0

Germany during WW2 send many of their most educated people to the frontline because the ultra rightwing government in charge in those days did not like well educated people.

1) it was an ultra leftwing government, never mind what the leftist propaganda of the last 60 years tells you. It's National SOCIALISM. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while in prison for his involvement in a COMMUNIST revolution in which he was a key figure.
2) they didn't, actually. Educated people were used to great effect to develop advanced weapons and other systems. Without those people you'd not have jet aircraft, computers, space travel, a lot of plastics, etc. etc. today.

0

Just read your history (and not the romanticised stuff you get in your local library) or any scientific text on anthropology.
Most "primitive" tribes now and always have cast out the infirm, mentally or physically.
Not only do those people consume resources without contributing any, but their offspring (were they to produce any) would be liable to be weak as well.

Sorry dude, find me a link. I read history, and I found much different stories from the ones you tell.

0

I have to disagree with this one. Wars really weed out the weak. Recently wars have been fought by a small percentage of the most healthy people, but I think that's a fairly recent phenomenon. Depends on the war, of course, and the country, but a lot of wars are going to affect everyone, whether they're actually fighting or not. Pretty much anyone who can walk is going to end up fighting if your country starts running out of troops. You didn't necessarily need to be all that healthy and the physicals given in earlier days didn't weed out nearly as many people as they do today. However, you do have pretty strong genes to survive a war given the wretched, disease-ridden trenches in a war like World War I or a war like the Civil War where tons of people died not from gunshots but from disease. If you don't have a good immune system, you aren't going to survive drawn-out trench warfare. Similarly a war is going to take up most all of a country's resources, so civilians who are infirm are much more likely to die off since conditions are much harsher than normal. So it seems to me that the people who survive a big war are going to be a pretty genetically strong group of people, much stronger on average than when the war started. This isn't true in our current war, but I think it is true over time, in general.

Trench warfare is a pretty recent invention; gunshots are pretty recent also. Warfare has nothing on influenza - can't hold a candle to the Plague. The French had professional armies; the British had professional armies - they even had the equivalent of national guard (the long bowmen). The Swiss have professional armies (in fact the Swiss Guard still guard the pope). The Romans had professional armies; the Greeks had professional armies (when most people think about culling populations they almost always mention the Spartans who were pretty ruthless about eliminating 'abnormal' children). The Macedonians had professional armies and under Alexander conquered.... Well, I could go on.

The point I am making is that professional armies generally do not take the weak, lame, or whatever and therefore it is not war that selects against the weak. I am not sure if I addressed your points, I hope so.

0

i dont really get eugenics. is it the same as breeding a species, selecting organisms with traits that we desire and allow only those to breed?

This was blinding stupidity of the eugenics movement - they had no idea what they were doing. They tried to combine Medel's work on genetics with Darwin's work on natural selection and come up with a method to 'purify' humanity. Of course, using Down's "Observations on the Ethnic Classification of Idiots" which just happened to put Caucasians at the top of the genetics heap. They assumed that if they sterilized all the defectives, then they could remove the bad genes from the race.

or is it more like crossing one breed with another so that in time a new and better variation of a species come into existence.

They also tried this, tall blonds with tall blonds, etc.

If it is the latter than eugenics is idiocity.

Yep - you hit the nail on the head - they had not heard about chromosomes. Friedrich Leopold August Weismann was already working on chromosomes at this time - it is not known if Down was aware of his work - this work ranked him as the #2 guy in evolution theory.

interesting enough though one must look at what God did in the bible when he created the nation of israel. some may say that was eugenics. but i am sure it was more like an attempt at breeding. he continuously prevented the descendents of abraham from marrying any but abraham's one people. one reason why essau was so unfavoured. he could not leave the hititi girls alone.

And he made food rules that essentially kept his people separate - they could have someone over to dinner but they could never eat food at any one else' home that was not kosher. Sharing food is one of the major ways for people to get together and trust each other.

But that whole creation of the israel nation is interesting to say the least.

Yeah but it is best not to go there.

0

1) it was an ultra leftwing government, never mind what the leftist propaganda of the last 60 years tells you. It's National SOCIALISM. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while in prison for his involvement in a COMMUNIST revolution in which he was a key figure.
2) they didn't, actually. Educated people were used to great effect to develop advanced weapons and other systems. Without those people you'd not have jet aircraft, computers, space travel, a lot of plastics, etc. etc. today.

What? At least look up Nazi in Wiki. They were fascist and used some elements from the left but allied itself with the right. Hitler was not imprisoned for being a communist - he was imprisoned for High Treason because he and his 'beer hall' party attempted to overthrow the Bavarian government.

The Nazi's did not attempt to kill off their own intelligentsia but did try to get all the Jews out of Germany. and they (with the help of the Soviets) did kill of almost all of the intellectual class in Poland by killing all captured officers and NCOs. 6 million poles died the war (including 3 million Jews).

0

@ grimjack

>>best not to go there.

dont worry. i wont. it would lead to "my nation is better than your nation" arguments which, i am sure, everyone wants to avoid. take note. i am neither israeli nor do i believe in God. It is just interesting what God tried to do.

>>actually they didn't. educated people were used to great effect....

very well put. i dont see any proof of that but it sure is believable. look at the war and you will see that german technology was reasonably ahead of everyone else's. They just did not have the economy(and here i include labour force as well as quantity of educated labour in all of its forms) to back it up. point in case. the meschersmit 262 was way more advanced than the pd 51 mustang(aircraft used in air combat) but there was just simply to many pd 51 mustangs. it was never outclassed but always outnumbered. same goes for machine gun and tanks too. and of course the german army was lead by a fool who acted like a rabbit in a tar pit.

sorry that i did not get back to you on the grain fed thing. i just finished my murder oriented project and am now too lazy to look into it. but there is a chance that it will come up again somewhere in the future.

0

like I said Grimjack, don't believe the leftist propaganda trying to distance the left from the national socialists and fascists, who are leftists themselves (though fascism isn't limited to leftists).

and if you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe a doctor in psychology and sociology with a teaching degree in economics.
http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/05/american-roots-of-fascism-american.html
http://jonjayray.bravehost.com/fasfraud.htm
http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/this-article-is-published-on-internet.html

0

like I said Grimjack, don't believe the leftist propaganda trying to distance the left from the national socialists and fascists, who are leftists themselves (though fascism isn't limited to leftists).

and if you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe a doctor in psychology and sociology with a teaching degree in economics.
http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/05/american-roots-of-fascism-american.html
http://jonjayray.bravehost.com/fasfraud.htm
http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/this-article-is-published-on-internet.html

Wow - jw - you had me spinning for a little while; I was getting ready to re-evaluate things I know or thought I knew. Just to make sure that jonjayray-dox knew what s/he was talking about I went to my best bud Google - lo and behold there is some controversy wrt the thing (it did not help that there were anti-intellectual, anti-liberal, anti-left diatribes on the right <that must be part of their little joke> which leads me to think <well, duh> you might also be a right wingnut).

Prove to me you have an open mind and tell me what you think of this review.

0

I think he used to believe in evolution, but now believes in creationism. Changing your mind is the prerogative of old folks.

s/old folks/vote grubbing politicians/g

Fixed.

0

Well creationism, would imply an overlord being that has power beyond anything else that the earthlings could muster. But how would such a being be able to live before the big bang? Physics would not allow such a being to exist, before time itself. And evolution is far more plausible seeing as there is a whole heap of evidence supporting it. So my vote is with Evolution.

0

I read somewhere that regular expressions don't work on people, vegaseat...

yeah but I was talking about politicians not people ;)

0

The Big Bang brought into existence the universe. There are however theories that the universe isn't the only one, that supreme being that created it could well be just a schoolkid starting some experiment in their equivalent of a glass tube or petridish somewhere outside the universe :)

0

At one time the Big Bang was "proof" of the existence of God. [It's always fun to watch how recorded history is changed over time.]

However that particular linked-and-search-for argument "turned out", I'm quite sure the question remains, and will remain, unanswered for many.

0

It is always a problem when someone tries to 'prove' god or religion with the current scientific paradigm. I remember Dancing Wu Li Master and various junk pieces by Frijhaf (sp) Kapra from the '70s trying to tie Eastern Mysticism to quantum mathematics; later, in the '80s 'they' were trying to use string theory to prove their theories. Generally, it is not a good idea to try to prove science by quoting faith and/or faith by science.

0

using one to prove the other is an oxymoron.

The string theory.....I like to see that someone else is familiar with this.

How about anti-matter, are you familiar with this as well.

Scince is what intrigues me, though i have little time to devote to learning when putting food on the table for my family is so hard. My plans were to be a genetic engineer and piss off all the religious types.

0

using one to prove the other is an oxymoron.

no its not. Look up the definition.

look up straw arguments

0

How about anti-matter, are you familiar with this as well.

We had a thread about dark matter at one point; I think anti-matter was mentioned in it too.

I think this is where anti-matter was first mentioned.
Dark Matter .

0

s.woodman mentioned "using one to prove the other " - this is a straw man argument but he incorrectly called it a oxymoron

0

I believe you misinterpret the meaning of strawman arguments. He was talking about using physical evidence and experiments (or so I gathered), to prove/disprove the existance of God. A strawman makes an imitation of the subject which is significantly lacking in similarity, calls on a trait of that object and degrades the virtue of the former by slandering the latter.

0

using one to prove the other is an oxymoron.

The string theory.....I like to see that someone else is familiar with this.

How about anti-matter, are you familiar with this as well.

Scince is what intrigues me, though i have little time to devote to learning when putting food on the table for my family is so hard. My plans were to be a genetic engineer and piss off all the religious types.

One of the theories of origins of the universe is there was just nothing, nowhere - then there was a twitch and the universe formed of mutually exclusive particles - every particle + its anti-particle but they could not account for enough anti-matter so they can't reduce the universe to null. They were hoping that they could find it in the dark matter but no luck with that. Anti-matter vs anti-particles is resolved around size, matter/anti-matter is baryonic

1

VI works on everything, twomers. It's omnipotent.

Look another chance to use my "editor of the beast' joke VI VI VI.

Votes + Comments
-0.017641645813270130179534555810744 is the sine of the beast ;)
0

I believe G-d created the Universe and has designed evolution as a method to advance biological species.

0

> I believe G-d created the Universe
Which one?
Oh so many to choose from, whichever one will I deny the existence of next? Man, this could turn out to be a full-time job. Or perhaps do as all other faith-heads do and deny the existence of all of them, except the one which was spoon-fed from child-hood.

The only difference between you and me is that I stopped at zero, and you for some reason stopped at 1. Just a little push and your mind will be free. Mmm, religion is the matrix, now there's a thought.

Once so many, now so few. Looks like in evolutionary terms, the "faith" meme is dying, soon to be extinct. We can only hope, then perhaps all the killings of one another "in god's name" will end. Is it going to take some zealot with a nuke to kill a few million before you realise just how insidious it is? Probably not, too many other zealots vested in perpertuating the misery with calls for "revenge" rather than walking away from the whole idea with "no longer in my name will you kill other humans".

One man's religion is another man's belly laugh.

> advance biological species.
Evolution doesn't advance, it adapts. Sometimes this can make species simpler. It doesn't always result in increases in complexity.
Like the evolutionary adaptation of an energy intensive large brain (that's us), that came so close to being ended as a bad idea 70,000 years ago. Destiny and design didn't bring us here, just mutation, selection and a large slice of luck. A couple more bad summers all those years ago, and it would have been "thank you and good night".


> could well be just a schoolkid starting some experiment in their equivalent of a
> glass tube or petridish somewhere outside the universe
Sample message board log
<god> I've got this homework to create a universe a week ago, and I haven't started yet, and I've only got a week to go to hand it in.
<salem> go away you flunky, your urgency isn't our problem.
<god> the FAQ says mix well for 14 days (same as the assignment duration I guess), do you think it'll still work?
<salem> perhaps, but you'll need to hurry up with the big bang. Even then, you'll need to be very careful that it doesn't come out all lumpy. I've done hundreds of these, but the best I've ever managed which came out anything like right was about 9 days. Anything less than that have been various levels of disaster. You might get something, but it won't be special.
<god> Thanks, BRB
<god, 7 days later> HELP, my universe is all lumpy and there's only one tiny rock with life on it. All my classmates have universes teeming with life exploring the universe and all my lot can do is kill each other. I've only got 5 minutes to go!
<salem> *shrug*
<salem> are they still praying to you?
<god> yeah, why?
<salem> I suppose they've also figured out how to split the atom as well..
<god> huh huh....
<salem> not so good then.
<salem> *thinks*
<salem> the problem is, you just can't fix it once it's running. Your tutors will easily spot any signs that you've tampered with it, and that will just get you an 'F'. If you can find some life on any other rock (no matter how basic it is), and you can figure out an explanation to your tutor as to why the 'faith' thing is only a passing fad, then you might score a D+ or a C-.

0

>> then perhaps all the killings of one another "in god's name" will end.
Just because some people of some religions have an idea that killing "in god's name" is permissible doesn't mean they all do. Sure, most have done in the past. But don't slam them all with an extreme stereotype that is today only linked to the select few. And don't talk about history. That's what it is - history. It shouldn't be accepted or acceptable either now or then. Bad things happened, but not only religious cullings. You don't need a list. None of it should have happened, but it did. We in our high chairs of hindsight point the finger and say "that was bad. That shouldn't have happened". But you know what? I bet if we were there nothing would have changed (be it religious killings or plantations). No matter what you say people follow the crowd. I found your sample message board amusing. I didn't know you were that old!

0

frankly, imho just as many people kill in the name of religion than of political belief

witchhunts v communist withhunts
holocaust v ethnic cleansing in balkans
crusades v war against e.g communists

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.