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 said, "Just like the inbred aristocrats. You can't breed a superior race."... That seemed to imply that the aristocrats were trying to breed a superior race.
There was no such implication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
As for inbreeding, keep in mind that humans are 99.9% identical. Or in simple-terms, humans are 99.9% inbred. Moreover, while most people are familiar with inbreeding-depression, very few have heard of outbreeding-depression.
Can you explain to me scientifically what inbreeding-depression is, what causes it, and how much genetic diversity you need to prevent it. Likewise can you explain to me scientifically what causes outbreeding-depression, and what amount of genetic variation would create the most fit offspring?
I don't see any connection between that and this thread.
"Savages we call them, because their Manners differ from ours, which we think the Perfection of Civility. They think the same of theirs." - Benjamin Franklin
"Savage" really just means living in the woods. But the connotation has always been that they are wild and unsocialized, which of course is completely untrue. Franklin must have noticed that from observing the Native Americans. They were not "savages," as that word is often used.
Christians have historically looked down at non-Christians and tried to convert them. Typical human nature, to think your own religion and your own ways are the best.
None of that is true. All humans are social animals and all human societies that have been studied had laws. The idea that ancient and tribal people were "savage" is a modern Christian myth.
"Savage" really just means living in the woods. But the connotation has always been that they are wild and unsocialized, which of course is completely untrue. Franklin must have noticed that from observing the Native Americans. They were not "savages," as that word is often used.
Christians have historically looked down at non-Christians and tried to convert them. Typical human nature, to think your own religion and your own ways are the best.
You would have lasted about 5 mins in a world void of Christian values. Ironic.
Every time "good vs evil" is mentioned, Hitler's name comes up. Every time I try to explain that we demonize our enemies while we idealize our selves, somebody immediately brings up Hitler. Hitler was evil, those who fought him were on the side of good, it was absolutely a case of good vs. evil.
I think that is debatable. First of all, I am 100% Jewish and I am terrified of neo-Nazis. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, just to get that out of the way. But I'm sure someone will accuse me of being one anyway.
Hitler was motivated by the idea of eugenics -- of breeding our own human species like we breed other animals, to create a superior race.
Eugenics was a respected scientific theory back then, and was especially popular in the US. Probably more popular here than in Germany.
Eugenics is actually a stupid and wrong theory, but then lots of smart people believed in it. If you are breeding dogs, for example, you can makes some breeds smarter than others, to a degree, but it's very limited. You will never create a dog breed that does calculus or sings opera.
Similarly, no amount of human breeding will ever create a super race. The idea was based on false interpretations of Darwin's evolution theory. Well anyway, not to get deep into biology, the point is eugenics was considered scientific and now it is not.
Was Hitler more evil than eugenics believers in the US (and many other countries)? Well it's true Hitler became a mass murderer and mass murderers are evil. But most dictators are mass murderers.
I am trying to say that yeah, Hitler was pretty bad, but he was not evil in any special way. His racist theories were well accepted at that time. Considering the context of the time, the severe problems Germany was having, the scientific respectability of the eugenics theory, Hitler was a product of his time and place.
And I never hear Stalin mentioned in the good vs evil context, only Hitler. But Stalin was the same kind of murderer as Hitler. He just didn't care if you were white or black or Jewish or Christian, he would kill you anyway.
I hope that answers your questions about good vs evil.
I'm not following.
What I will say is the rhetoric Adolph Hitler used ("we don't want Jews in control of anything") is identical to the rhetoric democrats use today ("we don't want whites in control of anything").
And that, in most clear-headed Americans' eyes, makes democrats very dangerous and not to be trusted in any way.
Those he deemed "unworthy" were subjected to the torturous deadly medical experiments, in the same manner as animals are. So it was not your "Eugenics as usual."
So yes he was an ultimate evil.
Stalin on another hand was simply in charge of the state that he wanted to make indestructible.
This was requiring the "iron discipline and obedience," and that was the major source of the terror unleashed on its population.
While he was a racist (among many other despicable traits), he mostly used racism to propel his actual ambition: Nationalist expansion. The inferiority of the Slavic races was the propaganda used to justify his Eastward ambitions. The expansion of the Reich (with him at the helm, of course) was the main motive, the racism was fuel to help that process along. Of course, the Nazis eventually started believing their own BS - victory in the East was all but certain, because the inferior Slavs wouldnt be able to stand up against the Master Race. Big mistake - but that's what happens when you internalize your own propaganda.
As for supremely evil, well - there's no lack of tinpot agitators who'd out-Hitler him, given half a chance. The reason he's the Western World's go-to scary figure is because Germany was a modern country with free elections, free press and a population that, by all contemporary standards, was well-educated, cultured, seeped in Western tradition. And they completely lost their minds.
He's the example we should heed, because we share more societal DNA with 1920s Germany than with Russia or Cambodia or China etc.
Yes it's true that Nazi Germany should always be a warning for us. But thinking Hitler was the only racist, or the only murdering dictator, is irrational.
Hitler is used to win arguments, to demonize and to discredit. Democrats love to portray Republicans as Nazis, and of course that was their main accusation against Trump. So they had to twist reality to fit their mythology.
Trump does not resemble Hitler, except that both were powerful politicians, loved by many and hated by many.
Trump was not a murderer. He did not get us into any big wars. He was a big mouth with a big ego. That was his crime.
Who needs to reference Hitler when you have elected Democrat politicians saying and threatening things as bad and worse as he did?
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.
