where we tried not to propagate those with severe hereditary issues, but I'm not sure how we could accomplish that "in practice" without doing some seriously inhuman things. It would be nice to eradicate things like severe health problems that are genetically predictable and spare the next generation, I just don't know how we could actually accomplish that without dictating who can lawfully reproduce.
And even if we did, there is no guarantee we'd actually get the results we expected and the unexpected consequences could even be more severe. There have been lots of groups who tried to purify their bloodline with dramatic consequences.
I still remember the early attempts with gene therapy. Everyone thought it was going to fix everything, until it didn't.
I'm hoping you were talking about tax deductions to charities and churches, not saying such giving is frivolous.
As for this: Your problem, you deal with it!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a good thing our immigration system didn't have that mindset when your family came to America?
Every now and again we all need a hand - consider yourself lucky if you haven't.
The problem is offering a hand-up versus a hand-out.
With the availability of various contraceptive's, I have no problem at all with not increasing aide for subsequent births. The problem with such actions are that they have a disparate impact on the children. What do you think going to come first? Quality protein for the kids or cigs for mom and dad?I was being sarcastic in my reply to 7n6 post
"You're right, we should just end all welfare, every last tax supported social program. If you fall down into hard times then let the good community or your bible based church help you back on your feet. If no one helps you, then it's likely for good reason"
In other words if you're not a church goer and keep to yourself you're ****ed because there's obviously a "good reason". If that's the logic then why should I give money to my church to give to you if I don't want my taxes going to help you? I'd rather keep it all and use on me when I need it!
As for me.....well I'm glad there was something in place when we came here. It allowed my parents to supplement what little income they made (due to lack of English) while studying English
Yes I realize people abuse it. People abuse just about any favors, generosity, hand out, helping hand. Not everyone but youll only hear of the ones that do. You'll never hear of the family that used welfare for a few months while going through an unemployment period or other loss of income.
Let's not forget it was the "Democratic south" that was fighting civil rights and was king of the klan in the 60s. People seem to overlook that in the same way they forget that Lincoln was a Republican and so was Eisenhower when he sent the National Guard to Little Rock.
And at the time of the Civil War, there were Northern Democrats who also were sympathetic to slave-holding southerners. It wasn't as clean and neat as everyone thinks. My wife's ancestors were Confederate guerrillas in Northwestern Arkansas/Southwestern Missouri and members of Harrison's 3rd Louisiana Cavalry in Louisiana. None of these people were slave holders.
I was in Louisiana last year for a wedding and listening on local radio about the destruction or removal of Confederate Monuments. The discussion involved many antebellum plantation homes on the National Register of Historic Places, and many of these farming operation were run by slaves. Since these were being equated to slave concentration work camps, should these old homes be demolished as well? Locals in Louisiana are not happy about all of this. You even have Parishes (Counties) named after Confederate Generals.
Slavery, Eugenics or other evils of the world are products of the democrat party.
Business_Casual
07-22-18, 07:16
Slavery, Eugenics or other evils of the world are products of the democrat party.
Or just the government.
Business_Casual
07-22-18, 07:16
Slavery, Eugenics or other evils of the world are products of the democrat party.
Or just the government.
Averageman
07-22-18, 07:29
Slavery, Eugenics or other evils of the world are products of the democrat party.
Or just the government.
Well, I think you could safely say if not for the emphasis on this by the Democratic Party, our Government might very well have not been a participant.
There were a lot of other little ways they went about this and it certainly didn't end until very recently.
I do believe my Step-Father told me this was happening to Navajo Women in the 1970's and perhaps later.
Some of the things people have said, and some of those people were in the Oval Office when they supposedly said them were deeply racist and looked at minorities as a tool to be used and then discarded once used. I'm sorry, those people were Democrats and that they have maintained the ability to perform this political sleight of hand for over a hundred years and still get away with it is simply amazing.
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the political parties reversed (from what they are today) around the time of the civil war? Meaning that Democrats were what we today consider Republicans and vise versa
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Let's not forget it was the "Democratic south" that was fighting civil rights and was king of the klan in the 60s. People seem to overlook that in the same way they forget that Lincoln was a Republican and so was Eisenhower when he sent the National Guard to Little Rock.
Democrat Governor of AR Orval E. Faubus had called out the National Guard to prevent the integration of Little Rock Central HS. Ike federalized the AR Guard in order to force them to stand down and then sent in 1,000 soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division to make sure the integration happened.
With the availability of various contraceptive's, I have no problem at all with not increasing aide for subsequent births. The problem with such actions are that they have a disparate impact on the children. What do you think going to come first? Quality protein for the kids or cigs for mom and dad?
If you are being given welfare-type money specifically for your kids and it can be shown that you are in fact neglecting said children then YOU GO TO JAIL.
It has to stop somewhere, it can't remain open-ended:
"Well, they blew the extra cash for the kids again instead of buying food. But the children...."
"Damn, they did it again. But the children...."
"Did it again this month. But the children...."
See where I'm going with this? Lock their asses up, make it some shitty hard labor. "But the children...." will be the leverage those scum use each time they get caught neglecting to buy what they should be for their children's subsistence.
Averageman
07-22-18, 11:58
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the political parties reversed (from what they are today) around the time of the civil war? Meaning that Democrats were what we today consider Republicans and vise versa
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Well you are wrong to a degree.
The hardline Southern Democrats were not for integration, not until LBJ began to see the advantage of black votes. LBJ pushed forward the Great Society and the Democrats bought the votes of the blacks with welfare programs. It soon became advantageous to be a single mother and the black family was forever changed.
The Kennedy's both John and Bobby were for civil rights, but even before that Eisenhower was a major power in pushing forward civil rights.
It's an ugly story and particularly not politically correct one to tell today.
As it was based upon blood theories related to things like dog breeding with no understanding of genetics at all, I completely agree.
I could understand a genetic based program "in theory" where we tried not to propagate those with severe hereditary issues, but I'm not sure how we could accomplish that "in practice" without doing some seriously inhuman things. It would be nice to eradicate things like severe health problems that are genetically predictable and spare the next generation, I just don't know how we could actually accomplish that without dictating who can lawfully reproduce.
And even if we did, there is no guarantee we'd actually get the results we expected and the unexpected consequences could even be more severe. There have been lots of groups who tried to purify their bloodline with dramatic consequences.
I still remember the early attempts with gene therapy. Everyone thought it was going to fix everything, until it didn't.
When I pulled up the definition of eugenics this is what came up. I don't disagree with it in the sense that this is what the world in generally believes. But of course being a Christian, I see things a bit differently. Notice that it's those dastardly Nazis that perverted the science of eugenics...but "controlled breeding", well that's "just" science, with the implication that "controlled breeding" is good in some sense. Men in their pride, and this is obviously not new, decide that if it can be done, maybe we'll do a little of it, which most of the time morphs into, let's do a bunch of it, and if things go sideways, well that's the acceptable cost of doing science. I hope things work out when scientists start monkeying around with babies, but men are fallen and our understanding is clouded, I don't expect good things. Science is fairly good at doing and making things, but terrible at discerning whether something "ought" to be done, and you probably know why I think that way.
eu·gen·ics
yo͞oˈjeniks/Submit
noun
the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.
My buddy's wife quit working for the state of TN a few years ago but while she was there her job was to help low income families find better jobs. 9 times out of 10 they would turn the job down because it would cut their benefits if they took it. They didn't want a hand up, just wanted to keep getting the hand out.
I totally agree with requiring a random drug test if you are on gov'ment assistance. Heck I'm on in a random drug test program as part of my continued employment...
I would also support some type of reduced assistance if you increase your family size after your start date of receiving said gov'ment assistance.
Lastly I agree that if you are getting assistance then you should be required to do something in return. Work associated with your ability/disability or maybe just a requirement to take a class to better themselves. Probably more trouble than it's worth but something needs to change otherwise it'll only continue to get worse...
eu·gen·ics
yo͞oˈjeniks/Submit
noun
the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.
Well the first problem with that definition is we had no understanding of genetics when we attempted these things in the 1930s.
The second problem is there are two approaches to genetic based eugenics:
1. Selective breeding
2. Modified genetics during the developmental stage.
The first one is possible. If people carry strong traits for horrible genetic defects like brain cancer for instance or severe mental impairment we might be able to eliminate those things by not having them pass on those traits.
The obvious problem is one of "who decides" and that is the most important philosophical and moral road block. Then there is the problem that if we selectively breed out those traits, do we at the same time breed out certain immunities at the same time making the generations we were trying to save more vulnerable to things we can't even imagine.
The second example of actually getting in there and modifying the genetic code, well lets just say we are still a long way off from knowing what the hell we are doing to even think about applications of such ideas. We'd probably be better off spending our time with things like self replicating nanobots and generating black holes in the large haldron collider. At least we wouldn't have to live with the consequences of bad outcomes for very long.
If we truly create custom babies, we may not like the results and there might not be any going back.
If you are being given welfare-type money specifically for your kids and it can be shown that you are in fact neglecting said children then YOU GO TO JAIL.
See where I'm going with this? Lock their asses up, make it some shitty hard labor. "But the children...." will be the leverage those scum use each time they get caught neglecting to buy what they should be for their children's subsistence.
Easy to say lock them up, problem is who is going to take care of the kids? You wanting to do some foster care?
I do believe one of the reasons foster kids get returned to the parents is because the system is overwhelmed and expensive. Years ago foster parents in our state got $600.00 a month.
No easy answers.
My buddy's wife quit working for the state of TN a few years ago but while she was there her job was to help low income families find better jobs. 9 times out of 10 they would turn the job down because it would cut their benefits if they took it. They didn't want a hand up, just wanted to keep getting the hand out.
Often just about the time a single parent (usually woman) gets a job and starts to make a living the cut in benefits doesn't allow her to pay for child care and she doe end up going back into assistance. There ought to be a way to fix that until she gets firmly on her feet.
I totally agree with requiring a random drug test if you are on gov'ment assistance. Heck I'm on in a random drug test program as part of my continued employment...
I would also support some type of reduced assistance if you increase your family size after your start date of receiving said gov'ment assistance.
Lastly I agree that if you are getting assistance then you should be required to do something in return. Work associated with your ability/disability or maybe just a requirement to take a class to better themselves. Probably more trouble than it's worth but something needs to change otherwise it'll only continue to get worse...
I agree with your post. As you point out, initially it will be more expensive, and spawn a new government bureaucracy, but hopefully the costs would be reduced over time.
A little of subject, but sometimes saving money ends up costing more money in the long run.
Our state cut a lot of it's job training programs in the prisons - prisoners were learning body work, learning to weld, and becoming machinists. Our prison's manpower system designed and made the air drive turning target system on our range. When budgets were cut those programs were the first to go.
Not saying that nobody in those programs ever came back to prison, but damned sure chances were better for them if they could get a semi-skilled job after they got out. If they come back it is for a longer time and ultimately ends up costing us more.
Got to be answers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the political parties reversed (from what they are today) around the time of the civil war? Meaning that Democrats were what we today consider Republicans and vise versa
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
no they never switched a few politicians did switch sides/ideology purely for themselves to gain that is it
also
the idea that two parties would just go 180 on all they believe at the same time is brought to you buy the democrats only so they could try to bury what they are truly about and blame the other side for the voting for the kkk and so on remember the never let a crisis go to waste ideas was not new
Well the first problem with that definition is we had no understanding of genetics when we attempted these things in the 1930s.
The second problem is there are two approaches to genetic based eugenics:
1. Selective breeding
2. Modified genetics during the developmental stage.
The first one is possible. If people carry strong traits for horrible genetic defects like brain cancer for instance or severe mental impairment we might be able to eliminate those things by not having them pass on those traits.
The obvious problem is one of "who decides" and that is the most important philosophical and moral road block. Then there is the problem that if we selectively breed out those traits, do we at the same time breed out certain immunities at the same time making the generations we were trying to save more vulnerable to things we can't even imagine.
The second example of actually getting in there and modifying the genetic code, well lets just say we are still a long way off from knowing what the hell we are doing to even think about applications of such ideas. We'd probably be better off spending our time with things like self replicating nanobots and generating black holes in the large haldron collider. At least we wouldn't have to live with the consequences of bad outcomes for very long.
If we truly create custom babies, we may not like the results and there might not be any going back.One issue with this is that science can't even decide if some of these things are just genetics, or epigenetics.
Many now theorize that you could have some bad genes, but unless you expose them to certain environmental exposures, you may never end up with the disease associated with those genes.
Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk
Averageman
07-22-18, 17:55
Google up something:
Senator Robert Byrd, the add KKK to his name.
After you've read that compare that to what Snopes has to say about him.
The Democratic Party with the help of people like Snopes have been trying to clean up that mess for over sixty years.
Btw Byrd took Hillary Clinton under his wing early in her political career. She had wonderful things to say about him.
Google up something:
Senator Robert Byrd, the add KKK to his name.
After you've read that compare that to what Snopes has to say about him.
The Democratic Party with the help of people like Snopes have been trying to clean up that mess for over sixty years.
Btw Byrd took Hillary Clinton under his wing early in her political career. She had wonderful things to say about him.Snopes says he WAS a member but left in the 40s so not exactly incorrect. Kinda like the Ikea guy.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Averageman
07-22-18, 18:20
Well if you believe Snopes you have to ask yourself if Byrd became so "racially enlightened" in the 1940's, why did he continue to fight integrated schools and civil rights for decades after the 1940's?
There is a chapter regarding American and Nazi Eugenics researchers and promoters sharing love for each other in The Big Lie. Interesting read.
Well if you believe Snopes you have to ask yourself if Byrd became so "racially enlightened" in the 1940's, why did he continue to fight integrated schools and civil rights for decades after the 1940's?
The great lie continues today. The Republicans are the racist homophobic fascists. But the Democrats are the unselfish minority loving, freedom loving, women's rights champions party of the common people. Just take a stroll on any college campus or down any city street and ask those you encounter. The Ministry of Truth has been a smashing success.
Snopes says he WAS a member but left in the 40s so not exactly incorrect. Kinda like the Ikea guy.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
He wasn't exactly "just a member" either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan
According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob ... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "Suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did."[17] Byrd became a recruiter and leader of his chapter.[11] When it came time to elect the top officer (Exalted Cyclops) in the local Klan unit, Byrd won unanimously.[11]
In December 1944, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore G. Bilbo:
I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944[11][18]
He only really left because of political aspirations so he put the klan in the closet.
One issue with this is that science can't even decide if some of these things are just genetics, or epigenetics.
Many now theorize that you could have some bad genes, but unless you expose them to certain environmental exposures, you may never end up with the disease associated with those genes.
Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk
Yep and I alluded to that a bit. With the very recent completion of the human genome project we have just taken our first baby steps in this area. We have a lot to learn before we arrive at "practical applications."
Additionally understanding it completely and being able to apply it in any meaningful way are also very far apart.
sundance435
07-25-18, 11:56
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the political parties reversed (from what they are today) around the time of the civil war? Meaning that Democrats were what we today consider Republicans and vise versa
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
No, the "switch" was propelled by the Civil Rights movement. It became noticeable in the late 40's, but really took off in '68. I still consider myself a "classic" Republican - I have no use for the social conservativism that has taken over the base of the party. Like many posting in this thread, they're nostalgic for a period that was never really as good as they imagine it was. Nostalgia is powerful like that, it helps erase the memories of the less pleasant stuff.
That being said, there are myriad ways to reform "welfare" programs that don't have a basis in eugenics. Yes, it's way too easy to have a child, but can you imagine the slippery slope if government started getting involved in those decisions?
It seems the classical Republican, Abraham Lincoln, was pretty invested in the social conservativism of abolishing chattel slavery.
Moose-Knuckle
07-26-18, 02:21
This shameful thinking is the source of much of the Nazi theories that are unacceptable. Be careful here.
Where do you think the Nazis got their eugenics program from?
ETA:
As I recall, wasn't Eugenics one of the platforms of the Progressive Movement in the early 20th century, courtesy of Margaret Sanger? We'll probably see this again once the Progressives totally take control.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=63&v=NnXYEelclxc
Moose-Knuckle
07-26-18, 02:26
And the American Progressive movement had its infancy at the same time as the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Nothing seems to occur in a vacuum does it?
Margaret Sanger promoting Planned Parenthood in predominant Black neighborhoods while Hitler is working on plans for the "Final Solution". Democrats and their allies sure have a rotten history in this Country, from being the slavery party, to eugenics targeting Blacks, to opposition to the voting rights act, and finally the 20th version of slavery in the Great Society movement. Someone needs to produce a TV commercial pointing all of this out.
D'Souza did one better than that, he made an entire documentary on the subject matter . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7e6gLht6OQ
Moose-Knuckle
07-26-18, 02:56
People were the same then as now. Plenty of people took advantage of what they could. I'm guessing the mobs and gangsters were just in comic books?!?
I disagree, the vast majority of people then were way more self-sufficient and did not live in urban population centers like they do today. Back then most Americans grew their own food, raised their own livestock, churned their own butter, et al. Now days, not so much. How many Americans today can even grow a carrot much less butcher a steer?
How is America's welfare a genocide of ethnic Europeans?
While I don't believe the DNC's War on Poverty and the welfare state to be genocide per se it is a contributing factor none the less to the downfall of Western Civilization . . .
The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis
The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer (Hillary Clinton mentor) Saul Alinsky:
"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html#ixzz5MLSCIyrx
And that's not to even mention the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan.
ramairthree
07-26-18, 11:43
You know, it would be interesting to see whatbsledtive breeding could accomplish.
Send a bunch of 99.5th percentile and up IQ people with long lived ancestors with little propensity for various diseases, physicality of passing SOF pipelines / elite athletes, no family histories of addiction and mental disease, demonstrated positive social interaction skills, baseline moral compasses, and useful educations and skills
To an environment that is relatively harsh, with set structure that continuously weeds out the week and dumb.
What would that society end up like?
I remember a short story or two, at least one Heinlein,
A short book, etc. based on similar premises.
Our modern societies, both by political motivation, religious motivation, and other factors are carrying a LOT of dead weight.
I am not a Nazi that wants to kill off a bunch of people. But the limits of what the unhindered best and brightest of mankind could accomplish interests me.
Averageman
07-26-18, 12:25
You know if you look at thoroughbred horses you might find that yes, you can breed physical performance but it often comes with a cost.
Considering how long we've been breeding horses for specific performance, we should have hit the species maximum possible performance, but we haven't.
The things we have unintentionally found however, might be very inhumane sometimes.
I like the idea, just not the idea of playing God.
You know, it would be interesting to see whatbsledtive breeding could accomplish.
Send a bunch of 99.5th percentile and up IQ people with long lived ancestors with little propensity for various diseases, physicality of passing SOF pipelines / elite athletes, no family histories of addiction and mental disease, demonstrated positive social interaction skills, baseline moral compasses, and useful educations and skills
To an environment that is relatively harsh, with set structure that continuously weeds out the week and dumb.
What would that society end up like?
I remember a short story or two, at least one Heinlein,
A short book, etc. based on similar premises.
Our modern societies, both by political motivation, religious motivation, and other factors are carrying a LOT of dead weight.
I am not a Nazi that wants to kill off a bunch of people. But the limits of what the unhindered best and brightest of mankind could accomplish interests me.
it would end up like we are today maybe a few less loosers floating about
for the most part only the strong did survive until very very recently
modern medicine is %100 better than just 20 years ago but at the same time common flu still wipes people out and old frail folks die from getting a simple cold and look how many die from malpractice
records are broken pretty much every year or so in many sports and a few live on often brought to you buy doping these days or understanding weight training conditioning a bit better but things like this https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-40006985
I bet there are a lot of other folks out there that would be amazing today cause they have done something for life as a culture and if we could find them but that is also because her culture her life is about running maybe this is a good real life experience of what if I am sure many there die out that can not get medical and be saved and they do one thing really well
Chinese and Russians have been doing exactly what you are thinking breeding for purpose to win olympics and so on
BUT like the person in perfect shape works out eats proper dies of a heart attack at 50 yet the slob who lives on booze smokes like mad and eats a pie for dinner lives to 98
look up history of dogs for breeding and what happens :) IMHO if we tried to breed to hard for superior I think we would end up with lots of other oddities etc..
that runner story is pretty cool though :)
ramairthree
07-26-18, 16:00
Whoa,
Don’t get me wrong. I am not trying to play God and start a selective breeding program for sports.
I am just interested in where a society would end up over several generations if you had screenings, tryouts, and cuts over and over.
Based on longevity, a predisposition towards no diabetes, heart disease, brains, and physical prowess, etc.
Free to leave or take your kids and leave if you want.
Nothing forced on anybody. You get offered to try out, you get offered to join, etc. if you don’t cut it you can’t stay, but you are not forced to join, stay, marry someone you don’t want to, etc. if you have kids that don’t cut it you are not forced to stay without them or anything.
The rules are your choice.
Not like we have now where you have essentially no say over paying for somebody else’s stuff that is a total drain.
Whoa,
Don’t get me wrong. I am not trying to play God and start a selective breeding program for sports.
I am just interested in where a society would end up over several generations if you had screenings, tryouts, and cuts over and over.
Based on longevity, a predisposition towards no diabetes, heart disease, brains, and physical prowess, etc.
Free to leave or take your kids and leave if you want.
Nothing forced on anybody. You get offered to try out, you get offered to join, etc. if you don’t cut it you can’t stay, but you are not forced to join, stay, marry someone you don’t want to, etc. if you have kids that don’t cut it you are not forced to stay without them or anything.
The rules are your choice.
Not like we have now where you have essentially no say over paying for somebody else’s stuff that is a total drain.Modern medicine saves innumerable lives from debilitating inherited disease...people who in generations past would not have been able to reproduce. The net result has been the return of these genetic deficiencies to the gene pool. Modern medicine is improving the lives of today's generations while sewing the seeds of destruction of future generations.
Watch the movie Gattica sometime. I think that that is not an unlikely scenario for the future of humanity.
ramairthree
07-26-18, 18:40
Yeah. No doubt modern medicine and modern society overall is shifting the bell curve back to the left.
The outcome of a society pushing it to the right I think would be interesting.
Yeah. No doubt modern medicine and modern society overall is shifting the bell curve back to the left.
The outcome of a society pushing it to the right I think would be interesting.
It's an interesting "thought experiment" but the unintended outcomes of putting stuff like this into practice can prove devastating. We all remember what happened when royal families tried to purify blood lines and ended up with a group of hemophiliacs and a host of other problems when genetic diversity was not there.
And you only need to look at the examples of how quickly small pox destroyed the native populations of north and south America when first exposed to it without any level of immunities at all. The problem with trying to "improve things" is you often weed out the good when trying to eliminate the bad, even if you are doing it for completely noble reasons for the betterment of humanity.
It would really suck if we lost the ability to resist common viruses because they were related to a trait we found problematic and tried to eliminate it through selective breeding even if based on genetics rather than blood lines. We just don't know enough to even think about it at this stage.
We are already getting enough negative byproduct from the factors Hmac mentioned. But at the same time we need to realize our natural immunities mostly come from people who had health issues and survived them.
morbidbattlecry
07-28-18, 21:53
Modern medicine saves innumerable lives from debilitating inherited disease...people who in generations past would not have been able to reproduce. The net result has been the return of these genetic deficiencies to the gene pool. Modern medicine is improving the lives of today's generations while sewing the seeds of destruction of future generations.
Watch the movie Gattica sometime. I think that that is not an unlikely scenario for the future of humanity.
Define seeds of destruction.
The history of eugenics shows us how terrible this line of thinking can be, Sanger and Hitler pretty much sums it up.
When man wants to play god, he ends up being the devil.
The USA has allowed the country to go way to far down the path of socialism and irresponsible programs that have pretty much bankrupted the country and social security etc.
We at some point in time must have a correction, which will be painful.
I see many ways that a correction could happen, economic collapse, major war, a major denial of services.
I actually think the last one is the closes one to happening.
Just think of the east coast without electricity for 6 months and what that would bring about.
Many here have pointed out in the past many people in the city had gardens and were capable people. Which mirrors what my parents said about the depression, it was tough but since we were in the country we were able to survive. I will be honest though my grandfather died during the depression and the family then lost the farm and moved into a small town. They survived with food from the government and other family members.
But today we no longer have people that know how to garden or how to take care of themselves and this doesn't include only those on welfare.
Define seeds of destruction.
Geometrically increasing incidence of singe-gene inherited diseases like cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, Marfan syndrome, Huntington's disease, hemochromatosis, Tay-Sachs disease, and several hundred other such previously-fatal autosomal-recessive diseases
Moose-Knuckle
07-29-18, 06:04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzbWXgM0ygU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzbWXgM0ygU
Yep....that's the other aspect of our ongoing peeing in the gene pool.
Business_Casual
07-29-18, 10:45
R selected versus K selected.
Modern medicine saves innumerable lives from debilitating inherited disease...people who in generations past would not have been able to reproduce. The net result has been the return of these genetic deficiencies to the gene pool. Modern medicine is improving the lives of today's generations while sewing the seeds of destruction of future generations.
This is something that conflicts me.
I know of a family that had a genetic deficiency resulting in renal failure, and visual impairment. The family had at least two children after they found out about the genetic deficiency.
I can not fathom why someone would choose to have children knowing they would be more than likely to have those problems.
This is something that conflicts me.
I know of a family that had a genetic deficiency resulting in renal failure, and visual impairment. The family had at least two children after they found out about the genetic deficiency.
I can not fathom why someone would choose to have children knowing they would be more than likely to have those problems.
Reasonable people probably wouldn't, but the problem isn't usually the result of reasonable people having kids.
Reasonable people probably wouldn't, but the problem isn't usually the result of reasonable people having kids.
And as long as our taxes pay people to have more kids (or in the case of homosexual "partners", adopt more kids) without the means to support them it will continue.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.