Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right; "eugenics" is inevitable. "Eugenics" is not a singular action; it applies to all sorts of potential trends and actions. Older models of eugenics were very blunt, and mainly focused on the "desirability" of the parents. If the parents were not desirable to society, then most likely, their children would follow the same path, so it would benefit society to prevent those children from entering the world in the first place.
But that's not "technologized" at all. Technological eugenics will be much more targeted and precise. Genetic manipulation is harder than many had expected because a lot of human traits aren't produced by any single gene - they are "polygenic," and arise from many different genes interacting with one another. But as those interactions are untangled, it will be possible to tweak the genome in specific ways.
Most parents will leap at these opportunities. That will become a much more powerful form of eugenics, especially since it will be driven by individual parents rather than a state agency.
Are you arguing that society itself would clean up poverty if the number of people with in it were small enough to contain
or
That poverty would eliminate itself with in 2 generations if everyone in it only had one kid ?
I don't know about his/her argument, but if we as taxpayers didn't enable them to keep pumping out children they can't support, it would probably take care of itself in time.
Single motherhood--especially among certain demographic groups--is their ticket to welfare, subsidized housing, WIC and food stamps. The more babies they have, the more benefits they get.
If we limited that to no subsidized housing, very limited food stamps, no WIC and only one child entitled to subsidizing by the US taxpayer for a short time, this wouldn't keep happening.
The ignorant poor pumping out yet another generation of ignorant poor in a vicious cycle of poverty would slow down if we didn't subsidize the births with Medicaid and then years of taxpayer support for these kids they cannot and won't support on their own.
Bill Buckley is rolling over in his grave at the depths to which his beloved National Review has sunken.
Ain't that the truth. I was (and still am) an ardent fan of W.H. Buckley. It's a crying shame to see the National Review fall from a pillar of journalistic insightfulness and prowess to an abject toilet read for the degenerates that now pretend to be a 'conservative'.
I have not read the National Review for at least 7 years now. It's not worth the money.
Last edited by Threerun; 09-28-2014 at 02:27 PM..
Reason: Removed 'mongrels' as descriptive word. Not fair to dogs.
The original Progressive Party from 1912 to 1924 consisted entirely of former Republicans, including Theodore Roosevelt. They were not leftists by any stretch of the imagination. Nor was Wilson part of the Progressive Party, or supported by the Progressive Party.
You have been brainwashed into believing that liberal freaks today are somehow "progressive." They are not, and never have been. They simply call themselves "progressive" or "liberal" in an attempt to fool people into believing they are something they clearly are not. Apparently it worked with you.
Sanger, Wilson, and FDR are classic examples of leftist bigots. Eugenics was alive and well during the 1930s and 1940s while FDR was President. In fact, FDR's Tennessee Valley Authority, which included the forced sterilization of "undesirables," was suppose to be the model for the rest of the nation. Thankfully, the fascist prick died before it could be implemented.
At no time did Theodore Roosevelt, or any member of the original Progressive Party, support or condone eugenics. You have been indoctrinated by the left into believing something that is not even remotely true.
Bizarre!
Nowhere did I mention Teddy Roosevelt nor the Progressive party. I only made reference to the generic progressive movement. Then as now, the terminology was imperfect. Both Roosevelt and Wilson were labeled as progressives. They shared some ideas and diverged on others. They ran against each other in 1912; Wilson won.
You're getting yourself hung up in semantics and nomenclature. Both a Rick Santorum and a Rand Paul today are labeled as "conservative," even though if you put them in a room together, they would likely end up in a screaming match.
I would agree that "liberal" and "progressive" as used today are misnomers, but that's a whole 'nother topic.
This thread is the official point where I stop being frustrated by the idiocy of this board and burst out laughing.
Next up:
'Liberals found to be the cause of all cancer'
'Satan is real... and he's a liberal'
'Why God hates liberals-- a lesson in common sense'
Seriously, is there any negative phenomenon in the entire world that Liberals are not the cause of?
Your post is a good example of projection. You don't address the topic. You don't for, example, address either the quote from Weddington or from Justice Ginsberg. In essence all you do is name-call ('idiocy'). You make zero points whatsoever. Projection.
Ain't that the truth. I was (and still am) an ardent fan of W.H. Buckley. It's a crying shame to see the National Review fall from a pillar of journalistic insightfulness and prowess to an abject toilet read for the degenerates that now pretend to be a 'conservative'.
I have not read the National Review for at least 7 years now. It's not worth the money.
LOL--you haven't read it in 7 years, but you are willing and able to critique it?
Kevin Williamson to me is one of the brightest bulbs on the conservative journalism scene today. He's constantly coming up with angles that nobody else sees. We only Whisper It is a good example of that. (and BTW the title is inspired. Other writers dream of coming up w/ stuff like that). ‘We Only Whisper It’ | National Review Online
How come the Teabaggers love bringing up stuff "progressives" did 100 years ago but kick and scream when anyone brings up conservative efforts preserving segregation, denying gay rights or keeping minorities from voting far more recently? The oversensitive conservative children get mad and throw a hissy fit when their little delicate world views are challenged, as they are indefensible by logical argument.
There has never been any widespread "conservative efforts preserving segregation."
100 years ago Wilson segregated the US military and federal work force. He was a progressive, left of center Democrat.
In the 50's and 60's the efforts to preserve Jim Crow laws in the South was again led by left of center Democrats--people like Robert Byrd, Harry Byrd, Sam Ervin, and J. William Fulbright. It was conservative Republican Eisenhower who sent in the National Guard to de-segregate Arkansas public schools, and Dem. Gov. Orval Faubus who tried to preserve segregation even after Brown vs. Bd. of Ed.
There has never been any widespread "conservative efforts preserving segregation."
100 years ago Wilson segregated the US military and federal work force. He was a progressive, left of center Democrat.
In the 50's and 60's the efforts to preserve Jim Crow laws in the South was again led by left of center Democrats--people like Robert Byrd, Harry Byrd, Sam Ervin, and J. William Fulbright. It was conservative Republican Eisenhower who sent in the National Guard to de-segregate Arkansas public schools, and Dem. Gov. Orval Faubus who tried to preserve segregation even after Brown vs. Bd. of Ed.
Again bringing up a false past of supposed "progressives". None of those people you named were left of center. It was conservative Democrats and Republicans like the aforementioned, Strom Thurmond, Jim Eastland, Richard Russell and George Wallace who supported segregation. It's shameful that you have to lie or perhaps sad that Rush had programmed you to the point where you know nothing about the truth.
The government shouldn't incentivize having more children than people can afford. That's a lot different than preventing them from having babies...or assisting them in killing them.
That is exactly what the supreme court justice was saying.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,551 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6039
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Bizarre!
Nowhere did I mention Teddy Roosevelt nor the Progressive party. I only made reference to the generic progressive movement. Then as now, the terminology was imperfect. Both Roosevelt and Wilson were labeled as progressives. They shared some ideas and diverged on others. They ran against each other in 1912; Wilson won.
You're getting yourself hung up in semantics and nomenclature. Both a Rick Santorum and a Rand Paul today are labeled as "conservative," even though if you put them in a room together, they would likely end up in a screaming match.
I would agree that "liberal" and "progressive" as used today are misnomers, but that's a whole 'nother topic.
Doesnt that then negate your entire thread seeing as a Progressive ideology in say the 1920's isnt equal to 2014 ???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
