****Official ask a Fuzzy Lumpkins anything and not get a straight answer thread****

[DMC]

Still losing it.

I don't recall ever installing a fan motor. Multi axis robots... Yes!

Bolt it in and connect a Winchester or Cannon plug, teach, lunch.

[DMC]

No, I have just found fault in you. I really really hate people that try and act like they know what they are talking about when they don't. When you try and act like you can speak more on climate than Manny on the basis of such stupid like this it bothers me. Then you continue to do it over and over and over and over again. Then you say that racist it bothers me. Whenever anyone says racist it bothers me.

I quite honestly think it's wrong in every sense of the word wrong. man, you have tried to justify sterilization programs to me.

I don't have a problem with most people here. RG, EN, MiG, TSA, L, Blake, bout, Clip, WH, bouts, snc, DMX, trill, creep, mouse ,bb ag, dan, yoni, teysha and most everyone else. I know I get into it with CC because he likes being callous towards whats going on with future generations but hey whatevs. I really don't think he is earnest about it. I know I am argumentative and I piss people off like RG and WH but I don't find 'fault' in them.

I do have serious problems with both you and DMC because you support the tenants and in your case specific policies of eugenics. You flat out said you wanted a sterilization project associated with social services for the poor. I have absolutely no issue in finding fault with people that think that's a good idea. And stuff like what were talking about now is how you go about trying to justify like it. You just make up and guess the way you want it to be.

I've told you before. You might as well put me on ignore because it's not going to change. When I say that I have contempt for you, I actually mean it.

And CD pointed out that abortion has played a role in lowering the crime rates. Abortion is basically eugenics of the poor, on a voluntary basis. The wealthy aren't having abortions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And CD pointed out that abortion has played a role in lowering the crime rates. Abortion is basically eugenics of the poor, on a voluntary basis. The wealthy aren't having abortions.

No, its not. If someone gets an abortion because they ed a poor guy or say a mexican and think the kid is going to be somehow undesirable on that basis then sure. If they do gene mapping on the kid and determine its MR and they abort it then its justifiable to call that eugenics if you believe that a zygote is really a person.

I mean you have read Galton's stuff right? He is like the grand poobah of you s bags. He links that stuff to genetics like you do and says we need to implement systems such as a sterilization program to reduce their populations. That's eugenics.

Some poor mother that cannot make ends meet or just doesn't like kids or there is serious danger to her or any other of the many reasons a woman chooses to abort the fetus then that's not eugenics. No more than killing some person in self defense.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And just to be clear. Saying that poor people commit more crime is not eugenics. OTOH saying that poor people have a genetic reason for being poor and as such they commit crime, that is eugenics.

In the former case, the basis of the economic status is cir stantial. When you start conflating class with genetics thats when it becomes eugenics. Since Watson and Crick, most people aren't that ignorant. However there are still those like yourself that conflate the notion of race with genetics.

[DMC]

No, its not. If someone gets an abortion because they ed a poor guy or say a mexican and think the kid is going to be somehow undesirable on that basis then sure. If they do gene mapping on the kid and determine its MR and they abort it then its justifiable to call that eugenics if you believe that a zygote is really a person.

I mean you have read Galton's stuff right? He is like the grand poobah of you s bags. He links that stuff to genetics like you do and says we need to implement systems such as a sterilization program to reduce their populations. That's eugenics.

Some poor mother that cannot make ends meet or just doesn't like kids or there is serious danger to her or any other of the many reasons a woman chooses to abort the fetus then that's not eugenics. No more than killing some person in self defense.

I am not the one who linked genetics to predisposition for crime. I merely pointed it out.

The poor have abortions at a much higher rate than the rich (never mind that there are more of them).

The effect is the same, fewer low income minorities that would otherwise exist. While the wealthy white/middle class white are having babies, the poorer folks are not. A large percentage of those are minorities. The gene pool is therefore altered.

[DMC]

And just to be clear. Saying that poor people commit more crime is not eugenics. OTOH saying that poor people have a genetic reason for being poor and as such they commit crime, that is eugenics.

In the former case, the basis of the economic status is cir stantial. When you start conflating class with genetics thats when it becomes eugenics. Since Watson and Crick, most people aren't that ignorant. However there are still those like yourself that conflate the notion of race with genetics.

Actually no. Eugenics is holding the position that they should be weeded out in the gene pool. Noting that genetics play a role in our decisions isn't eugenics any more than noting that black athletes comprise most of professional sports is racist.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am not the one who linked genetics to predisposition for crime. I merely pointed it out.

The poor have abortions at a much higher rate than the rich (never mind that there are more of them).

The effect is the same, fewer low income minorities that would otherwise exist. While the wealthy white/middle class white are having babies, the poorer folks are not. A large percentage of those are minorities. The gene pool is therefore altered.

No you think that by combining three separate unrelated studies you made a compelling case for it to be true. It wasn't compelling.

Googling for racial hatred! woohoo. So you really think there is a different genetic profile for a mexican versus say you?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually no. Eugenics is holding the position that they should be weeded out in the gene pool. Noting that genetics play a role in our decisions isn't eugenics any more than noting that black athletes comprise most of professional sports is racist.

Yeah I suppose that is true. So then you advocate 'weeding them out' you cool with that?

[DMC]

And as long as people like Fuzzy turn a blind eye to the elephants in the room, there will always be side dishes being addressed but not the main course. The desire to not offend, to be politically correct over powers your desire to find the answers.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And as long as people like Fuzzy turn a blind eye to the elephants in the room, there will always been the side dishes being addressed but not the main course. The desire to not offend, to be politically correct over powers your desire to find the answers.

I just asked you a straight question. You going to answer it?

[DMC]

Yeah I suppose that is true. So then you advocate 'weeding them out' you cool with that?

Why the red herring? You said my position was one of eugenics, and you have been saying so for quite some time. I pointed out to you that it's not and you never concede, you just ask me a question about my stance.

Don't you already know everything? You've been harping on how I support eugenics.

[DMC]

No you think that by combining three separate unrelated studies you made a compelling case for it to be true. It wasn't compelling.

Googling for racial hatred! woohoo. So you really think there is a different genetic profile for a mexican versus say you?

Mexican? Not really. That would be a nationality.

Your primary fallback is to vilify your opponent. It doesn't work with me. I laid out the data, showed you the research, you never addressed it. You just kept addressing me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I actually had two.

1) Do you think that there is a distinct different genetic profile for a latino as opposed to you?
2) Do you feel a program to 'weed out' these undesirables is a good policy decision?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm just trying to figure out what you think the evidence demonstrates. The case is being made by you, I am trying to flesh out the case that you make.

If you prefer you can change the 'you' in question 1 with 'a caucasian.'

[DMC]

I actually had two.

1) Do you think that there is a distinct different genetic profile for a latino as opposed to you?
2) Do you feel a program to 'weed out' these undesirables is a good policy decision?

Everyone here has a different genetic profile.

[DMC]

I'm just trying to figure out what you think the evidence demonstrates. The case is being made by you, I am trying to flesh out the case that you make.

If you prefer you can change the 'you' in question 1 with 'a caucasian.'

I explained already.

I am not a Caucasian. More assumptions by you based on gut feelings.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Okay. Is there a gene or genes that designate someone as latino?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I explained already.

I am not a Caucasian. More assumptions by you based on gut feelings.

Just because I subs uted does not mean I conflated. Non sequitor.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

and your avoiding the policy question.

[DMC]

Just because I subs uted does not mean I conflated. Non sequitor.

I think it's obvious. Why would you randomly pick a race then ask me if two different races have two different genetic profiles?

[DMC]

and your avoiding the policy question.

Not answering it and avoiding it are not the same things. Can you post the policy here so I can read it, or do I need to just take your blurb as the entire policy?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think it's obvious. Why would you randomly pick a race then ask me if two different races have two different genetic profiles?

are you going to ask the new form of the question or question #2?

[DMC]

Okay. Is there a gene or genes that designate someone as latino?

Google is your friend.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is there any policy that reduces the population of those that have undesirable genetic traits that you find is a good policy decision because of said basis?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Google is your friend.

I know what I think. I am asking you if you find that to be true. You are dissembling.