The Death of Real Science

[Woyzeck]

Link or its not true. You're basing an awful lot of your argument over your perceptions of the global warming scientists as a whole, and painting a very broad brush of a group of people that includes scientists from around the globe. You posit that global warming scientists are frauds, but they're putting up an awful lot of work for mere fraud with no apparent extra gain other than 'egos' or 'to keep funding rolling in' for something which is a fraud. The numbers just don't add up in the end that they would do this.

Like I already said and implied, the ones basing their further research on the jimmied numbers are more than likely acting in good faith. Moreover, the inner circle at the IPCC has been caught red-handed both using "evidence" from unscientific opinion pieces and making up some statistics out of whole cloth...In those instances, the motivation is less important to me than the facts at hand.

But you asked for reasoning that could be behind making up the whole thing, not for definitive evidence.

I did, but reasoning often must have evidence to back it up, otherwise why believe the reasoning? You make big claims on a serious issue for me to simply believe you from words alone.

 

[Ericredscousin]

Thank God the Right Wing doesn't believe in "fake science" or live by "ideology". From now on, I'm getting all my science from them. After all, look at all the success they've brought the world. All the inventions that come from "conservative scientists". The amazing technology. The biological science. The list is endless.

Do you really want to go there? Do you want me to list all the scientific discoveries and engineering advances that come from conservatives?

Before you answer, you might want to remember that I am typing this in one place, and you are reading it in another, through something called the Internet. The Internet was designed by the military so they could communicate in the event of war, it was not invented by Al Gore.

So I guess you are in favor of textbooks being re-written to include creationism to taught to our children. Or that whales should be re-classified as fish because that is what Jonus was supposedly swollowed by.

I am sure China and the rest of the science based countries are really hoping we follow the new/old Republican science to our children.

 

[Oddball]

Link or its not true. You're basing an awful lot of your argument over your perceptions of the global warming scientists as a whole, and painting a very broad brush of a group of people that includes scientists from around the globe. You posit that global warming scientists are frauds, but they're putting up an awful lot of work for mere fraud with no apparent extra gain other than 'egos' or 'to keep funding rolling in' for something which is a fraud. The numbers just don't add up in the end that they would do this.

Like I already said and implied, the ones basing their further research on the jimmied numbers are more than likely acting in good faith. Moreover, the inner circle at the IPCC has been caught red-handed both using "evidence" from unscientific opinion pieces and making up some statistics out of whole cloth...In those instances, the motivation is less important to me than the facts at hand.

But you asked for reasoning that could be behind making up the whole thing, not for definitive evidence.

I did, but reasoning often must have evidence to back it up, otherwise why believe the reasoning? You make big claims on a serious issue for me to simply believe you from words alone.

What you're doing here is what we call "moving the goalposts".

But like I already said, the motivations are of far less importance to me than the fact that the people at the top of the pyramid have been caught dead-to-right making up numbers from measurement stations that don't exist, using unreviewed opinion pieces from environmentalist magazines, blatantly evading FOIA requests, destroying research and squelching research that doesn't reach their alarmist conclusions.

Those things have been proved...The motivation part is sheer speculation and largely irrelevant.

 

[Oddball]

John Christy (0255 - 02:43:15 in the file embedded above, 31 minutes in total; questions begin on 02:24:08) has explained how the climate scientists (and especially IPCC lead authors) have become gatekeepers and their community has become a victim of groupthink, exaggerations, Hollywood movies; how his papers and opinions were deliberately ignored by the process; how good an idea it is to listen to Steve McIntyre; how unpredictable the climate is....

The Reference Frame: John Christy: an excellent witness in Montreal

 

[Ericredscousin]

no problem has ever been solved by conservatism and no advances have ever been made by conservatism.

the definition of conservative is one who wants to maintain the status quo.

I don't agree with your definition. I feel that I am a Conservative, but am never satisfied with nor do strive to maintain the Staus Quo.

To me, being Conservative means decentralizing the power of Government, reducing the reach and power of Government, emphasizing the impact of personal responsibility and encouraging individual initiative and reward.

It also means that the Government should be run by laws and not by the agendas of political parties.

Finally, the wealth of the individual citizens should be regarded as personal wealth and not just potential tax revenues. Also, all individuals should recognize that to live in any community requires both financial and active contributions for that community to thrive and those contributions need to be made or exacted from all who enjoy the benefits of the community.

What points above do you disagree with?

I am a liberal, and I am not satified with the status quo.

To me, being a liberal means that a strong, transperant, non-corrupt government, run by intelligent people is the backbone of any thriving society. This govenernment should run by laws that are enacted by the the representatives that the majority of the people elect. And once those laws are enacted, all the people need to live by them in.

I believe in a free press that is not surpressed by the govenment or any other ruling class.

I believe in helping people who are in need. NOT giving out handouts, but a hand up.

I believe in fairness. In the courts, in the schools, in the job market.

I believe in a strong and large middle class. Show me a society with no middle class, and I will show you a third world country.

I believe in individual responsibilty, as do you.

I believe in resolving problems using non-violent means whenever possible.

I believe in science and the scientific method.

I believe in civility and the power of free thinking.

Could go on, but you get the point.
What you get the point.

What points above can you argue with?

 

[edthecynic]

because they make busloads of money off of it. Phil jones alone has raked in 22.6 million in us taxpayers dollars (and that does not include what he has recieved from the uk taxpayer). mann just got another 500,000 us taxpayer dollars. The list is endless. So far the agw crowd has been able to defraud the us taxpayer of over 100 billion dollars over the last 10 years. An they have nothing to show for it but some "maybe this will happen or this could possibly happen."

Liar!!!!!!

Really? That's the best you can do? What an ignoramous.....how sadly pathetic you are.

Here's your proof if you dare to read it...which somehow I rather doubt.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ah4XLQCleuUYdFIxMnhMNnlXb2JQcDZUendjUXpWWUE&hl=en#

REALLY!!!!
Gawd, you are as stupid as Dupe!!!!
And if YOU actually read it you knew you were lying when you made your post.

Your LIE claimed that the 22.6 million came ENTIRELY from the US tax payer and even more money came from the Brits. Yet your own link clearly shows that, first of all, the 22.6 came from more than just the US including the Brits, the Scotts, the EU, and NATO, lie number 1. And secondly many of the grants went to other researchers in addition to Jones, lie number 2.

Again you provide proof that no stat from any CON$ervoFascist can ever be trusted.
Thank you!

 

[edthecynic]

Like I already said and implied, the ones basing their further research on the jimmied numbers are more than likely acting in good faith. Moreover, the inner circle at the IPCC has been caught red-handed both using "evidence" from unscientific opinion pieces and making up some statistics out of whole cloth...In those instances, the motivation is less important to me than the facts at hand.

But you asked for reasoning that could be behind making up the whole thing, not for definitive evidence.

John Christy (0255 - 02:43:15 in the file embedded above, 31 minutes in total; questions begin on 02:24:08) has explained how the climate scientists (and especially IPCC lead authors) have become gatekeepers and their community has become a victim of groupthink, exaggerations, Hollywood movies; how his papers and opinions were deliberately ignored by the process; how good an idea it is to listen to Steve McIntyre; how unpredictable the climate is....

The Reference Frame: John Christy: an excellent witness in Montreal

Like I said, keep posting because you keep making a complete fool of yourself with each post.

As you well know, it was Christy along with his partner in crime Spencer at the UAH who got caught red handed fabricating the ONLY data deniers have ever had against global warming by deliberately using the OPPOSITE SIGN to calibrate for diurnal satellite drift.

I have pointed this out to you and the rest of the deniers here numerous times in numerous threads on this board so you can't play dumb. You know Christy has no credibility and therefore you make your accusations against honest scientists to muddy the waters and make real scientists look as bad to the uninformed as your fellow deniers.

 

[Oddball]

Print Article: Mark Landsbaum: What to say to a global warming alarmist

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In an almost forgotten time, prior to the ascendancy of modern liberalism, one could equate the term ‘science’ with ‘objective.’...

...

really?




gawd, you're fucking stupid.

 

[westwall]

Of course some must go for their research, however it has been 12 years since anything truly useful has come out of the AGW research centers. Everything since then has been geared toward frightening the public. I was once a very big believer in the AGW theory but the more I researched the issue the less I believed what they had to say. My scientific background in geology allows me to see when things don't add up. I chose geology as my field because it is a very eclectic science, we must be conversant with physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics etc. because of the various minerals and physical processes we are working with.

If some goes to research, then where's the rest going? Can you truly say they are wasting that money with that research? How is it being wasted? Where is it going? If they were frauds, wouldn't the media have hopped on this juicy money/embezzlement/fraud case already and followed the money like Woodward and Bernstein?

That's great that you have a college degree and background in geology, but just saying it doesn't make your argument stronger on the 'net. You'd have to use it to strength your argument by using what you learn and do in that field.

But now after 30 plus years of work in the field I am very competant to spot the fallacies in their argument. How much money goes into their personal pocket? I don't know. A good forensic audit would go a long way towards figuring it out though.

Ah-huh, why should I believe you if you're just accusing them of something without anything but "I don't agree with their findings" to back it up?

The media has been devouring and supporting the AGW agenda almost from its inception.
After 30 years and 100 billion dollars they should have something better than maybe now don't you think? It cost the equivalent of 23 billion to develop the atomic weapons and that morphed into nuclear power. That took all of three years from August of 1942 to August of 1945. That was a wholly new scientific endeavor.

This AGW agenda has had 100 billion dollars thrown at it over a period of 30 years and they have nothing to show for it. Nothing. They have a whole lot of mights, and a passel full of possibly's. But they have no certainties. Not one.

If I tell you that if you mix ilmenite into a sandstone you will get an orange color, or if you mix limonite you'll get a yellowish color you can pretty much take that to the bank that that is what will occur.

The AGW folks on the other hand can tell you nothing. They will say that if we keep doing a certain thing then this other thing may happen. That my good friend is not science that is how bunko artists try to keep out of jail. "honest officer I didn't say it was a Van Gogh, I said it might be a Van Gogh".

The one certain thing that is a common thread throughout ALL of the AGW agenda however
is money. And how to take it from you and give it to them.

Here is just one example of how it is done.

RealClearPolitics - How to Expose a Warmist: Andrew Bolt Interviews Australia's Al Gore

In a nutshell, the warmist invests heavily in a particular "green industry" then coaxes the government to pass legislation that requires you to buy that particular product. Al Gore alone has made 98 million dollars from his investments in the carbon trading schemes.
There is an excellent thread in the environmental section that lists the various groups invested heavily in "green technologies" that only require the governemnts to mandate them so that you have to buy them.

Sounds real fair to me. How about you?

 

[westwall]

Thank God the Right Wing doesn't believe in "fake science" or live by "ideology". From now on, I'm getting all my science from them. After all, look at all the success they've brought the world. All the inventions that come from "conservative scientists". The amazing technology. The biological science. The list is endless.

Do you really want to go there? Do you want me to list all the scientific discoveries and engineering advances that come from conservatives?

Before you answer, you might want to remember that I am typing this in one place, and you are reading it in another, through something called the Internet. The Internet was designed by the military so they could communicate in the event of war, it was not invented by Al Gore.

So I guess you are in favor of textbooks being re-written to include creationism to taught to our children. Or that whales should be re-classified as fish because that is what Jonus was supposedly swollowed by.

I am sure China and the rest of the science based countries are really hoping we follow the new/old Republican science to our children.

So,
who's clone are you? rdean?

 

[Oddball]

Of course some must go for their research, however it has been 12 years since anything truly useful has come out of the AGW research centers. Everything since then has been geared toward frightening the public. I was once a very big believer in the AGW theory but the more I researched the issue the less I believed what they had to say. My scientific background in geology allows me to see when things don't add up. I chose geology as my field because it is a very eclectic science, we must be conversant with physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics etc. because of the various minerals and physical processes we are working with.

If some goes to research, then where's the rest going? Can you truly say they are wasting that money with that research? How is it being wasted? Where is it going? If they were frauds, wouldn't the media have hopped on this juicy money/embezzlement/fraud case already and followed the money like Woodward and Bernstein?

That's great that you have a college degree and background in geology, but just saying it doesn't make your argument stronger on the 'net. You'd have to use it to strength your argument by using what you learn and do in that field.

But now after 30 plus years of work in the field I am very competant to spot the fallacies in their argument. How much money goes into their personal pocket? I don't know. A good forensic audit would go a long way towards figuring it out though.

Ah-huh, why should I believe you if you're just accusing them of something without anything but "I don't agree with their findings" to back it up?

The media has been devouring and supporting the AGW agenda almost from its inception.
After 30 years and 100 billion dollars they should have something better than maybe now don't you think? It cost the equivalent of 23 billion to develop the atomic weapons and that morphed into nuclear power. That took all of three years from August of 1942 to August of 1945. That was a wholly new scientific endeavor.

This AGW agenda has had 100 billion dollars thrown at it over a period of 30 years and they have nothing to show for it. Nothing. They have a whole lot of mights, and a passel full of possibly's. But they have no certainties. Not one.

If I tell you that if you mix ilmenite into a sandstone you will get an orange color, or if you mix limonite you'll get a yellowish color you can pretty much take that to the bank that that is what will occur.

The AGW folks on the other hand can tell you nothing. They will say that if we keep doing a certain thing then this other thing may happen. That my good friend is not science that is how bunko artists try to keep out of jail. "honest officer I didn't say it was a Van Gogh, I said it might be a Van Gogh".

The one certain thing that is a common thread throughout ALL of the AGW agenda however
is money. And how to take it from you and give it to them.

Here is just one example of how it is done.

RealClearPolitics - How to Expose a Warmist: Andrew Bolt Interviews Australia's Al Gore

In a nutshell, the warmist invests heavily in a particular "green industry" then coaxes the government to pass legislation that requires you to buy that particular product. Al Gore alone has made 98 million dollars from his investments in the carbon trading schemes.
There is an excellent thread in the environmental section that lists the various groups invested heavily in "green technologies" that only require the governemnts to mandate them so that you have to buy them.

Sounds real fair to me. How about you?

I saw that earlier today...Funny stuff.

 

[westwall]

no problem has ever been solved by conservatism and no advances have ever been made by conservatism.

the definition of conservative is one who wants to maintain the status quo.

I don't agree with your definition. I feel that I am a Conservative, but am never satisfied with nor do strive to maintain the Staus Quo.

To me, being Conservative means decentralizing the power of Government, reducing the reach and power of Government, emphasizing the impact of personal responsibility and encouraging individual initiative and reward.

It also means that the Government should be run by laws and not by the agendas of political parties.

Finally, the wealth of the individual citizens should be regarded as personal wealth and not just potential tax revenues. Also, all individuals should recognize that to live in any community requires both financial and active contributions for that community to thrive and those contributions need to be made or exacted from all who enjoy the benefits of the community.

What points above do you disagree with?

I am a liberal, and I am not satified with the status quo.

To me, being a liberal means that a strong, transperant, non-corrupt government, run by intelligent people is the backbone of any thriving society. This govenernment should run by laws that are enacted by the the representatives that the majority of the people elect. And once those laws are enacted, all the people need to live by them in.

I believe in a free press that is not surpressed by the govenment or any other ruling class.

I believe in helping people who are in need. NOT giving out handouts, but a hand up.

I believe in fairness. In the courts, in the schools, in the job market.

I believe in a strong and large middle class. Show me a society with no middle class, and I will show you a third world country.

I believe in individual responsibilty, as do you.

I believe in resolving problems using non-violent means whenever possible.

I believe in science and the scientific method.

I believe in civility and the power of free thinking.

Could go on, but you get the point.
What you get the point.

What points above can you argue with?

I agree with everything you posted but one. Who is to define what is fair? Whenever that word "fair" gets bandied about it usually means that if you work harder than the other folks out there, some bastard wants to take your extra money away from you to give to those who choose to not work as hard. That's the only thing I have issue with what you posted.

 

[westwall]

Liar!!!!!!

Really? That's the best you can do? What an ignoramous.....how sadly pathetic you are.

Here's your proof if you dare to read it...which somehow I rather doubt.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ah4XLQCleuUYdFIxMnhMNnlXb2JQcDZUendjUXpWWUE&hl=en#

REALLY!!!!
Gawd, you are as stupid as Dupe!!!!
And if YOU actually read it you knew you were lying when you made your post.

Your LIE claimed that the 22.6 million came ENTIRELY from the US tax payer and even more money came from the Brits. Yet your own link clearly shows that, first of all, the 22.6 came from more than just the US including the Brits, the Scotts, the EU, and NATO, lie number 1. And secondly many of the grants went to other researchers in addition to Jones, lie number 2.

Again you provide proof that no stat from any CON$ervoFascist can ever be trusted.
Thank you!

I see now that you clearly don't understand how academia works. I will make it simple for you because clearly you are mentally challenged. First you will please note that Phil Jones is named in every line. Sometimes he is listed first, sometimes he is second or third. You will also please notice that there is a GRANT TITLE (I placed that in bold so you could more clearly see it in case you are blind) they use the grant money to write a article (say for a journal or other scientific paper or book) that will most commonly have the GRANT TITLE as the title of the paper. The order of the authors is very important. 1st Author is considered to be the main individual responsible for that particular paper. The remaining authors are usually (but not allways) listed in the order of contribution to the paper that they have made. In the grant writing world the authors are paid for their "work" namely writing the article. So Phil Jones had his hand out for every one of the grants listed.

If you bother to look further you can then see where the money came from. In all cases these grants were funded by US taxpayer dollars that may have gone direct to Jones, or were routed through the particualr scientific societies or organizations which then gave the money to Jones and crew.

Congratulations on being probably the most scientifically ignorantperson on the planet. Well at least from a 1st world nation. I would'nt expect a Bushman to understand how the system works.

 

[edthecynic]

Phil Jones alone has raked in 22.6 million in US taxpayers dollars (and that does NOT include what he has recieved from the UK taxpayer). Mann just got another 500,000 US taxpayer dollars. The list is endless. So far the AGW crowd has been able to defraud the US taxpayer of over 100 BILLION dollars over the last 10 years. An they have nothing to show for it but some "maybe this will happen or this could possibly happen."

Really? That's the best you can do? What an ignoramous.....how sadly pathetic you are.

Here's your proof if you dare to read it...which somehow I rather doubt.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ah4XLQCleuUYdFIxMnhMNnlXb2JQcDZUendjUXpWWUE&hl=en#

REALLY!!!!
Gawd, you are as stupid as Dupe!!!!
And if YOU actually read it you knew you were lying when you made your post.

Your LIE claimed that the 22.6 million came ENTIRELY from the US tax payer and even more money came from the Brits. Yet your own link clearly shows that, first of all, the 22.6 came from more than just the US including the Brits, the Scotts, the EU, and NATO, lie number 1. And secondly many of the grants went to other researchers in addition to Jones, lie number 2.

Again you provide proof that no stat from any CON$ervoFascist can ever be trusted.
Thank you!

I see now that you clearly don't understand how academia works. I will make it simple for you because clearly you are mentally challenged. First you will please note that Phil Jones is named in every line. Sometimes he is listed first, sometimes he is second or third. You will also please notice that there is a GRANT TITLE (I placed that in bold so you could more clearly see it in case you are blind) they use the grant money to write a article (say for a journal or other scientific paper or book) that will most commonly have the GRANT TITLE as the title of the paper. The order of the authors is very important. 1st Author is considered to be the main individual responsible for that particular paper. The remaining authors are usually (but not allways) listed in the order of contribution to the paper that they have made. In the grant writing world the authors are paid for their "work" namely writing the article. So Phil Jones had his hand out for every one of the grants listed.

If you bother to look further you can then see where the money came from. In all cases these grants were funded by US taxpayer dollars that may have gone direct to Jones, or were routed through the particualr scientific societies or organizations which then gave the money to Jones and crew.

Congratulations on being probably the most scientifically ignorantperson on the planet. Well at least from a 1st world nation. I would'nt expect a Bushman to understand how the system works.

As I have shown so many times before on these boards, when an America-hating CON$ervoFascist gets caught LYING they simply LIE some more, generally peppered with personal insults and arrogant condescension.
Thank you for again being a perfect example.

The only money coming from the US taxpayers was the less than $2 million that came from 8 grants from the US Dept of Energy, all of which was funded by a GOP controlled Congress and you CON$ always say congress controls the purse strings, and some small fraction of the money from NATO. The rest of the grant money came from the UK, the EU, and one grant from U Mass.

So again you are exposed as a typical CON$ervoFascist SERIAL LIAR.
Thank you yet again.

 

[edthecynic]

Just when I think we have seen the nadir of invincible ignorance, you manage to move the bar to even greater depth.

Now I see what you characteize as having 'cut and run.'

Having explained the fascistic and homicidal nature of Shaw's extreme belief in eugenics, and provided documentation, including him saying same in a video, you, as either dense or dishonest, deny same.

No wonder I stopped answering.

This will be the last time.

Read, and believe or don't.

"The British eugenicist Robert Rentoul’s 1906 book, Race Culture; Or, Race Suicide?, included a long section entitled “The Murder of Degenerates.” In it, he routinely referred to Dr. D. F. Smith’s earlier suggestion that those found guilty of homicide be executed in a “lethal chamber” rather than by hanging. He then cited a new novel whose character “advocate[d] the doctrine of ‘euthanasia’ for those suffering from incurable physical diseases.” Rentoul admitted he had received many letters in support of killing the unfit, but he rejected them as too cruel, explaining, “These [suggestions] seem to fail to recognize that the killing off of few hundreds of lunatics, idiots, etc., would not tend to effect a cure.”

The debate raged among British eugenicists, provoking damnation in the press. In 1910, the eugenic extremist George Bernard Shaw lectured at London’s Eugenics Education Society about mass murder in lethal chambers. Shaw proclaimed, “A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence, simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.” Several British newspapers excoriated Shaw and eugenics under such headlines as “Lethal Chamber Essential to Eugenics.”
History News Network


Should you develop a desire to show any scholarship, consult the following: Shaw advocated the abolition of traditional marriage in favor of polygamy under the auspices of a State Department of Evolution, forming a 'human stud farm.' According to Shaw, the state should deal with criminal and genetically undesirable elements as follows: "[W]ith many apologies and expressions of sympathy and some generosity in complying with their last wishes, we should place them in the lethal chamber and get rid of them."

The quotation is well known.

1. George Bernard Shaw, "Man and Superman: A Comedy and a Philosophy" p. 43

2. Paul, "Eugenics and the Left," p. 568, citing George Bernard Shaw, 'Sociological Papers, pp. 74-75

3. George Bernard Shaw, preface to 'Major Barbara,' p. 47

Should you choose to close your eyes to the above...so be it. I will understad same as your personal reflection that Shaw would have chosen you for his 'sympathy.'

And there you go again, mindlessly parroting the GOP hate mongers like Beck and Sowell, etc,. and their tactics of out of context quote mining and the half-truth.

The context of the highlighted quote was SATIRE, which was ALSO reported by British newspapers who "got it" but deliberately left out by you and your fellow deceivers.
While some in the British press believed Shaw to be serious and vilified him, these of course are the only reports the CON$ervoFascists ever cite, others like The Globe and The Evening News recognized the tongue in cheek nature of his lecture and reported the lecture correctly as a "SKIT" on the dreams of eugenicists. These reports are NEVER cited by the CON$ervoFascist deceivers knowing pinheads like you will never look any further than the half-truths CON$ cite. Of course that requires you to ignore the fact that Shaw was first and foremost a SATIRIST!!!

So in typical fashion, you counter your misrepresentation Shaw's eugenics by women choosing "supermen" to mate with as "State forced breeding," with a misrepresentation of satire as seriousness.
No surprise there!

Your ignorace continues, unabated.

This is a good thing, since anyone who reads both our posts will receive a clear picture of the rectitude of both positions.

Your deceit continues, unabated, even after you have been exposed to the truth.

The fact remains, Shaw thought that women subconsciously selected the mates that were most likely to give them superior children. He believed that human beings would naturally tend toward biological improvement, without the need for political intervention.

Anyone who reads both of our posts will see that your CON$ervoFascist sources have made a fool of you. As I have said, CON$ lie to your level of ignorance. They knew you would be completely IGNORANT of what Shaw actually stood for and that you would be too LAZY to find out, so they knew you would mindlessly parrot their out of context quotes without ever checking anything they say.

George Bernard Shaw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he lampooned parts of the eugenics movement by mockingly suggesting the need to use a "lethal chamber" to solve the problem. Shaw said: "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …" This was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the eugenicists' wilder dreams, although many in the press took his words out of their satirical context. Dan Stone wrote: "Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognised the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture."[73][74

 

[PoliticalChic]

And there you go again, mindlessly parroting the GOP hate mongers like Beck and Sowell, etc,. and their tactics of out of context quote mining and the half-truth.

The context of the highlighted quote was SATIRE, which was ALSO reported by British newspapers who "got it" but deliberately left out by you and your fellow deceivers.
While some in the British press believed Shaw to be serious and vilified him, these of course are the only reports the CON$ervoFascists ever cite, others like The Globe and The Evening News recognized the tongue in cheek nature of his lecture and reported the lecture correctly as a "SKIT" on the dreams of eugenicists. These reports are NEVER cited by the CON$ervoFascist deceivers knowing pinheads like you will never look any further than the half-truths CON$ cite. Of course that requires you to ignore the fact that Shaw was first and foremost a SATIRIST!!!

So in typical fashion, you counter your misrepresentation Shaw's eugenics by women choosing "supermen" to mate with as "State forced breeding," with a misrepresentation of satire as seriousness.
No surprise there!

Your ignorace continues, unabated.

This is a good thing, since anyone who reads both our posts will receive a clear picture of the rectitude of both positions.

Your deceit continues, unabated, even after you have been exposed to the truth.

The fact remains, Shaw thought that women subconsciously selected the mates that were most likely to give them superior children. He believed that human beings would naturally tend toward biological improvement, without the need for political intervention.

Anyone who reads both of our posts will see that your CON$ervoFascist sources have made a fool of you. As I have said, CON$ lie to your level of ignorance. They knew you would be completely IGNORANT of what Shaw actually stood for and that you would be too LAZY to find out, so they knew you would mindlessly parrot their out of context quotes without ever checking anything they say.

George Bernard Shaw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he lampooned parts of the eugenics movement by mockingly suggesting the need to use a "lethal chamber" to solve the problem. Shaw said: "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …" This was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the eugenicists' wilder dreams, although many in the press took his words out of their satirical context. Dan Stone wrote: "Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognised the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture."[73][74

Why, EdattheClinic, don't you recognize left wing spin when you see it?

You should, as you indulge in it so often...

Either you are ignorant of the eugenics movement, and how deeply Shaw was involved, or you are lying to defend one of your idols.

Since the 'lying' label has been co-opted by your side, I'll accept that you are ignorant.

As there is a possibility that Oliver Wendell Holmes is also one of your idols, let's show his view of eugenics as part of your education... OK, I'll admit you are uneducable, so this is for passing readers.

1. In 1927, a young unwed mother named Carrie Buck was sterilized against her will by order of the Supreme Court, decision written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said : ”The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” Based on the Buck Decision, more than 60 thousand were operated on across the U.S. as late as the 1970’s. And the opinion was adopted in Germany, where, within a year, some 56 thousand German ‘patients’ had been sterilized.

"Ultimately, 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized — legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America's most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes."
War Against the Weak

2. Madison Grant, eugenicist, was responsible for one of the most famous works of scientific racism, “The Passing of the Great Race,” sold some million and a half copies, and played an active role in crafting strong immigration restriction and anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. Grant's works of "scientific racism" have been cited to demonstrate that many of the genocidal and eugenic ideas associated with the Third Reich did not arise specifically in Germany, and in fact that many of them had origins in other countries including the United States. Edwin Black: War Against the Weak. Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, Four Walls Eight Windows: 2003, pp. 259, 273, 274-275, 296

a. Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his“The Case for Sterilization.” (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization) German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.

b. Many British socialists, including Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, John Maynard Keynes, Aldous Huxley, paragons to American progressives, were enthralled with eugenics.

c. “The only fundemental and possible socialism is the socialism of selective breeding of Man.” Shaw advocated forced selective breeding, and stated of the unfit: “I appeal to the chemists to develop a humane gas…deadly but humane…” [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvsf2MUKRQ&feature=related]YouTube - George Bernard Shaw Defends Hitler, Mass Murder[/ame]

d. Wells, famous for his calls for ‘liberal fascism,’ and an ‘enlightened Nazism,’ supported the extermination of the ‘unfit’ and announced that in his ‘New Republic,’ “swarms of black and brown, and dirty-white and yellow people” would have to go.
The Forgotten H.G. Wells – waka waka waka

e. John Maynard Keynes served on the British Eugenics Society board of directors, and as late as 1945- even as Nazi concentration camp experiments was being revealed, gushed about eugenics , the 'perfection of the race' as “…the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists.” The great economist John Maynard Keynes: A biography - Telegraph

3. When one considers relying on professionals and experts, whether jurists or medical authorities, to the exclusion of morality, think hard about the following statements. The ‘medical expert’ whose assessment of the Buck family was as follows: “These people belong to the shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of anti-social whites of the South,” and the this, from Holmes opinion writing for the majority: “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” Social Origins of Eugenics

a. If one needs evidence of Progressivism as fitting neatly into the definition of fascism, consider this from Oliver Wendell Holmes’ 1915 Illinois Law Review article: The “starting point for an ideal law…[would be] the co-ordinated human effort…to build a race.” Let’s admit that conservative religious and political dogma was the single greatest bulwark against eugenic schemes. And, of course, these conservatives, libertarians, orthodox Catholics, among others were considered backward and reactionary, just as today, considered threats to progress. The only vote against the state, in an 8-1 decision was the archconservative and only Catholic on the court, Pierce Butler. “Butler was a Roman Catholic and a Democrat, but was also, most importantly, a political conservative.” Pierce Butler

b. The foremost institution to oppose eugenics was the Catholic Church. It was the fact that Italy was Catholic that reduced the emphasis on eugenics by Italian Fascism, as opposed to the American Progressives and the Nazis.



And today?
4. Now called ‘bioethicists,’ there are new acolytes of eugenics who are ready and able to make decisions about the lives of patients, assigning numerical ‘quality of life’ measurements, and parcel out health care based on the scores. The retarded, handicapped, elderly, infirm would be low on the list. Those who don’t score high enough will surely be deprived of healthcare.

5. "In the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age. Economists are familiar with the formula already in use in the U.K., where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYS or quality-adjusted life years) the patient is likely to benefit. In the U.K., the formula leads to denying treatments for age-related diseases because older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases."
Defend Your Health Care


So, EdattheClinic, thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to lay bare the vicious, inhumane nature of eugenics, Shaw, and your philosophy...

When the eugenicists come to take you away as you serve no purpose in life, point out how well you have served as a foil for my exposition.

 

[edthecynic]

Your ignorace continues, unabated.

This is a good thing, since anyone who reads both our posts will receive a clear picture of the rectitude of both positions.

Your deceit continues, unabated, even after you have been exposed to the truth.

The fact remains, Shaw thought that women subconsciously selected the mates that were most likely to give them superior children. He believed that human beings would naturally tend toward biological improvement, without the need for political intervention.

Anyone who reads both of our posts will see that your CON$ervoFascist sources have made a fool of you. As I have said, CON$ lie to your level of ignorance. They knew you would be completely IGNORANT of what Shaw actually stood for and that you would be too LAZY to find out, so they knew you would mindlessly parrot their out of context quotes without ever checking anything they say.

George Bernard Shaw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he lampooned parts of the eugenics movement by mockingly suggesting the need to use a "lethal chamber" to solve the problem. Shaw said: "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …" This was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the eugenicists' wilder dreams, although many in the press took his words out of their satirical context. Dan Stone wrote: "Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognised the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture."[73][74

Why, EdattheClinic, don't you recognize left wing spin when you see it?

You should, as you indulge in it so often...

Either you are ignorant of the eugenics movement, and how deeply Shaw was involved, or you are lying to defend one of your idols.

Since the 'lying' label has been co-opted by your side, I'll accept that you are ignorant.
... Blah, blah, blah...

You can't deny that you were completely ignorant of the difference between Shavian Eugenics and any other kind of eugenics, which is why you swallowed the CON$ervoFascist crapaganda whole, and being too dishonest to admit your ignorance you choose to parrot more Right-wing crap rather than admit the truth.

Again, SHAVIAN Eugenics has nothing to do with state forced breeding, or death chambers but the choices women make in whom they mate with.
Anyone who knows anything about Shaw would have known this and IMMEDIATELY seen through the CON$ervoFascist lies you fell for. You pretend to be a pompous know-it-all, but instead you invariably expose your complete ignorance. You are just too stupid to realize it. To a moron like you, if the word "eugenics" is used then it must all be the same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your deceit continues, unabated, even after you have been exposed to the truth.

The fact remains, Shaw thought that women subconsciously selected the mates that were most likely to give them superior children. He believed that human beings would naturally tend toward biological improvement, without the need for political intervention.

Anyone who reads both of our posts will see that your CON$ervoFascist sources have made a fool of you. As I have said, CON$ lie to your level of ignorance. They knew you would be completely IGNORANT of what Shaw actually stood for and that you would be too LAZY to find out, so they knew you would mindlessly parrot their out of context quotes without ever checking anything they say.

Why, EdattheClinic, don't you recognize left wing spin when you see it?

You should, as you indulge in it so often...

Either you are ignorant of the eugenics movement, and how deeply Shaw was involved, or you are lying to defend one of your idols.

Since the 'lying' label has been co-opted by your side, I'll accept that you are ignorant.
... Blah, blah, blah...

You can't deny that you were completely ignorant of the difference between Shavian Eugenics and any other kind of eugenics, which is why you swallowed the CON$ervoFascist crapaganda whole, and being too dishonest to admit your ignorance you choose to parrot more Right-wing crap rather than admit the truth.

Again, SHAVIAN Eugenics has nothing to do with state forced breeding, or death chambers but the choices women make in whom they mate with.
Anyone who knows anything about Shaw would have known this and IMMEDIATELY seen through the CON$ervoFascist lies you fell for. You pretend to be a pompous know-it-all, but instead you invariably expose your complete ignorance. You are just too stupid to realize it. To a moron like you, if the word "eugenics" is used then it must all be the same.

Now, EdintheAttic, I think it is an infraction to alter another posters comments, and state that as a quote...
you should correct your alteration of "... Blah, blah, blah..." and use my complete quote...

Is there some reason you are afraid to do so?


Could it be that you actually comprehended my essay, and now see the evil side of GB Shaw, that is that he was entirely behind the wholesale slaughter of folks - human beings- with whose life choices he did not agree...and now you are embarrassed to have the name of a psychopath in your sig??

You may actually have a conscience???

Why, I do declare...

 

[HUGGY]

Why, EdattheClinic, don't you recognize left wing spin when you see it?

You should, as you indulge in it so often...

Either you are ignorant of the eugenics movement, and how deeply Shaw was involved, or you are lying to defend one of your idols.

Since the 'lying' label has been co-opted by your side, I'll accept that you are ignorant.
... Blah, blah, blah...

You can't deny that you were completely ignorant of the difference between Shavian Eugenics and any other kind of eugenics, which is why you swallowed the CON$ervoFascist crapaganda whole, and being too dishonest to admit your ignorance you choose to parrot more Right-wing crap rather than admit the truth.

Again, SHAVIAN Eugenics has nothing to do with state forced breeding, or death chambers but the choices women make in whom they mate with.
Anyone who knows anything about Shaw would have known this and IMMEDIATELY seen through the CON$ervoFascist lies you fell for. You pretend to be a pompous know-it-all, but instead you invariably expose your complete ignorance. You are just too stupid to realize it. To a moron like you, if the word "eugenics" is used then it must all be the same.

Now, EdintheAttic, I think it is an infraction to alter another posters comments, and state that as a quote...
you should correct your alteration of "... Blah, blah, blah..." and use my complete quote...

Is there some reason you are afraid to do so?


Could it be that you actually comprehended my essay, and now see the evil side of GB Shaw, that is that he was entirely behind the wholesale slaughter of folks - human beings- with whose life choices he did not agree...and now you are embarrassed to have the name of a psychopath in your sig??

You may actually have a conscience???

Why, I do declare...

EdintheAttic,

Good one. Good in a lame goody two shoes kinda way..but creative and juvenile which I do appreciate.