Adrian - I have never to my knowledge, at any point, said that the Nazis invented the practice of eugenics. If I am mistaken in saying this, please point me to my statement so I can retract it in a subsequent post. What I said was that the Nazis were inseparably intertwined with eugenics, and remain so. Your aspiration to "improve the genetic composition of a population" is a frightening aspiration devoid of emotional sensitivity or cultural awareness. You have the opportunity now to fill in these missing components if you so choose. Your dismissal of my opinions in the face of your 'facts' is an extremely dictatorial approach.
I totally deny "making shit up" and "pulling lies out of" my "ass". If you have a shred of evidence for your allegation that I redefined words for no reason whatsoever then I would suggest you are morally obliged to present it. I think instead the record will show someone posting the sentence "Cat moustache bananary who wine spent in lactose pizazz Austin envelope?" and that person was you. Perhaps you would like to define your terms and explain your meaning, I fully support your right to do so. I doubt you will though. More likely, your latest repeatedly foul-mouthed outburst means you are trying to manufacture some pretext for future arguments you might wish to use against me. However I would urge you to consider that you may need to accept the position that I have fundamentally different intellectual and political origins from you which leads us to express different opinions. Essentially I am coming from the Left and you are coming from the Right. It is a pity you can't meet this challenge without referring to parts of my anatomy that I consider to be private.
If I have given the credit to the Nazis for coming up with what is essentially the way we grow our food supplies I can assure you the compliment was given inadvertently. Please refer me to the page so I can retract it or let me know if I have misunderstood you.
It cannot be denied that the issue we are discussing - payments to people with drug problems to incentivise them to consent to operations which prevent them reproducing - is a subject that will almost inevitably lead to some participants becoming very heated and using words like eugenics, bribery, coercion, and bullying, and it seems to me that comparing the ethics of this to the absence of ethics in 1930s Germany is perfectly acceptable. My opinion is that this is eugenics, small-scale but eugenics nonetheless, and that eugenics are bad because of the historical association with the nazis. If we want to talk about agricultural husbandry, crop breeding and family planning choices then that's absolutely fine, but to try and justify the forced acceptance of the validity of eugenics on that basis is something that is legitimately arguable in normal society, I don't see why it should be so different here. I think eugenics stinks, just like I think paying two hundred pounds to a drug addict to have an operation stinks. If you don't agree with me, I'm sorry. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.
I totally deny "making shit up" and "pulling lies out of" my "ass". If you have a shred of evidence for your allegation that I redefined words for no reason whatsoever then I would suggest you are morally obliged to present it. I think instead the record will show someone posting the sentence "Cat moustache bananary who wine spent in lactose pizazz Austin envelope?" and that person was you. Perhaps you would like to define your terms and explain your meaning, I fully support your right to do so. I doubt you will though. More likely, your latest repeatedly foul-mouthed outburst means you are trying to manufacture some pretext for future arguments you might wish to use against me. However I would urge you to consider that you may need to accept the position that I have fundamentally different intellectual and political origins from you which leads us to express different opinions. Essentially I am coming from the Left and you are coming from the Right. It is a pity you can't meet this challenge without referring to parts of my anatomy that I consider to be private.
If I have given the credit to the Nazis for coming up with what is essentially the way we grow our food supplies I can assure you the compliment was given inadvertently. Please refer me to the page so I can retract it or let me know if I have misunderstood you.
It cannot be denied that the issue we are discussing - payments to people with drug problems to incentivise them to consent to operations which prevent them reproducing - is a subject that will almost inevitably lead to some participants becoming very heated and using words like eugenics, bribery, coercion, and bullying, and it seems to me that comparing the ethics of this to the absence of ethics in 1930s Germany is perfectly acceptable. My opinion is that this is eugenics, small-scale but eugenics nonetheless, and that eugenics are bad because of the historical association with the nazis. If we want to talk about agricultural husbandry, crop breeding and family planning choices then that's absolutely fine, but to try and justify the forced acceptance of the validity of eugenics on that basis is something that is legitimately arguable in normal society, I don't see why it should be so different here. I think eugenics stinks, just like I think paying two hundred pounds to a drug addict to have an operation stinks. If you don't agree with me, I'm sorry. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.
