I see how all the rules breaks itself except for "Verbs have to agree with their subjects." In order for that rule to break itself, wouldn't it need to be something like "Every one of the verbs have to agree with their subjects."? It's driving me crazy.
Here's some trivia: Alfonso Ribeiro said he based the Carlton dance on the dance moves performed by Courtney Cox in the Bruce Springsteen video for "Dancing in the Dark". You can see it for yourselves.
Ok, so what you’re saying is that eugenics “can’t work” when you give it your own extreme strawman definition.
I was using a commonly used definition of eugenics, the whole linked post is full of descriptions of that kind of eugenics, "negative eugenics", which I tried to differentiate from the uncontroversial positive eugenics, which I agree can be beneficial.
Eugenics is a normative social philosophy about improving human life (to whatever extent) through artificial selection. Nothing about the science of genetics precludes it, and I am not aware of anyone who ever defined ‘eugenics’ as trying to halt the natural occurrence of genetic mutation.(emphasis added)
That was my point, which you have entirely missed. The natural occurrence of genetic mutation cannot be stopped. It's like a boat with a hole in the bottom, if you try and bail it out with the bucket of negative eugenics, it won't help.
It's impractical in the common conception of the word, it can work in certain circumstances. Note that the Ashkenazi Jew example you gave, it's about a very specific genetic defect found in a small subpopulation. That is very different from popular conceptions like Idiocracy and ideas like those in the linked article that there were "ten groups classified as “socially unfit” and deserving of elimination. These included, in order of priority: the feebleminded, the pauper class, alcoholics, criminals of varying degrees such as petty thieves and those imprisoned for not paying fines, epileptics, the insane, the constitutionally weak class, those genetically predisposed to specific diseases, the deformed, and finally, the deaf, blind and mute." And the NYT article doesn't say anything about any Ashkenazi being "eliminated".
I also would suggest you improve your argumentative style, perhaps stick to the facts, and avoid calling people "moronic", claiming they "deny evolution" and are creating strawmen? Particularly when you later complain about a "breathless rant".
I merely wanted to point people in the right direction regarding why negative eugenics is pseudoscience. Anyone interested can also look up Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, particularly Gould's The Mismeasure of Man. I have no intention of continuing this conversation and I am leaving this thread.
Dude, are you seriously suggestion the mutation rate makes natural or artificial selection impossible?
No. The point is there will always be some few instances of genetic defects due to random mutations.
The only way to get some sort of "perfect" genetic pool would be in vitro gene therapy with technology and knowledge at a level closer to Star Trek than what we have now.
And at the risk of repeating myself, it's a matter of math. It is true that the classic negative eugenics could, for example, get rid of something like, say, color-blindness. The problem is that it would take something on the order of 10,000 years (IIRC) and would require the participation of the entire human race. And that would be to just get rid of color-blindness, what about nearsightedness? What about people born with allergies? There are a tremendous amount of "less-than-perfect" genes out there, and many of them are recessive genes.
Here's a description of why Idiocracy won't happen by a biology professor, if anyone's interested.
I forgot to add, this statement: "its association with Nazism and the use of eugenics to rationalize the Holocaust have caused it to become thoroughly discredited." is incorrect. It was discredited by scientific study by people like Haldane, and a correct understanding of natural selection as described by Darwin.
It being labeled a ‘pseudoscience’ causes me concern too, Skipweasel. If you want to argue against eugenics, state your reasons (there’s plenty to choose from), but don’t just call it fake.
It is pseudoscience, on several levels. One of the simplest arguments against it is the work of JDS Haldane, which you will have to look up yourself. The basic idea is that any sort of negative eugenics, any attempt to alter the human genome by killing people with undesirable genetic defects simply will not work. Mutations are quite common in human DNA (please don't think of mutations in comic book/sci-fi terms, they are simply random changes in the genome, every human as about 100 or so in their genome). The problem is that mutations will show up naturally in every generation. And the rate in which they show up is greater than the rate negative eugenics can get rid of them. It would be absurdly impractical and quite frankly vile, the number of murders negative eugenics would require.
And this was work that was done in, IIRC, the 1920s or 30s. So, yes, it's pseudoscience, we've known for a long time it simply would not work. I would also add that not only would it not work, but it's based on a bizarre conception of natural selection. There's no such thing as making the human genetic code "purer" or any such nonsense, it's all based on our relationship to our environment, which thankfully we can alter. Take near-sightedness (mentioned earlier). Now why on earth would you want to use eugenics to eliminate near-sightedness? We live in an environment where near-sightedness doesn't really make any difference. We can buy you the darn glasses. We can either buy them glasses, or kill so many people that the streets run red with blood (and still fail to eliminate near-sightedness, see Haldane), for what? Some mistaken idea we need to be made more "fit", while ignoring that fitness is determined by the environment. A near-sighted person is "fit". He/she can survive well in their environment.
To put it another way, owls have better eyesight than humans. Would it make any sense to kill humans that have poorer eyesight than owls? Are we, as a species, somehow "unfit" because our sight is not as good as that of owls?
Most groups of people (and especially guys) is going to get irritated if you keep making a big deal about something - it just gets tiresome if that all the person goes on and on about. And his sueing certainly hints at the fact that he’s one of those people.
Sure, there are vaild reasons to sue, but I suspect this guy brought on the abuse by being obnoxious about his athiesm.
Does anyone know if he was wearing a short skirt as well?
In fact, it was Darwin himself who expressed these views, his cousin merely coined the term “eugenics”..
It was Darwin himself who expressed his opposition to those views, and his coined the term "eugenics".
Here is more from Darwin's Descent of Man:
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.
This quote, by the way, comes from the very next paragraph after the one quoted previously, and is an example is the typical dishonesty you find from deniers of evolution.
Unfortunately, if you believe in Darwinian Evolution, it is a perfectly logical extension that we could and perhaps should attempt to improve the human race by eliminating the “lesser” people.
If you actually understand evolution, it is impossible to consider eliminating people as a way to "improve the human race". First of all, it simply won't work. (I suggest reading the section of this article titled "The Evolutionary Argument Against Negative Eugenics" about the work of JBS Haldane for a brief description.) Even if scientists believed it could work (and let me repeat, they know it doesn't), you would find many scientists who would still oppose it. For example: Charles Darwin.
I'm not an expert on WWII, but what I've read casts a lot of doubt on the idea of a Pearl Harbor conspiracy. The main point against it, IMO, has to do with why the US was blindsided by Pearl Harbor. It wasn't because they weren't expecting war with Japan, it's because they expected Japan's initial strike to be on the Philippines. If you look at a map, you can get an idea why. (this is a decent starting point, though it is Wikipedia.)
The attack on Pearl Harbor was quite audacious, radio silence was not just some advantage, it was a necessity. It was a bold move on their part.
I also think the Unanswered Question #3 section about FDR provoking the Japanese is lacking. Most of the material is unsourced, and in particular it leaves out at least one important detail. The Japanese had started an imperialistic war to seize natural resources. They were the aggressors. When FDR put on the embargo, they had two options: end their war to get the sanctions lifted, or invade even more territories to grab the natural resources they wanted. The Japanese chose the latter.
I was using a commonly used definition of eugenics, the whole linked post is full of descriptions of that kind of eugenics, "negative eugenics", which I tried to differentiate from the uncontroversial positive eugenics, which I agree can be beneficial.
Eugenics is a normative social philosophy about improving human life (to whatever extent) through artificial selection. Nothing about the science of genetics precludes it, and I am not aware of anyone who ever defined ‘eugenics’ as trying to halt the natural occurrence of genetic mutation. (emphasis added)
That was my point, which you have entirely missed. The natural occurrence of genetic mutation cannot be stopped. It's like a boat with a hole in the bottom, if you try and bail it out with the bucket of negative eugenics, it won't help.
It's impractical in the common conception of the word, it can work in certain circumstances. Note that the Ashkenazi Jew example you gave, it's about a very specific genetic defect found in a small subpopulation. That is very different from popular conceptions like Idiocracy and ideas like those in the linked article that there were "ten groups classified as “socially unfit” and deserving of elimination. These included, in order of priority: the feebleminded, the pauper class, alcoholics, criminals of varying degrees such as petty thieves and those imprisoned for not paying fines, epileptics, the insane, the constitutionally weak class, those genetically predisposed to specific diseases, the deformed, and finally, the deaf, blind and mute." And the NYT article doesn't say anything about any Ashkenazi being "eliminated".
I also would suggest you improve your argumentative style, perhaps stick to the facts, and avoid calling people "moronic", claiming they "deny evolution" and are creating strawmen? Particularly when you later complain about a "breathless rant".
I merely wanted to point people in the right direction regarding why negative eugenics is pseudoscience. Anyone interested can also look up Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, particularly Gould's The Mismeasure of Man. I have no intention of continuing this conversation and I am leaving this thread.
No. The point is there will always be some few instances of genetic defects due to random mutations.
The only way to get some sort of "perfect" genetic pool would be in vitro gene therapy with technology and knowledge at a level closer to Star Trek than what we have now.
And at the risk of repeating myself, it's a matter of math. It is true that the classic negative eugenics could, for example, get rid of something like, say, color-blindness. The problem is that it would take something on the order of 10,000 years (IIRC) and would require the participation of the entire human race. And that would be to just get rid of color-blindness, what about nearsightedness? What about people born with allergies? There are a tremendous amount of "less-than-perfect" genes out there, and many of them are recessive genes.
Here's a description of why Idiocracy won't happen by a biology professor, if anyone's interested.
It is pseudoscience, on several levels. One of the simplest arguments against it is the work of JDS Haldane, which you will have to look up yourself. The basic idea is that any sort of negative eugenics, any attempt to alter the human genome by killing people with undesirable genetic defects simply will not work. Mutations are quite common in human DNA (please don't think of mutations in comic book/sci-fi terms, they are simply random changes in the genome, every human as about 100 or so in their genome). The problem is that mutations will show up naturally in every generation. And the rate in which they show up is greater than the rate negative eugenics can get rid of them. It would be absurdly impractical and quite frankly vile, the number of murders negative eugenics would require.
And this was work that was done in, IIRC, the 1920s or 30s. So, yes, it's pseudoscience, we've known for a long time it simply would not work. I would also add that not only would it not work, but it's based on a bizarre conception of natural selection. There's no such thing as making the human genetic code "purer" or any such nonsense, it's all based on our relationship to our environment, which thankfully we can alter. Take near-sightedness (mentioned earlier). Now why on earth would you want to use eugenics to eliminate near-sightedness? We live in an environment where near-sightedness doesn't really make any difference. We can buy you the darn glasses. We can either buy them glasses, or kill so many people that the streets run red with blood (and still fail to eliminate near-sightedness, see Haldane), for what? Some mistaken idea we need to be made more "fit", while ignoring that fitness is determined by the environment. A near-sighted person is "fit". He/she can survive well in their environment.
To put it another way, owls have better eyesight than humans. Would it make any sense to kill humans that have poorer eyesight than owls? Are we, as a species, somehow "unfit" because our sight is not as good as that of owls?
Sure, there are vaild reasons to sue, but I suspect this guy brought on the abuse by being obnoxious about his athiesm.
Does anyone know if he was wearing a short skirt as well?
It was Darwin himself who expressed his opposition to those views, and his coined the term "eugenics".
Here is more from Darwin's Descent of Man:
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.
This quote, by the way, comes from the very next paragraph after the one quoted previously, and is an example is the typical dishonesty you find from deniers of evolution.
Unfortunately, if you believe in Darwinian Evolution, it is a perfectly logical extension that we could and perhaps should attempt to improve the human race by eliminating the “lesser” people.
If you actually understand evolution, it is impossible to consider eliminating people as a way to "improve the human race". First of all, it simply won't work. (I suggest reading the section of this article titled "The Evolutionary Argument Against Negative Eugenics" about the work of JBS Haldane for a brief description.) Even if scientists believed it could work (and let me repeat, they know it doesn't), you would find many scientists who would still oppose it. For example: Charles Darwin.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was quite audacious, radio silence was not just some advantage, it was a necessity. It was a bold move on their part.
I also think the Unanswered Question #3 section about FDR provoking the Japanese is lacking. Most of the material is unsourced, and in particular it leaves out at least one important detail. The Japanese had started an imperialistic war to seize natural resources. They were the aggressors. When FDR put on the embargo, they had two options: end their war to get the sanctions lifted, or invade even more territories to grab the natural resources they wanted. The Japanese chose the latter.