Reply With Quote
^as long as the clown is performing...
You call me ignorant, yet you also imply it as Eugenics?
How long do you plan on remaining in the peanut gallery?
^as long as the clown is performing...
No, when he links Galton's definition --he coined the term-- which does not mention genetics at all and then continues to demand that it must have a real genetic basis, that means hes dumb. Ignorant means he doesn't know better but really when you look at his reading comprehension skills, critical thinking , and 'logic' its quite obvious he is dimwitted.
Yes, yes, yes...
You prefer to trade insults because you are incapable of addressing this factually. Well, I'm walking away from your peanut gallery for now. When you have something relevant to say, I'm here.
Shut the up dumbass. Go back to your Galton definition and factually point out where he says genes or genetics. He mentions the poor and race neither of which are genetically based.
I am not going to allow you to just ignore the argument and repeat yourself. I will taunt you a second time.
But it stems from his ignorance, IMO. He obviously doesn't put the work before forming an opinion or expressing it (which, to me, is the epitome of ignorance), then he insists in not putting the work when confronted with reality. You could call it intellectually lazy, but I'll just go with ignorant.
What's ironic is that I actually presented facts here first, and the insults started from the now offended party. He probably simply forgot about the timeline of events... intellectually lazy.
Page 3 in this thread... You can call me Nonostradamous now
well, CF was right
definition: genicEUGENICS: ITS DEFINITION, SCOPE, AND AIMS.
Francis Galton
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
Volume X; July, 1904; Number 1
Read before the Sociological Society at a meeting in the School of Economies (London University), on May 16, 1904. Professor Karl Pearson, F.R.S., in the chair.
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.
What is meant by improvement ? What by the syllable eu in "eugenics," whose English equivalent is "good"? There is considerable difference between goodness in the several qualities and in that of the character as a whole.
definition inborn:gen·ic (jnk, jnk)
adj.
Of, relating to, produced by, or being genes or a gene.
I'm tired of these stupid trolls.inborn /in·born/ (inŽborn″)
1. genetically determined, and present at birth.
2. congenital.
inborn
[in′bôrn]
Etymology: L, in, within; AS, beran, to bear
innate; acquired or occurring during intrauterine life, with reference to both normally inherited traits and developmental or genetically transmitted anomalies. See also congenital, hereditary, inborn error of metabolism.
inborn [inŽborn]
1. genetically determined, and present at birth; see also inborn error of metabolism.
2. congenital.
Anyone have some troll disinfectant?
Bears repeating...
apparently we needed it, never mind why
lol double tap@11:11
'Twas bound to happen one of these days.
Dear lord you are like talking to a four year old. Are you even going to try and address historical context or are you just going to try and repeat your quote of something from over a century ago and repeat a cherry picked modern definition and call it a day?
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=eugenics1883, coined (along with adj. eugenic) by English scientist Francis Galton (1822-1911) on analogy of ethics, physics, etc. from Gk. eugenes "well-born, of good stock, of noble race," from eu- "good" (see eu-) + genos "birth" (see genus).
The investigation of human eugenics, that is, of the conditions under which men of a high type are produced. [Galton, "Human Faculty," 1883]
That last one is from a quote from Galton itself where he explicitly states that it is "the conditions under which men of a high type are produced." Now while you may want to force genetics into that, it did not even exist in the 19th century. Genetics derives from the same word 'genos' but has a vastly different meaning.
If you actually read some of Galton's stuff he talks extensively on class and race and how if you segregate classes and inhibit the ability of one to reproduce then natural selection will take over and eradicate the lower class.
Now does your policy inhibit the ability of a class to reproduce?
They are still talking about biology inherited. I'm not speaking of anything genetic. You can take the ignorance of past subjects and then find any comparative example if you stoop to those low standards.
Point to me to the word biology in any of those definitions, dimwit. Again, Galton theorized as part of his eugenics 'research' that if you isolate two classes and limit the breeding capabilities of the 'lower' class that you in essence 'speed up' nature's natural selection and eliminate the lower class.
Does your proposal limit the breeding capability of the lower class?
No. I don't see people who need government assistance as lower beings.
Do you?
So rather than admit you were wrong on the definition you try and build a strawman.
Do we need to roll out the definitions for lower class now? Are you going to drop trou and show your ass some more?
You have the strawman.
Nobody today see eugenics as you are implying. the people who claim such things are hiding racism, or some other loathing. Now I could understand if you accused me of that, but you are so far off the wall, it's ridiculous. You are taking lack of understanding and bias of a past century, and applying it to modern day. What poor form. I look at what was understood correctly on the issue.
Wow... Just wow... Don't you have any integrity to make a valid point? Must you always twist facts?
How do you know what 'nobody' thinks about eugenics? You and your NW backwoods yokels? We won WW2 and outside of the KKK people stopped supporting Galton's theories but that does not mitigate what they were.
As for integrity, you have no leg to stand on. You are intellectually dishonest as a matter of course. You can spin it any way you want but specifically your policy is something that Galton supported as part of his eugenics: limiting the reproductive rights of the poor.
Bye fuzzy. No matter what is said, you keep trolling.
Keep up the good work, but with someone else.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
