From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Crimeney, you've got it all wrong again...I'll try to clean up the science part without disturbing your point, if you dont mind.PalMD 00:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok, Dawkin's letter shows NO approval for eugenics, just the opposite. Careful with the quote mining. Im not saying that no one in the world is a eugenecist, but chose the right ones. Singer is interesting...he makes ethical arguments about the sanctity of life, and creats a spectrum of sanctity. His ideas can be offensive, but he clearly states that killing is bad, just some killing is bad in different ways. He does not, as far as I can tell, speak of eugenics at all. You might consider leaving him out and finding a better example.PalMD 00:59, 27 March 2007 (EDT)


I'd like to add what Crichton said about eugenics - which was censored from a Wikipedia article on the grounds of "Who's he? What does he know? He's only a novelist!" (paraphrased, obviously) --Ed Poor 14:02, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to see what he had to say. It might be interesting.--PalMDtalk 14:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, first read what he had to say at talk:Politicized Science. It's rather shocking. --Ed Poor 15:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd have to say that Eugenics, in the original 19th and 20th state, is pretty much gone. The modern war over eugenics will come in the fertility industry, selecting embryos with certain characteristics. This isn't, strictly speaking, eugenics, as eugenics was based on the scientifically invalid idea that you can breed certain characteristics in or out of the human population. This turned out to be way too simplistic (in addition to being evil). Feel free to contact me to discuss it more.--PalMDtalk 15:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Not all proponents of eugenics were for forced sterilization of immigrants and minorities. Selective breeding yes, but this was to improve the overall gene pool (get rid of retardation, disease, whatever) of all races, not to eliminate minorities. Jrssr5 09:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Anyone who took a school course on biology would know genetics can be traced to a person, a family, a group of individuals, or national group would find ways to track down them by scanning then isolate and identify a certain genetic code, for discrimination and eradication purposes of the undesirable person (or people). But, the same science knows the most important fundamental aspect of humanity is, how wrong it is to eliminate people because they have a gene for one trait and it is against the most human feeling of compassion or tolerance for anyone who is different, no matter what the circumstances are. + Getitstraight 16:19, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Has the author even studied the history of eugenics?

The article suggests that the practice of eugenics is directly tied to the theory of evolution. Is/are the author(s) totally unaware that Plato advocated a eugenics practice to better society, and that the Spartans effectively engaged in the practice by leaving newborn infants perceived as "weak" to die, or is the omission of this information a deliberate attempt to dishonestly claim that eugenics did not exist until Darwin's time? I also note that the article suggests that Darwin himself supported the idea, even though he specifically called the practice of neglecting those who he called "weak and helpless" an "overwhelming evil" that should be avoided even if the consequences of allowing them to continue to reproduce might harm society. I guess that facts didn't suit the agenda of whomever wrote this article, so they were omitted. Dimensio 15:00, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

The article discusses modern Eugenics, not ancient breeding practices from antiquity. --AlexC 23:19, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Grave Legal Errors

I took apart a bunch of grave legal errors, equating the sterilization decision (Buck v. Bell) with Lochner. Such analysis is wrong on many levels - first, obviously, Lochner dealt with regulation of the minimum wage, while Buck legalized sterilization. Second, comparing Holmes' pro-eugenics comment to his writings in Lochner are wrong because Holmes dissented in Lochner, urging that the state has a duty to help those less fortunate - quite the opposite of eugenics! Anyways, I cleaned that up, and removed some pretty blatant PoV pushing. Shocking.-AmesGyo! 21:02, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Reputation and Peter Singer

The encyclopedia describes eugenics as now being "in disrepute," [1] although Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University has sought to remove the stigma from it.

Link is broken.

Margaret Sanger was a racist?

One should read into the well-studied archive on Sanger's writings about one of her motives in the establishment of planned parenthood was to decrease the number of African Americans in the US. She felt blacks are "a burden to society" and she claimed the most efficient way to preserve America's white "genetic" European cultural majority is to prevent any more births or procreation of (all blood quantums) black children. Her beliefs is the shadow of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis' own racist dogma of weeding out the undesirables (for them was Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, non-Caucasians, etc.) along with those with serious physical or mental disabilities as "life unworthy of life". The radical, yet opposing views of Sanger and Hitler may have one thing in common: to apply eugenics in a genocidal quest for racial purity. + Getitstraight 16:16, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Ridiculous refutation by AmesG

This user, who was eventually blocked for churning up trouble, makes no exception here and perpetrates a ridiculous refutation of some elucidation of the history of liberal eugenics for which we all ought to be grateful, instead of allowing it to be interposed throughout with his foolish remarks.

He claims "grave legal errors" in the history, but only tries to refute one point, both explanations of which show such ignorance (topped by emotional condescension towards those who don't embrace his error) that it is not necessary to read any further.

He says "Lochner dealt with the regulation of the minimum wage, while Buck legalized sterilization". By Lochner, he means the string of Supreme Court cases during the "Lochner Era", Adkins v. Children's Hospital of the District of Columbia denying the government's ability to set a minimum wage.

He then says, "Second, comparing Holmes' pro-eugenics comment to his writings in Lochner are wrong because Holmes dissented in Lochner, urging that the state has a duty to help those less fortunate - quite the opposite of eugenics!"

No, the comparison is not wrong, nor is supporting a minimum wage "the opposite of eugenics", nor necessarily even "helping the less fortunate".

Jonah Goldberg in an interview discussing his #1 best-seller, Liberal Fascism, recounts the true history of the thinking on the minimum wage by left-wing progressives:

"The welfare state was in many senses a eugenic project. As one famous progressive put it, his argument for the minimum wage was, the Cooley — meaning the Chinese worker — cannot outwork the white man, but he can under-live him. The logic of that was that since these inferior races needed so little to live on, if you created a minimum wage to lock them out, they would sort of die out of their own accord, because no employer in his right mind would hire anybody but a white man if he had to pay a white man’s wage. That logic suffused the founding of the liberal welfare state." Hawkins, John (January 18, 2008). "Interviewing Jonah Goldberg about his new book, Liberal Fascism". RightWingNews. Retrieved on September 24, 2014.

AmesG. is an incompetent in the legal scholarship he pretends to (and the very falsities he stands on to elevate himself, he uses as a means, and the elevation as a position, to insult others), and thus I intend to restore the material and undo the damage of his interpolations by removing them altogether without further examination. VargasMilan 16:16, 24 September 2014 (EDT)

Wide vs. Focused meaning

I don't want to blunder into an old DMZ, but I'd just like to point out one thing. In the intor paragraph, I see a good description of the general topic of eugenics. However, the last sentance of the intro seems out of place, when it suddenly shifts to a very specific topic of eugenics by saying, "What this meant, in actual practice, was forced sterilization of American immigrants and minorities (particularly in California.)" If this page is about eugenics as a whole, shouldn't the perspective stay wide? In other words, shouldn't such a comment go into a subsection, like "Cases of Eugenics," rather than right in the intro to a general topic? (Am I even making any sense here?) --David B (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2016 (EST)