What's new

The Battle Begins

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.

Looking back at my life, I miss the point other people are making all the time. I never deliberately claim them to have said words they did not say (although I will deliberately draw implications from their words they did not draw, and have through missing the point or misunderstanding accidentally attributed to them thins they did not mean to say). So, I'll go with "king of missing the point time and again". I apologize for my apparent inability to get your point. If you try again, I will make an effort to be more careful.

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.

The tradition of common sense has led us down at least as many wrong roads as correct roads. Much of the scientific revolution of the 16th century, and following, was initiated by the idea that experiementation, not common sense, would led to correct results. Many current mathematical and physical results defy common sense (Banach-Tarski paradox, Ladder paradox). So for the scientists and statisticians, at least, invoking common sense as a proof is a bad justification. I suspects many psychologists and sociologists make more use of it, because their fields are so much more complex, but that's a dependency, not a testimonial. Common sense is not a reliable justification for a position.

You're arguing definitions to avoid the point?

I apologize if it came across that way. I was really interested in what you meant.

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).

I have read up on adaptive radiation, and combined with even just sexual selection, the opportunity to occupy broad new ecological niches could certaihly lead to speciaiton. I don't see the connection to racism. Are you saying racism is just sexual selection? I would strongly disagree. Although sexual exclusion is certainly a factor in racism, there are many other, non-evolutionary components.

I've wasted enough time with something that doesn't really matter all that much.

As you wish. My loss.
 
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.

Okay, I will concede that there already were laws against interracial marriage, but that the eugenic movement added to/reaffirmed or created new ones (for certain states)

To prevent further pollution of the country's collective "germ-plasm" and a subsequent contamination of the white race, eugenicists argued for even tighter restrictions against racial mixing. Their efforts focused on new legal definitions of who could qualify to receive a marriage license as a "white" person.

When The Racial Integrity Act became law, it included provisions requiring racial registration certificates and strict definitions of who would qualify as members of the white race. It emphasized the "scientific" basis of race assessment, and the "dysgenic" dangers of race mixing. Its major provision declared: "It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. …the term "white person" shall apply only to such person as has no trace whatever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons…."​

Eugenic marriage laws were more than just race based. Here is a 1913 article on Pennsylvania (one of many states) passing a Eugenic Marriage Law focused on refusing marriage licenses to diseased individuals(tuberculosis), imbecilic, mentally ill, epileptic, former male inmates, etc. in order to preserve good "gene plasm" in the population.

Here is a whole list of all eugenic marriage laws:

https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/11479/oliver,mp22_20070726125802.pdf?sequence=4
 
Last edited:
Okay, I will concede that there already were laws against interracial marriage, but that the eugenic movement added to/reaffirmed or created new ones (for certain states).

You proved that point in good style. I acknowledge you were correct in saying the eugenics movement affected state marriage laws in the US.
 
So the Admin's are the only ones who are gonna take a hit when the government steps in and decreases tuition?

Realized I didn't respond to this.

A) I don't advocate government cost control of higher education.

B) I do believe that the easy availability of government-backed loans has contributed significantly to education cost-growth.

C) I mostly blame US News and World Report for runaway cost growth.

D) Faculty salary hasn't grown at the rate of tuition. I suspect if tuition was capped through intervention or market forces you'd see significantly less campus construction/renovation, less brand-building expenses, and probably significantly less library cost.

The other eugenics discussion is just a sideshow. Eugenics is not an inevitable result of the belief in scientific progress or being willing to subscribe oneself to some consensus scientific thought after researching the issues. Appeal to non-scientific thoughts and judeo-christian ethics has led to just as much, if not more, inhumane treatment of others as anything like Eugenics. Even Millsapa's own source acknowledges that one of the rhetorical tactics used to support the Eugenics movement was religious in nature: "It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort."

That there was a Eugenics movement is no more an argument for saying that all scientific consensus is bad than the existence of the Spanish Inquisition is an argument for saying that all religion is bad.
 
1)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.
2)So, abortions being more prevalent among the poor is supposed to work against them?
3)There was no theory for Mengele's experiment to come from. A theory means an tested explanation that makes predictions, but I didn't see that for Mengele's work.

1) Essentially. "All they need to do" was sterilize but euthanasia was one means suggested for "applied eugenics" in America. * Eugenic experiments on mental patients supplied the means to carry out the holocaust. **

*
The eugenicists hoped to neutralize the viability of 10 percent of the population at a sweep, until none were left except themselves.

Eighteen solutions were explored in a Carnegie-supported 1911 "Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Section of the American Breeder's Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population." Point eight was euthanasia.

The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in America was a "lethal chamber" or public locally operated gas chambers. In 1918, Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during World War I, co-wrote the widely used textbook, Applied Eugenics, which argued, "From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution… Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated." Applied Eugenics also devoted a chapter to "Lethal Selection," which operated "through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency."

Eugenic breeders believed American society was not ready to implement an organized lethal solution. But many mental institutions and doctors practiced improvised medical lethality and passive euthanasia on their own. One institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk from tubercular cows believing a eugenically strong individual would be immune. Thirty to forty percent annual death rates resulted at Lincoln. Some doctors practiced passive eugenicide one newborn infant at a time. Others doctors at mental institutions engaged in lethal neglect.​

** In 1941 German psychiatrists train the Nazi SS on mass murder techniques they learned from experimenting on mental patients.

_____________

2) I count abortions towards the deaths that can be attributed to eugenics. I thought race was the key quality that worked against it, but how could you think it was fine to kill off children because their parents were poor? Some of the most brilliant people this world has to offer were born into poverty.
____________

3) Your definition of a “scientific” theory is inaccurate or incomplete because prophecies predict the future and are “tested“ when they do or do not come to fruition.

Eugenics theory: The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones --- the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the "feeble minded."

Let me make myself clear. I’m not saying eugenics is actually science, I’m saying the scientific community and/or “science minded” individuals embraced it as science so I called it consensus “science.”

Here are some of the definitions that bares this out:

Francis Galton…Darwin’s cousin (pioneer of the new scientific study of eugenics…social Darwinism.): “The study of all the agencies under social control which may improve or impair the inborn qualities of future generation of man physically or mentally.”

Davenport: “A branch of applied biology which looks toward improvement of racial qualities.”

Victor C. Vaugh: “ The generation and reproduction of good and referring to the human race.”

Dr. Morris Siefel: “The science of race.”
 
Realized I didn't respond to this.

A) I don't advocate government cost control of higher education.

B) I do believe that the easy availability of government-backed loans has contributed significantly to education cost-growth.

C) I mostly blame US News and World Report for runaway cost growth.

D) Faculty salary hasn't grown at the rate of tuition. I suspect if tuition was capped through intervention or market forces you'd see significantly less campus construction/renovation, less brand-building expenses, and probably significantly less library cost.

The other eugenics discussion is just a sideshow. Eugenics is not an inevitable result of the belief in scientific progress or being willing to subscribe oneself to some consensus scientific thought after researching the issues. Appeal to non-scientific thoughts and judeo-christian ethics has led to just as much, if not more, inhumane treatment of others as anything like Eugenics. Even Millsapa's own source acknowledges that one of the rhetorical tactics used to support the Eugenics movement was religious in nature: "It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort."

That there was a Eugenics movement is no more an argument for saying that all scientific consensus is bad than the existence of the Spanish Inquisition is an argument for saying that all religion is bad.

A) Okay, but that was proposed as a solution to mitigate the growth in demand issues that occur in socialized medicine.
B) I agree and you could add grants to that as well.
D) Doesn't really matter one way or the other. That was just an unimportant tangent to the main point of the tragedy of the commons applied to doctors within socialized medicine.

This passage notes the enthusiasm for the movement from progressives:

There was overt racism in this movement, exemplified by texts such as "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy" by American author Lothrop Stoddard. But, at the time, racism was considered an unremarkable aspect of the effort to attain a marvelous goal --- the improvement of humankind in the future. It was this avant-garde notion that attracted the most liberal and progressive minds of a generation. California was one of twenty-nine American states to pass laws allowing sterilization, but it proved the most-forward-looking and enthusiastic --- more sterilizations were carried out in California than anywhere else in America.​

I'm guessing liberals/regressives used the rhetoric tactic concerning the support of Jesus. Liberals think a lame appeal to Jesus is an effective way to gain Christian support for their policies and causes, but I don't think it works. I've heard idiotic declarations from liberals such as:

Jesus was a liberal.
Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a Governor.
Jesus wouldn't approve of guns.
Etc.
 
1) Essentially. "All they need to do" was sterilize but euthanasia was one means suggested for "applied eugenics" in America. * Eugenic experiments on mental patients supplied the means to carry out the holocaust. **

People have been committing genocide for centuries. Eugenecists didn't start the concept, and certainly didn't give the idea to the Nazis. Now, I'm perfectly willing to accept that the Nazis tested techniques on small groups before they applied them to larger groups, but that's a feature of efficiency, not eugenics.

2) I count abortions towards the deaths that can be attributed to eugenics.

You can count things any way you want, but if youcan't provide sound reasoning for the counting, it makes little sense.

..., but how could you think it was fine to kill off children because their parents were poor?

What does this have to do with abortion? Did you mean, "how you could allow mothers to preserve their own rights at the expense of their children's lives, when they are poor"? I think the poor have the same rights as the wealthy, in that regard.

Some of the most brilliant people this world has to offer were born into poverty.

Every abortion is a tragedy, regardless of whether the child would have been brilliant or not. How shameful that you would use an attribute like brilliance as if it would affect teh worth of the person inside. I wonder if you have a little eugenicist inclinaiton inside you? That would explain your eagerness to connect them with the most evil government of the past 100 years.

3) Your definition of a “scientific” theory is inaccurate or incomplete because prophecies predict the future and are “tested“ when they do or do not come to fruition.

I don't think there is a compete definition for a scientific theory that fits every theory perfectly. However, even in regard to the imperfect theory I gave, prophecies are not explanations.

Eugenics theory: The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones --- the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the "feeble minded."

Again, completely lacking in tested explanations with predictive power.

Let me make myself clear. I’m not saying eugenics is actually science, I’m saying the scientific community and/or “science minded” individuals embraced it as science so I called it consensus “science.”

I agree that several science-minded individuals, including actual scientists, embraced eugenics. Even today, science-minded individuals, including actual scientists, embrace all kinds of crazy and hateful things. That doesn't make any particular crazy or hateful thing a scientific consensus. For one thing, to be a scientific consensus, you have a be a result of science, not simply an opinion of some scientists.
 
Liberals think a lame appeal to Jesus is an effective way to gain Christian support for their policies and causes, but I don't think it works.

I agree. Jesus always supports exactly what the individual invoking Jesus thinks should be supported.

However, if you think it was necessary for progressives to try to persuade conservatives to the cause of eugenics, you are truly, truly kidding yourself. The eugenics movement cut across all political boundaries and persuasions.
 
People have been committing genocide for centuries. Eugenecists didn't start the concept, and certainly didn't give the idea to the Nazis. Now, I'm perfectly willing to accept that the Nazis tested techniques on small groups before they applied them to larger groups, but that's a feature of efficiency, not eugenics.

Nazi Doctors were eugenicists. Hitler used this consensus "science" to gain support from reasonable "science minded" Germans.

Hitler studied American eugenics laws. He tried to legitimize his anti-Semitism by medicalizing it, and wrapping it in the more palatable pseudoscientific facade of eugenics. Hitler was able to recruit more followers among reasonable Germans by claiming that science was on his side. While Hitler's race hatred sprung from his own mind, the intellectual outlines of the eugenics Hitler adopted in 1924 were made in America.

During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists. In Mein Kampf, published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."

Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."

Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenic leader Madison Grant calling his race-based eugenics book, The Passing of the Great Race his "bible."

Hitler's struggle for a superior race would be a mad crusade for a Master Race. Now, the American term "Nordic" was freely exchanged with "Germanic" or "Aryan." Race science, racial purity and racial dominance became the driving force behind Hitler's Nazism. Nazi eugenics would ultimately dictate who would be persecuted in a Reich-dominated Europe, how people would live, and how they would die. Nazi doctors would become the unseen generals in Hitler's war against the Jews and other Europeans deemed inferior. Doctors would create the science, devise the eugenic formulas, and even hand-select the victims for sterilization, euthanasia and mass extermination.

I agree that several science-minded individuals, including actual scientists, embraced eugenics. Even today, science-minded individuals, including actual scientists, embrace all kinds of crazy and hateful things. That doesn't make any particular crazy or hateful thing a scientific consensus. For one thing, to be a scientific consensus, you have a be a result of science, not simply an opinion of some scientists.

The very definition of consensus "science" is that is simply the majority opinion or belief of scientists...or proclaimed to be.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.​
 
I agree. Jesus always supports exactly what the individual invoking Jesus thinks should be supported.

However, if you think it was necessary for progressives to try to persuade conservatives to the cause of eugenics, you are truly, truly kidding yourself. The eugenics movement cut across all political boundaries and persuasions.

So you are equating Christians to conservatives? I think a lot of people on this forum would have a problem with that.

I don't disagree with your last line.

The whole discussion came about because of the relationship between morality and law. It ain't just Judeo-Christian morality that influenced our laws.

Liberals use the language of science (consensus "science") to persuade people to put their horrific ideas into law.
 
Nazi Doctors were eugenicists. Hitler used this consensus "science" to gain support from reasonable "science minded" Germans.

If eugenics had not been available, hitler would have used politics, religion, or whatever else was handy. People love being given rationalization for the hate they already possess. No sense blaiming the ratinalization.

The very definition of consensus "science" is that is simply the majority opinion or belief of scientists...or proclaimed to be.

The majority of scientists are monotheists, yet you never hear monotheism as being consensus science. Nor is Chriton any more correct the second time around. Scientific consensus comes after the results are in, not before.
 
So you are equating Christians to conservatives?

Do you practice non-sequturs at night before you go to bed? Obviously the progressive who invoked Jesus were Christians.

Liberals use the language of science (consensus "science") to persuade people to put their horrific ideas into law.

Eugenicists, who were racists of both liberal and conservative persuation, used scientific-sounding language yo put horrific ideas into law. Why did you exclude conservatives while implicating all liberals, except to mislead?
 
Nice to hear that from you, but why would you consider it a tragedy if you think it is just a mass of cells?

I think you're just a mass of cells, but it would still be a tragedy if someone killed you. I also think I'm just a mass of cells, but I'm not so sure of the tragedy if I'm killed.
 
If eugenics had not been available, hitler would have used politics, religion, or whatever else was handy. People love being given rationalization for the hate they already possess. No sense blaiming the ratinalization.

Eugenicists, and their pseudoscience, were directly responsible for the death of millions.
"Doctors would create the science, devise the eugenic formulas, and even hand-select the victims for sterilization, euthanasia and mass extermination."
This is another reason I'm opposed to socialized medicine. I know bad liberal ideas never die.
 
The majority of scientists are monotheists, yet you never hear monotheism as being consensus science. Nor is Chriton any more correct the second time around. Scientific consensus comes after the results are in, not before.

The whole reason consensus is invoked is because there is no reproducible results. Darwiniacs, Warmites, Eugenicists all fit into this category.
 
After digging into Cain a bit, I must say he is very likeable to me. Too bad he has the huge black mark of being black.......er......I mean......being former chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank because I really enjoyed doing some youtubing of him and watching/listening to some of his interviews/speeches. Love the rhetoric. But bankster connections with seemingly no desire to separate himself from them? I can't go there. Definitely can see why he is making some noise though, and if I was forced to vote for a #2 guy out of the current GOP crop, it would most likely be him. And I also now understand why Trump bowed out of the debate circuit, beyond the whole thing probably just being a media blitz, because Cain is every bit as to the point.
 
herman_cain_prez-0221.jpg
 
Back
Top