Bulgarian Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Hi there, I found that Googling the sentence that you just wrote brings up 4770 hits with the exact same content. Do you work at a factory that produces tinned, mechanically reclaimed pork products? And what's it got to do with the topic under discussion anyway? oh oh, rumbled...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 The Fabian society(left wing think tank affiliated to the Labour party) advocated eugenics for "down and outers" in it's early days; Prominent Fabians such as H G Wells, Bernard Shaw and the Webbs led the way in combining the ‘progressive’ ideologies of socialism and eugenics. “What we as eugenicists have got to do is to ‘scrap’ the old Poor Law with its indiscriminate relief of the destitute as such and replace it by an intelligent policy of so altering the social environment as to discourage or prevent the multiplication of those irrevocably below the National Minimum of Fitness.” Beatrice Webb (socialist) LABOUR politician and Fabian, Archibald Church introduced a bill for eugenic sterilization in the 1930's to stop “those who are in every way a burden to their parents, a misery to themselves and in my opinion a menace to the social life of the community” from reproducing. http://www.enotes.com/topic/Archibald_Church What is wrong with any of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 The Fabian society(left wing think tank affiliated to the Labour party) advocated eugenics for "down and outers" in it's early days; The Eugenics Movement was national though, lots of people subscribed to their ideas. Luckily it was rejected by Parliament. If you're trying to make this party political it will fail, for it was quite widespread. Secondly, ideas around eugenics differ across different people. Some want to stop poverty, and some want to stop the spread of disease. For some it is a class war, and Hitler utilised it along racial/religious grounds aswell. It isn't a simple history. Australia is one example of a Western Society playing with eugenics in the aborigine population Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 The Fabian society(left wing think tank affiliated to the Labour party) advocated eugenics for "down and outers" in it's early days; Prominent Fabians such as H G Wells, Bernard Shaw and the Webbs led the way in combining the ‘progressive’ ideologies of socialism and eugenics. “What we as eugenicists have got to do is to ‘scrap’ the old Poor Law with its indiscriminate relief of the destitute as such and replace it by an intelligent policy of so altering the social environment as to discourage or prevent the multiplication of those irrevocably below the National Minimum of Fitness.” Beatrice Webb (socialist) LABOUR politician and Fabian, Archibald Church introduced a bill for eugenic sterilization in the 1930's to stop “those who are in every way a burden to their parents, a misery to themselves and in my opinion a menace to the social life of the community” from reproducing. http://www.enotes.com/topic/Archibald_Church Eugenics did originally get a lot of left-wing support as you rightly point out. I think the idea was to have a human race that was healthy, intelligent and which would make the world a progressive place to live in. Then a bloke called Hitler came along and got eugenics a bad reputation by supporting things like sterilisation. Since then anyone supporting things like sterilisation have tended to be in the pro-Adolf wing of political science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 The Fabian society(left wing think tank affiliated to the Labour party) advocated eugenics for "down and outers" in it's early days; Prominent Fabians such as H G Wells, Bernard Shaw and the Webbs led the way in combining the ‘progressive’ ideologies of socialism and eugenics. “What we as eugenicists have got to do is to ‘scrap’ the old Poor Law with its indiscriminate relief of the destitute as such and replace it by an intelligent policy of so altering the social environment as to discourage or prevent the multiplication of those irrevocably below the National Minimum of Fitness.” Beatrice Webb (socialist) LABOUR politician and Fabian, Archibald Church introduced a bill for eugenic sterilization in the 1930's to stop “those who are in every way a burden to their parents, a misery to themselves and in my opinion a menace to the social life of the community” from reproducing. http://www.enotes.com/topic/Archibald_Church Likewise, Winston Churchill - generally viewed as the Greatest Briton of all time, was in favour of eugenics and the sterilisation of the "feeble-minded". http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour-online/594-churchill-and-eugenics So if some of the finest minds of the 20th century were in favour, it can't be without its merits, can it? It's just a shame you can't have a rational debate about this topic without the usual suspects invoking Godwin's Law with their predictable rants about Hitler and Nazi Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 So if some of the finest minds of the 20th century were in favour, it can't be without its merits, can it? I'm sure if you are recognised as having one of the finest minds then you have nothing to worry about, what about the rest of us? What about feature creep, can you guarantee that the "feckless" won't suddenly be something else as the new thing to be outraged about comes around? More importantly, as feature creep starts to change the ideals behind the scheme, can you say that you (or a memeber of your family) wouldn't suddenly be included as someone who we should be getting rid of? It's just a shame you can't have a rational debate about this topic without the usual suspects invoking Godwin's Law with their predictable rants about Hitler and Nazi Germany. It's not Godwins law when the comparison is real and an eventual possibility. It's not some far fetch theoretical outcome, it's already happened before! The crimes committed by Nazi Germany were bourne from exactly the same logic as the OP's, so why shouldn't it be debated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 It's just a shame you can't have a rational debate about this topic without the usual suspects invoking Godwin's Law with their predictable rants about Hitler and Nazi Germany. It isn't Godwin's Law if Hitler took part in the history of something we are talking about. Hitler was an advocate of eugenics, which is something you can't ignore at will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 That's a hopelessly idealistic view. If the hopeless, feckless and lazy treat the rest of society with contempt, why shouldn't we treat them like dirt? Because it the wrong thing to do. Because they're not dirt they're human beings. Because to do so damages and stains something in us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 That's a hopelessly idealistic view. If the hopeless, feckless and lazy treat the rest of society with contempt, why shouldn't we treat them like dirt? Because when your boredom is sated and you've obliterated them through eugenics you'll look for something else to relieve your boredom. Magilla made the relevant point that everyone will come under scrutiny at some point. The problem with your eugenics logic, scrutiny becomes violent and at base level dehumanizes. I'd rather people screw the state than the state get involved in eugenics. Been there, done it, and fought a war to end it. Or did you forget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big time Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 What is wrong with any of that? I never said there was anything wrong with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.