|
[ Human Genome Project Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
I think it's a very dangerous concept. Do we have the power to play God and to sterilize and maybe even kill people in order to justify the continuance of civilization? What do you think?
If you agree with the concept of Eugenics how would you implement such a program, what measures would you take and why?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [87.890] on April 24, 2005 at 00:23:11:
Did you notice a link I posted? Did you read that page or, better yet, peruse the site?
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
Hi R,
In a perfect world we could influence the future generations, but it takes millions of years to evolve even a different sized brain... How tiny a change could we preceieve in a few generations and could we communicate the change to those who follow in time to affect a correction?
Look at how difficult is it to convince the illuminati that climate change is going to progress on its' own merry way, regardless of the hopes that are placed on technology to
moderate the footprint that humans have made.
How can the predicted increase in global temperture be blamed on humans, when the past ice age could not be blamed on the dinosaurs?
What caused the ice age to go away in the past 20,000 years or so? Could we blame the SUVs of the natives or the cow farts of the Mastodon for raising the global temperture?
We are not as omnipotent as we would like to believe.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:43:36:
I read part of the link and skimmed the rest, why?
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
One faulty assumption of this paper is that we have all been duped into a belief that we're all equal in abilities. I don't know anyone who believes this.
Even the hated liberal agenda doesn't hold that assumption. Left-wing social engineering has attempted to provide "equal opportunity for all" through government-legislated programs. The emphasis is on *opportunity*; even the most liberal philosophy understands that some folks will not, or CANnot, take the opportunities even when provided, and will fall through the cracks.
It's a huge leap from questioning the fruits of the liberal agenda, to wanting to institute a government-sponsored eugenics program, as a solution for the perceived ills.
The liberal vision is for *opportunity* as there's no telling who is a bright star hiding their light under a bushel. This vision has not borne out its ideals as well in practice, for various reasons. It CAN be pondered to what extent this is an appropriate thing for government to be doing.
If it's not appropriate for government to enforce programs for human equality, why then is it appropriate for government to enforce programs for human differences? They are both social engineering by fiat.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Jan S. [3524.81] on April 24, 2005 at 01:32:02:
"If it's not appropriate for government to enforce programs for human equality, why then is it appropriate for government to enforce programs for human differences? They are both social engineering by fiat."
Excellent point Jan S.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [180.890] on April 24, 2005 at 01:06:16:
It was obvious.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Ron [205.1671] on April 24, 2005 at 00:47:23:
What you said in the first paragraph is addressed, to some degree, in the page address of which I posted. It seems that you haven't read it.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Jan S. [3524.81] on April 24, 2005 at 01:32:02:
Maybe you are right that the assumption is false. I do think, however, that promoting (not forcing) abstaining form reproducing among some people would be a good idea. There are probably many ways people could be convinced to go along. Not paying them to multiply (closing boarders is a variation of this) could be one way. Right now we do (pay them to multiply). Paying them not to is another.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 02:48:16:
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 02:33:27:
I'm annoyed with your game playing and your lack of respect. Come out and say what you want to say. I got the gist of the article, I didn't have to read every single friggin word or spend an hour perusing the website to get it.
I asked you for your opinions and ideas. I gave you mine, and instead of providing me some reasonable answers you insinuate that I either don't understand or am completely uninformed. I'm niether. This is pure bullshit.
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
I'll take their intelligence claims more seriously when they learn where to place an apostrophe.
Jane
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 02:48:16:
I do think, however, that promoting (not forcing) abstaining form reproducing among some people would be a good idea. There are probably many ways people could be convinced to go along.
Everyone already knows who should and shouldn't reproduce: me and mine *should*, it's the other guy who shouldn't. Heh. It's not rational now, and allowing some groups the power to persuade other groups about this isn't going to make it any more rational.
Persuasion may sound voluntary and apolitical, but it's not. As soon as one group is persuading another group not to reproduce (or paying them not to), you're talking politics. You haven't answered why you would trust government with this type of social engineering if you don't trust them with any other.
Arguably the incentive to reproduce should not favor certain groups, as in stopping free medical services for illegals crossing the border, and the like. But this isn't eugenics.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [180.890] on April 24, 2005 at 01:42:46:
Thanks. I agree with you that "the devil is in the details."
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
Hi R:
Interesting article, but it seems to offer an unrealistic and skewed view of eugenics. If humanity's I.Q. is raised to "perfection" level, and this results in driven individuals desiring nothing less than to become doctors, lawyers and chiefs, who'll be left to change our bedpans, pick our mushrooms, clean our streets, pick up our trash, or simply care for our elderly? A healthy, well-balanced society needs more than its professionals and geniuses. Those are just some thoughts that occurred to me as I was reading the article.
P.S. A high intelligence does not offer guarantees against criminality or insanity.
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
i think it's disgusting to be honest. what next? destroy all other other forms of life so that we can selfishly harness the whole of the earth's resources?
it's a generalisation to say life gets better with more intelligence.....try telling that to victims of hiroshima for example....
there is definitely an argument for it, but in terms of morality and ethics it's a non-starter.....this is the idea of an elite civilisation, one in which humans are slaves to their brains, and clones of eachother....
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 02:36:59:
Hi R,
It was a long read for two in the morning. I may have had my memory jogged when I skimmed the beginning to find the interesting parts.
I also remember this being dicussed on Coast To Coast AM about a year ago and my opinion may have been influenced by that.
It sounds like someone has an agenda or a book to push.
Hopfully it won't start a whole new movement of radicals in the teaching system. Could it be the new left-wing ace
to upset the masses into chinging their voting preferrence?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by PhillyLady [192.1599] on April 24, 2005 at 07:27:33:
Hi Philly,
Right you are...
How could society function if there were no worker ants to do the lowly tasks?
We already have a vocal backlash against the educated immigrants who are demanding recognition of their foreign training not being recognized by western governing bodies.
Cabbies with masters degrees and hospital orderlies with PHDs may seem unfair, but when people emmigrate to a better country it takes a long time to fit in, sometimes a generation.
How could a beehive function if there were dozens or thousands of Queens to service?
Didn't we see the error in the ways of a radical dictator
during the Second World War, when selective extermination was the goal?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Jane (1) [111.1399] on April 24, 2005 at 03:14:38:
Hi Jane,
The contraction of "WE ARE" is we're. Was there another more obvious one?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Ron [2014.1671] on April 24, 2005 at 09:15:42:
Hi Jane,
Did you mean "Nazi's" when there was no "possessive" case needed?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Ron [205.1671] on April 24, 2005 at 00:47:23:
so the earth is going through a natural cycle of warming, that man has nothing to do with, and happened many times before ? What does archeology tell us is coming, a tropical paradise, with no snow or ice, and balmy temps in antartica ? I'm going to invest in some land down there, and import palm trees.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 02:48:16:
Hi R,
Isn't paying people to multiply what is suggested in the bible?
The words "Go Forth And Multiply" are prominent and do not
differentiate between the rulers and the masses.
The liberal agenda has the same goal in mind when they suggest that the masses need "taking care of" because they are too stupid to do it for themselves. This makes jobs for social workers and entitlements make jobs for bureaucrats.
They are against quality control because it makes their future less secure.
Republicans also have their agenda, since more useless
eaters make for more bottom-line dollars in the coffers of industry. If selective breeding were the norm, there would be far fewer consumers and business would suffer...
(hence their stand on Birth Control.)
China has been preaching population control by penalizing those who have more than one child, so... many have left for more tollerant pastures. One day, (if intelligence is the goal), we may find that the yellow race will be suggesting
Eugenics. Maybe they are already doing it in the US.
Funny that we have not heard much about One child per family
in China lately... They need the workers more than ever now.
Everyone has an agenda, so think for yourself and don't be to quick to support the newest "Pied Piper" on the block.
The cliff is approaching.
Ron
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [180.890] on April 24, 2005 at 01:42:46:
Hi Gabby,
During the Second World War there was Social Engineering by
"Volkswagen" (not Fiat)
Remember "The People's Car"?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Vince F [1194.1745] on April 24, 2005 at 09:36:57:
Hi Vince,
How long do you want to wait to movre? Remember the old addage..
"Buy Low. Sell High" Waiting too long can reverse the two.
Most of us will wait until all the condos are built down there and then say we missed the boat. Will the penguins be relegated to the same status as the Native People in the US?
Maybe they will be the ones running the Antarctic Casinos.
They already have the tuxedos.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [87.890] on April 24, 2005 at 03:02:35:
Hi Gabby,
I am enjoying this string. Don't spoil it. You are starting to sound like "P"
Just ignore the posts that are supposed to get you riled. :(
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
Who does intelligence and civilization benefit ? The people who build the sophiscated weapons that kill many at a time, compared to one at a time? Do drugs that are harmful, allowed to be made, by those who know how to work the system, because of their smarts, that may benefit a few, and harm as many, and maybe harm everyone eventually. GM foods aren't going to be developed by dumb people or pesticides. Engineers can design and build projects that they find out did more damage than the seeming benefit, for a time, if they ever did. Build a dam and generate electricity, then the fish can't get up stream and reproduce. Minor loss of a speciaes, so lets design the ability to over fish the oceans, or produce crops and animals to feed more people, so everyone can overeat and get fat, and reproduce more, since they aren't worried about food, and what if the whole system crumbles, because intelligence wasn't That smart. Or a natural catastrophy destroys the bubble that was created by engineering, that wouldn't have happened naturally, and normal limits or restrictions would have prevailed, so which is better ? It seems like civilization and intelligence are good things, till we find out that they aren't. Animals Don't Need to reshape things to survive, but man may eningeer them into extinction. Does mans hunting do the same thing for the health of prey as predatory animals ? Does taking the bigest and strongest deer because it is a better trophy than the lesser or sick make for a healthier deer population? No.. I had a discussion with a hunter who said he kills dogs that he sees chasing deer. We killed off all the natural predators who pick the Right ones to keep the herd healthy but WE are Smarter !!! ??? I just saw a show where there was a dead deer that wolves had killed and left, and the guy said, that makes him Hate Wolves. What, Wolves are murderers, or maybe they ate and left it for later, Or their instincts and abilities make them kill more than they have to and Other animals who couldn't do the killing will survive. But mY Smarty Pants would probably get rid of All the wolves because His Intillegence saw that as wasteful. TOO dumb to realize that HE isn't the Only creature on the planet, and Maybe if he engineers it the way HE thinks Everything should be, HE won't be able to survive, because he is SO smart and doing all the things his intelligence has enabled him to do, that he will screw up Every system. With our superior intelligence, we haven't been able to stop storms, floods, wars, hunger, disease to where no one gets sick, we just get sick from NEW diseases, that some or maybe many, we probably created ourselves, and how many are coming that we aren't smart enough to realize or understand or our nice system of bribing those at the top of our intelligent civilization, at the detriment to life because dollars are what They want, and benefits Their Clan. ...Lets not worry about pollution, it will Cost our Friends to be responsible. The Other leaders in our CIVILAZED society. What does nature and natural know? Lead and mercury aren't a problem. Progress (??) is More important. Can't worry about global warming. That's Natural. We are Positive, and if it isn't, we'll Invent a Fix, that will cause Another problem.
There was a good show on the damage cause by introducing foreign species of plants and animals and then introducing Others to combat them and needing OTHERS to combat Them!! That takes Smarts... Progress ??? Eventually they May get things Back to where they were, Before They screwed it up.
Give me the dumb animals with no ability to destry their environment. You have to be Dumb to be Smart...
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Vince F [1194.1745] on April 24, 2005 at 10:39:15:
Hi Vince,
So... you were not in favour of introducing rabbits to Australia?
Ron
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [87.890] on April 24, 2005 at 03:02:35:
I wasn't playing any games. I just wanted to ask for people's opinions (after they read the article).
By the way, it is interesting to observe how one can turn on a dime -- from appearing kind, gentle, soft, "spiritual" to a downright jerk. No one was/is forcing you to participate, mind you.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Ron [2014.1671] on April 24, 2005 at 09:00:25:
I just stumbled upon it when reading a web site developement article by a web developer. He happened to subscribe to this philosophy and had a link to the eugenics site.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Jan S. [3524.81] on April 24, 2005 at 05:12:18:
Arguably the incentive to reproduce should not favor certain groups, as in stopping free medical services for illegals crossing the border, and the like. But this isn't eugenics.
This would change the demographics, average IQ of the population (that the authors of the site are so concerned with), and level of living. Hopefully, for the better. I'd support these kinds of methods only, not forced castration or sterilization. I'd trust the government to do this because I agree with the idea, and the methods aren't violent but based on voluntary participation. The opposite approach hasn't worked so far, as far as I can tell.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? (Pied Piper) posted by Ron [2014.1671] on April 24, 2005 at 09:40:31:
Isn't paying people to multiply what is suggested in the bible? The words "Go Forth And Multiply" are prominent and do not differentiate between the rulers and the masses.
Wasn't that said to Adam and Eve, (almost) perfect people then? He didn't tell that to parasites on the body of a society, did he?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Ron [2014.1671] on April 24, 2005 at 09:15:42:
They used "it's" in a place of "its" in one place that I noticed, but I am sure that was a typo. Everyone makes them. Not knowing what to use where would be a different issue. Paying attention to such details instead of important ideas is asinine.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by PhillyLady [192.1599] on April 24, 2005 at 07:27:33:
Right, but I didn't notice that they promoted raising humanity's I.Q. to "perfection" level. I think they worry that the average IQ will get too low for civilization to be able to survive. There will always be enough people to "change our bedpans, pick our mushrooms, clean our streets, pick up our trash, or simply care for our elderly" (although, we could do these jobs ourselves too).
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 24, 2005 at 08:24:20:
i think it's disgusting to be honest.
And your choice is to lie? Ha-ha-ha
Jane would not give you credit on an intelligence test [http://askwaltstollmd.com/wwwboard/messages/348792.shtml].
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 13:30:56:
um...i believe i used the apostrophe correctly..
"it's" is a contraction of "it is"...
i guess you learn something new everyday huh?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Ron [2014.1671] on April 24, 2005 at 10:06:39:
gabs didn't spoil it, the principle of a good debate is to have respect for your opposite number, some people don't understand this concept....so i don't blame her at all, and nor should you.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 24, 2005 at 16:53:02:
"Your wild homosexul mind is thinking of extremes."
try blaming that one on gabs too ok?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 13:26:48:
Hi R:
If the average IQ is steadily decreasing, maybe we should look to other factors besides race and nationality which may be responsible. Illegal drugs, prescription drugs, tainted food supply, allergies particular to specific ethnic groups, pollution, lead poisoning, and vaccines could all play a role in the lowering of IQs. These are all possible contributing factors which can be found in a modern society.
As far as doing menial jobs ourselves, I doubt that most professionals would want to empty their elderly parents' bedpans, or go diving for their lobster dinners after a hard day in the courtroom:-)
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? (Pied Piper) posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 13:14:06:
Hi R,
If parasites went to church, they heard it too.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by PhillyLady [1494.1599] on April 24, 2005 at 18:56:41:
If the average IQ is steadily decreasing, maybe we should look to other factors besides race and nationality which may be responsible.
From whatever I've read (not much) on that site, I haven't seen them promote race and nationality based birth control. I've noticed that they talked more about clinically mentally challenged individuals.
Personally (and probably not very scientifically), even though, I definitely see that individuals of some races/nationalities are less or more intelligent than others, on average, I have enough evidence (for me, at least) that environmental factors are hugely important. Although, I can't argue with of some of their arguments (e.g. one about twins).
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 24, 2005 at 16:43:18:
You missed the point. It wasn't about the use of the apostrophe.
i guess you learn something new everyday huh?
I most definitely do, by you don't, apparently.
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
R,
This article is utterly pathetic. I can't even believe you
posted this.
"To give you an idea of the power of eugenics, consider
this. Over one-third of all mentally retarded people have
a retarded parent. It therefore follows that if all mentally
retarded people refrained from reproducing, mental
retardation could be cut by one-third in one generation
(Willerman, 1984). It may be unrealistic to think they
could all be induced to adopt some permanent form of
birth control, but just imagine for a minute that it actually
happened. Do you realize what it would mean to have
mental retardation cut by a third? It would mean a
reduction in misery so vast it can't be comprehended all
at once. It would mean a dramatic decrease in all
social problems--crime, illegitimacy, chronic welfare
dependency, illiteracy, chronic unemployment. It would
be a huge boost to the economy. Taxpayers would save
trillions of dollars."
This is such irresponsible writing I have to wonder if the
person who wrote it has a slight retardation issue
him/her self. Where are the statistics to back up the
allegations that retardation is responsible for all of the
above listed, versus environment being responsbile for
creating these issues? And where does the author get
off saying that 1/3rd of all retarded people have a
retarded parent????? This is so utterly WRONG!!!!!!!
This person has NO understanding of HOW
retardation, or I should say WHY retardation is in some
cases considered genetic. It has NOTHING to do with
whether or not the parents are retarded, and most of
the time THIS IS NOT THE CASE!!!! I know this for sure,
and have been involved for OVER 20 years with the very
people that developed the original testing for fragile X
syndrome, which is one of the leading causes of
mental retardation.
I can't believe you posted such junk. Perhaps you could
have done a bit more reading to find out if these
statements were actually true? So, since you
didn't.....here I did it for you!! Below is a quote, and a
few links to explain to you why this person is full of it.
How laughable. It is morons like this that shouldn't be
able to reproduce. Uneducated idiot.
"About 5% of mental retardation is caused by hereditary
factors. Mental retardation may be caused by an
inherited abnormality of the genes, such as fragile X
syndrome. Fragile X, a defect in the chromosome that
determines sex, is the most common inherited cause
of mental retardation. Single gene defects such as
phenylketonuria (PKU) and other inborn errors of
metabolism may also cause mental retardation if they
are not found and treated early. An accident or mutation
in genetic development may also cause retardation.
Examples of such accidents are development of an
extra chromosome 18 (trisomy 18) and Down
syndrome. Down syndrome, also called mongolism or
trisomy 21, is caused by an abnormality in the
development of chromosome 21. It is the most
common genetic cause of mental retardation."
The above quote was taken from this site:
http://www.chclibrary.org/micromed/00056550.html
Below is a link to another site to explain to you what
"hereditary" REALLY means in regards to genetics and
retardation. (How the whole thing truthfully occurs). If
you were to study it further, you will find that "they" don't
KNOW what even caused the original mutation.
Have a read R, and as you so graciously (bwah!!)
instructed Gabriella, don't respond until you have read
the entire article(s).
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
This is another link to the same site that R posted
from. Very telling. The guy is a freak.
dd
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 12:53:48:
R,
You really have trouble, no, let me rephrase......You can't
comprehend that people have VARIOUS sides to their
personality. Including you. Somehow it seems you
expect soft and loving persons like Gabriella to never
get mad? Especially when it is someone like you that
is rude, irritating, game playing, cruel,
pompous.....ETC.!!!!!!!!! How can it be that after all your
time on this planet, that you never learned that people
are multi-dimensional? So, your argument and
judgement towards Gabriella is weak, uninformed, and
lastly, unintelligent. But, since you also said the same
of me while playing these same passive/agressive
games, I have learned that you just simply can't
comprehend reality. Therefore, I forgive your ignorance,
as I am sure Gabs will too.
dd
In Reply to: here's your evidence Ron. posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 24, 2005 at 16:54:18:
Where did that post go?
In Reply to: Re: OT: The ENTIRE website posted by dd [2174.26] on April 25, 2005 at 01:18:04:
nmi
In Reply to: trying link again posted by dd [2174.26] on April 25, 2005 at 01:30:14:
link pasted fine, but didn't post.
I'll try one more time
In Reply to: hmm..won't post ..... posted by dd [2174.26] on April 25, 2005 at 01:31:33:
Hi dd, don't waste any time engaging with this nonsense. Luckily we're living in tole ant democ acies where this sort of evil gaRbage gets aired - better spewed foRth than festeRing within...don't you think?
Jane
In Reply to: Re: here's your evidence Ron. posted by dd [2174.26] on April 25, 2005 at 01:29:05:
i asked for it to be deleted since it was an unnecessary and unprovoked attack.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 25, 2005 at 00:55:24:
va t'acheter une vie
In Reply to: fReaky... posted by Jane (1) [111.1399] on April 25, 2005 at 01:49:45:
ha....too tRue Jane.
it doesn't surpRise me in the slightest that R is inteRested in this Rubbish.
the iRony of the situation is that he probably assumes he would fit into the mould of the elite required to progress civilisation.
a few problems with this....
firstly, who'd want to Reproduce with him? secondly, he has no spiRit or compassion. thirdly, he isn't even smaRt.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by dd [2174.26] on April 25, 2005 at 01:12:08:
good point dd, and i'm sure it's just one of the many flaws in the whole argument.
civilisation would be better to eliminate the head-cases who advocate this bullsh1t.....then again, we need people to make us laugh... ;-)
In Reply to: Re: fReaky... posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 25, 2005 at 05:46:57:
Yeah. Hey, does YouJaneics have a ring to it or WHAT???? Methinks Eugenics is simply a warped version of MeTarzanics he he
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
Thanks, R.
The Human Genome Project has given us our first real look at the "Nature vs Nurture" debate that has raged for the past thousand years. 20% of our potential is now estimated to be due to nature (genetics) and 80% is due to what we DO with our genetics: nurture. Since dealing with genetics is infinitely more difficult, and takes a lot longer for results (at least 1housands of years), the only rational thing for individuals to do is to deal with improving our health through the things discussed on this website for the past 10 years (wellness).
Nutrition alone (the myriad of micronutrients in real food) are now known to be the messengers to the genes that allows them to produce their full range of function. Perhaps the real observable reduction of intellectual capacity is not genetic but functional from removing these messengers fron our food supply.
The changes reported here are MUCH too fast for any known genetic mechanism but are typical of a change in the environment (nutrition for example). These changes typically occur in the same generation--exactly what is being observed!
Comments?
Walt
In Reply to: Re: fReaky... posted by Jane (1) [111.1399] on April 25, 2005 at 07:19:53:
youJaneics....yeah, has a ring to it....what does it involve? civilisation working towards imitating your perfection?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by Walt Stoll [93.1889] on April 25, 2005 at 07:36:09:
i can't believe you are archiving this naziesque propaganda.
this has less to do with health and more to do with discrimination and elitism.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 25, 2005 at 00:52:03:
Hi R:
A preponderance of low intelligence in a society would no more contribute to its downfall than, say, a preponderance of insanity, or religious fanaticism, or even warmongering. I don't believe the Roman Empire fell due to extreme cretinism.
Eventually, the scales of human development always balance themselves out when it comes to intelligence. Even during the worst dark ages, some luminaries have managed to rise above the dim to bring light to his unenlightened fellow men.
I'm thinking that Copernicus had a hell of a time with his contemporaries. Yet he was the brilliance the world needed [at that time] to offset the insanity of the religious ruling classes. I don't believe it was their low intelligence that kept them in the dark. Rather, it was, no doubt, their fanaticism, violence and greed.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Ron [2014.1671] on April 24, 2005 at 09:12:47:
Hi Ron:
Selective extermination is appalling, of course. Are we not doing some sort of "selective discrimination" when we refuse to accept a foreign professional's credentials, even when they equal or surpass our own? Justice and common sense are two difficult concepts for society to address rationally.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by Walt Stoll [93.1889] on April 25, 2005 at 07:36:09:
Hi Dr. Stoll:
You mention functional intellectual reduction! Now there's something that truly requires extensive studies. Just think what could be uncovered through these studies....Perhaps the cause of criminal behavior, mental illness, autism, etc.?
If only 20% of our potential is genetic, then that leaves 80% of "uncharted territory" to be discovered. The argument that intelligence is mostly genetics doesn't hold then?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 25, 2005 at 07:41:42:
Hi Chris:
Are you not seeing that the rebuttals are also being archived?:-)
Eugenics is an important issue which needs addressing (or nipping in the bud), and not swept under the rug. It's not a fad, but an idea which has periodically reared its ugly head throughout history. I commend Dr. Stoll for archiving it.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 25, 2005 at 07:41:42:
Hi Chris:
Also wanted to add, in case I wasn't clear before, that I am against eugenics.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on April 25, 2005 at 11:32:18:
i understand, i just thought that maybe it meant he was condoning eugenics, i guess he didn't actually say that on second thoughts.
i think walt is kind-hearted so i feel guilty for my first response.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by Walt Stoll [93.1889] on April 25, 2005 at 07:36:09:
Hi Walt,
I find this topic very interesting. As you may already know, TCM has had its own version of "eugenics" for several millenia now. The gist of this TCM concept is that the time before a man and a woman conceive and the time during the pregrancy are considered crucial in the 20-25% of the wellbeing of the baby. In other words, we do have a control over the nature/genetics part of the future baby, and therefore many things can be done and can be improved by every couple who want the best for their baby. So, I'm in favor of the idea that we should strive for the 100%--of both nature and nurture.
But I'm not sure the western minds can accept these ideas. For instance, one of the best ways to ensure a healthy bodymind of the baby, according to TCM, is that the pregnant woman should abstain from having sex. Thus, most Chinese husband usually choose to sleep in a different room from his pregnant wife. It has been shown that sex during pregnancy would harm the mental and emotional wellbeing of the future child, and that he/she would be more likely to have problems with sex and relationships when the baby grew up. Also, it has been believed that these babies are more prone to feel unloved and become extremely needy emotionally, to have more psychological problems and prone to be sexually devient as adults. I don't know how well the westerners are going to accept such ideas.
So Walt, I'd like to hear your views on this matter.
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
R., there are better ways to improve the quality of humanbeing that what that website suggests. See my post to Walt in this thread...
A note to several of my net buddies here--you know who you are :) : I have got all your emails but I've been away from computer for a while so haven't answered you guys yet. I will get back to you all later.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by bing [1067.1900] on April 25, 2005 at 20:39:47:
I meant to say "there are better ways to improve the quality of humanbeing THAN what that website suggests." Sorry for the typo.
In Reply to: Re: OT: "Eugenics" according toTCM--Rule #1: Do not have sex while pregnant... posted by bing [1067.1900] on April 25, 2005 at 20:33:04:
Hi bing
thats interesting.
***It has been shown that sex during pregnancy would harm the mental and emotional wellbeing of the future child, and that he/she would be more likely to have problems with sex and relationships when the baby grew up.***
Where has this been shown ?
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
What this translates to is giving more power to the people. However, more power without the wisdom to wield it would result in distratrous consequences. Sometimes I wish Hitler and Saddam Hussein were born retarded.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by North*Star [1935.1379] on April 25, 2005 at 21:28:15:
"more power to the people"
subject to (discriminatory) terms and conditions...i.e. high enough intelligence, no diseases or disabilities etc.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 25, 2005 at 21:41:27:
You can't set "discriminatory" terms and conditions ,for those people will find a way to override those discriminatory terms. You can't control human beings, you can only help them gain wisdom and hope for the best.
High enough intelligence - what is a barometer for high intelligence? High intelligence doesn't automatically translate to increased well-being of society.
no diseases or disabilities - you must be refering to natural disabilities, how about disabilties caused by war or diseases caused by greed of man? can we eliminate them altogether?
i'm waiting for the utopia!!!
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 25, 2005 at 05:55:44:
The thing that got me upset about this was the last
paragraph that I quoted. I don't know what retarded
people this author has been around, but most of them,
even high functioning retarded people, are usually
violent to themselves or objects, due to frusration. I
have seen it over and over again with the kids who have
fragile X, some in my mom's side of the family. But I
guarantee you that most of the people that are
criminals were not nutured and loved. And just the fact
that this idot author has the GALL to actually put out
there that we have the RIGHT to even consider
this....like we are God? This is simply unbelievable to
me, that a subject like this even warrants discussion on
this type of a board. It is one of the most unhealthy
subjects thus far, and in my eyes, is one of the scariest
scenarios I could ever imagine.
dd
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by dd [2174.26] on April 25, 2005 at 01:25:05:
xoxoxoxoxoxo
Thanks so much dd!!!
In Reply to: Re: here's your evidence Ron. posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 25, 2005 at 05:31:52:
Hi chris, I've been gone from the board for a few days, was that post that you had deleted about me? If so maybe you could send me an email and let me know the contents.
Thanks,
gabs
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 24, 2005 at 16:53:02:
xoxoxoxoxo
Thanks chris!!!
In Reply to: Re: here's your evidence Ron. posted by gabriella [180.890] on April 25, 2005 at 22:26:00:
hey gabs,
no, the post was addressed to me, you aren't the only one he likes to annoy.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 12:53:48:
What I don't understand is why you considered my comments and questions so unrelated, I felt they were completely relevant. As I said before, I read at least half of the article, skimmed the rest, got the gist very easily, and was quite capable of discussing the concepts. If, there was something you you wanted to discuss, then you could have simply brought that up, instead of trying to put me down for not reading every word.
"it is interesting to observe how one can turn on a dime -- from appearing kind, gentle, soft, "spiritual" to a downright jerk."
Even kind people know when they are being mistreated and disrespected and that's what you were doing to me.
I don't want to continue this conversation with you R. You've made your point, you don't want to discuss Eugenics with me and that's perfectly fine. You have plenty of others whom you do respect, so go ahead, knock yourself out.
In Reply to: Re: here's your evidence Ron. posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 25, 2005 at 22:27:06:
Thanks for your speedy answer and I'm sorry chris, I know you've been down a rough road with him. You're better off when you stay away from the landmines, not that it's always possible.
In Reply to: Re: here's your evidence Ron. posted by gabriella [180.890] on April 25, 2005 at 22:47:44:
yes it was rather speedy huh? as it this one...i'm so efficient (or bored maybe? lol)....
off to bed now so nitey nite.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 25, 2005 at 15:55:09:
You need to stop thinking with your ass, chris.
In Reply to: Re: OT: "Eugenics" according toTCM--Rule #1: Do not have sex while pregnant... posted by bing [1067.1900] on April 25, 2005 at 20:33:04:
As Bliss, I'd like to know where that has been shown. Nevertheless, I'll keep it in mind and will try to abstain from sex during my wife's pregnancy. By the way, is only penetration not recommended or any physical contact between wife and husband?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by Walt Stoll [93.1889] on April 25, 2005 at 07:36:09:
Thanks, Walt. This is close to my current views. But what do you think about the following from that web site:
"Scientists have discovered that identical twins separated at birth and raised apart are remarkably similar in IQ--almost as similar as they are in height. They also resemble one another strikingly in their mannerisms, the way they laugh, their likes and dislikes, phobias, temperament, sexual preference, educational achievement, income, conscientiousness (character), musical ability, whether they're criminals or law-abiding, and just about everything else that's ever been tested. (Bouchard, 1993) The extent of their similarity amazes even the researchers and the twins themselves.
The primacy of genes is also demonstrated in adoption studies. Adopted children's IQs resemble those of their biological parents--whom they haven't seen from day 1--more closely than they resemble those of their adoptive parents, who essentially provided their environments. When adopted children are grown, there's almost no resemblance at all between their IQs and those of their adoptive parents. Other traits show resemblance between adopted children and their biological parents to varying degrees (Loehlin, Willerman, and Horn, 1987)."
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by North*Star [1935.1042] on April 25, 2005 at 21:59:12:
High intelligence doesn't automatically translate to increased well-being of society.
Maybe not; although, "those" people would probably argue. Interestingly, even though they criticized people for confusing correlation data with a proof of a cause-effect relationship, they do the same thing when they make conclusions based on IQ and level of living of different populations... if I read it correctly.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on April 25, 2005 at 09:56:00:
I don't believe the Roman Empire fell due to extreme cretinism.
Just because the Roman Empire might have fallen due to other reasons, this doesn't prove that low average IQ can't lead to demise of a civilization.
I don't believe it was their low intelligence that kept them in the dark. Rather, it was, no doubt, their fanaticism, violence and greed.
Don't the latter affect the former?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 24, 2005 at 16:53:02:
the principle of a good debate is to have respect for your opposite number, some people don't understand this concept
Do you remember when you called Alexandra Dumas a dumbass (based on her name) because she didn't support you in your trying to prove something? This must be your style to show "respect for your opposite number". Do you have a copy of that discourse to email to Gabriella? LOL
You deserve every single bit you get.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by dd [2174.26] on April 25, 2005 at 01:25:05:
Couldn't keep your promise, as usual, could you? Just like your insane double a while back.
In Reply to: Re: here's your evidence Ron. posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 25, 2005 at 22:51:08:
sweet dreams
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [180.890] on April 25, 2005 at 22:36:36:
What I don't understand is why you considered my comments and questions so unrelated
For this question of yours: "Do we have the power to play God and to sterilize and maybe even kill people in order to justify the continuance of civilization?" I posted the article because I wanted to discuss the topic within that context. My impression of their approach was that they wouldn't support violence.
If, there was something you you wanted to discuss, then you could have simply brought that up, instead of trying to put me down for not reading every word.
I have very limited time, so when I sensed that you didn't read the article, I decided to say what I said instead of getting into a longer explanation. You must be too vulnerable to perceive a simple question whether you read the article as an attempt to put you down.
Even kind people know when they are being mistreated and disrespected and that's what you were doing to me.
In your case, it was your own perception based on nothing but factors internal to you. All I was "doing to you" was asking you if you had read the article. That simple.
In my model of the world, kind people don't turn into jerks. Especially, for reasons you thought you had.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Ron [2014.1671] on April 24, 2005 at 10:06:39:
I'm not spoiling anything you asshole. I was mistreated by R. when I all I tried to do was discuss his link intelligently with him, and you jumped on the bandwagon, first chance you got.
Months ago I asked you not to post to me anymore and yet you continue, and you keep trying to stick it to me. I have to ask myself what in the world is wrong with this sick and pathetically twisted old man that he keeps trying to get a rise out of someone that he has absolutely nothing in common with and obviously no respect for. It's really sad, and a total waste of everybody's energy. Now please, STOP POSTING TO ME. Don't be hypocrite, abide by your own words, "Just ignore the posts that are supposed to get you riled".
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 26, 2005 at 00:46:00:
"My impression of their approach was that they wouldn't support violence."
I don't agree. I think if anyone so much as even considers eugenics then they're arrogant and cruel enough to take it to the extreme, especially if they 'think' they have to. If the people whom they believe to be 'inferior' don't just shut up and swallow their [don't multiply] pill, then everything will be fine, but if not, you watch, the people in the framework of this article would begin to take the next ***perceived, necessary*** steps.
When you post a link, some people will discuss the topic in general, often outside the EXACT framework of the article, and they might even disagree with the topic, and that's all ok.
My guess is that you weren't comfortable with my comments about playing God, sterilization, and killing and were afraid to be associated with such. But you weren't, I asked you what YOU would do. It would have been very easy, straighforward, and dignified of you to just tell me that you didn't think that the people in the article would carry things that far and why.
~~~
"In my model of the world, kind people don't turn into jerks. Especially, for reasons you thought you had."
Up till this comment I thought that at least you were trying to impart some information. However this statement blows it all to pieces, and it's the second in this subthread that you've called me a jerk. Look who's talking!!!!!!! I really wish you had ommitted this statement R., it might have proven that perhaps you were actually becoming a little human.
Anyway, as I said, I understand that you do not want to discuss eugenics with me so I accept that, and I won't expect you to waste your time any further.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 25, 2005 at 07:41:42:
Thanks, Ukchris.
This is 20% right and I do not believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Anyone who sees this will also see my response and all the other responses. I think any intelligent reader will see which way the wind blows.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on April 25, 2005 at 10:15:02:
Right, PhillyLady.
The "eugenics" stuff is only 20% correct. The problem seems to be that education, which is what it takes to address the other 80%, does not make any money for the system. Who is going to put billions into research that has no hope of returning a dividend to the contributor? only the public will benefit.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 26, 2005 at 00:20:35:
Hi R:
I know that civilizations have fallen for a variety of reasons, but do we know if any have ever fallen specifically as the result of low IQs?
I imagine that early man was operating through animal instincts at first, and later developed intelligence as we know it today. I don't know if the reverse could ever occur(?).
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on April 26, 2005 at 11:52:40:
do we know if any have ever fallen specifically as the result of low IQs?
I don't.
I imagine that early man was operating through animal instincts at first, and later developed intelligence as we know it today. I don't know if the reverse could ever occur(?).
I think that operating through animal instincts is still very powerful.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [87.890] on April 26, 2005 at 01:44:34:
Why would I if you behave like an emotional bomb ready to explode any time. Maybe you should stick to talking to chris, dd, and Jane for the time being. The Universe is big enough for the two us.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by R. [27.1490] on April 25, 2005 at 23:58:06:
He thought with his mind, which is why he apologized,
something which I am sure is difficult for you to
process.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on April 25, 2005 at 10:04:37:
I'd say that just thinking rationally is difficult for many.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 26, 2005 at 15:18:57:
I am sorry R. I distinctly have over two years of
memories where you and a few others on this board,
were nothing but cruel. Perhaps it is you who is "dual?"
I think so, and it seems so perfectly clear to me that you
are projecting. Remember two others that have been
banned? And your association with them? And how
unkind you were MANY MANY times? Then to justify
your behaviors continually? I really think you can't see
yourself. No one is perfect, and everyone has a fuse at
some point. I have seen yours as well. Please stop
acting like you live in some world of utopia and angels.
Your cruelty at times, out of the blue, (such as how you
speak to chris about sexuality), is extremely cruel?
Somehow in your mind you are exempt? I have to
wonder about someone that can't admit that they have a
dark side, when they are "in" it a lot of the time. You
don't see yourself very clearly.
So, because of the above I conclude this: in your
world, kind people don't get angry, then logic serves to
produce the end result that you are not a kind person
and that you live in delusion about yourself, while
slagging others.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [180.890] on April 25, 2005 at 22:23:26:
You are welcome! Gabs, you aren't nuts and you
caught the obvious judgement within his shortness. It
was clear as a bell, and he is lying about his feelings at
the time. Not difficult to see. He just can't admit it,
and I am beginning to believe he honestly isn't in touch
with his own anger and self-grandeur. Oh well!
Hope you are well.
dd
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 26, 2005 at 00:28:30:
i am sure i said what i felt was deserved at the time....if no respect is given to me, then i am not responsible for my actions after that point....
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by dd [2174.26] on April 26, 2005 at 15:20:23:
thanks dd, i think it's extremely healthy to admit fault and error when due....since i have yet to meet anyone who is perfect.....
In Reply to: Re: OT: "Eugenics" according toTCM--Rule #1: Do not have sex while pregnant... posted by R. [27.1490] on April 26, 2005 at 00:03:42:
Where? In China of course, by several thousands of years of practice--trial and error--just like the rest of the TCM wisdom.
What I mentioned earlier is merely one small detail of ensuring the wellbeing of the baby. There are volumes of this special field focusing on the process of conception, dietary and lifestyle cares during pregnancy (including a practice called "fetus education" etc.), during delivery, nursing, and dietary practices for all these stages--too much to list here. But outside TCM books, a lot of the practical part of these information are traditionally passed down from mother to daughter, as part of the "life skill" heritage, and shared among families and communities.
"By the way, is only penetration not recommended or any physical contact between wife and husband?"
It is mainly sexual arousal and the rest of the sex act. For instance, porn stuff can cause arousal without the sex act, therefore should also be avoided by the pregnant woman. The way I understand it is that it's about hormon secretion which sends the wrong information to the rest of the body, and eventually affecting the fetus. If we look at the animal world, pregnant female animals usually lose sexual interest after they become pregnant.
Also, sex during pregnamcy can send the fetus a confusing message: that he/she is not wanted or not good enough, and the parents want to conceive another one--metaphysically, energetically speaking.
Hope this helps. There are far more info on this topic that can be summerized in one post.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by Walt Stoll [93.1889] on April 26, 2005 at 07:57:22:
yeah i agree that there is an element of potential in the idea, potential that is ethical.
i admire your ability to give merit to the 20% whilst ignoring the 80%, which i am assuming (???) was to prevent provoking and antagonising the original poster....maybe you'd prefer not to say :-)
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by dd [2174.26] on April 26, 2005 at 15:45:39:
Thanks so much for your support, understanding, and ability to see the essence of the situation. R. is an incredibly cruel and angry person, and I do agree that he is not in touch with his feelings.
Perhaps I struck a nerve when I said that eugenics could possibly lead to playing God, sterilization, and cruely. Or perhaps he is connected with someone here who dislikes me and decided he was going to rough me up a bit.
Either way I've watched his dysfunctional behavior for quite some time and I was a little hopeful that he might be changing. However, he's a very very ugly person on the inside, and obviously doesn't have the sense or desire enough to change. Deep down he must really feel like shit, to treat people the way he does.
gabs
In Reply to: Re: OT: "Eugenics" according toTCM--Rule #1: Do not have sex while pregnant... posted by bing [1517.1900] on April 26, 2005 at 15:58:28:
I also want to add that intelligence is merely one facet of the greater human wisdom for best chance for survival. More important than intelligence is a well-balanced bodymind that has not only a sharp mind, but also have good physical energy, mental/emotional stability, a wholesome attitude of life, courage, patience, centeredness, endurance, fortitude, flexibility, adaptbility, resoursfulness, etc. etc. But few of these great qualities can be seen from a IQ test.
In Reply to: Re: OT: "Eugenics" according toTCM--Rule #1: Do not have sex while pregnant... posted by Bliss to bingie [4.1601] on April 25, 2005 at 21:24:59:
See my post to R.--it was meant for you, too.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 26, 2005 at 15:18:57:
Oh no R., I'm not an emotional bomb just because I don't care to subject myself to your cruelty. If you treated me with respect this would have turned out completely differently. It's not my failure, it's yours.
Anyway, yes, this world is big enough for both of us and you and I will no longer be conversing.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 13:06:38:
I suppose you could call immigration control eugenics of a sort. It manipulates reproduction indirectly, by changing who is and isn't here to reproduce.
But the main effect is by changing social factors, not gene pools.
I'd agree with policies that would limit immigration more, even though the climate nowadays makes it seem like that's "bad". Is it automatically wrong for a nation to do things to keep itself intact? For example, it's destabilizing to a nation, to have large sectors of the population not speaking the national language. We have little nation-states now, forming themselves within the big one, and some are quite subversive. The first wave of US immigration (pre-1960s) didn't present this problem. It was more restricted, and nearly all wanted to assimilate, and did; now, that's much less the case. That so much of the immigration is now *illegal* makes it that much harder to get a handle on this issue.
In Reply to: Re: OT: "Eugenics" according toTCM--Rule #1: Do not have sex while pregnant... posted by bing [1517.1900] on April 26, 2005 at 15:58:28:
This is very interesting. Your TCM ideas, and then the wessten concept. Are there any studies on this that prove the TCM line of thought in regards to sex ?
Does this also mean that the majority of chinese/asian people totally abstain from sex and sexual arousal during pregnancy???
From everything I have read, in western health books on babies etc, it says they are completely protected from penetrative sex (not harmed in any way), as they are contained completely in their own protective sac. They wouldn't know if the parents were having sex at all. That would be beyond their knowledge. Just as if the mother was having a vaginal examination by her obs. Baby would not be able to tell the difference, as does not feel any of it.
Although I think your ideas about sexual arousal may have some relevance, with the hormones etc. But not all sexual arousal. Such as looking at porn etc may be negative. If husband and wife make love does not have to be detrimental to the foetus.I think that the consciousness one uses whilst in the sex act, may have an effecton some level
I know that when I meditate, my foetus seems to "know".
I guess he/she is picking up cues from my body going into deep relaxation, and thus the foetus relaxes so much, and completely stops moving whilst I am in meditation. Walt mentioned that this is a sign that my baby is meditating along with me, and outside of meditation, my baby is a very 'active mover' in the womb!
**Also, sex during pregnamcy can send the fetus a confusing message: that he/she is not wanted or not good enough, and the parents want to conceive another one--metaphysically, energetically speaking. ***
I am not sure I agree with this. Where are these ideas documented, such as in studies etc???? Can you provide a link of some kind?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [87.890] on April 26, 2005 at 16:07:03:
Hi Gabs,
Yes, I would agree with all that you have said.
Back to the subject of eugenics.....I can't believe that
people entertain this notion.
I have two cousins that are severely retarded due to
fragile X. In my hands on experience with them, they
are not the danger to this society. The people that think
things up like EUGENICS are the problem. There is
something so void of spirit and a lack of deeper
understanding. It is really difficult for me to even watch
this subject being discussed without realizing that we
would be trying to play God, and decided for ourselves
why the world works the way it does down here.
Sometimes I just look at this world and how people
think and what they strive for, how they blame others for
the lack and problems in this world......NEVER ONCE
looking to themselves and how they could get up off
their butts and do something good for this world.
I couldn't handle that last paragraph in that article,
talking about reducing retardation and how that would
get rid of crime, violence.....on and on...I know that my
cousins would NEVER commit a criminal act, and
when they do get frustrated, and they do, they usually try
to harm themselves in some way, which is textbook for
retarded persons. This whole subject makes me so
incredibly sad. These people, retarded or not, are not
the problem with this world. Low IQ individuals are
NOT the problem of this world. It is people that want
power, know how to manipulate, lie and deny that make
this place fail
Anyway, take care of yourself. Sometimes I think this
board is more UNhealthy than the opposite.
dd
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by dd [2174.26] on April 26, 2005 at 23:05:32:
Hi dd,
I hear you. If eugenics can be interpreted as educating and encouraging people to take good care of themselves for the current and following generations, I say fine. But like Jan S. said to me earlier in this thread, "the devil is in the details". When we start deciding who's worthy and who isn't and take certain measures into our own hands, then it starts to get dangerous. And you know how things work, when you do things in steps it becomes easier and easier to take the next one.
I'm sure retarded cousins are harmless, as you say, to anyone but themselves. Should they be sterilized, I don't know. But did you hear that black woman from South Carolina speaking the other night on TV? She became pregnant at a young age and they labeled her as wild and sterilized her. She went on to get a college degree and make a life for herself, and she was utterly miserable that the choice to have more children was taken from her, not to mention the stigma.
As for health, yes, sometimes this board can be extremely unhealthy. It's a crap shoot, because one can certainly step on a land mine in these parts. I've tried to participate, but find it most valuable when I see interesting posts and links and save the information.
Thanks again for having the courage, along with chris, to come into this thread and stand up for me. I will not forget it!
~
xoxo
gabs
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Jan S. [3524.81] on April 26, 2005 at 16:56:10:
Good post Jan, I couldn't agree more.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by R. [27.1490] on April 26, 2005 at 00:06:24:
Thanks, R.
These guys statistics do not stand up well to close inspection.
I would challenge anyone knowledgable in research & statistical analysis to closely read these studies and then let us know what they think.
In the past biased researchers got away with this kind of drivel because the basic research in the human genome was not even a glimmer on the horizon. Now it is actually being done and their days are numbered.
Walt
Walt
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by R. [27.1490] on April 26, 2005 at 00:06:24:
I kind of agree with you R. My adopted step brothers (uneducated, undisciplined, irresponsible, frequently unemployed, "free spirits" if you will) are nothing like both of their adoptive parents (well educated, responsible working folk).
However, 2 points:
1. "from day 1" only includes from the day they were born, not from the time of conception or even before. So the adopted kids do share a significant, albeit brief portion of their lives in the same environment as their biological parents.
2. my step brothers ate the same "sad" diet as they likely would have if they stayed with their bio-parents, went to similar schools, and received the same "standard of care" from the health care system, etc. what if they were raised on an organic whole food diet, had more exercise etc. etc. ?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by R. [27.1490] on April 26, 2005 at 00:06:24:
don't see how this is revoluntionary at all.....it's what i would have expected to be honest, rather than the fundamental basis of the bs you are driving.
In Reply to: Re: OT: "Eugenics" according toTCM--Rule #1: Do not have sex while pregnant... posted by bing [1067.1900] on April 25, 2005 at 20:33:04:
not to be flippant bing, but is it ok if the wife provides oral sex for her husband while pregnant and avoids sexual arousal herself.?
In Reply to: Re: OT: The ENTIRE website posted by dd [2174.26] on April 25, 2005 at 01:18:04:
Hi dd,
Indiana was forcing sterilization of the mentally retarded in 1907
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by Brian [3468.20] on April 27, 2005 at 16:32:33:
Points taken.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 27, 2005 at 17:51:39:
You're not making sense.
In Reply to: Re: OT: "Eugenics" according toTCM--Rule #1: Do not have sex while pregnant... posted by Bliss To Walt, Bing and R [4.1601] on April 26, 2005 at 22:07:57:
Where are these ideas documented, such as in studies etc???? Can you provide a link of some kind?
Bliss, did you miss her "metaphysically, energetically speaking". I doubt there are studies that would currently be considered reliable or even scientific.
In Reply to: Re: OT: "Eugenics" according toTCM--Rule #1: Do not have sex while pregnant... posted by bing [1517.1900] on April 26, 2005 at 15:58:28:
It is mainly sexual arousal and the rest of the sex act. For instance, porn stuff can cause arousal without the sex act, therefore should also be avoided by the pregnant woman.
Being close to one another or just showing care for another can be very arousing. So, no caring during pregnancy?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 26, 2005 at 16:03:05:
Talking about the 80% would not have provoked or antagonized the original poster, you ASSuming idiot.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Jan S. [3524.81] on April 26, 2005 at 16:56:10:
it's destabilizing to a nation, to have large sectors of the population not speaking the national language.
and massively using the nation's financial resources for medical, educational and feeding needs.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Jan S. [3524.81] on April 26, 2005 at 16:56:10:
Funny... I talked to a guy tonight who wants to buy a MIG-21. I suggested that when he gets, he should fly over Arizona/Mexico border. And this religious man said, "Oh, yeah, I would want to have bombs loaded onto the plane!" LOL
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [87.890] on April 26, 2005 at 16:11:17:
You may want to ponder what you gain by playing a role of a victim.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 26, 2005 at 15:55:38:
if no respect is given to me, then i am not responsible for my actions after that point....
This point of view of yours demonstrates why you deserve no respect.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 29, 2005 at 02:34:16:
And you may want to ponder why you victimize.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by R. [27.1490] on April 29, 2005 at 02:22:38:
then why your attitude when anyone else responds in a criticising manner? or do you actually respect dr. stoll?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by dd [2174.26] on April 29, 2005 at 04:17:01:
because he's an idiot of a long gone era....the other bullies are gone and if R keeps his act up he will follow them
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 29, 2005 at 02:48:49:
for an old guy you demonstate a lack of maturity...
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? HGP ! Archive. posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 29, 2005 at 09:33:47:
What attitude? Anyone else? You're a degenerate five ass monkey, who doesn't know what it's talking about.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 29, 2005 at 09:36:43:
You wouldn't know what maturity is even if it copulated with you, little boy.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 29, 2005 at 12:03:44:
keep it up R, you'll find yourself banned
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 29, 2005 at 12:03:44:
I think you should be banned for your vulgarity towards
Chris. You have gotten away with this for far too long.
This should not be allowed.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 29, 2005 at 18:04:22:
Chris,
I really hope that you will write Bill about this. He needs
to be banned. He has been sexually harassing you for
a long time now, and I can't believe that he has been
allowed to stay. This type of behavior just crosses the
line as far as I am concerned. If this type of thing were
happening at a place of work he would be fired or sued,
or both. He obviously has a major problem, and can't
deal with it appropriately.
dd
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by dd [2174.26] on April 29, 2005 at 22:02:57:
thanks dd,
we'll see what happens, i have made my complaint formal.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by dd [2174.26] on April 29, 2005 at 22:00:27:
Go become one with Nature or something.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 29, 2005 at 12:03:44:
Oh do shut up, R!
In Reply to: Re: OT: "Eugenics" according toTCM--Rule #1: Do not have sex while pregnant... posted by R. [27.1490] on April 29, 2005 at 02:15:28:
Thanks, R.
No, I didn't miss the "energetically, metaphyscially"speaking part, which is very much open to interpretation.
anyway, I asked Walt to share his opinion and ideas on it, and I don't know if you saw it or not but this was his reply to bing;s post:
posted by Walt Stoll [93.1889] on April 27, 2005 at 08:32:47:
in reply to: For WALT - Can you share your Ideas on this ???? posted by Bliss [4.1601] on April 26, 2005 at 22:10:39:
Hi, Blissy.
I think sex during pregnancy is safe and beneficial until the last month.
Walt
So anyway, I told hubbie to "4geddaboutit" during the last month! Anyway, by that time, the woman is so big and uncomfortable, sex is going to be the last thing on one's mind!
Especially if the baby moves around during sex. ugghhhh! ;-) kind of puts a damper on the romantic mood.
In Reply to: Re: OT: "Eugenics" according toTCM--Rule #1: Do not have sex while pregnant... posted by Brian [3468.20] on April 27, 2005 at 19:22:11:
Not to be flippant Brian, but how can she engage in sexual activity with her partner, without becoming sexually aroused herself???
I think some of the TCM ideas on sexuality, come from a viewpoint of seeing sex as being "dirty or impure" which would be from the "old school". Sex is neither of these.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by dd [2174.26] on April 29, 2005 at 22:02:57:
Maybe 'time out' in the naughty room would be appropriate for r, give him a chance to reflect on his behaviour, say sorry, and then come back to the family table. Bill? Four weeks?
Jane
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by dd [2174.26] on April 29, 2005 at 22:02:57:
It's funny coming from you two. Both of you are plagued with the very same thing you try to show your stance against publicly. You're despicable.
In Reply to: Re: OT: Rule #1: do not havesex while pregnant. (Thanks, R~!) posted by Bliss to R [4.1601] on April 29, 2005 at 22:46:41:
Based on Chinese I've interacted with or just observed (and Bing would probably say those were bananas, not real Chinese), they aren't any more happier or healthier than other people. And on average, they aren't known for their robust health and/or longevity. So, this doesn't provide any evidence in support of what Bing said. Maybe modern Chinese don't really follow philosophy that is behind TCM. So, for now, for me, this is nothing but a myth. I will not insist on having sex during pregnancy but I will not try to avoid arousal by all means. As I said, even showing appreaciation and care (by a word, action or touch) can be very arousing, but I would not avoid them just because the child can misinterpret it. I'd think the energy behind these things is obviously love, and the child should feel that and like it. If not, then... well, I am sure it won't be the only thing it won't like.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Jane (1) [111.1399] on April 29, 2005 at 22:45:01:
Right back at ya, queen of immorality!
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Jane (1) [111.1399] on April 29, 2005 at 22:54:20:
thanks Jane,
i think R. is deluded into thinking his behaviour is acceptable....
i feel sorry for him, but whatever turns you on huh...
:-)
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 29, 2005 at 02:34:16:
You've twisted and manipulated the facts! I am not playing the role of a victim, I spoke up for myself when I experienced your abuse, which was a healthy option. Isn't it high time you took responsibility for your own behavior or are you going to hide from it forever?
Now I have some things for you to ponder. You are a very angry man, and you spew forth a ton of venom. You must really be hurting, it must be awful. How did this happen? Who hurt you while you were growing up and what exactly did they do to you? For these are the people that you are really lashing out at R., not me, chris, dd, and other past targets.
You need to answer these questions for yourself because if I understand it correctly you are bringing new life into this world. Do you really want to perpetuate this incredible anger and dysfunction? Do you want to destroy your own child's life? Are we not talking about EUGENICS right in your own backyard R.? Perhaps it is you who should have been sterilized until you could have gotten to the bottom of your misery, thus preventing more of the same.
I urge you to hold up a mirror, I urge you to look deep into your soul, I urge you to sort out your pain, and I urge you to learn to love yourself. Otherwise, you will continue to decline into a state of such despair that you will damage your family and your own health in the process.
I'm going to leave you with a poem that was printed in the newspaper years ago. It was written by a young man who eventually committed suicide. It's a very poignant piece, he had a lot of wisdom for such a young man. It's such a shame that he couldn't find the strength to survive. However, his message lives on beautifully:
THE MAN IN THE GLASS
When you get what you want in your struggle for self,
and the world makes you king for a day,
Just go to the mirror and look at yourself,
And see what that man has to say.
For it isn't your father or mother or wife
Whose judgement upon you must pass.
The fellow whose verdict counts most in your life
Is the one staring back from the glass.
Some people might think you're a straight-shootin' chum
And call you a wonderful guy,
But the man in the glass says you're only a bum,
If you can't look him straight in the eye.
He's the fellow to please, never mind all the rest,
For he's with you clear up to the end.
And you've passed your most dangerous, difficult test
If the guy in the glass is your friend.
You may fool the whole world down the pathway of years,
And get pats on the back as you pass.
But your final reward will be heartaches and tears
If you've cheated the man in the glass.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 30, 2005 at 03:58:46:
No, R, sorry, you have no comback at me. I am your intellectual superior and entirely immune. Try to Rile me all you like, it won't wo k!!!
Jane
In Reply to: Re: OT: Rule #1: do not havesex while pregnant. (Thanks, R~!) posted by R. [27.1490] on April 30, 2005 at 03:51:01:
I didn't say ALL the Chinese practice wellness, did I? Many (or most) Chinese today don't even know these ancient wisdom, not to say practice it.
To fully grasp this wisdom, one can not use merely rational thinking, but should use the whole bodymindspirit (including instinct, intuition, and the soul) to fully comprehend it.
When I was teaching a TCM Theory course last year to a group of would-be holistic health practioners, I included this part in one class. The response from the students are quite interesting: thoes who accepted the idea more readily are generally those who are more intuitive, more balanced, more women, and a bit older (in their 30's, 40's, 50's). Those who questioned the idea are mostly males in their 20's.
I think a good intuition is necessary in successfully handling lessons from the ancient wisdom.
In Reply to: Re: OT: "Eugenics" according toTCM--Rule #1: Do not have sex while pregnant... posted by R. [27.1490] on April 29, 2005 at 02:16:58:
R., how did you write those Italics in your post? I think it's neat and would like to learn the HOW--if it's not too difficult (for my low level of computer IQ).
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [180.890] on April 30, 2005 at 14:14:07:
If you had an opportunity to observe me, it would surprise you how NOT angry I am, even during what you called spewing venom. I believe that you come from a very unsophisticated point of view and understanding that allow you to make your conclusions.
I have not twisted or manipulated the facts. What I said earlier about my intentions and actions is true. It is your perception that is biased to feel victimized that is twisted. I suspect that you suffer “abuse” in many areas of life.
As I said, I am not angry. As a matter of fact, when I am “lashing out” on those you mentioned, I am laughing and having fun, which is incompatible with anger. It is the simpler, anger prone types who perceive that in a way that makes them feel hurt and angry. By the way, I don’t think chris is a person. He is a vermin, and that’s all. Neither do I “lash out” on dd. I merely reply to her venom she tries to spread around. And I do it in a very calm way, as I am right now. You should simply look at my peaceful inquiring post and her enraged replies. Moreover, if you notice (that is, if you can do in a nonattached way) there’s a specific kind of people that get shafted here.dd, the vermin are in that cateogory. There's another one who's been away for a while. And now you're trying their shoes. You decide if they fit?
I don’t really think you’re in a position to accurate perceive other people’s state of mind (not mine, for sure) because you look through your “filter”, and it is apparently messed up. One has to calm down and be in a nonattached state of mind to perceive more accurately. And this takes practice.
The young man who wrote the poem wasn’t wise as wise people don’t commit suicide. He was obviously depressed and skilled in writing poetry. The guy in the glass IS my friend. He is joyful, and we love each other. Not in the verminous way, though. Can you say the same about yours? Not likely when you are angry, and it doesn’t seem to take much for you to become angry.
With this, I’ll let YOU go look into the mirror because it is you who is in misery.
P.S. No, I am not bringing a new life into this world yet.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1996] on May 03, 2005 at 13:02:35:
That's fine R., deny it all you want, I figured you would. I'm disappointed because a while back I really thought that you were beginning to love yourself.
I'm not abused, angry, unsophisticated, or anything else you accuse me of, that's just your justification for your own dysfunctional behavior. My anger would have never surfaced if you had afforded me the same respect that you did others in this thread. Respect that I deserved as much as any of them.
For example, you didn't treat Bliss the same way when you felt she missed something in the article. When you treat people like shit R., you get shit back. Don't try to sell me BS that it's all my perception, filter, or anything else, especially since others were willing to come forward and admit your treatment of me was way out of line. No, it was not just dd and chris, but other people have emailed me privately. But it wouldn't matter, I know when someone is treating me fairly or baiting me on.
Anyway, I'm going to hand you back your mirror. I'd love you to look at some of your remarks that you have made over time. If you can honestly tell me that your words are not incredibly cruel, abusive, and filled with rage, then you are in complete and utter denial of your feelings, and who you really 'R.'
You're under the misconception that staying calm indicates that you are in control and in touch with your feelings and emotions, and that you are not incredibly angry. One day, some how, some way, that will be proven otherwise. In the meantime, I'll calmly leave you with your own words...
~~~
Loving Quotes by R.
"As I said, I am not angry. As a matter of fact, when I am “lashing out” on those you mentioned, I am laughing and having fun, which is incompatible with anger."
"By the way, I don’t think chris is a person. He is a vermin, and that’s all."
"Go fuck yourself, you, corporate lapdog! Take a pound of your Lipitor and die, lowlife!"
"You are one of the dumbest jerks around."
"Reflect on your own behavior. Oh, "reflecting" must be too new agey for you too. Your nature is to be an arrogant prick."
"And you are coming from a place where people have filthy anal canals for their mouths."
"…Drop dead…"
"""??? So, would it be OK with you if anyone here would said "Screw you!" to you any time one wants to? You like dirty talk, don't you, Lady?"
"Interesting... two people from the same country (au)... one is nice, and the other is a stupid bitch. And they happened to come to the same cyberplace."
"Truth can appear cruel if one is in denial. He is a verminous butt-pirating degenerate. If it hurts, well... truth can hurt. That was the only thing in your post worth a reply. The rest was a waste of your time."
"Talking about the 80% would not have provoked or antagonized the original poster, you ASSuming idiot."
"Truth can appear cruel if one is in denial. He is a verminous butt-pirating degenerate. If it hurts, well... truth can hurt."
"This point of view of yours demonstrates why you deserve no respect."
"What attitude? Anyone else? You're a degenerate five ass monkey, who doesn't know what it's talking about."
"You wouldn't know what maturity is even if it copulated with you, little boy."
"You're despicable."
"Paying attention to such details instead of important ideas is asinine."
"Right back at ya, queen of immorality!"
"most women would tell you that they like to be penetrated by... a penis of a reasonable length and allow it, but... if you force a garden shovel into the same orifice, they can easily die from it."
"I don't have any vulnerable sides. I am an emotionless robot. AI, if you wish. And I feed on human emotions. Hence, I have advanced at provoking them."
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1996] on May 03, 2005 at 13:02:35:
keep this up R, you'll find yourself banned and there'll be no happier person than me.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [87.890] on May 03, 2005 at 13:54:27:
you're wasting your time gabs...
i suggest you email Bill, as i have done, and request that he is banned from the board.....then let's see who's "laughing and having fun".
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on May 03, 2005 at 16:24:14:
by the way you should send him that log of quotes too.....
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on May 03, 2005 at 16:26:19:
Yes, I know I can't change anyone, and I really didn't want to get sucked into all this crap, especially for this long. I have too many other things going on. Anyway, as always, thanks for your concern and your advise.
gabs
~~~
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [87.890] on May 03, 2005 at 13:54:27:
Ha-ha-ha. The vermin saved them! How time wasting that must have been. He dropped out of college because it was too hard for him, so found this way to realize himself. What a loser! And so are you, for taking the quotes out of context, blindly thinking that they support your arguments.
If you can honestly tell me that your words are not...
Yes, I can. But you are not likely to understand that, for reasons I have told you before.
My anger would have never surfaced if you had afforded me the same respect that you did others in this thread.
You got an exact amount of respect you deserved in this thread. When you calm down (I mean, really calm down) and reread the thread (actually the beginning of it), you might be able to see the difference between the other people and you. You really got into this rathole at your own will by making a problem based on nothing outside your imagination. Do you still remember the movie about creating your own reality? You said you liked it and learned a lot from it.
Have you heard of Law of Attraction? It's not for nothing that you have attracted the vermin, dd, Jane(1), and whoever else of a similar kind who emailed you.
I suggest (again) that you stop wasting your time. You've got other things to do, right?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on May 03, 2005 at 16:17:49:
You poor, sorry little man, with a mind and soul of a cockroach.
In Reply to: OT question posted by bing [1067.1900] on May 01, 2005 at 14:36:54:
All you need to do is to enclose text in [i] and [/i], but the brakets should be > and <, in appropriate places. I couldn't use the in the example, because the board's engine would've changed the text of the post.
Using / is important.
Use letter b (instead of i) for bold or u for underlined.
Try it, and if you can't do, I'll explain again.
That was an advance for an answer that I was expecting from you.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1996] on May 04, 2005 at 03:09:23:
what are you talking about, i didn't save them at all.....they had nothing to do with me
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on May 04, 2005 at 07:37:25:
It is clear that it was you.
It pleases me that you respond to the "vermin" for it indicates that we are reaching an understanding and agreement.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1996] on May 04, 2005 at 03:09:23:
"I suggest (again) that you stop wasting your time. You've got other things to do, right?"
Absolutely, and you do too, right? So then are we in agreement that this running contact shall end here and now? I really do have to get ready for an appointment.
In Reply to: Re: OT question posted by R. [27.1996] on May 04, 2005 at 03:20:59:
learning
In Reply to: Re: OT question posted by R. [27.1996] on May 04, 2005 at 03:20:59:
Hey it worked! But you typed the <...> in the wrong order. But I foresaw the possibility of a typo on your part, so I tested both ways.
Great!
In Reply to: Re: OT question posted by bing [1067.1900] on May 04, 2005 at 14:03:11:
I am glad you foresaw the possibility of a typo, but I did on purpose because I was afraid that the board's processing engine would interpret those characters as part of what it should display, and that would make them invisible to you. I needed those characters to appear as plain text so that you would be able to see them.
In Reply to: Re: OT question posted by R. [27.1996] on May 04, 2005 at 16:56:31:
So, when you said: "That was an advance for an answer that I was expecting from you.", you didn't think I'd succeed on first attempt, huh? (smiling smuggly)
Now, the next question is, in addition to posting on this board, where else can this technique be used?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1996] on May 04, 2005 at 11:51:48:
there is no logic at all in that statement.....it's playground bs, when are you ever going to grow up?
i respond to "vermin" to defend myself, how that can ever indicate i agree is absolutely beyond me.
like dd said your responses are pathetic, to the point you now have to make shit up.
you need to buy "the dummies guide to retorts and comebacks"....you really R boring!
>i
testing
>u
Follow Ups:
Re: OT question
Posted by bing [1067.1900] on May 04, 2005 at 14:03:11:
Great!
Great!
Follow Ups:
Re: OT question
Posted by R. [27.1996] on May 04, 2005 at 16:56:31:
Follow Ups:
Re: OT question
Posted by bing [1327.1900] on May 04, 2005 at 22:05:59:
Follow Ups:
Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics?
Posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on May 05, 2005 at 08:23:34:
Follow Ups:
[ Human Genome Project Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ]
[ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ]
[ Recommended Books ]
[ Bulletin Board ]
Search this site!