Personal Letters from a College-Aged Hillary Clinton

Parent Cafe
141

<p>A segway to Eugenics:</p>

<p>Eugenics is absolutely the stupidest idea ever. I’m not arguing it from a moral standpoint since that argument is highly subjective.</p>

<p>Eugenics wants to eliminate people with “inferior” genes. Well, with a basic college biology course, you can understand how dumb this is. Environmental conditions change over time. Natural selection will begin to favor different human traits than it does currently.</p>

<p>If your entire population only consists of the “good genes”, then there will be extremely low occurrences of “bad” genes in the gene pool. Perhaps, these “bad” genes will be considered advantageous in the future. Without these genes in the gene pool, humanity can effectively become extinct.</p>

<p>A real-life example:</p>

<p>Everybody with sickle-cell anemia is killed off. In the future, malaria is rampant. Malaria can only be manifested in somebody with a heterozygous genotype. With no recessive alleles in the gene pool, nobody will be immune to malaria.</p>

<p>To those who haven’t taken biology recently, let me make it even simpler:</p>

<p>You get a “gene” each from your parents. Say there are two types of genes: “apples” and “oranges”. Your parent inherits his/her “genes” from their aprents. So if there parents didn’t give them an “orange”, then you can’t get an “orange” at all.</p>

<p>An orange is the normal blood cell gene. If you get 2 oranges, then you ahve normal blood. An apple is the sickle blood cell gene. Apple blood cells can’t properly carry oxygen, so the person is chronically weak.</p>

<p>But if a person gets an apple and an orange rather than 2 apples or 2 oranges, then they still have enough oxygen traveling through their body to not experience anemia. The apple blood cells prevent the person from getting infected by the plasmodium which causes Malaria.</p>

<p>So, eugenics will ultimately hurt humankind in the long run.</p>

142

<p>@merrymom</p>

<p>My point is that Ron Paul is not a JBSer simply because he shares a common value with them.</p>

143

<p>Speaking out and out lies directly is just as confusing and misleading as phony fallacy mumbo jumbo.</p>

<p>Margaret Sanger was not a proponent of eugenics as you stated earlier. You added that to your post after reading my CORRECT description of her. Really, how dumb do you think we are?</p>

144

<p>Isn’t the “fallacy” you claim to have discovered that people are attributing to Paul endorsement of the JBS’ views because Paul praises the JBS?</p>

<p>If so, you’ve got your arrows all wrong. I think what you’re trying to get at is that approval of a part isn’t necessarily approval of a whole. Doesn’t work with the relationship you’re trying to shoehorn it into.</p>

<p>And it still leaves open the question of whether endorsing without disclaimer an organization with so many over-arching negatives as the JBS doesn’t imply approval of the whole.</p>

145

<p>@merrymom</p>

<p>I don’t think you read my post. Margaret Sanger was no doubt an advocate of eugenics and nobody can argue this point. I didn’t argue against the morality of eugenics, but rather the value of the practice itself.</p>

<p>Also, I don’t understand why you are so against rational discourse. Is logic “evil”? If an argument is fundamentally flawed, I should just let it slide?</p>

<p>@conyat</p>

<p>How come this doesn’t work? That’s exactly what interesteddad was arguing.</p>

<p>Ron Paul “I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They’re generally well-educated and they understand the Constitution.”</p>

<p>Of all the issues, he chose to mention the constitution. That is the only thing he has been proven to like about them. Everything else about him liking the JBS conspiracy theories is pure conjecture.</p>

<p>EDIT:
<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Wow, looks like Obama has learned nothing from the mistakes of the current administration.</p>

146

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, this is where I quit reading, because it’s not true. A heterozygous genotype provides protection from malaria. It’s one of the few well-documented examples of natural selection affecting the human population.</p>

147

<p>I am sorry to say Margaret Sanger was a proponent of eugenics; her beliefs were not benign. This does not invalidate her actions, however I would not consider myself a supporter of Sanger, just a supporter of womens’ right to birth control.</p>

<p>The differences between Paul and the John Birch Society and me and Margaret SAnger are several.</p>

<p>!) JBS is a political organization and Sanger was not a politician. Her eugenics were not part of her central mission.</p>

<p>2) The repressive ideas of the JBS cannot be separated its understanding of the Constitution. Sanger’s argument about birth control can be separated from eugenics. I feel perfectly comfortable repudiating all of Sanger’s political ideas. Neither you nor Paul repudiate JBS.</p>

<p>3) I can use birth control without supporting Sanger. Neither you nor Paul can credit the JBS without forwarding its agenda.</p>

<p>So you are comparing apples to oranges. If you, or Paul, support a strict interpretation of the Constitution it should not be necessary to reference the JBS as a source. The fact that you and he do indicates you want to support its agenda, popularize its message and generally strenghthen its presence in national life. Would you want to do this with the National Socialist Party just to make a point about industrialization?</p>

<p>If you are sincere about only supporting that one aspect of its message you would probably be wise to stop advertising the JBS; otherwise we must assume you support its agenda.</p>

148

<p>@conyat</p>

<p>Sorry, that was a typo.</p>

<p>EDIT:@mythmom</p>

<p>The link between constitutional upkeep and the pearl harbor conspiracy theory (which says the US wanted a reason to join WWII) is arguably thin.</p>

<p>The link between birth control and propagation of eugenics is not that far-fetched. Both reduce population sizes and are a method of control. Perhaps Sanger’s pro-birth control position stemmed from her desire to control the population rather than genuine lobbying for civil rights.</p>

149

<p>It stemmed from her observations of how women’s lives were destroyed by their inability to provide for their children when they could not work because they were constantly having more. This would be true for me as well. I could not be working as I am to afford tuition at two elite LAC’s if I had little ones at home, and I am not poor. I don’t think hers was a civil rights agenda, but rather a social welfare agenda. However, she would have included herself as one of these women.</p>

<p>However, she was sorely lacking as a political theorist. This is why I disavow her political ideas. She may have felt that her eugenic beliefs were altruistic, but they did not stem from the same place; her support for birth control grew from direct contact with women, women from many different classes. Her political theories were naive and suspect. Besides, I am willing to throw out her ideas; I admire her because she went to jail so I could have a diaphragm. It’s my diaphragm I’m not willing to throw out. The JBS is only its ideas.</p>

150

<p>That is the point I’m driving at. </p>

<p>Ron Paul:“I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They’re generally well-educated and they understand the Constitution.”</p>

<p>He specifically mentions only the constitution. If you people claim he shares all of their values, then why is he not part of the JBS?</p>

<p>And don’t respond to my question with a real-life version of “The Manchurian Candidate”. If that conspiracy theory were true, then Paul would have a lot more money on hand.</p>

151

<p>I’m sorry Mythmom, but your believe or perception about Margaret Sanger and eugenics is not as I understand it. Do some research. I have done plenty and am very familiar with her history.</p>

152

<p>Sorry afruff23. I think I did an excellent job of explaining the difference. Sorry you don’t see it. Not going to debate this point again.</p>

153

<p>Moi aussi, merrymom. But I’ll look again. Actually hope you’re right!</p>

154

<p>“Flouride is widely accepted in the medical and dental community as beneficial, and only fringe elements object to its use. Please get your facts straight.”</p>

<p>I can see you didn’t bother following the link. Ah the spotless mind. The medical fact is fluoride does do wonders for tooth decay but we have stuck in so many products and in such high dosages that fluoride poisoning is actually a serious and very preventable health hazard. It is one of those things where a little goes a very long way.</p>

155

<p>“It’s one of the few well-documented examples of natural selection affecting the human population.”</p>

<p>Really? That will be news to a lot of biologists and anthropologists. If that is all we got those creationists might be on to something.</p>

156

<p>@mythmom</p>

<p>I didn’t really care debating each point because they are arbitrary, but here I go anyways. </p>

<p>“JBS is a political organization and Sanger was not a politician. Her eugenics were not part of her central mission”.</p>

<p>So people who aren’t politicians can’t come up with dumb ideas? Supporting a bad idea (eugenics) is still bad no matter what. That being said, the JBS’s main goal is:</p>

<p>“Ever since its founding in 1958 by Robert Welch, The John Birch Society has been dedicated to restoring and preserving freedom under the United States Constitution.” </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.jbs.org/about[/url]”>http://www.jbs.org/about&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>It’s main goal is not pursuing conspiracy theories.</p>

<p>“The repressive ideas of the JBS cannot be separated its understanding of the Constitution. Sanger’s argument about birth control can be separated from eugenics. I feel perfectly comfortable repudiating all of Sanger’s political ideas. Neither you nor Paul repudiate JBS.”</p>

<p>Repressive? Did you just look up random adjectives with negative connotations?</p>

<p>Why can’t thinking that the US wanted to get in WWII by way of Pearl Harbor be separated from opposing gun control?</p>

<p>I’d tell you here that you’ve committed a logical fallacy, but you’d just dismiss it as “mumbo jumbo”. Since when is rationality considered “mumbo jumbo”?</p>

<p>If you stop criticizing rational thought, then I’ll explain what illogical argument you made.</p>

<p>If you haven’t noticed, I’ve been talking about the JBS conspiracy theories in a negative light. Why is Ron Paul not rebuking the JBS? There are several reasons, but they are mostly political:</p>

<ol>
<li>They are supporting him (not financially but with votes)</li>
<li>Most people haven’t even heard of the JBS, so if he takes the effort to rebuke the JBS, then people might look further into it and get a bad impression of him even though he doesn’t endorse those conspiracy theories.</li>
<li>He’s a busy man (running for President, goes to his district on some weekends, and delivers babies) and nobody’s asking him to remark about the JBS’s conspiracy theories.</li>
</ol>

<p>Not to detract from Paul’s “supposed wrongdoing”, but how come nobody’s mentioning other candidates?</p>

<p>Why Hillary Clinton thought that it was a republican conspiracy to impeach her husband. Not to mention Obama’s recent announced plan to send troops to Pakistan if he became president. How are you going to fund that and Universal Healthcare, while not leaving our budget in a bigger deficit than it already is?</p>

<p>Truth be told: you people are focusing too much on the smaller issues. Not that Paul is not subject to criticism, but you guys need to focus on bigger things than abortion rights.</p>

<p>How about Obama and Clinton supporting gun control, the Patriot Act, and No Child Left Behind (a measure which left the smartest kids wanting more)?</p>

<p>What about Clinton supporting the death penalty?</p>

<p>What about Clinton’s inaction against the Bush administration, refusing any hint at any impeachment or accountability?</p>

<p>What about most of the democratic candidates not having a good plan to get this nation out of debt? Romney and McCain are also not worthy of presidency for this reason; they have mismanaged their campaign finances and are way in the hole.</p>

<p>What about most of these candidates, including Obama and Clinton, taking lobbyist money?</p>

<p>What about Obama taking money from AIPAC but claiming he doesn’t take money from lobbyists?</p>

<p>Huh? Oh, but none of that is important as the presumed affiliation of Ron Paul with conspiracy theories of decades ago from an organization. Feel free to remark how Paul is “repressive”, but I won’t believe it until I see some proof which nobody has shown as of yet.</p>

157

<p>Post # 130 </p>

<p>“He voted against giving a medal to Mother Theresa whereas everybody else voted for it. He did this because he thought it to be a waste of taxpayer money (the minting of the medal and the presentation is expensive”</p>

<p>Did Ron Paul oppose giving a medal to Jerry Bremmer?</p>

158

<p>Whether Congressman Paul is a member of the John Birch Society (JBS) or not, is irrelevant. </p>

<p>Logical Argument:</p>

<p>If
The JBS membership is made up of right wing nut cases</p>

<p>And
Congressman Paul is a right wing nut case</p>

<p>And
Congressman Paul is not a member of the JBS</p>

<p>Then
Not all right wing nut cases are members of the JBS</p>

<p>But
They are still right wing nut cases</p>

159

<p>Higherlead - that is the fringe element thinking to which I referred.</p>

160

<p>mythmom, merci beaucoup!</p>