Does it, now? How are the hips on that 'perfect' golden retriever?
To be more detailed, genes are not single-purpose. The same gene which confers a 'strength' is almost guaranteed to also confer a 'weakness'. Often this weakness is not even evident until an environmental change occurs, at which point the species with the greatest genetic diversity will survive while the one 'optimized' for the prior conditions will die off. Belief in eugenics requires some very particular things, such as, say, physical strength being completely unrelated genetically to metabolic function - which it's not. This doesn't even account for the multitude of things which, if we were to seek to genetically 'optimize' people, we would be inadvertently optimizing or eliminating. Plainly put, eugenics is bad science and a bad idea rooted in ignorance and, most dangerously, a willingness to take shortcuts with scientific rigor that substitute intuition for actual knowledge.
If you take morality from everything, nothing is wrong, nothing has ever been wrong, nothing will ever be wrong, everything simply has-been/is/will-be. That's not the kind of world people want to live in.
Oh don't get me wrong, I personally oppose eugenics from a moral standpoint. I was just quibbling with the assertion that eugenics does not work because of a "misunderstanding on how DNA works". If that's the case I'd like him to explain how we have crops and domesticated animals.
That book is about the application of eugenic policies to spread the nordic race, which the author alleges is superior to other races. I agree that it is pseudoscientific in regard to its theories of racial superiority, but it does not refute the validity of eugenics as a scientific practice.
In fact, you may not realize it, but most western countries already implement eugenic policies. For instance, in my country, most fetuses which are identified as suffering from Down syndrome are aborted, and that practice is encouraged by doctors. This has led to a significant decrease in the number of people affected with that condition. You may not think of it this way, but that is a form of eugenics.
Works for me in Chrome. I assume it's cookie based, so it should work? I noticed that Chrome incognito keeps cookies until all incognito tabs are closed, so maybe close them, open a new incognito session and then reopen the page.
I've sent some Economist's articles to friends before and it detected Chrome's incognito both on Mac and Windows despite no other opened incognito tabs. Not sure how they do it but I assumed that Chrome has a "leaky" private mode.
If that were true, why George Soros and not other liberal jewish billionaires, who no doubt exist? I think it's absurd to state that he's not being singled out due to his political activities.
I don't understand what you're so skeptical about. What is the standard of evidence for antisemitism you're seeking? I'm not going to find many mainstream adherents to Soros conspiracy theories that are going to flat-out admit it, am I?
> I don't understand what you're so skeptical about. What is the standard of evidence for antisemitism you're seeking?
I suppose a good counter example would be liberal jewish billionaires being attacked despite not contributing to liberal philanthropic endeavors. Or non-jewish liberal billionaire philanthropists NOT being attacked despite contributing on the same scale as George Soros.
I'm just saying that the "George Soros is only being targeted because he's jewish" argument is a shitty cop out.
> I'm just saying that the "George Soros is only being targeted because he's jewish" argument is a shitty cop out.
You are moving the goalposts. You first asked why only Soros was being targeted and not other liberal, Jewish billionaires. That was proven false (Bloomberg, Steyer also targeted) and now you are trying out a new line of reasoning that is just as thin.
> You are moving the goalposts. You first asked why only Soros was being targeted and not other liberal, Jewish billionaires.
How I am moving the goalposts? The initial comment I replied to was "There's a reason why George Soros is singled out among liberal billionaires by certain right wing groups, and it certainly isn't evidence.", which I think I correctly interpreted as claiming that Soros was only being targeted for being jewish.
> That was proven false (Bloomberg, Steyer also targeted)
I've never heard of this Steyer guy, I know Bloomberg and I'm not aware that he's banned from Hungary, or that he has a dedicated wikipedia page to "Bloomberg conspiracy theories", so I don't think he can be remotely compared to Soros.
So yeah I don't know what you're talking about, honestly.
"why George Soros and not other liberal jewish billionaires, who no doubt exist?"
Evidence was provided to prove that other liberal Jewish billionaires have, in fact, been targeted.
> I've never heard of this Steyer guy, I know Bloomberg and I'm not aware that he's banned from Hungary, or that he has a dedicated wikipedia page to "Bloomberg conspiracy theories", so I don't think he can be remotely compared to Soros.
This is more goalpost moving. Nobody claimed they were targeted more than Soros or that you knew who they were. None of that changes the fact that they are liberal, Jewish billionaires who have been targeted. This is the criteria you created.
> why George Soros and not other liberal jewish billionaire
Haha, the Rothchild family would like a word about 'not being targeted'. The term "international bankers" is of course, famously, anti-semitic loon code for "jewish illuminanti".
If you think Soros is only singled out for his political views, the Soros-obsessed nut who just shot up a synagogue might also have a word with you.
I love computers and I absolutely would. Do you really think computers are improving your life that much? Think of all the skiing you could do instead.
Is it because you expect to make more than a billion dollars using your computer, or because you value lifetime computer usage at over a billion dollars.
I think I'd rather kill myself than ever go live in a nursing home. I suppose the only way I'd accept is if I had late stage dementia and didn't realize where I was.
Would you feel differently if you fell and broke your hip, unable to walk or do a dozen other activities of daily living, thus needed nurses to monitor you 24/7? The thinking and math on this changes a lot when complex medical situations come into play.
Depends on the nursing home. I've seen that looked okay and some that stunk of pee. I'd rather live at home on my own, but if I can do something (other than lay in bed) with my time I want to live. There are plenty of interesting things I can do sitting at a computer all day.
