Eugenics In The U.S- How It Really Was (shocking)

[CatsRule2020]

Eugenics in the United States | Cultural Anthropology


There are so many things in this article that I didn't know. I can now see how the Nazies would have implemented their plans almost naturally.

There was something in the article I thought was even amusing. They advocated for the forced sterilization of criminals in the prison system due to their being intellectually and economically inferior. But they ran into a problem in that they did not take into account the 'White Collar criminals! They did away with this practice in 1942.

 

[thecolorsblend]

.

 

[Tanj]

"Some people are born to be a burden on the rest" appears to be quite a prevalent attitude today. Not much has changed.

 

[Occams Barber]

So, the practice came to a natural, organic end when the justice system came face to face with errors in their logic?

Yeah, shocking.

Apparently not.
From Eugenics in the United States - Wikipedia

The compulsory sterilization of American men and women continues to this day. In 2013, it was reported that 148 female prisoners in two California prisons were sterilized between 2006 and 2010 in a supposedly voluntary program, but it was determined that the prisoners did not give consent to the procedures.[131] In September 2014, California enacted Bill SB1135 that bans sterilization in correctional facilities, unless the procedure is required to save an inmate's life.[132]

OB​

 

[Bradskii]

Apparently not.
From Eugenics in the United States - Wikipedia

The compulsory sterilization of American men and women continues to this day. In 2013, it was reported that 148 female prisoners in two California prisons were sterilized between 2006 and 2010 in a supposedly voluntary program, but it was determined that the prisoners did not give consent to the procedures.[131] In September 2014, California enacted Bill SB1135 that bans sterilization in correctional facilities, unless the procedure is required to save an inmate's life.[132]

OB​

So Bradskii the mad scientist has designed a virus which renders all women now and in the future sterile. Better keep it safe in this little...oh, darn it. It escaped. Oops!

But not to worry. I have an antidote on hand. So if a woman wants to get pregnant she has to take a pill. I wonder what the Catholics would do...

 

[o_mlly]

There are so many things in this article that I didn't know. I can now see how the Nazies would have implemented their plans almost naturally.

The Nazi program ultimately resulted in the sterilization of 360,000–375,000 persons. Finding sterilization too expensive and slow, the Nazi, masters of efficiency, turned to forced "euthanasia" as a means of controlling "undesirables". The holocaust numbers are in the millions.

Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin, coined the term “eugenics” in 1883. The promoters of both Darwinism and eugenics followed the unscientific method of forming their hypothesis before observing the data.

Darwin and the scientific method

The eugenicists even adopted from the evolutionists the word "species" to identify the sub-category of "unfit" human beings.

The Ohio Hospital for Epileptics—The First ‘Epilepsy Colony’ in America

a great many of these [epileptics] are unrestricted and allowed to propagate their species.​

What both evolutionists and eugenicists lacked in data, they made up with enthusiasm. The Eugenics Record Office compiled acres of anecdotal data before being shut down as a wholly unscientific endeavor.

U.S. Scientists' Role in the Eugenics Movement (1907–1939): A Contemporary Biologist's Perspective

Davenport conceived of this office to mainly “serve eugenical interests in the capacity of repository and clearing house” and to “provide data adequate to making eugenical studies.”8 Their method was to collect family histories from “better families” and “subnormal families” based upon methods previously described by Galton. ... It wasn't until 1935 that a review panel convened by the Carnegie Institution concluded that the Eugenics Research Office research did not have scientific merit ...
​

If the eugenicists (aka, racists) did not attempt to have their beliefs legislated to mandate the sterilization of the "unfit" then it's possible the fraud masquerading as science that they pushed on society might still have legs today.

What will atheists do when the "science" rug under evolution theory is pulled? Like eugenics, evolution theory is long on anecdotal data (bones, rocks and imagination) and short on any data subject to analytical tools.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

What will atheists do when the "science" rug under evolution theory is pulled? Like eugenics, evolution theory is long on anecdotal data (bones, rocks and imagination) and short on any data subject to analytical tools.

If evolution is shown to be false then we will keep looking for the answer. I doubt that will happen since there is more evidence for evolution than any other scientific theory and does not stand on anything Darwin did.

 

[Bradskii]

What will atheists do when the "science" rug under evolution theory is pulled?

Why 'What will atheists do..'? That's like asking "What will atheists do if the theory of relativity is proved to be wrong?" Why leave Muslims and Christians and Jews and Seventh Day Adventists etc out of it?

Well, dunno about everyone else, but I'll go with the theory that better explains the evidence. Do you have a new one?

 

[o_mlly]

If evolution is shown to be false then we will keep looking for the answer.

Like eugenics, evolution theory -- the diversity of all life explained by NSRM -- is no more than an opinion. An opinion is a statement that expresses a feeling, an attitude, a value judgment, or a belief. It is a statement that cannot be proven true or false. One cannot argue with the way another feels. I can't prove Santa Claus does not exist. Atheists must cling to their "santa claus" fantasy otherwise their worldview collapses.

 

[Desk trauma]

I can't prove Santa Claus does not exist. Atheists must cling to their "santa claus" fantasy otherwise their worldview collapses.

Not the case but don’t let that get in the way of denigrating those who have the temerity to be unconvinced by theistic claims.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Like eugenics, evolution theory -- the diversity of all life explained by NSRM -- is no more than an opinion. An opinion is a statement that expresses a feeling, an attitude, a value judgment, or a belief. It is a statement that cannot be proven true or false. One cannot argue with the way another feels. I can't prove Santa Claus does not exist. Atheists must cling to their "santa claus" fantasy otherwise their worldview collapses.

If evolution was shown to be false my worldview would not change. I would still have insufficient evidence to believe a God exists. You are wrong that evolution is an opinion. The thing is I have looked at all the evidence I can find for God and am not convinced. Have you looked at the evidence for evolution yourself? I have, it is overwhelmingly convincing.

Can you tell me a couple evidences that scientists believe confirms evolution?

 

[Bradskii]

...evolution theory...is no more than an opinion.

There's some confusion there. We know that you have an opinion on the theory. But that doesn't mean that the theory is an opinion.

 

[o_mlly]

Not the case but don’t let that get in the way of denigrating those who have the temerity to be unconvinced by theistic claims.

Non-theists make the same claim ... ToE does not explain the diversity of life.

In deference to the OP, it would be good to recall the full title of Darwin's book: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". What starts out poorly rarely get better with time.

If evolution was shown to be false my worldview would not change. I would still have insufficient evidence to believe a God exists. You are wrong that evolution is an opinion. The thing is I have looked at all the evidence I can find for God and am not convinced. Have you looked at the evidence for evolution yourself? I have, it is overwhelmingly convincing.

Can you tell me a couple evidences that scientists believe confirms evolution?

The issue raised is not "ToE or God?" but is ToE science anymore than eugnenics was science. They have the same root source and both had reams of evidence all of which, sad to say, was quite unscientific.

 

[Desk trauma]

Non-theists make the same claim ... ToE does not explain the diversity of life.

The I know you are but what am I gambit makes no sense in this context.

In deference to the OP, it would be good to recall the full title of Darwin's book: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". What starts out poorly rarely get better with time.

Darwin used language that’s problematic to modern tastes. Well, as good a case as any to throw out the better part of two centuries of biology.

The issue raised is not "ToE or God?"

Yet that’s how it was presented in your post.

but is ToE science anymore than eugnenics was science.

Yes, modern biology is science. There, done and dusted. Moving on.

 

[o_mlly]

The I know you are but what am I gambit makes no sense in this context.

?

Darwin used language that’s problematic to modern tastes. Well, as good a case as any to throw out the better part of two centuries of biology.

Modern tastes?

Yet that’s how it was presented in your post.

No. Never mentioned Him in my posts.

Yes, modern biology is science. There, done and dusted. Moving on.

Of course, biology is a science. ToE is not. An opinion is not an argument, however, you are entitled to yours.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Of course, biology is a science. ToE is not.

Nope. Evolution is a successful scientific theory of biology.

 

[Desk trauma]

?[/

Don’t get tripped up on the nonsense presented in your own posts.

Modern tastes?

Tastes, standards, sensibilities, modern word usage.

No. Never mentioned Him in my posts.

If the “Santa fantasy” of atheists in post nine wasn’t pointing towards TOE what was it in reference to?

Of course, biology is a science. ToE is not.

And we’re on to pretending TOE isn’t vital to our understanding of biology.

An opinion is not an argument, …

A scientific theory is not an opinion.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I thought this thread was about eugenics.