Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Scientific Racism & Eugenics News and Discussion

Racism News Science Discussion Eugenics Darwinism Racial Superiority Racial Inferiority

  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#1
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

For a forum which is really interested in Technology and Science, we haven't really touched on the premise of Scientific Racism and Eugenics. So I thought I'd make a topic post about it, so we can share our thoughts and ideas.

 

 

 

So what do you guys think of Scientific Racism and Eugenics?



#2
Jakob

Jakob

    Groveling Goblin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,945 posts

An outdated, false ideology that requires far too much big government and abuse of human rights to sustain itself.


  • Zaphod and caltrek like this

#3
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

An outdated, false ideology that requires far too much big government and abuse of human rights to sustain itself.

t's a much bigger human rights abuse to let a disabled people reproduces, and pass on his grieving into the next generation. Sterilising a genetically disabled individual is much better than letting that individual bring children into the world, only for them to suffer in pain and depression.



#4
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,013 posts

 

An outdated, false ideology that requires far too much big government and abuse of human rights to sustain itself.

t's a much bigger human rights abuse to let a disabled people reproduces, and pass on his grieving into the next generation. Sterilising a genetically disabled individual is much better than letting that individual bring children into the world, only for them to suffer in pain and depression.

 

 

...and who is going to define what a "disabled person is" and how many disabled persons do you know who have given birth?

 

...and what were the disabilities?


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#5
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

 

 

An outdated, false ideology that requires far too much big government and abuse of human rights to sustain itself.

t's a much bigger human rights abuse to let a disabled people reproduces, and pass on his grieving into the next generation. Sterilising a genetically disabled individual is much better than letting that individual bring children into the world, only for them to suffer in pain and depression.

 

 

...and who is going to define what a "disabled person is" and how many disabled persons do you know who have given birth?

 

...and what were the disabilities?

 

Who is going to define that? Probably the World Health Organization.

Bfe4uvt.png

http://www.who.int/t...isabilities/en/

 

how many disabled persons do you know who have given birth?

It's not about how many disabled persons I know who have given birth, it's about how many in the world have given birth.

Dwarfism is genetic, and I've seen people who had 1 healthy parent and 1 unhealthy parent, but they themselves were unhealthy.

 

We are blessed that Nature made Down-Syndromes sterile.



#6
Jakob

Jakob

    Groveling Goblin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,945 posts

 

An outdated, false ideology that requires far too much big government and abuse of human rights to sustain itself.

t's a much bigger human rights abuse to let a disabled people reproduces, and pass on his grieving into the next generation. Sterilising a genetically disabled individual is much better than letting that individual bring children into the world, only for them to suffer in pain and depression.

 

The State has no right to regulate reproduction. There are very few legitimate purposes of a state.


  • caltrek and Erowind like this

#7
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,013 posts

@Pisiu369,

 

"Dwarfism" is considered a disability?

 

That is sick.

 

Why don't you try asking a "dwarf" if he considers himself (or herself) disabled.  Personally, I hope you get a good swift kick in the shin.

 

That low, if you are lucky.


  • Sciencerocks and Jakob like this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#8
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,013 posts

Ummmm...why is this topic headline showing up in two different forums?

 

1) The News and Current Events Discussion, and 

 

2) The History Forum


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#9
Jakob

Jakob

    Groveling Goblin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,945 posts

Ummmm...why is this topic headline showing up in two different forums?

 

1) The News and Current Events Discussion, and 

 

2) The History Forum

That happens when threads are moved.



#10
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

 

 

An outdated, false ideology that requires far too much big government and abuse of human rights to sustain itself.

t's a much bigger human rights abuse to let a disabled people reproduces, and pass on his grieving into the next generation. Sterilising a genetically disabled individual is much better than letting that individual bring children into the world, only for them to suffer in pain and depression.

 

The State has no right to regulate reproduction. There are very few legitimate purposes of a state.

 

The state has every right to regulate reproduction. The state's purpose is to take care of it's people and ensure they are healthy, one form of keeping its' population healthy is the sterilisation and euthanization of sick individuals.



#11
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

@Pisiu369,

 

"Dwarfism" is considered a disability?

 

That is sick.

 

Why don't you try asking a "dwarf" if he considers himself (or herself) disabled.  Personally, I hope you get a good swift kick in the shin.

 

That low, if you are lucky.

 

It doesn't matter whether he considers himself disabled or not. The fact is that he is ​disabled.

Dwarfism is classified as a medical condition, a negative one, and another word for a negative medical condition is a disability.



#12
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,621 posts

Personally, why even attempt to cure people of problems if the goal isn't to make life easier on people that suffer from real problems. I am autistic and I'd love to have that fixed but you don't want that to happen.

 

What is more immoral. Fixing real problems that hold people back or not doing anything because of the goddamn nazis abused it once upon a time.



#13
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020's the decade of our reckoning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,868 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

 

An outdated, false ideology that requires far too much big government and abuse of human rights to sustain itself.

t's a much bigger human rights abuse to let a disabled people reproduces, and pass on his grieving into the next generation. Sterilising a genetically disabled individual is much better than letting that individual bring children into the world, only for them to suffer in pain and depression.

 

As some have pointed out defining disabled are murky waters. Consider mental retardation where there are high functioning individuals which could be considered disabled but are able to live a life with the full gamut of experiences that would merit indepence, respect, and individuality which I ascribe to any other individual. We then have to consider what you mean by grieving disabled individuals. For example your idea of dwarfism being a disability would mean that you would apparently classify him as grieving in your above broad characterization. Yet I do not see many dwarfs suffering in pain and depression, as you claim, even if it is true that society has or will discriminate. That of course is not a problem of the person affected. 

 

Then we have to consider the dynamic nature of these sorts of disabilities/disorders. There are many genetic diseases which can now be ameliorated and many disabilities which can be remedied. To deny someone the opportunity at life when we know that there are solutions to their problems or that there very likely will be in the near future is morally egregious. 

 

Even if there is a lot of pain and suffering where do we draw the line and say "Because you're suffering a lot we will deny you the right to live/procreate"? 


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#14
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,426 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

 

 

An outdated, false ideology that requires far too much big government and abuse of human rights to sustain itself.

t's a much bigger human rights abuse to let a disabled people reproduces, and pass on his grieving into the next generation. Sterilising a genetically disabled individual is much better than letting that individual bring children into the world, only for them to suffer in pain and depression.

 

The State has no right to regulate reproduction. There are very few legitimate purposes of a state.

 

It's up to the People to decide what is or isn't the legitimate purpose of their State. If they decide it is their State's right to regulate reproduction, we are in no position to stop them; only dissuade them. There are few reasons to infringe upon a nation's sovereignty, and they usually come down to whether that nation is going to infringe on yours.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#15
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

Personally, why even attempt to cure people of problems if the goal isn't to make life easier on people that suffer from real problems. I am autistic and I'd love to have that fixed but you don't want that to happen.

 

What is more immoral. Fixing real problems that hold people back or not doing anything because of the goddamn nazis abused it once upon a time.

It's impossible to cure Autism, just like it's impossible to cure hereditary diseases, that's the whole point of sterilizing/euthanizing the individual, to remove his blood or to remove his potential to reproduce.

 

I'd love to fix your Autism, but I can't, it's not that I don't want to, I would if I could.

 

The next best thing besides curing is preventing, and there's definitely ways to prevent Autism, we just need more to do more research, I'm sure it's an epigenetic factor.



#16
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,013 posts

 

@Pisiu369,

 

"Dwarfism" is considered a disability?

 

That is sick.

 

Why don't you try asking a "dwarf" if he considers himself (or herself) disabled.  Personally, I hope you get a good swift kick in the shin.

 

That low, if you are lucky.

 

It doesn't matter whether he considers himself disabled or not. The fact is that he is ​disabled.

Dwarfism is classified as a medical condition, a negative one, and another word for a negative medical condition is a disability.

 

You know, now I hope that dwarf you are going to ask lands his blow a bit higher than your shin.

 

So, if somebody is prone to acne, you would apply your genetic logic?

 

After all, acne is "a negative medical condition."  


  • Jakob likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#17
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

 

 

An outdated, false ideology that requires far too much big government and abuse of human rights to sustain itself.

t's a much bigger human rights abuse to let a disabled people reproduces, and pass on his grieving into the next generation. Sterilising a genetically disabled individual is much better than letting that individual bring children into the world, only for them to suffer in pain and depression.

 

As some have pointed out defining disabled are murky waters. Consider mental retardation where there are high functioning individuals which could be considered disabled but are able to live a life with the full gamut of experiences that would merit indepence, respect, and individuality which I ascribe to any other individual. We then have to consider what you mean by grieving disabled individuals. For example your idea of dwarfism being a disability would mean that you would apparently classify him as grieving in your above broad characterization. Yet I do not see many dwarfs suffering in pain and depression, as you claim, even if it is true that society has or will discriminate. That of course is not a problem of the person affected. 

 

Then we have to consider the dynamic nature of these sorts of disabilities/disorders. There are many genetic diseases which can now be ameliorated and many disabilities which can be remedied. To deny someone the opportunity at life when we know that there are solutions to their problems or that there very likely will be in the near future is morally egregious. 

 

Even if there is a lot of pain and suffering where do we draw the line and say "Because you're suffering a lot we will deny you the right to live/procreate"? 

 

 

In the case of mental retardation, those people should be sterilised or euthanized, after all, they are only half-normal in a sense. They might be physically ok, but mentally they don't work properly. It doesn't matter that they can live a life full of experiences, respect and individuality, people aren't chosen for sterilisation because they can't experience life, respect and individuality, they are sterilised because of their mental and or physical abilities. 

 

Even if an individual dwarf is not grieving, there is definitely a higher chance of him developing depression, anxiety, and being bullied. Besides, even if the individual isn't grieving, how do we know that his children won't grieve? Either way, these people are a less useful to society than a normal being. It is much harder for them to play sport, much harder for them to find compatible work, we also have to take into account the money factor, chances are that the government will help disabled individuals and cater to their needs, this is a blatant waste of tax-payer money, It'd be a lot cheaper just to sterilise the individual, and then be done with the problem after they die.

 

As for your point about ameliorating and remedying disabilities, if the remedy can permanently fix the individual, it should be allowed. But realistically this cannot be applied to all genetic disorders. How would you go about making a down-syndrome into a normal person? You can't, the same would apply for trying to make a Dwarf into a normal sized person, you can't do that either.

 

Someone who is in a vegetative state should be immediately euthanized. All other people with major genetic inheritable disabilities should be sterilised, even if they are not grieving or suffering. 



#18
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

 

 

@Pisiu369,

 

"Dwarfism" is considered a disability?

 

That is sick.

 

Why don't you try asking a "dwarf" if he considers himself (or herself) disabled.  Personally, I hope you get a good swift kick in the shin.

 

That low, if you are lucky.

 

It doesn't matter whether he considers himself disabled or not. The fact is that he is ​disabled.

Dwarfism is classified as a medical condition, a negative one, and another word for a negative medical condition is a disability.

 

You know, now I hope that dwarf you are going to ask lands his blow a bit higher than your shin.

 

So, if somebody is prone to acne, you would apply your genetic logic?

 

After all, acne is "a negative medical condition."  

 

 

Acne is a long-term skin disease, a completely natural by-product of hormonal production, and it usually goes away after the individual reaches a certain age. Thus there is no need for sterilization, the problem solves it self, this isn't the same for other condition, Dwarfs don't magically grow up to normal size, and Down Syndromes don't suddenly regain a chromosome. 



#19
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020's the decade of our reckoning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,868 posts
  • LocationGeorgia
We don't just sterilize people because they are not what you would consider "normal". Most of what you're saying is completely nonsensical. We also don't sterilize people because of their abilities. We grant rights to all men regardless of abilities.

What you're proposing is a complete disregard for human life and a prioritization of preserving of resources over the preservation of life.

All I can tell you is that you're not going to have a lot of backing on that one buddy.

Btw based off of some of the posts I've seen you post here I would say you're one of the candidates for sterilization that you mention. You don't seem like the brightest knife in the drawer. Especially if you consider people prone to depression/mental disorders candidates for sterilization considering that some studies have shown that those people are often the brightest.

Go sterilize yourself and tell me how it works out in propagating useful people.

The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#20
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

 

We grant rights to all men regardless of abilities.

You can grant men as many rights as you want, that won't change the fact the not all men are born equal.

 

What you're proposing is a complete disregard for human life and a prioritization of preserving of resources over the preservation of life.

Yes, the economical benefit is good, but I am not advocating this point of view solely because of money, I am advocating it because sterilization and euthanization can help keep a nation healthy, and provide many benefits. You say I am prioritizing resources over life, this is wrong. I am prioritizing keeping the whole nation clean and healthy over the demands of some disabled individuals, which would could do much better without. If we continue allowing breeding between healthy individuals and non-healthy disabled individuals, the national bloodline is taken down, more money is invested to cater for these individuals' interests and the country will over-all become less productive. A nation which is full of disabled people, and is obsessed with catering to their needs and upholding their "human right" to reproduction is bound to fall one day.  

 

All I can tell you is that you're not going to have a lot of backing on that one buddy.

Clearly not on this forum.

 

Btw based off of some of the posts I've seen you post here I would say you're one of the candidates for sterilization that you mention. You don't seem like the brightest knife in the drawer. Especially if you consider people prone to depression/mental disorders candidates for sterilization considering that some studies have shown that those people are often the brightest.

Now you've resorted to personal insults.  Also, yes people with depression/mental disorders might be more "brighter", does that mean we should not execute psychopaths and keep them alive because they are "bright" minds?

 

Go sterilize yourself and tell me how it works out in propagating useful people.

Well, if I was a sick and unhealthy individual, I gladly would, and the result would be the end of my unhealthy and inferior bloodline, I wouldn't be helping to propagate useful people, but I'd but helping to not ​propagate useless people.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Racism, News, Science, Discussion, Eugenics, Darwinism, Racial Superiority, Racial Inferiority

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users