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.
you do know Hitler admired The United States Eugenics program right? Yeah I know, its not taught in our schools. It should be. discovering it was one of the things that truly taught me that the victors write the history books.
Note that no one ever advocates against using a telephone due to Alexander Graham Bell's involvement in the eugenics movement.
I've heard Republicans on this thread say far worse especially considering that Sanger wrote this in 1919, not 2015!
How terrible it would have been if she had had her way!
Think about it, no Baltimore or Ferguson and all the wonderful diversity we would be missing out on! The very thought of living in a whole white world makes me want to cry.
Note that no one ever advocates against using a telephone due to Alexander Graham Bell's involvement in the eugenics movement.
Selective outrage as per usual.
or John Maynard Keynes, who is viewed as a sort of modern day diety so far as I can tell.
Personally, I don't have a huge problem with eugenics, there's a huge range of encouraging/discouraging people to breed that can be applied. Some, of course, are more coercive than others. Where the fault lies is in thinking that you get good results. In a lot of cases, if the genetic condition was 100% bad, it would have been bred out of humans a long time ago...there probably is a good reason for that set of traits to exist.
The real problem is that there are way way too many people, not that .00001% of them have some inheritable health problem.
Currently, the world is going through a slow motion invasion based on demographics in which the losing parties are culpable. Simply look at the history of population levels in the Middle East to see where a lot of their problems come from (Egypt, for example, has gone from 19M in 1947 to 84M today). If you happen to live next door, have a lot of good stuff, and not as many people, you've got a problem.
or John Maynard Keynes, who is viewed as a sort of modern day diety so far as I can tell.
Personally, I don't have a huge problem with eugenics, there's a huge range of encouraging/discouraging people to breed that can be applied. Some, of course, are more coercive than others. Where the fault lies is in thinking that you get good results. In a lot of cases, if the genetic condition was 100% bad, it would have been bred out of humans a long time ago...there probably is a good reason for that set of traits to exist.
The real problem is that there are way way too many people, not that .00001% of them have some inheritable health problem.
Currently, the world is going through a slow motion invasion based on demographics in which the losing parties are culpable. Simply look at the history of population levels in the Middle East to see where a lot of their problems come from (Egypt, for example, has gone from 19M in 1947 to 84M today). If you happen to live next door, have a lot of good stuff, and not as many people, you've got a problem.
Agreed. Tho to be fair; more and more "Muslim" countries have fast dropping birthrates. Iran's is less than 2 kids per woman in 2015.
"a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people."
You mean Baltimore?
Or the RNC convention. Either one
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.