Do you support Eugenics?

[Felicity]

]Got that....do you mean the FIRST Europeans...or other? I ask, because the Nordic sub group wasn't the original.

That all depends on what you term "original".Some of us would regards the Nordic subracial group as the true biological expression of the Aryan race,by which all other Aryan sub racial groups should be measured.

Interesting. I found a link to what I think you're expressing (although I must say....it's like pulling teeth with you!). http://library.flawlesslogic.com/2a.htm The section on Aryans and Indo Aryans? Is that what you are describing?

Thanks.

But you use the word "SPECIES" in your explanation.... Different races aren't different "species" (or do you not agree with that statement?...I don't want to assume...).

I am not going to enter into a useless argument on symantics.
Either you don`t believe that human races are worth saving or you do but don`t hide your views behind arguments on definitions of words!

It's a valid question because "species" actually is a pretty elastic term and I was trying to determine where YOU stand...not trying to hide my views behind words...I posted a whole bunch of stuff already that demonstrates what I think of Eugenics. I'm trying to ascertain why you believe "restoring the Aryan gene pool" is a worthy cause--enough to restrict the rights of some that don't posses the required quantity of the preferred genes. What's your rationale?

 

[vergiss]

Let me show you what you are doing. I'm assuming you support women's right to vote, correct? Well, the founder of that movement was a women. And she was attracted to men. That means you must be attracted to men too.

:lol:

You are my new god.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

23 years of age and you have the temerity to lecture me about life.You need to grow up first before you even attempt that.In my eyes you are but a child and by the sound of it quite spoilt too?
I want you to spend the next 12 months living in a negro ghetto and then I would like you to come back and continue to lecture us all on the joys of multiracialism. What a pity your "compassion" does not extend to admitting moslems into the USA?

Actually I live in down town Tampa quite a bit of African American's around these parts and I'm friends with alot of them but the thing is I don't even really notice that they're black, you see, here in America such distinctions are made by Biggoted little men and seeing from your other posts you would definately fall into that category.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

:lol:

You are my new god.

You do realize that the only one really agreeing with y'all at this point is the nazi right? Ponder that fact over for a bit and then question yourself as to the true nature of the abortion rights movement and its founder Margaret Sanger.

 

[Felicity]

You do realize that the only one really agreeing with y'all at this point is the nazi right? Ponder that fact over for a bit and then question yourself as to the true nature of the abortion rights movement and its founder Margaret Sanger.

eh....what's history anyway????:doh



It's about as useful as truth.....

 

[vergiss]

You do realize that the only one really agreeing with y'all at this point is the nazi right? Ponder that fact over for a bit and then question yourself as to the true nature of the abortion rights movement and its founder Margaret Sanger.

What, you mean those who are anti-abortion aren't disagreeing with an anti-abortion thread? Shock, horror! :lol:

Yes, damn me, the Jewish Nazi. No wonder I have such a strong urge to stick my head in the oven.

 

[Felicity]

What, you mean those who are anti-abortion aren't disagreeing with an anti-abortion thread? Shock, horror! :lol:

Yes, damn me, the Jewish Nazi. No wonder I have such a strong urge to stick my head in the oven.

You really ought to think about it...look it up yourself--Ms. Sanger made no bones about her views....

 

[vergiss]

I looked at that other thread of yours, actually. I see paranoia, but nothing else.

 

[Felicity]

I looked at that other thread of yours, actually. I see paranoia, but nothing else.

Did you read the Sangerisms I presented on THIS thread?

Post #12

 

[vergiss]

Regardless if she was a racist or not, she doesn't speak for every pro-choice supporter in the world. :lol: I hope you'd not seriously implying that she does (or rather, did, seeing as she's rather dead).

 

[Felicity]

Regardless if she was a racist or not, she doesn't speak for every pro-choice supporter in the world. :lol: I hope you'd not seriously implying that she does (or rather, did, seeing as she's rather dead).

Planned Parenthood holds her as a model of VIRTUE! You support Planned Parenthood. ERGO--you are supporting an organization that condones bigotry and honors a woman who had values in common with NAZIs! What is so hard here Vergiss?

 

[vergiss]

I haven't seen any proof that she did believe such things, yet.

Wagner was an anti-Semite. You don't see me having a hissy fit everytime The Ring Cycle is performed.

 

[Felicity]

I haven't seen any proof that she did believe such things, yet.

Wagner was an anti-Semite. You don't see me having a hissy fit everytime The Ring Cycle is performed.

You can choose to keep your head in the sand...that is your CHOICE.

Does The Ring Cycle kill a specific group of peoples?

 

[vergiss]

Or you could prove me wrong and supply the necessary evidence. Wouldn't you prefer to do that?

What, and a long-dead woman does?

 

[Felicity]

Or you could prove me wrong and supply the necessary evidence. Wouldn't you prefer to do that?

Honey--I linked you to the books and told you chapter 1--what do you want me to do? Hop on a flight to Australia and tutor you personally?

What, and a long-dead woman does?

YES--Her organization PLANNED PARENTHOOD does!!!!!!

 

[Felicity]

Honey--I linked you to the books and told you chapter 1--what do you want me to do?

Ooops...that was on the other thread...here it is again...read Woman and the New Race Chapter 1

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.ed...mode=start&author=Sanger, Margaret, 1879-1966

 

[Aryan Imperium]

Interesting. I found a link to what I think you're expressing (although I must say....it's like pulling teeth with you!). http://library.flawlesslogic.com/2a.htm The section on Aryans and Indo Aryans? Is that what you are describing?

That explains my position on the issue.


It's a valid question because "species" actually is a pretty elastic term and I was trying to determine where YOU stand...not trying to hide my views behind words...I posted a whole bunch of stuff already that demonstrates what I think of Eugenics. I'm trying to ascertain why you believe "restoring the Aryan gene pool" is a worthy cause--enough to restrict the rights of some that don't posses the required quantity of the preferred genes. What's your rationale?[/QUOTE]

The Aryan race alone is the originator of all worthwhile culture and with its death all meaning to human existence will perish from the earth.
Far better that the world be given solely back to nature than that humanity continue without its culture bearing race.

 

[robin]

Rather a silly question?
Genes can be tracked to not only races but particular ethnic groups.
Scientists in the future should be able to eliminate any known non-Aryan genes from the Aryan gene pool,so helping to restore the racial purity that was ours prior to the greatest defeat and betrayal inflicted upon the Aryan race in 1945.
Economics is not my concern.

Surely you're not serious :lol:
Tell me this is a wind up please.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Yes. I support Eugenics, but one thing you must understand is that not all Eugenics is the same, nor is all Eugenics Nazi death camps and experiments. To understand a basic definition of Eugenics, we have to look scientifically at it and disregard the stigma or colloquial definitions. We must look at what is Eugenic in practice and what types are available.


Definition: The scientific study of artificial selection towards a particular set of desired characteristics.

Using the above definition as a launch platform, Eugenics is essentially what we already do in dogs, cats, sheep, cows, and potentially, humans. It is a valid science by which you remove undesirable traits and replace them with desireable traits. The important concept to remember is that the Old Eugenics is not the New Eugenics. The Old Eugenics was flawed because it was based off of a faulty racial premise--the premise that race is a valid biological construct. In reality, it isn't. Secondly, it was invalid because the proponents used it to show a "master" race or a race that was better than another. Since no race exists, all such following conclusions are invalid.

It was also immoral because it relied on the extermination of X group with undesirable traits and the forced breeding of others with desirable traits. This is wrong because it violates human dignity of individuals with moral personhood and it was not balanced with utility. The Old Eugenics was A.S. via selective breeding.

The New Eugenics is quite different. It does not necessarily rely on forced breeding at all, but it can still regulate genetic make up or breeding via incentives and support for personal decisions regarding genetic improvement. For instance, Gene Thearpy as well as Genetic Engineering also fall under the umbrella of Eugenics, even though they are not the Eugenics of old. If you are working to eliminate a potentially harmful recessive trait from a gene pool, you are a Eugenicist. If you want to use gene therapy to help people who have chromosomal disorders, you are a Eugenicist. If you you are a family who wants to prevent his baby from having a harmful trait (one that would necessarily create unhappiness and discomfort), you are a Eugenicist. If you wish to manipulate popluations to make them disease resistant (like some crops), you are a Eugenicist.

You can easily use Eugenics in making better people prior to them even attaining moral personhood. As long as parents agree, you can manipulate the genes of a fetus and procure a better product. You aren't violating any rights nor any autonomy. No person exists. The only thing you have to take into consideration are the consequences to the individual if you are letting him come into existence. The only valid use for fetus-eugenics is to improve the quality of life of the individual to be born.

Eugenics can be done and serve net Utility, while violating the rights of no one, therefore, there is no reason for me not to be a Eugenicist.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes. I support Eugenics, but one thing you must understand is that not all Eugenics is the same, nor is all Eugenics Nazi death camps and experiments. To understand a basic definition of Eugenics, we have to look scientifically at it and disregard the stigma or colloquial definitions. We must look at what is Eugenic in practice and what types are available.


Definition: The scientific study of artificial selection towards a particular set of desired characteristics.

Using the above definition as a launch platform, Eugenics is essentially what we already do in dogs, cats, sheep, cows, and potentially, humans. It is a valid science by which you remove undesirable traits and replace them with desireable traits. The important concept to remember is that the Old Eugenics is not the New Eugenics. The Old Eugenics was flawed because it was based off of a faulty racial premise--the premise that race is a valid biological construct. In reality, it isn't. Secondly, it was invalid because the proponents used it to show a "master" race or a race that was better than another. Since no race exists, all such following conclusions are invalid.

It was also immoral because it relied on the extermination of X group with undesirable traits and the forced breeding of others with desirable traits. This is wrong because it violates human dignity of individuals with moral personhood and it was not balanced with utility. The Old Eugenics was A.S. via selective breeding.

The New Eugenics is quite different. It does not necessarily rely on forced breeding at all, but it can still regulate genetic make up or breeding via incentives and support for personal decisions regarding genetic improvement. For instance, Gene Thearpy as well as Genetic Engineering also fall under the umbrella of Eugenics, even though they are not the Eugenics of old. If you are working to eliminate a potentially harmful recessive trait from a gene pool, you are a Eugenicist. If you want to use gene therapy to help people who have chromosomal disorders, you are a Eugenicist. If you you are a family who wants to prevent his baby from having a harmful trait (one that would necessarily create unhappiness and discomfort), you are a Eugenicist. If you wish to manipulate popluations to make them disease resistant (like some crops), you are a Eugenicist.

You can easily use Eugenics in making better people prior to them even attaining moral personhood. As long as parents agree, you can manipulate the genes of a fetus and procure a better product. You aren't violating any rights nor any autonomy. No person exists. The only thing you have to take into consideration are the consequences to the individual if you are letting him come into existence. The only valid use for fetus-eugenics is to improve the quality of life of the individual to be born.

Eugenics can be done and serve net Utility, while violating the rights of no one, therefore, there is no reason for me not to be a Eugenicist.

To be honest after reading the first part of your post and then proceeding to check out your communist credentials I must say that I declined from reading the rest of your post but from what I gathered from the first few paragraphs which I read you feel justified in bringing the Human species down to the level of cats, dogs, cattle, etc, etc, well my friend I won't even go into the detais of what is horribly wrong and evil with your ideals but rather I'll just tell you to go watch the movie Gattica and call me in the morning.

This is a ridiculous assumption that you can simply do away with natural selection: "Eugenics is essentially what we already do in dogs, cats, sheep, cows, and potentially, humans. It is a valid science by which you remove undesirable traits and replace them with desireable traits." Your words not mine. What's next? Kill anyone who doesn't fit into your idea of some socialist utopian Ideal, how about we do away with eyesight in color while we're at it, why is abortion only legal before birth, why not make the age limit 30 and then anyone who we don't like we can simply kill? (strong, angry, and beligerent sarcasism added througout entire post).

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

^

It can't, nor any facet of it, be allowed, because simply put it's f'n evil.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Aryan Emperium: "Eugenics is essentially what we already do in dogs, cats, sheep, cows, and potentially, humans. It is a valid science by which you remove undesirable traits and replace them with desireable traits."


Oh really, so, the only culture in the world worthy of any credit is Aryan umm is it just me or weren't zee Zermans freaking savages until the Formation of the holy Roman Empire and Charlamagne? Sorry pal but even back in the day the strongest people for a millenia were the Romans who heralded their multiculturalism as a trademark of all free people not unlike the U.S. but totally the opposite of your genocidal failed experiment (born of despair and raised on revenge.) <---- metaphor not only for, but Germany from 1929 throug 1945, as well.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

To be honest, ater reading the first part of your post and then proceeding to check out your communist credentials I must say that I declined from reading the rest of your post but from what I gathered from the first few paragraphs which I read you feel justified in bringing the Human species down to the level of cats, dogs, cattle, etc, etc, well my friend I won't even go into the detais of what is h rribly wrong and evil with your ideals but rather I'll just tell you to go watch the movie Gattica and call me in the morning.

1. First of all, I am not a Communist, nor have I ever been a Communist. I am an Independent, and I support Capitalism. Obviously if you think that because of my signature that I am a Communist, you don't understand the joke. It's not pro-communist at all. It's sarcasm. Communism is stupid.

2. Secondly, even if I were a Communist, as you say, it would be completely irrelevant to the point. This would be an Ad Hominem attack used to discredit what someone is saying. Information is information regardless of who issues it. If a Nazi said 2+2 = 4, under your logic, his proclamation would automatically be suspect.

3. No, my point does not bring humans down to the level of other animals. If you bothered to read my post, you would have learned that. You probably think I support forced breeding. I don't. You are working off of an incorrect understanding of Eugenics. To clarify:

A. Would you support, if parents desired, eliminating Tay Sachs and other Lysomal dysfunction that causes death and pain to the child?
B. Would you, if possible, try to genetically alter people so they don't get inheritable diseases that cause disability?

If you say no, you are immoral, because you are allowing preventable suffering. You are responsible for refusing to help people. If you say yes, then you are being moral, because you are honouring the wishes of those who wish to have their genes artifically selected, and you are promoting net utility.

This is a ridiculous assumption that you can simply do away with natural selection: "Eugenics is essentially what we already do in dogs, cats, sheep, cows, and potentially, humans.

No. What is ridiculous is your Strawman of my entire post. No where did anyone say getting rid of natural selection. You cannot get rid of it. However, not everything natural is good. You should know that, right? Ever hear of the Naturalistic Fallacy? It's illogical.

:rofl
valid science by which you remove undesirable traits and replace them with desireable traits." Your words not mine.

No duh Sherlock. Removing undesirable traits and replacing them with ones that are desirable. Prove that's bad. If a boy will be born with a preventable inhereted disease, and you can deactivate it, you are "improving" the genes of the boy. According to your warped logic, that's bad.

Tune in next week for Bozo-the-Clown's ethics;Trajan' allows kids who are born with Spina Bifoda to wallow and then die! All the while, holding the moral highground!

next? Kill anyone who doesn't fit into your idea of some socialist utopian Ideal, how about we do away with eyesight in color while we're at it, why is abortion only legal before birth, why not make the age limit 30 and then anyone who we don't like we can simply kill? (strong, angry, and beligerent sarcasism added througout entire post).

1. Slipperly Slope Fallacy on your part. There is no need to lead anywhere else, since the reasons for doing so are related to what the parents of the child want and directly tied to making the life of the subject better. There's nothing wrong with improving the quality of life of a suffering individual.

2. Again, I am not a Communist, but thanks for the useless Ad Hominem tacked on to your Slippery Slope. It wet the ride.

 

[Felicity]

2. Secondly, even if I were a Communist, as you say, it would be completely irrelevant to the point. This would be an Ad Hominem attack used to discredit what someone is saying. Information is information regardless of who issues it. If a Nazi said 2+2 = 4, under your logic, his proclamation would automatically be suspect.

Wasn't Hitler technically fascist?

A. Would you support, if parents desired, eliminating Tay Sachs and other Lysomal dysfunction that causes death and pain to the child?
B. Would you, if possible, try to genetically alter people so they don't get inheritable diseases that cause disability?

If you say no, you are immoral, because you are allowing preventable suffering. You are responsible for refusing to help people. If you say yes, then you are being moral, because you are honouring the wishes of those who wish to have their genes artifically selected, and you are promoting net utility.

Abortion doesn't improve the "life" of the individual with TaySachs.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

1. First of all, I am not a Communist, nor have I ever been a Communist. I am an Independent, and I support Capitalism. Obviously if you think that because of my signature that I am a Communist, you don't understand the joke. It's not pro-communist at all. It's sarcasm. Communism is stupid.

2. Secondly, even if I were a Communist, as you say, it would be completely irrelevant to the point. This would be an Ad Hominem attack used to discredit what someone is saying. Information is information regardless of who issues it. If a Nazi said 2+2 = 4, under your logic, his proclamation would automatically be suspect.

3. No, my point does not bring humans down to the level of other animals. If you bothered to read my post, you would have learned that. You probably think I support forced breeding. I don't. You are working off of an incorrect understanding of Eugenics. To clarify:

A. Would you support, if parents desired, eliminating Tay Sachs and other Lysomal dysfunction that causes death and pain to the child?
B. Would you, if possible, try to genetically alter people so they don't get inheritable diseases that cause disability?

If you say no, you are immoral, because you are allowing preventable suffering. You are responsible for refusing to help people. If you say yes, then you are being moral, because you are honouring the wishes of those who wish to have their genes artifically selected, and you are promoting net utility.



No. What is ridiculous is your Strawman of my entire post. No where did anyone say getting rid of natural selection. You cannot get rid of it. However, not everything natural is good. You should know that, right? Ever hear of the Naturalistic Fallacy? It's illogical.



No duh Sherlock. Removing undesirable traits and replacing them with ones that are desirable. Prove that's bad. If a boy will be born with a preventable inhereted disease, and you can deactivate it, you are "improving" the genes of the boy. According to your warped logic, that's bad.

Tune in next week for Bozo-the-Clown's ethics;Trajan' allows kids who are born with Spina Bifoda to wallow and then die! All the while, holding the moral highground!



1. Slipperly Slope Fallacy on your part. There is no need to lead anywhere else, since the reasons for doing so are related to what the parents of the child want and directly tied to making the life of the subject better. There's nothing wrong with improving the quality of life of a suffering individual.

2. Again, I am not a Communist, but thanks for the useless Ad Hominem tacked on to your Slippery Slope. It wet the ride.

apologies for calling you a communist I clicked your profile saw the flag yet failed to read it sorry for the confusion.