WC's Extreme Views

[ElNono]

So Hitler and Obama clearly overlap because of a 2008 "RockTheFacts" YouTube. But the fact that the idea presented here matches to a T the idea of the person that coined the "eugenics" term it's a mere coincidence.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Notices this says "and" genetic worth.

How many people know what "and" means?

So what? You obviously have no idea of the history of eugenics from the 18th century but instead rely on a simple definition of it and hope that sticks. When it comes down to it, 'race' as we consider it does not have a genetic justification so under your interpretation neutering hispanics would not be considered eugenics.

Furthermore, dimwit, the word and means both not one or the other. Apparently you do not understand what the word means. If anyone deserves to have their reproductive rights removed, its you.

[Wild Cobra]

So what? You obviously have no idea of the history of eugenics from the 18th century but instead rely on a simple definition of it and hope that sticks.

I don't give a rats ass about what others write about their concept or history of eugenics. The technical definition makes it genetic. Period. I am not using genetics as a qualifier.

Please pick up a dictionary. Have someone hit you over the head a few times. Maybe you'll learn something.

Furthermore, dimwit, the word and means both not one or the other.

No Sherlock!

You're learning!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't give a rats ass about what others write about their concept or history of eugenics. The technical definition makes it genetic. Period. I am not using genetics as a qualifier.

Please pick up a dictionary. Have someone hit you over the head a few times. Maybe you'll learn something.

No Sherlock!

You're learning!

The technical definition versus the interpretation of the guy that made up the term in the first place. Hmm.. Inventor of the term or the ST village idiot......

Lets go Emmerson and allow the reader be the judge.

And what technical definition? Make some more up please so i can make fun of your dumb ass some more.

[Wild Cobra]

The technical definition versus the interpretation of the guy that made up the term in the first place. Hmm.. Inventor of the term or the ST village idiot......

Lets go Emmerson and allow the reader be the judge.

And what technical definition? Make some more up please so i can make fun of your dumb ass some more.

Eugenics is to stop procreation of inherited traits, or to continue a line of good traits that are inherited. Inherited means genetic. That chart you provided says "and genetic worth." It doesn't say "or genetic worth."

I will no longer respond to you until you say something at least somewhat intelligent. The fun of exposing your stupidity is running thin.

[ElNono]

The technical definition versus the interpretation of the guy that made up the term in the first place. Hmm.. Inventor of the term or the ST village idiot......

Lets go Emmerson and allow the reader be the judge.

And what technical definition? Make some more up please so i can make fun of your dumb ass some more.

The guy that coined the term had no idea what he was talking about. Stop twisting his words.

[ElNono]

Being poor and staying poor is an inherited trait, apparently... one has to wonder why not just go straight with an abortion and kill that genetic anomaly.

I'm sure that after the mass abortions, and the cleansing of the gene pool, we can all be millionaires!

[Wild Cobra]

The guy that coined the term had no idea what he was talking about. Stop twisting his words.

From what I read of Emerson, he specifies "heredity."

[Wild Cobra]

Being poor and staying poor is an inherited trait, apparently... one has to wonder why not just go straight with an abortion and kill that genetic anomaly.

I'm sure that after the mass abortions, and the cleansing of the gene pool, we can all be millionaires!

Financial inheritance is not the same as biological inheritance. Heredity is different than inheritance. We are talking about biology when we talk about sterilization. Not wealth.

Please tell me you aren't as easily confused as Fuzzy is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

From what I read of Emerson, he specifies "heredity."

It wasnt Emmerson you godawful dip . Try again.

[Wild Cobra]

EUGENICS: ITS DEFINITION, SCOPE, AND AIMS
Francis Galton

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
Volume X; July, 1904; Number 1

first paragraph:

EUGENICS is the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage. The improvement of the inborn qualities, or stock, of some one human population will alone be discussed here.

definition: genic

gen·ic (jnk, jnk)
adj.
Of, relating to, produced by, or being genes or a gene.

[Wild Cobra]

It wasnt Emmerson you godawful dip . Try again.

Finding a mistake of mine qualifies for a response.

When I looked back, I thought you were referring to him. Still, eugenics always means genetic.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It wasnt Emmerson you godawful dip . Try again.

And this bears more discussion. My Emmerson comment was on his notion of reliance on self to come to decisions and determine truth. Its at the core of what Americans value.

Now what is obvious is that WC has no idea what he is talking about and is just making up. I just wonder if hes trolling or if he really is as dumb as he acts.

A guy named Galton made up the term 'eugenics' and at that time genetics was just in its infancy. They were trying to breed out undesirable traits and amongst other things they targeted the poor.

At that time they did not understand the specifics of how genetics work and that concepts like work ethic and race were not genetic traits.

Tying reproductive rights to government services is right up the alley of those that would eliminate the ability to reproduce those with traits they wanted eliminated. That the majority of this counties poor are minorities is besides the point.

WC is one of the most de able people I have ever had to encounter.

[ElNono]

I'm not confused.

[The Reckoning]

lol fuzzy blumpkins

[CuckingFunt]

LOL...

I was being attempting to be humorous with the stupidity as I see in of others.

It worked.

Not in the way you wanted, necessarily... but it worked.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

EUGENICS: ITS DEFINITION, SCOPE, AND AIMS
Francis Galton

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
Volume X; July, 1904; Number 1

first paragraph:


definition: genic

You do realize that you have proved my point with the first definition of eugenics as it not once contains the term genetics genes or anything else.

In fact it mentions race which biologically has no basis in genetics as it was coined before genes and DNA were even isolated and understood.

All of this is besides the point. You want to limit the breeding rights of the poor. If you think that its not deplorable because its not on the basis of race that just goes to show how de able you are.

As for the second definition: does the term 'contraband' have anything to do with music or groups of people? Or how about the word Eugene?

You suck at linguistics too.

[Wild Cobra]

You do realize that you have proved my point with the first definition of eugenics as it not once contains the term genetics genes or anything else.

In fact it mentions race which biologically has no basis in genetics as it was coined before genes and DNA were even isolated and understood.

All of this is besides the point. You want to limit the breeding rights of the poor. If you think that its not deplorable because its not on the basis of race that just goes to show how de able you are.

As for the second definition: does the term 'contraband' have anything to do with music or groups of people? Or how about the word Eugene?

You suck at linguistics too.

You are wrong. Even though the origins didn't understand genes at the time, genetics was somewhat understood.

I have proven my points, and you points go outside this discussion. My idea is not like eugenics, Just that simple. Pretend all you want you have the upper hand here. You are only fooling yourself.

Now saying I want to limit the breeding rights of the poor is at least close. Still not my intent. My intent is to dramatically reduce social spending. If the poor want children outside of requiring government aide, then what I have proposed doesn't occur.

You should be ashamed of yourself for acting as if government aide is a right.

[clambake]

why didn't you propose this when you were slingin food stamps?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are wrong. Even though the origins didn't understand genes at the time, genetics was somewhat understood.

I have proven my points, and you points go outside this discussion. My idea is not like eugenics, Just that simple. Pretend all you want you have the upper hand here. You are only fooling yourself.

Now saying I want to limit the breeding rights of the poor is at least close. Still not my intent. My intent is to dramatically reduce social spending. If the poor want children outside of requiring government aide, then what I have proposed doesn't occur.

You should be ashamed of yourself for acting as if government aide is a right.

Repeating yourself changes nothing. Your method for reducing cost is to reduce their birth rate. IOW, you are reducing the cost by using eugenics that you think that the ends justify the means just furthers my points.

As for Galton and what he did or did not know that is just once again you making up. You did not even know who Galton was until i told you and even then you had trouble keeping up because you attributed Ralph Waldo Emerson because when it comes right down to it you are dumb.

Galton wanted to neuter poor people as part of his eugenics programs that he proposed to Parliament. He founded eugenics. You want to neuter poor people that get government services.

Anyone reading this now understand this and we have further cemented your status as one of the dumbest individuals on this board. Capacitors, optics, flywheels, semantics, British history, or government and you just cannot keep up.

You can lie and posture all you want. You are too dumb to have come up with some of this on your own and you have no idea who Galton is so what I want to know is who you do get this from. You clearly are not your own man, minion.

[Wild Cobra]

Repeating yourself changes nothing. Your method for reducing cost is to reduce their birth rate. IOW, you are reducing the cost by using eugenics that you think that the ends justify the means just furthers my points.

As for Galton and what he did or did not know that is just once again you making up. You did not even know who Galton was until i told you and even then you had trouble keeping up because you attributed Ralph Waldo Emerson because when it comes right down to it you are dumb.

Galton wanted to neuter poor people as part of his eugenics programs that he proposed to Parliament. He founded eugenics. You want to neuter poor people that get government services.

Anyone reading this now understand this and we have further cemented your status as one of the dumbest individuals on this board. Capacitors, optics, flywheels, semantics, British history, or government and you just cannot keep up.

You can lie and posture all you want. You are too dumb to have come up with some of this on your own and you have no idea who Galton is so what I want to know is who you do get this from. You clearly are not your own man, minion.

Bye Fuzzy.

It isn't eugenics. It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you, so bye.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Bye Fuzzy.

It isn't eugenics. It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you, so bye.

Bye, he who sympathizes with Adolph Hitler.

[xrayzebra]

Now saying I want to limit the breeding rights of the poor is at least close. Still not my intent. My intent is to dramatically reduce social spending. If the poor want children outside of requiring government aide, then what I have proposed doesn't occur.

You should be ashamed of yourself for acting as if government aide is a right.

Why would you want to promote the Democratic parties and liberal policy.
Except they just call it women's rights. The rest of us call it abortion.
Which they promote mostly among minorities.

[Wild Cobra]

Why would you want to promote the Democratic parties and liberal policy.
Except they just call it women's rights. The rest of us call it abortion.
Which they promote mostly among minorities.

Have you read my previous remarks ob the topic?

I know there is evidence to show they push for minority abortions. I'm not convinced of that however. Regardless, more whites live with government assistance than minorities.

In the original thread, I did mention abortion as well. This thread didn't go there until now.

[LnGrrrR]

WC, if the understated goal of reducing government social spending had the unintended side effect of reducing further the ability of a certain class of person to reproduce, would you call that a form of eugenics? Or would you only define eugenics as an active attempt to limit births to a certain subset of the population?