The Battle Begins

[franklin]

I would say no, it's objective fairness. All people are inherently free. In order to take that freedom away someone must initiate the use of force against them to make them act in a way that they don't want to act and that is against thier self-interest. If that's subjective moralitiy, fine. My moral code goes far beyond just letting people do what they want, but politically and philosophically the only thing I want is to be allowed to be who I want to be and act the way I want as long as it doesn't involve hurting others or using force against them. If I can have that I feel I must allow others to enjoy it as I do.

Religious morality that is enforced by law does not allow me to be who I want to be or act the way I want to act, even though I would hurt no one in the process, not even myself (unless you consider the unfortunate fate of my damned soul). It involves the use of force against me to make me act in a way that I consider to be against my own self-interest. Religious morality is also based on faith and the interpreted word of God. I belive that reality is real. Facts are facts. Truth can be known and understood by regular people. Contradictions don't really exist in matters of fact.

How does this translate into drawing a line and saying something is or isn't too dangerous for society to allow? How do we take this foundation and apply it fairly/uniformly when a judgment call is required?

 

[sirkickyass]

Not all students attending medical school attend elite institutions.

Even at non-elite schools the ratio of tuition brought in to the school vs. amount paid out to the teachers is extremely low. Even the lowest ranked institutions can charge $40k per year per student.

 

[Scat]

...act the way I want as long as it doesn't involve hurting others or using force against them.

How does this translate into drawing a line and saying something is or isn't too dangerous for society to allow? How do we take this foundation and apply it fairly/uniformly when a judgment call is required?

I have to admit, this can be quite subjective. You need to specifically define the term "hurting others".

 

[PearlWatson]

WHOA?!

I'm guessing you have a) little to no experience with higher education, b) are unaware of the cost-drivers in higher education, and c) don't realize what percentage of tuition is returned to faculty, especially at elite institutions attended by the "best and brightest."

So the Admin's are the only ones who are gonna take a hit when the government steps in and decreases tuition?

 

[PearlWatson]

I would say no, it's objective fairness. All people are inherently free. In order to take that freedom away someone must initiate the use of force against them to make them act in a way that they don't want to act and that is against thier self-interest. If that's subjective moralitiy, fine. My moral code goes far beyond just letting people do what they want, but politically and philosophically the only thing I want is to be allowed to be who I want to be and act the way I want as long as it doesn't involve hurting others or using force against them. If I can have that I feel I must allow others to enjoy it as I do.

Religious morality that is enforced by law does not allow me to be who I want to be or act the way I want to act, even though I would hurt no one in the process, not even myself (unless you consider the unfortunate fate of my damned soul). It involves the use of force against me to make me act in a way that I consider to be against my own self-interest. Religious morality is also based on faith and the interpreted word of God. I belive that reality is real. Facts are facts. Truth can be known and understood by regular people. Contradictions don't really exist in matters of fact.

Are drug laws enforced religious morality or are they based on the reality that when someone takes drugs that behavior can and often does harm others because it lowers moral inhibitions(if there is any there to begin with). Isn't that fact played out on a daily basis?

State marriage laws and licensing originated from the consensus "science" of eugenics, not judeo-Christian morality.

 

[franklin]

Are drug laws enforced religious morality or are they based on the reality that when someone takes drugs that behavior can and often does harm others because it lowers moral inhibitions(if there is any there to begin with). Isn't that fact played out on a daily basis?

State marriage laws and licensing originated from the consensus "science" of eugenics, not judeo-Christian morality.

You cannot connote as "morality" and "moral inhibitions" because they're susceptible to attack by a certain crowd. Try "desperation", "altered", and "dependency" on for a try. Apparently heroin addiction isn't even a given around here.

I also like where you're going with the eugenics thing. I don't care for the pet theory, but the racism inherent to Darwinian Evolution is endpoint. Then again, the left is where you find the animal's right fanatics, so maybe they really are honest people after all?

We need a poll about who hates me when Bruce makes your mind think, Bruce style of course.

 

[moevillini]

whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on a minute here....


so you all think doctors teach at medical schools because of the salaries they earn????

quite the contrary my friends, the salaries are higher for those in private practice who don't have any connection to a teaching hospital.


what is this thread about anyhow? I've read posts #81 - #107 (I think this one is post #108) and this page seems to be filled with the most assinine bunch of random posts I've seen in a while. I thought this was about the Republican presidential candidates - - should I read posts #41 - #80 or would that be a further waste of time?

 

[One Brow]

Are drug laws enforced religious morality or are they based on the reality that when someone takes drugs that behavior can and often does harm others because it lowers moral inhibitions(if there is any there to begin with). Isn't that fact played out on a daily basis?

So, you don't trust people to judge whether their moral inhibition will be too greatly lowered or not. Thank you for confirming that.

State marriage laws and licensing originated from the consensus "science" of eugenics, not judeo-Christian morality.

*guffaw*

There has never be a "consensus science of eugenics", and laws about marrige pre-date the Bible.

 

[One Brow]

Apparently heroin addiction isn't even a given around here.

Of course it is a reality. So is alcohol addiction. Do you think that's relevant to your aborted attempt to provide an obvious reason for making it illegal? Why?

..., but the racism inherent to Darwinian Evolution is endpoint.

The racism inherent to a biological process? Please, go on. That should be fun.

 

[Gameface]

How does this translate into drawing a line and saying something is or isn't too dangerous for society to allow? How do we take this foundation and apply it fairly/uniformly when a judgment call is required?

I seriously just spent about an hour writing a response to this and hit some random button that took me to the settings page and my post was lost. I'm very upset right now.

 

[PearlWatson]

whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on a minute here....


so you all think doctors teach at medical schools because of the salaries they earn????

quite the contrary my friends, the salaries are higher for those in private practice who don't have any connection to a teaching hospital.


what is this thread about anyhow? I've read posts #81 - #107 (I think this one is post #108) and this page seems to be filled with the most assinine bunch of random posts I've seen in a while. I thought this was about the Republican presidential candidates - - should I read posts #41 - #80 or would that be a further waste of time?

It is really all part of the battle. I'm okay with it going off track. Maybe when the primaries get more heated we can return to that aspect.

 

[PearlWatson]

So, you don't trust people to judge whether their moral inhibition will be too greatly lowered or not. Thank you for confirming that.
There has never be a "consensus science of eugenics", and laws about marrige pre-date the Bible.

I wasn't in charge of passing drug laws, just pointing out the possible reasoning behind it, and I already said those who break trust should be punished.

I was talking about state marriage laws within the U.S. originating from eugenics...much of them racist.

Of course there was a consensus science of eugenics:

Why Politicized Science is Dangerous
(Excerpted from State of Fear)

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.

The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.

 

[One Brow]

I wasn't in charge of passing drug laws, just pointing out the possible reasoning behind it, and I already said those who break trust should be punished.

You believe in the drug laws, and in punishing people who break them, because you don't trust people to handle their own drug use. That's been well-established.

I was talking about state marriage laws within the U.S. originating from eugenics...much of them racist.

Name five marriage laws traceable to the eugenics movement.

Of course there was a consensus science of eugenics:

Who are these millions of people killed by eugenics, supposedly? References to the Holocaust will be laughed at derisively.

Name an experiment from the so-called scientific theory of eugenics, or any other fashion in which it was a scientific theory.

Crichton brings a lot of heat, but no light and no substance.

 

[PearlWatson]

whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on a minute here....


so you all think doctors teach at medical schools because of the salaries they earn????

quite the contrary my friends, the salaries are higher for those in private practice who don't have any connection to a teaching hospital.

No, doctors teach at medical schools out of the goodness of their hearts and nothing else.

 

[franklin]

I seriously just spent about an hour writing a response to this and hit some random button that took me to the settings page and my post was lost. I'm very upset right now.

Maybe you can give it in person sometime.

Of course it is a reality. So is alcohol addiction. Do you think that's relevant to your aborted attempt to provide an obvious reason for making it illegal? Why?

Aborted? You're disingenuous and are putting words into my mouth again. I didn't appreciate your intellectual dishonesty so I ignored you. I prefer polite company open to discussion. Sorry.

The racism inherent to a biological process? Please, go on. That should be fun.

Do you believe evolution divides one species into two based on advantageous traits? See where this goes? It's not exactly a controversial notion.

 

[The-Joker]

No, doctors teach at medical schools out of the goodness of their hearts and nothing else.

Essentially.

 

[PearlWatson]

1) You believe in the drug laws, and in punishing people who break them, because you don't trust people to handle their own drug use. That's been well-established.
2)Name five marriage laws traceable to the eugenics movement.
3) Who are these millions of people killed by eugenics, supposedly? References to the Holocaust will be laughed at derisively.
4) Name an experiment from the so-called scientific theory of eugenics, or any other fashion in which it was a scientific theory.
5) Crichton brings a lot of heat, but no light and no substance.

1) I believe in DUI laws, and other similar laws that were enacted to punish the negative effects of drug use. I'm not really sure if I support possession, alcohol restrictions, and the like.
2) Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and similar laws in 27 other states can be traced to eugenics
3) The case is clear that the Nazis loved and implemented the American inspired eugenic movement within Germany. They just took it to its natural and horrific conclusion by killing the mentally ill, the elderly, and the "genetically inferior." Also thousands of sterilizations (in the US and Germany) occurred in the name of the "science" of eugenics. Here is a eugenic timeline
Abortion is a remnant of the eugenics movement as it targets inner city blacks.
4) Mengel's twin experiments for one:

A special recipient of Rockefeller funding was the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics in Berlin. For decades, American eugenicists had craved twins to advance their research into heredity. The Institute was now prepared to undertake such research on an unprecedented level. On May 13, 1932, the Rockefeller Foundation in New York dispatched a radiogram to its Paris office: JUNE MEETING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS OVER THREE YEAR PERIOD TO KWG INSTITUTE ANTHROPOLOGY FOR RESEARCH ON TWINS AND EFFECTS ON LATER GENERATIONS OF SUBSTANCES TOXIC FOR GERM PLASM.

At the time of Rockefeller's endowment, Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, a hero in American eugenics circles, functioned as a head of the Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. Rockefeller funding of that Institute continued both directly and through other research conduits during Verschuer's early tenure. In 1935, Verschuer left the Institute to form a rival eugenics facility in Frankfurt that was much heralded in the American eugenic press. Research on twins in the Third Reich exploded, backed up by government decrees. Verschuer wrote in Der Erbarzt, a eugenic doctor's journal he edited, that Germany's war would yield a "total solution to the Jewish problem."

Verschuer had a long-time assistant. His name was Josef Mengele. On May 30, 1943, Mengele arrived at Auschwitz. Verschuer notified the German Research Society, "My assistant, Dr. Josef Mengele (M.D., Ph.D.) joined me in this branch of research. He is presently employed as Hauptsturmführer [captain] and camp physician in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Anthropological testing of the most diverse racial groups in this concentration camp is being carried out with permission of the SS Reichsführer [Himmler]."

Josef Mengele began searching the boxcar arrivals for twins. When he found them, he performed beastly experiments, scrupulously wrote up the reports and sent the paperwork back to Verschuer's institute for evaluation. Often, cadavers, eyes and other body parts were also dispatched to Berlin's eugenic institutes.

5) You can read the rest of Crichton's essay here

 

[One Brow]

Aborted? You're disingenuous and are putting words into my mouth again.

Offering my own description of the attempt is not putting words into your mouth. Of course, I'm presuming you're not so egomaniacal that you think every description of a conversation must be a description of yours.

I didn't appreciate your intellectual dishonesty so I ignored you.

You mean, the intelluctual dishonesty involved in saying that "common sense" is not a justification? Sorry, that cold-stone honesty. The dishonesty is pretending you can prove a position is appropriate by appealing to "common sense".

I prefer polite company open to discussion.

I am unfailingly polite to posters, just nor their ideas. I'm open to discussion, if you have something behind it to discuss.

Sorry.

Yes, but I know you can do better, if you try.

Do you believe evolution divides one species into two based on advantageous traits?

Actually, I don't think I've heard of that one. I've read up on theories of speciation by geographical distance, by chronological separation (for example, a few 17-year cicadas pupate for an extra year and wind up in a distinct breeding population), by sexual selection, and similar factors to that, but I have not heard of speciaiton based on advantageous traits. Do you have an example of that? Or, did you mean that it doesn't happen?

See where this goes? It's not exactly a controversial notion.

No, I don't see where any of the usual theories of speciation, nor one from selective advantages, is the equivalent of racism in biological evolution. You'll have to lay that out for me a bit more, if you don't mind.

 

[One Brow]

1) I believe in DUI laws, and other similar laws that were enacted to punish the negative effects of drug use. I'm not really sure if I support possession, alcohol restrictions, and the like.

My apologies for the mischaracterization. In the future I will endeavor to avoid assiging that position to you, in particular, as opposed to conservatives in general.

2) Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and similar laws in 27 other states can be traced to eugenics

Virginia banned all interracial marriage, using the "one-drop" rule, in 1691. How did that come from the eugenics movement, do you think?

They did add sterilization in 1924, though. But that's not a law about marriages.

3) The case is clear that the Nazis loved and implemented the American inspired eugenic movement within Germany.

Without eugenics, no Holocaust? Seriously? Keep in mind that for the purposes of eugenics, all they needed to do was sterilize people, not kill them.

Abortion is a remnant of the eugenics movement as it targets inner city blacks.

So, abortions being more prevalent among the poor is supposed to work against them?

4) Mengel's twin experiments for one:

There was no theory for Mengele's experiment to come from. A theory means an tested explanation that makes predicitons, but I didn't see that for Mengele's work.

5) You can read the rest of Crichton's essay

Yes, definitely all heat, no light.

 

[franklin]

Offering my own description of the attempt is not putting words into your mouth. Of course, I'm presuming you're not so egomaniacal that you think every description of a conversation must be a description of yours.

You can play stupid all you want. You know you put words into my mouth. It's that or you are the king of missing the point time and again. Take your pick.

You mean, the intelluctual dishonesty involved in saying that "common sense" is not a justification? Sorry, that cold-stone honesty. The dishonesty is pretending you can prove a position is appropriate by appealing to "common sense".

We have this tradition of not having to prove, quote, source or Sitation things that are widely known and understood. In other words, common sense. If it's such a radical notion then it's your job to disprove it, not the generations of scientists, psychologists, statisticians, and sociologists who've formulated the foundation. And again, I wasn't trying to prove it. You either missed the point entirely, where others can easily understand, or you're being intellectually dishonest. Take your pick.

Actually, I don't think I've heard of that one. I've read up on theories of speciation by geographical distance, by chronological separation (for example, a few 17-year cicadas pupate for an extra year and wind up in a distinct breeding population), by sexual selection, and similar factors to that, but I have not heard of speciaiton based on advantageous traits. Do you have an example of that? Or, did you mean that it doesn't happen?

You're arguing definitions to avoid the point? Your examples are fine. Let us use them. Exclude "advantageous" and insert "geographical distance". The discussion is unchanged.

If you really care about the tangent, look into adaptive radiation (new, advantageous trait leads to a quick rise of many new species from one common ancestor).

No, I don't see where any of the usual theories of speciation, nor one from selective advantages, is the equivalent of racism in biological evolution. You'll have to lay that out for me a bit more, if you don't mind.

Within the process itself? Of course not. You're smart enough to figure this one out on your own. I've wasted enough time with something that doesn't really matter all that much.