Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 77

Thread: Eugenics and Unwanted Sterilization in the United States

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    11,765
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 26 Inf View Post
    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.
    11C2P '83-'87
    Airborne Infantry
    F**k China!

  2. #42
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    15,358
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arik View Post
    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.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,286
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    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.
    Last edited by TomMcC; 07-22-18 at 12:22.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    516
    Feedback Score
    0
    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...

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,892
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by TomMcC View Post

    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.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    9,931
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ABNAK View Post
    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.
    Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President... - Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln and Free Speech, Metropolitan Magazine, Volume 47, Number 6, May 1918.

    Every Communist must grasp the truth. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party Mao Zedong, 6 November, 1938 - speech to the Communist Patry of China's sixth Central Committee

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    9,931
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by HMM View Post
    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.
    Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President... - Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln and Free Speech, Metropolitan Magazine, Volume 47, Number 6, May 1918.

    Every Communist must grasp the truth. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party Mao Zedong, 6 November, 1938 - speech to the Communist Patry of China's sixth Central Committee

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    8,715
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arik View Post
    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
    Last edited by Honu; 07-22-18 at 17:31.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    965
    Feedback Score
    24 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    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

  10. #50
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    15,358
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    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.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •