tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post6164514594306377655..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Eugenics:" Does the past matter?"mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-31628072496423746382012-02-25T02:25:51.078-05:002012-02-25T02:25:51.078-05:00dear Anonymous,
in 1998 the percent of female teen...dear Anonymous,<br />in 1998 the percent of female teenagers who ever had sexual intercourse was 51%; in 2006/2008 was 42%; for male we have 55% in 1995 and 46% in 2005.<br /><br />So you can find easly why the teenage birth rates declined.Domicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02108175024624509183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-39990405837966060952012-02-24T18:17:59.350-05:002012-02-24T18:17:59.350-05:00KT Cat, I'm sorry if you equate a healthy sexu...KT Cat, I'm sorry if you equate a healthy sexual relationshihp with "destructive, dysfunctional behavior" discussed in "Life at the Bottom."<br /><br />I have no idea what happened to you in your life that you have such a horrible view of sex. But rest assured it is not like that for most people. <br /><br />Have you talked to a professional?RickKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-77508712827672344752012-02-24T11:45:19.612-05:002012-02-24T11:45:19.612-05:00What do you make of this?<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db58.htm" rel="nofollow">What do <b>you</b> make of this</a>?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-58979180981510440652012-02-24T10:51:41.229-05:002012-02-24T10:51:41.229-05:00Just curious. Is this a healthy sexual relationsh...Just curious. Is this a healthy sexual relationship?<br /><br /><i>She said Ye can we get married at the mall<br />I said look you need to crawl before you ball<br />Come and meet me in the bathroom stall<br />And show me why you deserve to have it all</i><br /><br />That's from a #1 Rap hit.K T Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259428595745509790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-17934046385391746682012-02-24T10:46:00.046-05:002012-02-24T10:46:00.046-05:00What do you make of this?<a href="http://www.isteve.com/Crime-Abortion_Illegitimacy_Rate.jpg" rel="nofollow">What do you make of this</a>?K T Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259428595745509790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-91373035691599880892012-02-24T10:44:47.226-05:002012-02-24T10:44:47.226-05:00We have the ability now to allow couples to enjoy ...<i>We have the ability now to allow couples to enjoy healthy sexual relationships</i><br /><br />Have you ever read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Life-Bottom-Worldview-Makes-Underclass/dp/1566635055/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330098258&sr=8-1" rel="nofollow">Life at the Bottom</a>? The author is an atheist. I highly recommend it.K T Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259428595745509790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-79469687519613864082012-02-24T10:42:36.591-05:002012-02-24T10:42:36.591-05:00Conservatives are so predictable. It’s the result ...<i>Conservatives are so predictable. It’s the result of their rigid ideology and need to fabricate very predictable rationalizations in order to avoid total cognitive dissonance.</i><br /><br />Adam Smith and Milton Friedman both argue in favor of greater personal autonomy and freedom. They, as much as anyone, are the intellectual foundations of at least part of the Conservative movement. Do you find them rigid?K T Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259428595745509790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-91328819786897491352012-02-24T10:38:42.935-05:002012-02-24T10:38:42.935-05:00There's no question that abortion is used for ...There's no question that abortion is used for eugenics today. I just don't see the value in dragging up the views of people that have been dead for a long time. In making the pro-life case, I think that things like ultrasounds of your baby are far more effective.<br /><br />Any attack on Darwin will get you labeled as a nutty Creationist and any attack on Sanger will be greeted with a "Who?"K T Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259428595745509790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-76015904864118430392012-02-24T09:04:46.906-05:002012-02-24T09:04:46.906-05:00@Anonymous/KW:
Perhaps you missed the part of my ...@Anonymous/KW:<br /><br /><em>Perhaps you missed the part of my comment about the anti-miscegenation laws championed by conservatives.</em><br /><br />I missed nothing; I simply passed your anti-miscengenation remarks by. From a historical standpoint, scientists and scientific racism were as much responsible for anti-miscegenation laws as any so-called "conservative" personalities, at least up through the 1950's or so.<br /><br />Mark well: I was not distinguishing between conservative and progressive, or conservative and liberal. I was emphasizing the differences in attitudes and behaviors between negative and positive eugenists.<br /><br /><em>Conservatives are so predictable. It’s the result of their rigid ideology and need to fabricate very predictable rationalizations in order to avoid total cognitive dissonance.</em><br /><br />Once again, your deeply insightful remarks into the conservative psyche are worthy of Mother Bulver, but hardly relevant to a discussion of eugenics.Kent D (Omaha)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-25980441995142879732012-02-24T09:01:51.091-05:002012-02-24T09:01:51.091-05:00"What was missing was any value placed on ind..."What was missing was any value placed on individual freedom, even the most basic freedom of a human being to have a child."<br /><br />EXACTLY!<br /><br />And what is missing from the religious right, particularly the conservative elements of the Catholic Church, is respect for the individual's right to NOT have a child. We have the ability now to allow couples to enjoy healthy sexual relationships even when they don't wish to produce children. <br /><br />But the Catholic Church must enter the bedroom, wearing the banner of God, exhorting its members to breed, breed, BREED!<br /><br />So it is the height of irony to hear a Conservative Catholic rail against people who try to manipulate individual reproductive rights.RickKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-36494953068612980432012-02-24T07:30:08.130-05:002012-02-24T07:30:08.130-05:00Domics,
Perhaps you missed my point that dumb ass...Domics,<br /><br />Perhaps you missed my point that dumb ass Santorum believes that contraception results in more out of wedlock births, thus in his twisted world, less contraception results in fewer unwanted babies.<br /><br />-KWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-11420830469355271632012-02-24T02:39:10.850-05:002012-02-24T02:39:10.850-05:00Do you know KW that the sources used for the Bell ...Do you know KW that the sources used for the Bell Curve (in particular Lynn' articles) are the same that permit to some atheists to state all around the web that religious people has a lower QI than non believers? <br /><br />p.s. if Santorum were an eugenic supporter he would have agree with Sanger's diffusion of birth control among blacks peoples.Domicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02108175024624509183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-90450803394895490132012-02-23T22:43:22.523-05:002012-02-23T22:43:22.523-05:00Pavlov’s Kent,
Perhaps you missed the part of my...Pavlov’s Kent, <br /><br />Perhaps you missed the part of my comment about the anti-miscegenation laws championed by conservatives. I deliberately included this example of conservative negative eugenics to try to forestall the almost guaranteed “my eugenics is better than your eugenics” argument.<br /><br />Conservatives are so predictable. It’s the result of their rigid ideology and need to fabricate very predictable rationalizations in order to avoid total cognitive dissonance.<br /><br />-KWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-28095062896860924862012-02-23T21:48:46.115-05:002012-02-23T21:48:46.115-05:00@myself:
Grammatical corrections. (Seems like no ...@myself:<br /><br />Grammatical corrections. (Seems like no matter how many times I proofread, something slips through.)<br /><br /><em> The former [negative eugenists], generally speaking, achieve their aims by preventing the conception of life <b>they deem</b> unworthy even of potentiality, and (<b>in extreme cases</b>) by destroying those humans <b>they deem</b> unworthy of actuality.</em>Kent D (Omaha)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-27686359258880200192012-02-23T21:33:35.185-05:002012-02-23T21:33:35.185-05:00@Anonymous/KW:
Broadly, there’s negative eugenics...@Anonymous/KW:<br /><br /><em>Broadly, there’s negative eugenics which seeks to limit the spread of traits deemed to be undesirable, and positive eugenics which seeks to encourage the spread of desirable traits.</em><br /><br />What attitudes and behaviors characterize negative eugenists?<br /><br /> * They're elitist.<br /><br /> * They seem to compute individual human worth purely as a function of intellectual or physical potential.<br /><br /> * They're apparently indifferent to human suffering.<br /><br />And, political climate permitting...<br /><br /> * They approve of state coercion to achieve eugenic ends.<br /><br /> * They force sterilization.<br /><br /> * They abort the unborn (including forced abortion).<br /><br /> * They commit outright genocide.<br /><br />By contrast, those whom you would label "positive eugenists" (Pat Buchanan, Rick Santorum, Michael Medved, et al) are not so much arguing for a change in the makeup of the human gene pool, as they are for a reproduction of those <em>attitudes and behaviors</em> which they believe will benefit society in the long run. They are attempting to change a culture, ultimately by changing individual hearts. One quite practical way to do this is for married couples to have children, and to reproduce their faith, their values, and their mores in the children. Then (God willing) the next generation can influence society for the good.<br /><br />There is no moral equivalence between negative and positive eugenists. The former, generally speaking, achieve their aims by preventing the conception of life it deems unworthy even of potentiality, and (taken to its extreme) by destroying those humans it deems unworthy of actuality. The latter achieve their aims by elevating, to the extent they humanly can, the condition of those unfortunates who would otherwise be called "human waste" or "dead weight".<br /><br />My paternal grandmother, who for many decades volunteered at the Masonic Home in Mount Holly, New Jersey, called the unfortunates among whom she ministered "poor souls". (She pronounced the phrase as if it was a single two-syllable word, with accent on the first syllable: <em>POORsouls</em>.) I'll take Grandmom's brand of eugenics any day over the eugenics of Margaret Sanger, or Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, or Cecile Richards, or Kermit Gosnell.Kent D (Omaha)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-68879083180463272972012-02-23T20:40:02.285-05:002012-02-23T20:40:02.285-05:00@Anonymous/KW:
Dr. Egnor uses eugenics to tar lib...@Anonymous/KW:<br /><br /><em>Dr. Egnor uses eugenics to tar liberals because it provides a nice tidy way to smear Planned Parenthood with the side benefit of providing a wedge to separate blacks from the Democrats. This bullshit has become Republican orthodoxy and Dr. Egnor adds nothing new beyond another channel to effect this strategy.</em><br /><br />Perhaps you have supped on occasion with Ezekiel Bulver's mother? No disrespect intended, but your speculations about Michael's motives strike me as little more than sophisticated <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism" rel="nofollow">Bulverism</a>.Kent D (Omaha)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-16659854442403959882012-02-23T19:16:21.426-05:002012-02-23T19:16:21.426-05:00@K T Cat:
> Yep, Darwin and Sanger were nutty....@K T Cat:<br /><br />> Yep, Darwin and Sanger were nutty.<br />> Not sure how it affects me now.<br /><br />Remind me -- what exactly are the current statistics for Down syndrome babies? What percentage are carried to term vs. inductively aborted?<br /><br />Many of those who are affected by eugenics are in no position to oppose it. Some are lethally affected. It's incumbent upon us as fellow human beings to speak for them.Kent D (Omaha)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-47319215410710341312012-02-23T18:39:21.449-05:002012-02-23T18:39:21.449-05:00Dr. Egnor uses eugenics to tar liberals because it...Dr. Egnor uses eugenics to tar liberals because it provides a nice tidy way to smear Planned Parenthood with the side benefit of providing a wedge to separate blacks from the Democrats. This bullshit has become Republican orthodoxy and Dr. Egnor adds nothing new beyond another channel to effect this strategy.<br /><br />Of course what he fails to mention is the long and ongoing fascination with eugenics by Christian conservative Republicans. Broadly, there’s negative eugenics which seeks to limit the spread of traits deemed to be undesirable, and positive eugenics which seeks to encourage the spread of desirable traits. <br /><br />Every time you hear a conservative, be it Pat Buchanan, Mel Gibson, Discovery Institute senior fellow Michael Medved, or a commenter the on the racist Storm Front website, opine that whites need to have more babies in order to “save our culture”, they are openly arguing for eugenics. They are obsessed with anchor babies, the high birth rate of Hispanics, building a fence, and deporting as many illegals as possible, all in the hopes of maintaining our “culture” by ensuring the predominance of certain genetic traits.<br /><br />This is of course not a new phenomena; the anti-miscegenation laws championed by conservatives for decades where nothing if not an effort to prevent the dilution of favored genetic traits.<br /><br />-KWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-80463883347691055032012-02-23T14:09:18.843-05:002012-02-23T14:09:18.843-05:00I think that it's a valid historical point, bu...I think that it's a valid historical point, but not particularly relevant to current topics. It's kind of like the way people try to use the Crusades to beat Catholics. Yep, they happened. Don't know what it has to do with today, but feel free to yell about it. <br /><br />Same is true for eugenics. Yep, Darwin and Sanger were nutty. Not sure how it affects me now.K T Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259428595745509790noreply@blogger.com