College mulls renaming building after pro-Hitler comments

[Common Sense 1]

Balderdash.

Your threads are nothing but incomprehensible gobbledygook which points are so cryptic even you can't articulate them.

And when someone questions them, it gives you an opportunity to conjure something up, spur of the moment, that you hope others will find somehow inventive and astute - exactly like you did here.

Only no one, save yourself and maybe a handful of sycophantic followers find them other than what they actually are:

Balderdash.

The post winner of this silly thread!

 

[bomberfox]

I doubt liberals will cancel FDR to the degree that Republicans have canceled Margret Sanger.

They’ve been afraid of the new deal since Clinton.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

College mulls renaming building after pro-Hitler comments

Officials at Montana State University-Billings will consider removing the name of the college’s first president from its administrative building after discovering quotes from more than 85 years ago in which he supported Adolf Hitler’s sterilization plan to improve the genetics of the human race...

kstp.com

“I abominate Hitler’s general policies, but if I am correctly informed in regard to his campaign for sterilization of the unfit, I prophesy that Germany will do more for the uplift of her society in the next 50 years through sterilization, than we have done in 85 years through public education.”

The move comes as universities around the country are renaming buildings to remove names of people tied to slavery, segregation, white supremacy or the Confederacy."


I'd say they have to.

Hmmmmm. Interesting.
I consider the idea of improving genetics through intentional means to be an interesting one.
If we could get rid of an obviously flawed gene from being passed on...the benefits to society are apparent and profound.
I do see also the great ethical dilemma of how this would work in reality and/or how it would be carried out.
I think if genetics could be improved through voluntary means ,for instance a person with a serious defective gene could be informed as to how this gene would be passed on to offspring, in many cases I think a person might decide to forego procreating and may instead choose adoption or something of that nature.

An interesting area of discussion IMO.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Thats not how genetics works.

Actually it is.

You dont have the evidence to back up what you are saying.

Already provided.

That is also not how learning capability works either. You can actually improve learning capability by building up knowledge and giving early tools for handling education early in life as the brain is forming post conception.

Not quite. However you can make someone's "learning capacity" more EFFECTIVE by doing those things (in just the same manner as you can make someone's "running capacity" more effective by teaching them how to run properly and by providing them with cleated track shoes rather than lashings of semi-cured leather for their feet).

You dont know how intelligence works.

Actually, "intelligence" is a whole lot like the endocrine system. Lots of experts can tell you WHAT it does, but (if you pin them right down to it [and promise not to tell anyone else their answer]) they will also tell you that they don't really know HOW it works.

Its a matter of both genetic and environmental yes, but the ability to learn is not set in stone which completely blows your conjecture out of the water.

Since I already said it was a matter of genetics (which is fixed post-conception) and environment (which is NOT fixed post-conception) the obvious end result is that I also said that "the ability to learn is NOT set in stone" so your comment doesn't appear to relate to reality.

Sorry but ya drank the Charles Murray and the Philipe Rushton kool aide, he doesnt seem to understand the difference between heritability and inherited.

The difference is quite simple.

[1] you INHERIT your genetic makeup (which provides a range of ways in which you will develop) and that is something that can be determined as finely as you want to do it;​

​

and​

​

[2] there is a RELATIONSHIP between your genetic makeup and how the RANGE actually manifests itself - that RANGE is your INHERITABILITY.​

​

Now, you tell me what "race" (other than "human") this person belongs to:

​

People who dont have a family history of a certain disorder for example can still get a disorder.

Yes, that is what is known as "having a recessive gene".

We have better understanding than the eugenecist of old with the study of epigenetics.

Indeed, we can, since epigenetics is the study of how your behaviors and environment can cause changes that affect the way your genes work (IOW, the degree of "heritability").

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Tell me, back in the old days the brightest minds came from a certain class of people, mostly well to do people who were given an education.

The "brightest" KNOWN minds - right?

Was Sir Isaac Newton genetically superior in intelligence via inheritance or did his environment and class play a major part?

Potentially both.

Was a peasant genetically incapable of understanding basic mathematics or were they prohibited from learning it?

Potentially both (especially if you include "had no reasonable chance of obtaining the basic educational tools required" in "prohibited").

The person who is born with the genetic ability to become a widely respected and effective world leader but who is born into a socioeconomic situation where they will be undernourished as a child, and where they have no reasonable chance of obtaining an education that is only 50% as good as that obtained by the average American High School graduate and is effectively barred from politics, is NOT very likely to actually be able to utilize that genetic ability and the person without the genetic ability to become a widely respected and effective world leader but who is born into a socioeconomic situation where they will be more than adequately nourished as a child and where they find their path up through one or more university level degrees and into politics "greased" by family wealth and influence isn't going to either.

 

[bomberfox]

The "brightest" KNOWN minds - right?

Potentially both.

Potentially both (especially if you include "had no reasonable chance of obtaining the basic educational tools required" in "prohibited").

The person who is born with the genetic ability to become a widely respected and effective world leader but who is born into a socioeconomic situation where they will be undernourished as a child, and where they have no reasonable chance of obtaining an education that is only 50% as good as that obtained by the average American High School graduate and is effectively barred from politics, is NOT very likely to actually be able to utilize that genetic ability and the person without the genetic ability to become a widely respected and effective world leader but who is born into a socioeconomic situation where they will be more than adequately nourished as a child and where they find their path up through one or more university level degrees and into politics "greased" by family wealth and influence isn't going to either.

Again nobody is born with a genetic ability to become a world leader. That shit went out the window with the monarchical age.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Hmmmmm. Interesting.
I consider the idea of improving genetics through intentional means to be an interesting one.
If we could get rid of an obviously flawed gene from being passed on...the benefits to society are apparent and profound.
I do see also the great ethical dilemma of how this would work in reality and/or how it would be carried out.
I think if genetics could be improved through voluntary means ,for instance a person with a serious defective gene could be informed as to how this gene would be passed on to offspring, in many cases I think a person might decide to forego procreating and may instead choose adoption or something of that nature.

An interesting area of discussion IMO.

The problem wasn't that the THEORY ("Improve society by eliminating 'defective' genes") was wrong, it was the IMPLEMENTATION (i.e. defining totally irrelevant genes as being 'defective') that caused the problem.

Not only that, but "back in the day" the prevailing thought was that "genes" provided a SET characteristic and we now know that what (in general) they actually do is define the PARAMETERS OF A RANGE for the characteristic.

Where a person ends up within that range is more dependent on "environment" than it is on "heredity".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Again nobody is born with a genetic ability to become a world leader. That shit went out the window with the monarchical age.

I guess that I should have said "set of geneticly determined ability ranges" rather than "genetic ability" just so that you wouldn't find some silly pickish point such as claiming that I had said that "ability to become a world leader" was something that was related to a single specific gene.

 

[bomberfox]

The "brightest" KNOWN minds - right?

Potentially both.

Potentially both (especially if you include "had no reasonable chance of obtaining the basic educational tools required" in "prohibited").

The person who is born with the genetic ability to become a widely respected and effective world leader but who is born into a socioeconomic situation where they will be undernourished as a child, and where they have no reasonable chance of obtaining an education that is only 50% as good as that obtained by the average American High School graduate and is effectively barred from politics, is NOT very likely to actually be able to utilize that genetic ability and the person without the genetic ability to become a widely respected and effective world leader but who is born into a socioeconomic situation where they will be more than adequately nourished as a child and where they find their path up through one or more university level degrees and into politics "greased" by family wealth and influence isn't going to either.

All this severely lacks predictive power and is more conjecture. People’s ability to learn is not a set in stone unchanging quantity.

 

[bomberfox]

I guess that I should have said "set of geneticly determined ability ranges" rather than "genetic ability" just so that you wouldn't find some silly pickish point such as claiming that I had said that "ability to become a world leader" was something that was related to a single specific gene.

I would wait until you actually have predictive power behind you before making this statement . Admittedly my objections are partially colored by the abuses the eugenics movement enacted upon countless people though since i know you are not meaning ill, i can ease back into discussions.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I would wait until you actually have predictive power behind you before making this statement . Admittedly my objections are partially colored by the abuses the eugenics movement enacted upon countless people though since i know you are not meaning ill, i can ease back into discussions.

As I said (or at least implied) the METHODS of the "Eugenics Movement" were despicable (in light of today's knowledge) and the FACTS that they based those METHODS on were (again in light of today's knowledge) ludicrously wrong.

That being said, the MOTIVES of many (if not the majority) of the "movers and shakers" of the "Eugenics Movement" were (in the light of the state of the then contemporary knowledge) NOT "evil". [I am not going to dispute that the MOTIVES of some "movers and shakers" of the "Eugenics Movement" were pretty damn despicable.

 

[bomberfox]

As I said (or at least implied) the METHODS of the "Eugenics Movement" were despicable (in light of today's knowledge) and the FACTS that they based those METHODS on were (again in light of today's knowledge) ludicrously wrong.

That being said, the MOTIVES of many (if not the majority) of the "movers and shakers" of the "Eugenics Movement" were (in the light of the state of the then contemporary knowledge) NOT "evil". [I am not going to dispute that the MOTIVES of some "movers and shakers" of the "Eugenics Movement" were pretty damn despicable.

Thats just the thing we disagree with. I think their motives of the vast majority was in getting rid of undesirables. I could not trust anyone with such authority. What mattered was in who was setting the criteria for desirable which was always plagued by the biases of the “movers and shakers”.

Lots of times you also get incredibly harmful effects because of such singular selection methods which leaves the organism uncapable of handling other environments or illnesses, take the pug for example. They usually have a lot of trouble doing something as simple as breathing and worse in giving birth.

All in all i would question those “movers and shakers” by what right do they have to determine who is fit to live?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Thats just the thing we disagree with. I think their motives of the vast majority was in getting rid of undesirables. I could not trust anyone with such authority

So, are you telling me that you want to INCREASE the number of "undesirables"?

Of course you aren't.

You are just as keen to REDUCE the number of "undesirables" as they were.

Where you differ is in your definitions of "undesirables" and what are "socially permissible" methods of achieving the reduction.

 

[bomberfox]

So, are you telling me that you want to INCREASE the number of "undesirables"?

Of course you aren't.

You are just as keen to REDUCE the number of "undesirables" as they were.

Where you differ is in your definitions of "undesirables" and what are "socially permissible" methods of achieving the reduction.

Its not my place to determine the number of “undesirables” i dont care if they increase of decrease.

No i am not just as keen on reducing “undesirables” in regards to who is genetically fit to live. THAT is the very thing that distinguishes normal law and order from the eugenics movement.

I dont base my contempt on genetics, i base them on actions.

With regards to law in the US we discern actions. In regards to eugenics, there is absolutely nothing you could do, if you are deemed genetically inferior, you are sterilized or killed on the basis of the criteria of who is in charge. That is what makes the movement evil.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Its not my place to determine the number of “undesirables” i dont care if they increase of decrease.

Hogwash and virtue signalling.

No i am not just as keen on reducing “undesirables” in regards to who is genetically fit to live. THAT is the very thing that distinguishes normal law and order from the eugenics movement.

See above.

I dont base my contempt on genetics, i base them on actions.

Well, the "Eugenics Movement" took the position that the actions were "genetically based" AND "genetically correctable".

They were not "stupid" people, but they were working from ignorance and false (but not known at the time to be false) postulates.

With regards to law in the US we discern actions. In regards to eugenics, there is absolutely nothing you could do, if you are deemed genetically inferior, you are sterilized or killed on the basis of the criteria of who is in charge. That is what makes the movement evil.

Nope, it is HOW "inferior" is defined that does that AND it doesn't make the "Eugenics Movement" (or its members) "evil" - it makes them ill informed.

When you hold out for "genetic equality", ask yourself this question "Would you prefer to see society's members descended from

[1] a group of individuals with IQs of 50 that also suffered from congenital debilitating medical conditions​

​

or from​

​

[2] a group of individuals with IQs of 120 who had no congenital debilitating medical conditions at all?".​

If you say "Hey, doesn't matter because they are all "genetically equal" then you are either being dishonest or you are deluding yourself.

Now where I have a real issue with the "Eugenics Movement" (under whatever name it chooses to operate [and that includes BOTH "White Supremacy" and "Black Supremacy"]) is that they have absolutely no solid evidence to base their definitions of "superior" and "inferior" on.

In short, the "Eugenics Movement" is theoretically a "good idea" but one that is totally (at present [and, hopefully, for the next several millennia]) incapable of being applied in any solid, fact based, rational, manner. That, of course, takes the "Eugenics Movement" well out of the actually a "good idea" category.

 

[bomberfox]

Hogwash and virtue signalling.

See above.

Well, the "Eugenics Movement" took the position that the actions were "genetically based" AND "genetically correctable".

They were not "stupid" people, but they were working from ignorance and false (but not known at the time to be false) postulates.

Nope, it is HOW "inferior" is defined that does that AND it doesn't make the "Eugenics Movement" (or its members) "evil" - it makes them ill informed.

When you hold out for "genetic equality", ask yourself this question "Would you prefer to see society's members descended from

[1] a group of individuals with IQs of 50 that also suffered from congenital debilitating medical conditions​

​

or from​

​

[2] a group of individuals with IQs of 120 who had no congenital debilitating medical conditions at all?".​

If you say "Hey, doesn't matter because they are all "genetically equal" then you are either being dishonest or you are deluding yourself.

Now where I have a real issue with the "Eugenics Movement" (under whatever name it chooses to operate [and that includes BOTH "White Supremacy" and "Black Supremacy"]) is that they have absolutely no solid evidence to base their definitions of "superior" and "inferior" on.

In short, the "Eugenics Movement" is theoretically a "good idea" but one that is totally (at present [and, hopefully, for the next several millennia]) incapable of being applied in any solid, fact based, rational, manner. That, of course, takes the "Eugenics Movement" well out of the actually a "good idea" category.

They are wrong. Sorry bub if that chaps your hide. I dont give a flying **** if people descend from high IQs (which again you have absolutely no predictive basis for your claim that you keep repeating as if it is true. Until you actually cough up your predictive capabilities this conversation is just conjecture. I dont believe any eugenicist had any intentions but to harm those they view as lesser.

 

[bomberfox]

Actually it is.

Already provided.

Not quite. However you can make someone's "learning capacity" more EFFECTIVE by doing those things (in just the same manner as you can make someone's "running capacity" more effective by teaching them how to run properly and by providing them with cleated track shoes rather than lashings of semi-cured leather for their feet).

Actually, "intelligence" is a whole lot like the endocrine system. Lots of experts can tell you WHAT it does, but (if you pin them right down to it [and promise not to tell anyone else their answer]) they will also tell you that they don't really know HOW it works.

Since I already said it was a matter of genetics (which is fixed post-conception) and environment (which is NOT fixed post-conception) the obvious end result is that I also said that "the ability to learn is NOT set in stone" so your comment doesn't appear to relate to reality.

The difference is quite simple.

[1] you INHERIT your genetic makeup (which provides a range of ways in which you will develop) and that is something that can be determined as finely as you want to do it;​

​

and​

​

[2] there is a RELATIONSHIP between your genetic makeup and how the RANGE actually manifests itself - that RANGE is your INHERITABILITY.​

​

Now, you tell me what "race" (other than "human") this person belongs to:

View attachment 67378540​

Yes, that is what is known as "having a recessive gene".

Indeed, we can, since epigenetics is the study of how your behaviors and environment can cause changes that affect the way your genes work (IOW, the degree of "heritability").

You still have yet to prove that IQ is inherited and every study ive seen from such proponents confuse heritability with inherited like Charles Murray and Phillipe Rushton who have actually been debunked.

I dont know what race that person is. Race is socially constructed, not a taxonomical category. The Irish were considered a completely different race.

 

[CaughtInThe]

interestingly, i bet almost everyone here has some condition (that the either know about already or haven't learned about yet) that society could tell them prevents them from reproducing (if society wanted to follow that model).

and i bet tons of people here already have kids (who shouldn't reproduce either).


the conversation takes on a different tone when it's personalized, no?

 

[LouC]

College mulls renaming building after pro-Hitler comments

Officials at Montana State University-Billings will consider removing the name of the college’s first president from its administrative building after discovering quotes from more than 85 years ago in which he supported Adolf Hitler’s sterilization plan to improve the genetics of the human race...

kstp.com

“I abominate Hitler’s general policies, but if I am correctly informed in regard to his campaign for sterilization of the unfit, I prophesy that Germany will do more for the uplift of her society in the next 50 years through sterilization, than we have done in 85 years through public education.”

The move comes as universities around the country are renaming buildings to remove names of people tied to slavery, segregation, white supremacy or the Confederacy."


I'd say they have to.

What needs mulling?

Do it!

 

[bomberfox]

Hogwash and virtue signalling.

See above.

Well, the "Eugenics Movement" took the position that the actions were "genetically based" AND "genetically correctable".

They were not "stupid" people, but they were working from ignorance and false (but not known at the time to be false) postulates.

Nope, it is HOW "inferior" is defined that does that AND it doesn't make the "Eugenics Movement" (or its members) "evil" - it makes them ill informed.

When you hold out for "genetic equality", ask yourself this question "Would you prefer to see society's members descended from

[1] a group of individuals with IQs of 50 that also suffered from congenital debilitating medical conditions​

​

or from​

​

[2] a group of individuals with IQs of 120 who had no congenital debilitating medical conditions at all?".​

If you say "Hey, doesn't matter because they are all "genetically equal" then you are either being dishonest or you are deluding yourself.

Now where I have a real issue with the "Eugenics Movement" (under whatever name it chooses to operate [and that includes BOTH "White Supremacy" and "Black Supremacy"]) is that they have absolutely no solid evidence to base their definitions of "superior" and "inferior" on.

In short, the "Eugenics Movement" is theoretically a "good idea" but one that is totally (at present [and, hopefully, for the next several millennia]) incapable of being applied in any solid, fact based, rational, manner. That, of course, takes the "Eugenics Movement" well out of the actually a "good idea" category.

Hogwash and virtue signaling? Listen i am someone the eugenics movement would have sterilized or put to death dont ****in trivialize this shit people were horribly oppressed and murdered.

 

[bomberfox]

interestingly, i bet almost everyone here has some condition (that the either know about already or haven't learned about yet) that society could tell them prevents them from reproducing (if society wanted to follow that model).

and i bet tons of people here already have kids (who shouldn't reproduce either).


the conversation takes on a different tone when it's personalized, no?

It sure as **** does.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

They are wrong. Sorry bub if that chaps your hide. I dont give a flying **** if people descend from high IQs (which again you have absolutely no predictive basis for your claim that you keep repeating as if it is true. Until you actually cough up your predictive capabilities this conversation is just conjecture. I dont believe any eugenicist had any intentions but to harm those they view as lesser.

What you "believe" is, indeed, what you are going to act on - REGARDLESS of whether or not what you "believe" conforms to reality.

The problem with the "solution" proposed by the "Eugenics Movement" is that they simply did not understand what would have been necessary to achieve their STATED goals nor that there wasn't any actual way for them to effectuate any real "solution" because [1] they didn't have any real idea what was involved, and [2] their postulates as to what was required were based on ignorance.

Please note that there IS a difference between "eugenics" and the "Eugenics Movement" just as there is a difference between "honest elections" (i.e. elections in which the maximum practical percentage of the electorate has the maximum practical opportunity to cast ballots based on intelligent consideration of actual facts [even if the result means that "OUR Guys" don't win]) and what the American political movers and shakers (on both sides of the "The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party (DBA ‘The Republican Party’)" / "The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party (DBA ‘The Democratic Party’)" divide) call "honest elections" (i.e. elections in which "OUR Guys" always win [REGARDLESS of the actual will of the people]).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You still have yet to prove that IQ is inherited and every study ive seen from such proponents confuse heritability with inherited like Charles Murray and Phillipe Rushton who have actually been debunked.

"Researchers have conducted many studies to look for genes that influence intelligence. Many of these studies have focused on similarities and differences in IQ within families, particularly looking at adopted children and twins. These studies suggest that genetic factors underlie about 50 percent of the difference in intelligence among individuals. Other studies have examined variations across the entire genomes of many people (an approach called genome-wide association studies or GWAS) to determine whether any specific areas of the genome are associated with IQ. These studies have not conclusively identified any genes that have major roles in differences in intelligence. It is likely that a large number of genes are involved, each of which makes only a small contribution to a person’s intelligence."
[SOURCE]

I have never said that there was ONE gene that was responsible for IQ - much as you would like to pretend that I have.

I dont know what race that person is.

And you don't want to hazard a guess - even that that person is a member of the "human" race.

Race is socially constructed, not a taxonomical category.

Good for you. At least you have SOME contact with reality.

The Irish were considered a completely different race.

And so were the Scots, the Welsh, the Germans, the Swedes, the Dutch, the Slavs, the Russians, the Chinese, the Native Americans, the Spanish/Latinos, and a whole slew of people who were NOT "just like us".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Hogwash and virtue signaling? Listen i am someone the eugenics movement would have sterilized or put to death dont ****in trivialize this shit people were horribly oppressed and murdered.

Did you know that there is a difference between "understanding motives" and "approving of motives"?