Climate Change

This forum is for anything not Reason related, if you just want to talk about other stuff. Please keep it friendly!
User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5510
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 04 May 2019

mashers wrote:
04 May 2019
EnochLight wrote:
04 May 2019
Even better, there's the impossible burger. There's a few restaurants around me that have it - tasted pretty much spot on as far as I could tell. Had it 2 different times. 100% plant based. No need for beef/cow.
Oh wow, I had never heard of it! Thank you, I'll look into it. I do really miss beef since deciding not to eat mammals, so this could be a great tip for me. Thank you!
Seriously, I could literally not tell the difference between the Impossible Burger and a regular beef burger. It was that good. :thumbs_up: If you ever get a chance to try one, go for it!

The funny part is: it's really not that much different health-wise. But who eats a burger to be healthy anyway? :lol:
EnochLight wrote:
04 May 2019
So - you never answered my question. Any kids? ;)
mashers wrote:
04 May 2019
Sorry I didn't see the question among all the other responses. No, I don't have children. I considered adopting, but after the first year of assessment decided it wasn't right for me. I'm glad now, as I've totally changed my mind on having children.
I see. Yes, adopting can be a tribulation in itself - I have friends who successfully adopted and I have friends who had trouble conceiving and considered adopting as well (but then were able to conceive after fertility treatments). So please don't take this the wrong way, and I mean no offense, but you seem to possess some seriously jaded beliefs about having children for not ever having any. I only have 1 kid, but my wife and I seriously considered having 2 or 3 - we just never got around to it because we're busy and had a small house. But I come from a family with 5 siblings; my wife comes from a family with 2 siblings. Our parents came from families that averaged 3-5 siblings, and often more.

But we live in the western world and population in the US hasn't reached critical mass. As far as landmass/area goes, we're actually a pretty small country population-wise! :lol:

As you may or may not have read from my comments above with bxbrkrz, I see some pretty serious faults with the whole 1-child policy, eugenics, favoring one sex over the other, etc.

I mean, aside from tiny houses. Tiny houses rock. Seriously considering one for our retirement home.
Windows 10 | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 1134
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 04 May 2019

EnochLight wrote:
04 May 2019
bxbrkrz wrote:
04 May 2019
I am not the one pushing for tiny housing and saying it is the poor's fault if they are poor. Did you read what I was replying too? Of course not. You got the wrong dude.

I agree with you 100%. That was the point I was making, not supporting the ideology. Just copy paste your replies from my post to the other tiny house supporter. Thank you.
I see you did not include the original posting I was replying too. Obviously with such nice editing you did you could but chose not too. I wonder why. Sick.
Well, you seemed to have skipped over this part where I said:
EnochLight wrote:
03 May 2019
I'm not sure if you're serious here
Perhaps I should have said "not sure if you actually feel this way"? My bad! :lol:

The point I was trying to make was to illustrate flaws in that apparent stance. I had no idea if you felt the same way or not. So, relax. ;) :thumbs_up: Go have some kids. Also, tiny houses rock. Great way to own a home without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars... :puf_bigsmile:
The context: Someone who does not like the poor because they don't have an excuse to be poor, or could not live in a tiny house (on their own land or on someone else's property?), or people who are not vegetarians, or people who have more than 2 children.
The context: me responding to a position and ideas that never ended up well to humanity. Their flaws.
This not about tiny homes, or if someone needs to work only 3 days a week. Having money not being poor is a good thing. I love tiny homes, the engineering behind it, very close to what naval architects had to deal with for centuries. Having children is a good thing.
It is OK to challenge me as long as the whole context stays intact. It is never about feelings.

And when I thought it was clear to all some ideas are very suspicious to say the least, we have a another Nature lover here asking "what's wrong with Eugenics".

User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 941
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: probably underwater

Post 04 May 2019

boingy wrote:
04 May 2019
plaamook wrote:
04 May 2019

Yeah but that only solves burgers and potentially sausage.
But chickens? How to you get the bones in there? And the bones add flavour! Rib of beef? Leg of sheep?!!!
Aw man, I've just had a horrible vision of the future where we pay a deposit on the fake animal bones in our plant-based version of ribs, wings and chops and then get the deposit refunded when we return the items to the automated machine in front of the supermarket. You'd be sucking on someone else's teeth marks.... :shock:
It wouldn't work. Once you cook the bones they lose their flavour giving quality. You need fresh bones. But really, this is just he begining. I reckon given a few generations they'll be growing bones and all, just in weird shapes. Fresh bones every time!
I can't wait!!!

User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 941
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: probably underwater

Post 04 May 2019

bxbrkrz wrote:
04 May 2019
And when I thought it was clear to all some ideas are very suspicious to say the least, we have a another Nature lover here asking "what's wrong with Eugenics".
Nature lover? What does that even mean? :lol:

Ah, never mind.

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5510
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 04 May 2019

bxbrkrz wrote:
04 May 2019
The context: Someone who does not like the poor because they don't have an excuse to be poor, or could not live in a tiny house (on their own land or on someone else's property?), or people who are not vegetarians, or people who have more than 2 children.
The context: me responding to a position and ideas that never ended up well to humanity. Their flaws.
This not about tiny homes, or if someone needs to work only 3 days a week. Having money not being poor is a good thing. I love tiny homes, the engineering behind it, very close to what naval architects had to deal with for centuries. Having children is a good thing.
It is OK to challenge me as long as the whole context stays intact. It is never about feelings.

And when I thought it was clear to all some ideas are very suspicious to say the least, we have a another Nature lover here asking "what's wrong with Eugenics".
Eugenics - the very idea of it - just blows me away. I was being sort of cheeky when I posted the Khan photo, but when an entire film franchise’s arguably best work is based on a story-line illustrating the very worse possible future based on the idea, it’s pretty telling.

Assorted musings: Who was it in this thread who claimed Teslas weren’t good for the environment? Teslas are certainly better for the environment over their life than fossil fuel vehicles, assuming they are charged via renewable resources.
Windows 10 | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion

reggie1979
Posts: 635
Joined: 11 Apr 2019

Post 05 May 2019

Wow, sideways and then some!

User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 941
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: probably underwater

Post 05 May 2019

EnochLight wrote:
04 May 2019

Eugenics - the very idea of it - just blows me away. I was being sort of cheeky when I posted the Khan photo, but when an entire film franchise’s arguably best work is based on a story-line illustrating the very worse possible future based on the idea, it’s pretty telling.

Assorted musings: Who was it in this thread who claimed Teslas weren’t good for the environment? Teslas are certainly better for the environment over their life than fossil fuel vehicles, assuming they are charged via renewable resources.
The elephanty in the corner of the electric car room is the batteries. But check this out...

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... n-s-energy

Loads of potential.

As for eugenics, I'm not a suporter of eugenics or forcing people to do things against their will if it can be avaoided. I'm also not worried about humanity deleting itself. But the idea of breeding anything for superior traits... man that's as old as anything. You've got instictive attraction of various species, youve got cross breeding of and genetic modification of plants, animals, etc. The breeding human thing is a no brainer on a theoretical level, it's just that it'll most likely turn into a shit show once we start forcing epople into it based on who knows what guide lines but that doens't meant that we need to do it that way. And it certainly doesn't mean anyone's required to be a reactionary smart ass about me just raising the question. Up till this thread I wasn't sure what the term even meant.

User avatar
Zac
Posts: 1404
Joined: 19 May 2016

Post 05 May 2019

plaamook wrote:
05 May 2019
EnochLight wrote:
04 May 2019

Eugenics - the very idea of it - just blows me away. I was being sort of cheeky when I posted the Khan photo, but when an entire film franchise’s arguably best work is based on a story-line illustrating the very worse possible future based on the idea, it’s pretty telling.

Assorted musings: Who was it in this thread who claimed Teslas weren’t good for the environment? Teslas are certainly better for the environment over their life than fossil fuel vehicles, assuming they are charged via renewable resources.
The elephanty in the corner of the electric car room is the batteries. But check this out...

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... n-s-energy

Loads of potential.

As for eugenics, I'm not a suporter of eugenics or forcing people to do things against their will if it can be avaoided. I'm also not worried about humanity deleting itself. But the idea of breeding anything for superior traits... man that's as old as anything. You've got instictive attraction of various species, youve got cross breeding of and genetic modification of plants, animals, etc. The breeding human thing is a no brainer on a theoretical level, it's just that it'll most likely turn into a shit show once we start forcing epople into it based on who knows what guide lines but that doens't meant that we need to do it that way. And it certainly doesn't mean anyone's required to be a reactionary smart ass about me just raising the question. Up till this thread I wasn't sure what the term even meant.
Sorry if I came across as a "reactionary smartass" but the reason I find eugenics so repugnant is that the german nazi party were into eugenics and the persecution of bolshelviks and jews was based on it. It's never a good idea to bring up these things on an internet discussion because it soon deteriorates but that's why i skirted around mentioning the Holocaust.
Image
Now available, see viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7512836
New tune (Happy House) 'big fat' viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7513201

mashers
Posts: 389
Joined: 05 Nov 2018

Post 05 May 2019

EnochLight wrote:
04 May 2019
Seriously, I could literally not tell the difference between the Impossible Burger and a regular beef burger. It was that good. :thumbs_up: If you ever get a chance to try one, go for it!
I've been obsessing over it, trying to find a supplier in the UK. I'll find them somehow, I have to try it.
EnochLight wrote:
04 May 2019
The funny part is: it's really not that much different health-wise. But who eats a burger to be healthy anyway? :lol:
Well, quite ;)
EnochLight wrote:
04 May 2019
I see. Yes, adopting can be a tribulation in itself - I have friends who successfully adopted and I have friends who had trouble conceiving and considered adopting as well (but then were able to conceive after fertility treatments). So please don't take this the wrong way, and I mean no offense, but you seem to possess some seriously jaded beliefs about having children for not ever having any.
I don't take that any way other than in confusion. I'm not sure what you mean to be honest.
EnochLight wrote:
04 May 2019
I only have 1 kid, but my wife and I seriously considered having 2 or 3 - we just never got around to it because we're busy and had a small house. But I come from a family with 5 siblings; my wife comes from a family with 2 siblings. Our parents came from families that averaged 3-5 siblings, and often more.

But we live in the western world and population in the US hasn't reached critical mass. As far as landmass/area goes, we're actually a pretty small country population-wise! :lol:

As you may or may not have read from my comments above with bxbrkrz, I see some pretty serious faults with the whole 1-child policy, eugenics, favoring one sex over the other, etc.

I mean, aside from tiny houses. Tiny houses rock. Seriously considering one for our retirement home.
Please don't be under the misapprehension that I think it would be great to have controls on reproduction. It would be ghastly, of course. I don't want that to happen. But the human population does not seem sustainable to me, and I can foresee a point in time where it becomes necessary. And if the impetus which necessitates it is survival of life on the planet, then I would be all for it.

Also, some of the conversation about "tiny homes" has made me think there may be a bit of misunderstanding about my particular situation. I am not living in some expensive, high tech home of the future. I live in a mobile home. You know, what Americans would call "trailer trash". I choose to live this way because it is cheaper to buy, made of a more natural material, can be removed, recycled and replaced if necessary, and is, well, tiny. It costs less than a bricks and mortar house, not more. It's an option which is open to many people, but which few seem to choose.

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 1134
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 05 May 2019

EnochLight wrote:
04 May 2019
bxbrkrz wrote:
04 May 2019
The context: Someone who does not like the poor because they don't have an excuse to be poor, or could not live in a tiny house (on their own land or on someone else's property?), or people who are not vegetarians, or people who have more than 2 children.
The context: me responding to a position and ideas that never ended up well to humanity. Their flaws.
This not about tiny homes, or if someone needs to work only 3 days a week. Having money not being poor is a good thing. I love tiny homes, the engineering behind it, very close to what naval architects had to deal with for centuries. Having children is a good thing.
It is OK to challenge me as long as the whole context stays intact. It is never about feelings.

And when I thought it was clear to all some ideas are very suspicious to say the least, we have a another Nature lover here asking "what's wrong with Eugenics".
Eugenics - the very idea of it - just blows me away. I was being sort of cheeky when I posted the Khan photo, but when an entire film franchise’s arguably best work is based on a story-line illustrating the very worse possible future based on the idea, it’s pretty telling.

Assorted musings: Who was it in this thread who claimed Teslas weren’t good for the environment? Teslas are certainly better for the environment over their life than fossil fuel vehicles, assuming they are charged via renewable resources.
We love children? We want to have a minimum of impact on our planet? We don't have a disdain for the poor? We hate the idea of Eugenics? Then have a longer discussion with the character who nudged openly for all of it.
I am not the poster you are looking for.
:geek:

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 1134
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 05 May 2019

plaamook wrote:
04 May 2019
bxbrkrz wrote:
04 May 2019
And when I thought it was clear to all some ideas are very suspicious to say the least, we have a another Nature lover here asking "what's wrong with Eugenics".
Nature lover? What does that even mean? :lol:

Ah, never mind.
In the context of this thread the term 'Nature lover' means a narcissistic hypocrite in love with eugenics and poor population control, by force.







Got it? lol.

mashers
Posts: 389
Joined: 05 Nov 2018

Post 05 May 2019

bxbrkrz wrote:
05 May 2019
In the context of this thread the term 'Nature lover' means a narcissistic hypocrite in love with eugenics and poor population control, by force.
On the off-chance this is in reference to me, then I'm going to have to respond to what is clearly a gross mischaracterisation. I was talking about a potentially necessary but highly undesirable need to curb population growth in order to preserve the ecosystem, not the promotion within the population of particular phenotypic characteristics through selective breeding (or indeed culling). I believe that the former might become necessary, and that the latter is clearly a disgusting impingement on living beings. As for "narcissistic hypocrite", again if you are describing me then you have seriously misread my intentions and I'm going to ask that you indicate what I have said that is either narcissistic or hypocritical. I don't particularly care what you think about me personally, but I don't appreciate the implications you have made. If I have misunderstood you then I will apologise of course.

User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 941
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: probably underwater

Post 05 May 2019

bxbrkrz wrote:
05 May 2019
plaamook wrote:
04 May 2019


Nature lover? What does that even mean? :lol:

Ah, never mind.
In the context of this thread the term 'Nature lover' means a narcissistic hypocrite in love with eugenics and poor population control, by force.







Got it? lol.
Ah. Great.
So you were referring to someone else.
I was about to take offence! Hah ha

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 1134
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 05 May 2019

plaamook wrote:
05 May 2019
bxbrkrz wrote:
05 May 2019

In the context of this thread the term 'Nature lover' means a narcissistic hypocrite in love with eugenics and poor population control, by force.







Got it? lol.
Ah. Great.
So you were referring to someone else.
I was about to take offence! Hah ha
It's 2019. It is totally OK to feel triggered by anything and everything alive or made out of pixels.

mashers
Posts: 389
Joined: 05 Nov 2018

Post 05 May 2019

bxbrkrz wrote:
05 May 2019
It's 2019. It is totally OK to feel triggered by anything and everything alive or made out of pixels.
Ahh, a “2019” and a “triggered” joke all in one paragraph. Now I know you’re trolling. Looks like we’re done here.

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 1134
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 05 May 2019

mashers wrote:
05 May 2019
bxbrkrz wrote:
05 May 2019
In the context of this thread the term 'Nature lover' means a narcissistic hypocrite in love with eugenics and poor population control, by force.
On the off-chance this is in reference to me, then I'm going to have to respond to what is clearly a gross mischaracterisation. I was talking about a potentially necessary but highly undesirable need to curb population growth in order to preserve the ecosystem, not the promotion within the population of particular phenotypic characteristics through selective breeding (or indeed culling). I believe that the former might become necessary, and that the latter is clearly a disgusting impingement on living beings. As for "narcissistic hypocrite", again if you are describing me then you have seriously misread my intentions and I'm going to ask that you indicate what I have said that is either narcissistic or hypocritical. I don't particularly care what you think about me personally, but I don't appreciate the implications you have made. If I have misunderstood you then I will apologise of course.
Ideas. It is never personal as I don't know you. I can only counter argue ideas. Do the same with me. At least you did not do a bad copy pasting job in the thread.
Let's talk about oatmeal instead?
Do you have any recipes you would like to share with us, poor people with more than 2.5 children at home?


User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 1134
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 05 May 2019

mashers wrote:
05 May 2019
bxbrkrz wrote:
05 May 2019
It's 2019. It is totally OK to feel triggered by anything and everything alive or made out of pixels.
Ahh, a “2019” and a “triggered” joke all in one paragraph. Now I know you’re trolling. Looks like we’re done here.
He's an adult. He can reply for himself. Bye!

User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 941
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: probably underwater

Post 05 May 2019

bxbrkrz wrote:
05 May 2019
plaamook wrote:
05 May 2019


Ah. Great.
So you were referring to someone else.
I was about to take offence! Hah ha
It's 2019. It is totally OK to feel triggered by anything and everything alive or made out of pixels.
Hah. Nah I’m ok. There’s enough trigger happy people round these days. Think I’ll stick with my sense of humour

User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 941
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: probably underwater

Post 05 May 2019

Zac wrote:
05 May 2019
plaamook wrote:
05 May 2019


The elephanty in the corner of the electric car room is the batteries. But check this out...

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... n-s-energy

Loads of potential.

As for eugenics, I'm not a suporter of eugenics or forcing people to do things against their will if it can be avaoided. I'm also not worried about humanity deleting itself. But the idea of breeding anything for superior traits... man that's as old as anything. You've got instictive attraction of various species, youve got cross breeding of and genetic modification of plants, animals, etc. The breeding human thing is a no brainer on a theoretical level, it's just that it'll most likely turn into a shit show once we start forcing epople into it based on who knows what guide lines but that doens't meant that we need to do it that way. And it certainly doesn't mean anyone's required to be a reactionary smart ass about me just raising the question. Up till this thread I wasn't sure what the term even meant.
Sorry if I came across as a "reactionary smartass" but the reason I find eugenics so repugnant is that the german nazi party were into eugenics and the persecution of bolshelviks and jews was based on it. It's never a good idea to bring up these things on an internet discussion because it soon deteriorates but that's why i skirted around mentioning the Holocaust.
Yeah it’s weird. Through this whole conversation the nazi connection never occurred to me.
I was busy thinking about sci-fi and cyborgs n shit.

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 1134
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 05 May 2019

plaamook wrote:
05 May 2019
bxbrkrz wrote:
05 May 2019

It's 2019. It is totally OK to feel triggered by anything and everything alive or made out of pixels.
Hah. Nah I’m ok. There’s enough trigger happy people round these days. Think I’ll stick with my sense of humour
Having others to be offended in your behalf, and doing it for free no less, is a pretty cool concept even Philip K. Dick would've never imagined.
:puf_smile:



User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 941
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: probably underwater

Post 05 May 2019

bxbrkrz wrote:
05 May 2019
plaamook wrote:
05 May 2019


Hah. Nah I’m ok. There’s enough trigger happy people round these days. Think I’ll stick with my sense of humour
Having others to be offended in your behalf, and doing it for free no less, is a pretty cool concept even Philip K. Dick would've never imagined.
:puf_smile:


But I’m not offended. And no ones doing anything on my behalf.
You’ll have to take all the credit for that one.

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 1134
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 05 May 2019

plaamook wrote:
05 May 2019
bxbrkrz wrote:
05 May 2019

Having others to be offended in your behalf, and doing it for free no less, is a pretty cool concept even Philip K. Dick would've never imagined.
:puf_smile:


But I’m not offended. And no ones doing anything on my behalf.
You’ll have to take all the credit for that one.
bxbrkrz wrote:
05 May 2019
mashers wrote:
05 May 2019


Ahh, a “2019” and a “triggered” joke all in one paragraph. Now I know you’re trolling. Looks like we’re done here.
He's an adult. He can reply for himself. Bye!
I am afraid I can't take any credit. It is what it is :puf_smile:

User avatar
Zac
Posts: 1404
Joined: 19 May 2016

Post 05 May 2019

bxbrkrz wrote:
05 May 2019
plaamook wrote:
05 May 2019


But I’m not offended. And no ones doing anything on my behalf.
You’ll have to take all the credit for that one.
bxbrkrz wrote:
05 May 2019

He's an adult. He can reply for himself. Bye!
I am afraid I can't take any credit. It is what it is :puf_smile:
Bxbrkrz... I think you stink of it.
Image
Now available, see viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7512836
New tune (Happy House) 'big fat' viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7513201

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 1134
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 05 May 2019

Zac wrote:
05 May 2019
bxbrkrz wrote:
05 May 2019


I am afraid I can't take any credit. It is what it is :puf_smile:
Bxbrkrz... I think you stink of it.
Eugenics has never been a joking matter to me. It is not SciFi.
Your personal feelings you have, or your super power ability of smelling me across a computer screen is totally irrelevant.
If you are too young to know past events then it is never too late to learn what we, the human race did to each other, especially to the poorest among us. The same excuses were used: too many children, a burden to society and Nature, etc.

Have a good read. Or not.

UNWANTED STERILIZATION AND EUGENICS PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES

Coerced sterilization is a shameful part of America’s history, and one doesn’t have to go too far back to find examples of it. Used as a means of controlling “undesirable” populations – immigrants, people of color, poor people, unmarried mothers, the disabled, the mentally ill – federally-funded sterilization programs took place in 32 states throughout the 20th century. Driven by prejudiced notions of science and social control, these programs informed policies on immigration and segregation.

As historian William Deverell explains in a piece discussing the “Asexualization Acts” that led to the sterilization of more than 20,000 California men and women,“If you are sterilizing someone, you are saying, if not to them directly, ‘Your possible progeny are inassimilable, and we choose not to deal with that.’”

According to Andrea Estrada at UC Santa Barbara, forced sterilization was particularly rampant in California (the state’s eugenics program even inspired the Nazis):

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog ... ed-states/

User avatar
Zac
Posts: 1404
Joined: 19 May 2016

Post 06 May 2019

bxbrkrz wrote:
05 May 2019
Zac wrote:
05 May 2019


Bxbrkrz... I think you stink of it.
Eugenics has never been a joking matter to me. It is not SciFi.
Your personal feelings you have, or your super power ability of smelling me across a computer screen is totally irrelevant.
If you are too young to know past events then it is never too late to learn what we, the human race did to each other, especially to the poorest among us. The same excuses were used: too many children, a burden to society and Nature, etc.

Have a good read. Or not.

UNWANTED STERILIZATION AND EUGENICS PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES

Coerced sterilization is a shameful part of America’s history, and one doesn’t have to go too far back to find examples of it. Used as a means of controlling “undesirable” populations – immigrants, people of color, poor people, unmarried mothers, the disabled, the mentally ill – federally-funded sterilization programs took place in 32 states throughout the 20th century. Driven by prejudiced notions of science and social control, these programs informed policies on immigration and segregation.

As historian William Deverell explains in a piece discussing the “Asexualization Acts” that led to the sterilization of more than 20,000 California men and women,“If you are sterilizing someone, you are saying, if not to them directly, ‘Your possible progeny are inassimilable, and we choose not to deal with that.’”

According to Andrea Estrada at UC Santa Barbara, forced sterilization was particularly rampant in California (the state’s eugenics program even inspired the Nazis):

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog ... ed-states/
I haven't read everything in full here. I don't need that. My head's full of enough crap already. But I've read enough to decide you are in this for your own entertainment.
Image
Now available, see viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7512836
New tune (Happy House) 'big fat' viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7513201

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest