I'm not going to waste time and read this. I knew you were trying to say I was being contradictory, which is why I replied with "The 20th century eugenics-psuedo-science HYPE has not survived but the fundamentals have always been around".
My point was that your delivery was indeed nonsensical, despite Zombies' translation of your word-soup.
You can google the definition of eugenics all you want? We all know what it is.
What you don't know about eugenics is that the so-called undesirable traits, justifying castration, was everything from the country you were born in to your grandfather's Parkinsons disease. US Immigration Laws based on eugenics classified immigrants as retards and sent them packing because they did not know English. Certain leading scientists LOVED sucking Hitlers cock by justified Jew executions with eugenics.
It's not a science. It is a pseudoscience that is WHOLLY scoffed at by the scientific community.
Your always trying to argue things I know with things you don't. It's a pathetic attempt. And disturbs me that you keep babbling on and on and on.
Sigh.
To end this conversation, I thought it was rather perfect timing that I read this today:
"[Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi]...recommended that the West try Islamic corporal punishments, like cutting off theives' hands, as a deterrent". (new york times page 12 bitch)
So basically, we wait until a drug addicted prostitute gets pregnant. We strap her down and rip the baby out of her womb. Then, finish it off with suturing up her vagina. You know, as a deterrent.
Oh, you knew did you, you just were asking what I was meaning about four times, including someone else telling you...Typical. That makes so much sense.
What? So you think what "your" definition of eugentics is more correct than the dictionary definition? No.
So, now you're saying that people that castration was justified with didn't get castrated, just that it was justified? By your definition of eugenics, wouldn't those immigrants be castrated, otherwise they wouldn't be victims of eugenics?
You clearly don't know as much as you'd like to think. You are arguing against dictionary definitions, arguing that you knew things that you needed others to explain to you, and so on. How can you know much on this subject if you are arguing that what it is isn't what it is; the definition? That would be like arguing a bannana is a vegetable, then thinking you know everything about it.
I'm talking about our society, not foreign ones that have very little technology compared to us. If you think that is allowed, cut off a few hands from thieves, see how far you get. I don't know about you, but I thought the difference between our area and theres is that we were more civilized.
Ah ofcourse. Instead of actually sticking to the point, you become a rage case simply because you have nothing to prove your point. I am very tempted to say "Umad?".
Once again, here is a quote on it's "definition". You're asking me to read something, yet you can't accept a dictionary definition, then you sit there and ask me to read something when I just quoted you the "dictionary definition" of the word? Need me to copy and paste the "dictionary definition" for you again? Ok:
"eu·gen·ics/yo͞oˈjeniks/
Noun:
The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics."
No mention of castration.
Another definition that is more so babying the definition to someone:
"eu·gen·ics
[yoo-jen-iks] Show IPA
noun ( used with a singular verb )
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."
"Discouraging reproduction", not making it imposible to reproduce. Not one definition of the word involves castration or making it impossible to reproduce, yet you think you have the overall intelligence to argue that the definition of the word isn't what the word means? Oh please.
So yes, I have read something, read quite a few pages on the matter so far. Simply because I am not willing to ignore the definition of the word to believe your "opinion" of the word doesn't mean I haven't read up the matter.
You called me a thoughtless sheep, once again, you're telling me to do all this, yet you only have to read the definition to be proven wrong.
My reply made perfect sense, you just didn't have anything to counter it with due to it showing you wrong.
Thinkingaboutit: Again read something
-ItDuz gives a quote from the definition of the word-
Thinkingabout: OMG THAT MAKES NO SENSE, A DEFINITION OF FACT QUOTED FROM THE DICTIONARY, NAH MY OPINION IS MUCH MORE FACTUAL.
And you call me stupid, quite ironic.
"Believe my opinion over definition facts, if you don't, you're a cunt" - Thinkingaboutit.
Peace out, have a splendid day, pick up a dictionary on your way out
I was just reading this, and personally I don't want to argue with you about it, just to comment.
The word 'discourage' has a few meanings.
dis·cour·age
verb /disˈkərij/ /-ˈkə-rij/
Cause (someone) to lose confidence or enthusiasm
Prevent or seek to prevent (something) by showing disapproval or creating difficulties
Persuade (someone) against an action
The second definition would apply here. I don't think anyone truly into eugenics would simply discourage breeding by undesireables by giving them a stern talking to. In this case, discouraging it would lean towards preventing it all together by means such as castration, sterilization, forced abortion, execution, etc. Those would be the preventative measures that you'd call 'creating difficulties'. It certainly would be difficult to breed if you have no balls, right?
The real problem with it is, even with all we know now, we still know we can't make a perfect human. Also, the definition of 'perfect human' (or better human) would differ so greatly from one country to another, and one person to another.
It's just not something any intelligent person would support, it's so flawed and there's such a variance in what the ideal human would be.
Just to add, other forms of 'discouraging' could include deporting or banishing certain types of people, shipping them off to 'camps', rewarding the desirable and punishing the undesirable unfairly....Have you ever heard of the Cross of Honor of the German Mother? Check out the eligibility to receive the cross. Kind of disturbing. Then check out the benefits of receiving it. There are other examples of very similar things from all sorts of different places and times as well.
Is it normal that eugenics makes me sick?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I'm not going to waste time and read this. I knew you were trying to say I was being contradictory, which is why I replied with "The 20th century eugenics-psuedo-science HYPE has not survived but the fundamentals have always been around".
My point was that your delivery was indeed nonsensical, despite Zombies' translation of your word-soup.
You can google the definition of eugenics all you want? We all know what it is.
What you don't know about eugenics is that the so-called undesirable traits, justifying castration, was everything from the country you were born in to your grandfather's Parkinsons disease. US Immigration Laws based on eugenics classified immigrants as retards and sent them packing because they did not know English. Certain leading scientists LOVED sucking Hitlers cock by justified Jew executions with eugenics.
It's not a science. It is a pseudoscience that is WHOLLY scoffed at by the scientific community.
Your always trying to argue things I know with things you don't. It's a pathetic attempt. And disturbs me that you keep babbling on and on and on.
Sigh.
To end this conversation, I thought it was rather perfect timing that I read this today:
"[Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi]...recommended that the West try Islamic corporal punishments, like cutting off theives' hands, as a deterrent". (new york times page 12 bitch)
So basically, we wait until a drug addicted prostitute gets pregnant. We strap her down and rip the baby out of her womb. Then, finish it off with suturing up her vagina. You know, as a deterrent.
peace out sucka
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Oh, you knew did you, you just were asking what I was meaning about four times, including someone else telling you...Typical. That makes so much sense.
What? So you think what "your" definition of eugentics is more correct than the dictionary definition? No.
So, now you're saying that people that castration was justified with didn't get castrated, just that it was justified? By your definition of eugenics, wouldn't those immigrants be castrated, otherwise they wouldn't be victims of eugenics?
You clearly don't know as much as you'd like to think. You are arguing against dictionary definitions, arguing that you knew things that you needed others to explain to you, and so on. How can you know much on this subject if you are arguing that what it is isn't what it is; the definition? That would be like arguing a bannana is a vegetable, then thinking you know everything about it.
I'm talking about our society, not foreign ones that have very little technology compared to us. If you think that is allowed, cut off a few hands from thieves, see how far you get. I don't know about you, but I thought the difference between our area and theres is that we were more civilized.
...The last bit is just stupid.
"Peace out, sucka"
--
thinkingaboutit
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
THE STATEMENT ABOVE MADE NO SENSE YOU FLAMING RETARD.
YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT EUGENICS. Why don't you read about it FIRST, and then try to convince yourself that it's a science. thoughtless sheep.
No. it is not by my definition of eugenics. that's what the fuck eugenics is, you cunt. again, read something.
No, you're stupid. :)
peace out for the last time sucka.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Ah ofcourse. Instead of actually sticking to the point, you become a rage case simply because you have nothing to prove your point. I am very tempted to say "Umad?".
Once again, here is a quote on it's "definition". You're asking me to read something, yet you can't accept a dictionary definition, then you sit there and ask me to read something when I just quoted you the "dictionary definition" of the word? Need me to copy and paste the "dictionary definition" for you again? Ok:
"eu·gen·ics/yo͞oˈjeniks/
Noun:
The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics."
No mention of castration.
Another definition that is more so babying the definition to someone:
"eu·gen·ics
[yoo-jen-iks] Show IPA
noun ( used with a singular verb )
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."
"Discouraging reproduction", not making it imposible to reproduce. Not one definition of the word involves castration or making it impossible to reproduce, yet you think you have the overall intelligence to argue that the definition of the word isn't what the word means? Oh please.
So yes, I have read something, read quite a few pages on the matter so far. Simply because I am not willing to ignore the definition of the word to believe your "opinion" of the word doesn't mean I haven't read up the matter.
You called me a thoughtless sheep, once again, you're telling me to do all this, yet you only have to read the definition to be proven wrong.
My reply made perfect sense, you just didn't have anything to counter it with due to it showing you wrong.
Thinkingaboutit: Again read something
-ItDuz gives a quote from the definition of the word-
Thinkingabout: OMG THAT MAKES NO SENSE, A DEFINITION OF FACT QUOTED FROM THE DICTIONARY, NAH MY OPINION IS MUCH MORE FACTUAL.
And you call me stupid, quite ironic.
"Believe my opinion over definition facts, if you don't, you're a cunt" - Thinkingaboutit.
Peace out, have a splendid day, pick up a dictionary on your way out
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I was just reading this, and personally I don't want to argue with you about it, just to comment.
The word 'discourage' has a few meanings.
dis·cour·age
verb /disˈkərij/ /-ˈkə-rij/
Cause (someone) to lose confidence or enthusiasm
Prevent or seek to prevent (something) by showing disapproval or creating difficulties
Persuade (someone) against an action
The second definition would apply here. I don't think anyone truly into eugenics would simply discourage breeding by undesireables by giving them a stern talking to. In this case, discouraging it would lean towards preventing it all together by means such as castration, sterilization, forced abortion, execution, etc. Those would be the preventative measures that you'd call 'creating difficulties'. It certainly would be difficult to breed if you have no balls, right?
The real problem with it is, even with all we know now, we still know we can't make a perfect human. Also, the definition of 'perfect human' (or better human) would differ so greatly from one country to another, and one person to another.
It's just not something any intelligent person would support, it's so flawed and there's such a variance in what the ideal human would be.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Just to add, other forms of 'discouraging' could include deporting or banishing certain types of people, shipping them off to 'camps', rewarding the desirable and punishing the undesirable unfairly....Have you ever heard of the Cross of Honor of the German Mother? Check out the eligibility to receive the cross. Kind of disturbing. Then check out the benefits of receiving it. There are other examples of very similar things from all sorts of different places and times as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Honor_of_the_German_Mother