Race - A Giant Middle Finger to Nazi Germany

[kimiyoribaka]

While I think Jesse Owens' story is worth remembering, this is another movie telling a story that I don't think is best told as a movie. No matter how interesting a moment in history is, there's no guarantee a good movie can be made out of it while sticking to what really happened.

As to the original point of how it helps society it gets rid of genetic dead ends and people who will and have had an undesirable effect on the history and future of mankind.

Putting aside how subjective this point is (and thus how inappropriate it is as a basis for criminal law), have you ever heard of the concept of the "population bomb"? As far as I've been informed by acquaintances educated in biology (not a subject I know well myself), homosexuality tends to occur whenever a species would naturally benefit from it. On top of that, the concept of genetic "dead ends" could apply to the entirety of humanity. Homo Sapiens stopped evolving a long time ago, due to having tools that can evolve for us. In that sense, Turing was a prime example of a person benefiting the history and future of mankind.

 

[rcs619]

Putting aside how subjective this point is (and thus how inappropriate it is as a basis for criminal law), have you ever heard of the concept of the "population bomb"? As far as I've been informed by acquaintances educated in biology (not a subject I know well myself), homosexuality tends to occur whenever a species would naturally benefit from it. On top of that, the concept of genetic "dead ends" could apply to the entirety of humanity. Homo Sapiens stopped evolving a long time ago, due to having tools that can evolve for us. In that sense, Turing was a prime example of a person benefiting the history and future of mankind.

To be fair, anatomically modern humans only appeared about 200,000 years ago. In terms of evolutionary time, that's almost nothing. Nothing ever really stops evolving, it just slows down depending on environmental circumstances and genetics of that specific creatures. Even modern-day 'living fossils' do show some small differences from their ancient cousins. The changes are slight in those cases, but they are there.

As for how the advent of ever-increasing technology will affect human evolution, that's really anyone's guess. We are a unique case in all of Earth's biological history afterall. Considering how rapidly our technology and understanding of science advances, my money is on us inducing some sort of artificial form of evolution (be it transhumanism, crazy future-genetics, or something else) long before nature gets the chance to do it through natural means.

But yeah, while I am all for trying to gradually improve the species through advances in genetics and medicine (gogo Team Science!), eugenics has been nothing but an abominable failure in the past. Things like 'genetic purity' and what is 'best for the species' are entirely subjective (and usually have immense amounts of personal bias behind them).

 

[Lightspeaker]

Well, France had invaded Germany right back usually. The two countries pretty much hated each other and passed the same few provinces back and forth over and over again.
But this is again just one of the parts that shows how truly messy WW1 and WW2 truly were. The individual behaviour of the different countries was often, if not reasonable, at least somewhat understandable and it was mostly the combination of all those behaviours clashing with each other and happening in rapid sucession that caused things to get as f***ed up as they were. Both with WW1 and Versailes.

Edit: To avoid misunderstanding, I am not saying the actions of nazi germany were reasonable or understandable, I am mainly talking about all the mess before nazi germany.

Again though, it wasn't just France and Germany fighting. That was just the normal situation here in Europe for literally thousands of years. Basically every major European power that has ever existed has/had been at each others throats for hundreds upon hundreds of years in some cases. Hell, in one of the most significant examples the only reason the United States of America even EXISTS as a country is because the French decided the best way to annoy the British and undermine their overseas power as revenge for losing a previous war was to support the rebellion in the colonies; which resulted in a more or less global war against Britain by France, Spain and the Netherlands as well as the rebellions going on just a couple of hundred years ago.

I actually have a book (fascinating historical read by the way, and very funny) called "1000 Years of Annoying the French" which is all about Anglo-French relations for the past thousand years. Even in the very late 19th century the French Empire and British Empire were getting thoroughly angry with each other over various colonial issues and nearly came to blows. Of course the unification of Germany changed things a bit, then they started being viewed as the new and upcoming threat as "the new empire on the block" so to speak.

WW1 was truly...I don't want to use the word 'special' but I can't find a better one...something anyway. Because the rapid progress in technology coupled with people trying to adapt to said technology resulted in the most brutal war that anyone had ever experienced to that point. But politically it was handled pretty much the same way every prior war had been handled. Which meant a lot of resentment, etc etc.

Then you get to WW2, which that political handling had a significant influence on starting, and even further developments in technology and...well we all know how that worked out. No country walked out of that one without a lot of shameful, or at the very least questionable, blood on their hands.

Homo Sapiens stopped evolving a long time ago, due to having tools that can evolve for us.

That...isn't how evolution works...

No, we haven't "stopped evolving". In fact we've changed a hell of a lot since the species first evolved and still are.

 

[monkeymangler]

I look forward to hearing how you feel when someone you care about deeply turns out to be gay or bisexual. Statistically speaking, at least someone you know is. I'm sure they'd love to hear about how you think they should be executed

So do you consider blowjobs and heterosexual anal to be worthy of a death-sentence too? Because technically those are also sodomy according to the (I'm assuming, so I could be wrong here) fundamentalist interpretation of religious texts that you probably subscribe to. You don't ever see fundies bring up blowjobs when they try to pass sodomy laws. Funny how that works out.

1. Disown them. If my kid (assuming I ever have a kid which I wont because I hate children) I will go on either a hunting trip or deep sea fishing trip with them.

2. I have not brought up religion at all except in pointing out that the extreme muslim nations do something surprisingly right. My view here are not based on religion. As said the actions needed against gays are to help society, preserve, get rid of a lot of known and potential criminals and std carriers, help humanity, and get rid of genetic dead ends. My views espoused so far are from primarily the desire to better humanity no matter the cost no matter the means. In order for humanity to take the next step towards our maximum potential we need to do this for the betterment of all. And of course gays are not the only ones needing to go. Known insane people, drug addicts, rapists, people with debilitating genetic physical deformities all need to be expunged from the gene pool. And I say this as one of those aforementioned insane people. However I for the betterment of all future generations do not spread my inferior genetics around. Sadly though most of humanity does not have that level of self control and must either be killed or at the very least castrated for the betterment of future generations and to allow us a chance to reach our potential as a species.

1. So you are implying that you would kill someone you are close to in what appears to be an accident if they are gay? WOW... JUST... WOW...

2.

Alright then. You are entitled to your opinion. I entirely disagree with everything you have posted to this point, but you are free to have your opinion.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

1. Disown them. If my kid (assuming I ever have a kid which I wont because I hate children) I will go on either a hunting trip or deep sea fishing trip with them.

2. I have not brought up religion at all except in pointing out that the extreme muslim nations do something surprisingly right. My view here are not based on religion. As said the actions needed against gays are to help society, preserve, get rid of a lot of known and potential criminals and std carriers, help humanity, and get rid of genetic dead ends. My views espoused so far are from primarily the desire to better humanity no matter the cost no matter the means. In order for humanity to take the next step towards our maximum potential we need to do this for the betterment of all. And of course gays are not the only ones needing to go. Known insane people, drug addicts, rapists, people with debilitating genetic physical deformities all need to be expunged from the gene pool. And I say this as one of those aforementioned insane people. However I for the betterment of all future generations do not spread my inferior genetics around. Sadly though most of humanity does not have that level of self control and must either be killed or at the very least castrated for the betterment of future generations and to allow us a chance to reach our potential as a species.

1. So you'd murder your own child for being gay or bisexual? You should never ever have a child then, because that's definitely within the realm of an unfit parent.

2. Your stance would have killed of geniuses like Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein. One has a debilitating hereditary disease, the other suffered from anxiety and clinical depression. What you're proposing is not helping humanity reach it's potential, or eliminating genetic dead ends. Not to mention the many many recovered drug and alcohol addicts who have contributed hugely to humanity. You're proposing arbitrary criteria for at minimum sterilization based on personal prejudice. It's prejudices like yours that need to be eradicated, not through violence, or castration, but through education and improved social standards. The things that hold humanity back are clinging to backwards ideas that damage the ability of all members of society to reach their full potential, ideas like the ones you've spouted here.

Also generalizing homosexuals pedophiles, I've got news for you, most pedophiles are heterosexual, they generally date women, with female children, so they can molest the female children. About STIs, funny thing every gay or lesbian person I've ever met was far more careful about who they slept with than their straight counterparts. Every gay and lesbian person I ever met is far more fastidious about being screened for STIs themselves, as well as having their potential partners prove medically they're clean. My straight friends on the other hand aren't nearly that careful, hell they often don't even use protection. The gay community only had the issues it's had with STIs because of horrific social rejection, rejection that caused many in older generations to have unprotected anonymous sex in desperation for any intimate contact. It's no coincidence that such a social environment was caused by people who hold opinions like, well, yours. Potential criminality? Straight people commit more crimes than the gay community, as straight people make up the vast majority of society. Straight folk are more likely to abuse children, commit hate crimes, murders...

When it comes right down to it, your eugenics program ideas always lead to ethnic cleansing too.

So whose ideas are the one harming human potential? Whose side is intentionally holding people of color back, mentally ill, addicts, LGBTQI+ folk, the physically disabled, and so on? Well it's certainly not the side fighting for equality, who are trying to uplift everyone to a higher standard. That will one day cure the genetic illness you worry about, instead of just wiping out genetic lines. The future of humanity requires cooperation, not draconian barbarism that damages every person's potential.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

It's a shame they didn't reserve the other giant middle finger for the United States for its own treatment of Owens. Be surprised if the film mentioned it at any length.

In movieland, everything the U.S. did in the Cold War was justified, the UK never persecuted Turing for being gay, and surely our country didn't treat a black man who stuck it to Nazi Germany in their own capital like shit. The U.S., and by extension it's close allies, never did anything bad in the alternate universe most films occupy.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

2. Anxiety and depression are not genetic ergo Einstein would not have been killed. As I said only genetic conditions whether physical or mental need to be expunged.

I could swear earlier in this thread you said ...

1. There is no proof that you are born gay. There is also no proof it is a choice..

So you aren't born that way ... but it is genetic?
Granted, you also mention there's no proof for the opposite either, so it seems you're saying there's no conclusive proof one way or the other, which raises the obvious question of why you'd be okay with government mandated executions and/or sterilization based on something you admit there's no proof for.

5. Read my posts again. Where have I said anything of wanting to hold people of color back or of being a racist? I explicitly stated numerous times laws based solely on race are wrong and what happened to Owens + all African Americans was horrible and wrong.

You can't really talk about eugenics without the obvious racial problems that come with it. There's a long history of people advocating that we "help" to "improve" humanity's gene pool by cleansing all the "inferior" races. Even if you don't advocate for that, there is plenty of risk of it taking on racial aspects by others. Even if it's not explicit, people's biases and prejudices against other races has the potential to mesh horribly with the power to sterilize "harmful elements".

6. Wiping out all genetic diseases is not stifling potential. It helps to create more potential. No one should be forced to live with insanity. No one should be forced to live with a physically crippled body due to a genetic condition. Getting rid of all those who carry those gene's ability to breed. To wipe out those diseases from all future generations will make mankind better in the long run and help to make almost everyone's potential limitless.

Yep, limitless potential to live under a brutal, totalitarian regime. You're pitching forced eugenics in a naively optimistic light; an idea based on science and rationality, untainted by greed, corruption and personal politics.
If you give the government the power to execute or sterilize anyone they deem to be hazardous to society, and get the public on board with completely dehumanizing these people, do you really think the government is going to be a good enough sport to not simply abuse that power by extending it to any political opponents that might threaten their power?

We'd essentially be handing the government a "build your own dictatorship" kit by throwing away any notion of human rights and allowing them to kill off anyone who is deemed "harmful".

Sorry, but I don't care about your vaguely defined idea of "potential", I'd rather live in a society where I can hold political views without being dragged out into the streets and shot "for the good of our glorious society".

Edit: Not to mention how much this would completely fuck our diplomatic relations with the more sensible countries who haven't thrown human rights out the window. Last time people started cleansing their gene pool we had a world war, and with the number of nuclear armaments laying around, we don't need to be tempting another world war.

 

[Amaror]

Again though, it wasn't just France and Germany fighting. That was just the normal situation here in Europe for literally thousands of years. Basically every major European power that has ever existed has/had been at each others throats for hundreds upon hundreds of years in some cases. Hell, in one of the most significant examples the only reason the United States of America even EXISTS as a country is because the French decided the best way to annoy the British and undermine their overseas power as revenge for losing a previous war was to support the rebellion in the colonies; which resulted in a more or less global war against Britain by France, Spain and the Netherlands as well as the rebellions going on just a couple of hundred years ago.

I actually have a book (fascinating historical read by the way, and very funny) called "1000 Years of Annoying the French" which is all about Anglo-French relations for the past thousand years. Even in the very late 19th century the French Empire and British Empire were getting thoroughly angry with each other over various colonial issues and nearly came to blows. Of course only until the unification of Germany, then they started being viewed as the new and upcoming threat as "the new empire on the block" so to speak.

WW1 was truly...I don't want to use the word 'special' but I can't find a better one...something anyway. Because the rapid progress in technology coupled with people trying to adapt to said technology resulted in the most brutal war that anyone had ever experienced to that point. But politically it was handled pretty much the same way every prior war had been handled. Which meant a lot of resentment, etc etc.

Then you get to WW2, which that political handling had a significant influence on starting, and even further developments in technology and...well we all know how that worked out. No country walked out of that one without a lot of shameful, or at the very least questionable, blood on their hands.

Yeah I know. The only reason I said what I said was that the described justification for France's demands in the peace talks sounded very one-sided(Germany had invaded france so often). It made it sound a bit like Germany had bullied poor, defenseless france for several decades and france was just getting it's revenge, when in reality it was both countries continuesly fighting each other to take revenge for something the other did a few years back.

 

[rcs619]

2. Your stance would have killed of geniuses like Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein. One has a debilitating hereditary disease, the other suffered from anxiety and clinical depression. What you're proposing is not helping humanity reach it's potential, or eliminating genetic dead ends. Not to mention the many many recovered drug and alcohol addicts who have contributed hugely to humanity.

Don't forget Carl Sagan, who was known to smoke pot, and advocated for its legalization. I'm not sure if that'd be enough to make him a "drug addict" under that guy's system, but I'd be concerned.

Also generalizing homosexuals pedophiles, I've got news for you, most pedophiles are heterosexual,

You'll never be able to win that argument with him. Objectively *of course* most pedophiles are heterosexual. By conservative estimates, homosexuals only make up somewhere between 2 and 10% of the population. He'll argue that, as a group, they're much more predisposed to it though, which is basically impossible to prove, since it relies purely on numbers that don't exist, because self-reporting is inherently unreliable.

Yep, limitless potential to live under a brutal, totalitarian regime.

See, that's the thing about eugenics as a government program (which it would need to be to do the things people like that other guy wants to do). There is *no* way to actually do it that doesn't also turn your nation into some sort of dystopian hellscape. Another key aspects of eugenics besides the sterilization of people with 'inferior' genes is the carefully regulated breeding of those with 'superior' genes. If someone has good genes, you aren't going to just let them breed with any old mediocre average person. In a eugenics-focused society, it would *only* be acceptable for them to breed with others of similar genetic status, or the whole program kind of falls apart.

So! On top of sterilizing a decent swath of humanity, you would also need to register and catalogue every single person in your society at birth. You would need a government agency that would pair up individuals based on their eugenic compatibility and (I'm just assuming here) that you'd need laws and agencies in place to prevent and/or punish unauthorized breeding. Assuming you didn't want to just half-ass the whole thing after you've sterilized millions of people.

My personal gripe with all of this, as someone who is very much a fan of science, and using it to eventually improve humanity, is that you can't talk about that sort of stuff without the shadow of eugenics getting brought up and yahoos like that other poster popping out of the woodwork. Eugenics is a failed relic of the early 20th century, but a slow, gradual, genetic uplift of the human species is something we should very much pursue as the technology comes around. No one's individual rights should ever be infringed upon, but we should be trying to extend the human lifespan, and wipe out the various birth defects and genetic diseases that have been plaguing us since the beginning of the species (by creating ways to correct them in vitro, or in the womb. Not some sort of totalitarian dystopian shithole).

 

[Czann]

When Nazi Germany treats a black guy better than the US you know America has a problem...

 

[Amaror]

See, that's the thing about eugenics as a government program (which it would need to be to do the things people like that other guy wants to do). There is *no* way to actually do it that doesn't also turn your nation into some sort of dystopian hellscape. Another key aspects of eugenics besides the sterilization of people with 'inferior' genes is the carefully regulated breeding of those with 'superior' genes. If someone has good genes, you aren't going to just let them breed with any old mediocre average person. In a eugenics-focused society, it would *only* be acceptable for them to breed with others of similar genetic status, or the whole program kind of falls apart.

So! On top of sterilizing a decent swath of humanity, you would also need to register and catalogue every single person in your society at birth. You would need a government agency that would pair up individuals based on their eugenic compatibility and (I'm just assuming here) that you'd need laws and agencies in place to prevent and/or punish unauthorized breeding. Assuming you didn't want to just half-ass the whole thing after you've sterilized millions of people.

My personal gripe with all of this, as someone who is very much a fan of science, and using it to eventually improve humanity, is that you can't talk about that sort of stuff without the shadow of eugenics getting brought up and yahoos like that other poster popping out of the woodwork. Eugenics is a failed relic of the early 20th century, but a slow, gradual, genetic uplift of the human species is something we should very much pursue as the technology comes around. No one's individual rights should ever be infringed upon, but we should be trying to extend the human lifespan, and wipe out the various birth defects and genetic diseases that have been plaguing us since the beginning of the species (by creating ways to correct them in vitro, or in the womb. Not some sort of totalitarian dystopian shithole).

The whole thing with eugenics is that even if someone would be able to pull it off, it wouldn't work with the idea that some "races" of people are inherently superiour to others, because a lack of diversity is really really bad for any genpool.
We know that the higher the genetic diversity of the parents is the stronger the immune system of the child will be. The whole "keep it in the bloodline" thinking makes a bloodling worse, not better.
You can perfectly see it with dogs, for example. Purebred dogs almost always die years before mixbred dogs.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Yep, limitless potential to live under a brutal, totalitarian regime.

See, that's the thing about eugenics as a government program (which it would need to be to do the things people like that other guy wants to do). There is *no* way to actually do it that doesn't also turn your nation into some sort of dystopian hellscape. Another key aspects of eugenics besides the sterilization of people with 'inferior' genes is the carefully regulated breeding of those with 'superior' genes. If someone has good genes, you aren't going to just let them breed with any old mediocre average person. In a eugenics-focused society, it would *only* be acceptable for them to breed with others of similar genetic status, or the whole program kind of falls apart.

So! On top of sterilizing a decent swath of humanity, you would also need to register and catalogue every single person in your society at birth. You would need a government agency that would pair up individuals based on their eugenic compatibility and (I'm just assuming here) that you'd need laws and agencies in place to prevent and/or punish unauthorized breeding. Assuming you didn't want to just half-ass the whole thing after you've sterilized millions of people.

My personal gripe with all of this, as someone who is very much a fan of science, and using it to eventually improve humanity, is that you can't talk about that sort of stuff without the shadow of eugenics getting brought up and yahoos like that other poster popping out of the woodwork. Eugenics is a failed relic of the early 20th century, but a slow, gradual, genetic uplift of the human species is something we should very much pursue as the technology comes around. No one's individual rights should ever be infringed upon, but we should be trying to extend the human lifespan, and wipe out the various birth defects and genetic diseases that have been plaguing us since the beginning of the species (by creating ways to correct them in vitro, or in the womb. Not some sort of totalitarian dystopian shithole).

Agreed. I actually kind of like the idea of genetic improvements and other transhumanist ideas, but these sorts of things need to be approached very carefully so as not to lead us all to ruin.

One thing that needs to be considered about all this government forced eugenics is the question of how this interacts with other nations. After all, unless you were doing this from some kind of one world government then the rest of the world will still be regular old, unaltered humans; considered inferior and unfit to breed with which ever nation started doing all this. Would this government have to start invading other countries to sterilize their populace? Would they have to more or less close their borders to preserve their gene pool, or sterilize any and all immigrants? Or would they simply have to monitor people's lives to make sure they aren't breeding with the wrong people? Probably a bit of all. I'm really skeptical that nations wouldn't start using genetic improvement as a reason to invade neighboring countries in order to "help" their populace, in the same way people used to use the spreading of civilization as as an excuse for colonialism.
I don't see how this could lead to anything other than despicable racism. After all, it's not like "black" and "white" are one giant mono-race. Even if you don't discriminate against races within the border, you still end up with a situation where the races outside the border are considered inferior to these new races, and deserving of sterilization.

 

[Leg End]

So they managed to get a story that alone is going to get nominations out the ass from everything, alter it so it's a guaranteed win from everything and release it during Black History Month where it is guaranteed to be seen, and it's total shit.

Bravo Hollywood. Bravo.

As to the original point of how it helps society it gets rid of genetic dead ends and people who will and have had an undesirable effect on the history and future of mankind.

Doesn't having sexual relations with the same sex already solve itself according to your definition of a problem? The latter half, I don't even know how to ask exactly how you came to such a conclusion.

And that is not getting into the whole eliminating a large percentage of all rapists, molesters, and std carriers that that group of people just so happens to entail.

Zero comment.

1. There is no proof that you are born gay. There is also no proof it is a choice.

So doesn't that pretty much mean, both being taken as fact, that it doesn't matter who likes what set of sex organs?

2. State enforced executions are ok depending on who gets executed and for what reasons.

"The state executing people is ok if I agree that the person should be killed."

3. Meh so the nazis did 1 thing good. Still does not stop the fact they were mass murdering racists. You know another group who are usually insanely wrong yet treat gays how they should be? Most muslim countries. Yet there are few people who would argue those countries are good.

I can at least respect the people who are Nazis in that they are honest about their intentions 100% every time.

4. Most generally are or at the least have the urge to be pedophiles, molesters, and rapists.

I parrot Ice. Got a source for that?

5. Yes I support eugenics.

At least you're honest.

1. Disown them. If my kid (assuming I ever have a kid which I wont because I hate children) I will go on either a hunting trip or deep sea fishing trip with them.

Again, you're honest. You're still admitting that you would murder someone for being gay.

2. I have not brought up religion at all except in pointing out that the extreme muslim nations do something surprisingly right.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Not on this subject.

My view here are not based on religion. As said the actions needed against gays are to help society, preserve, get rid of a lot of known and potential criminals and std carriers, help humanity, and get rid of genetic dead ends.

I can say so much here, but you probably already know the argument so you can use your imagination about a certain cupcake brand. Please explain why anything needs to be done about "dead ends" if by definition, they can't reproduce conventionally so by that they're a non-issue by any standard.

My views espoused so far are from primarily the desire to better humanity no matter the cost no matter the means.

Except you've stated nothing that would improve humanity and admitted you'd be a criminal if the situation would arise, which would mean you'd be a prime candidate for removal from the gene pool by the standards of most believing in eugenics.

In order for humanity to take the next step towards our maximum potential we need to do this for the betterment of all.

You can't force progress there, bud.

And of course gays are not the only ones needing to go. Known insane people, drug addicts, rapists, people with debilitating genetic physical deformities all need to be expunged from the gene pool.

Funny you didn't mention murderers.

And I say this as one of those aforementioned insane people.

By some kind of logical extension I could then say we shouldn't listen to you because insane people by your standard are unfit for society. You've just cancelled yourself out.

However I for the betterment of all future generations do not spread my inferior genetics around.

Props to sticking to your guns for the most part.

Sadly though most of humanity does not have that level of self control and must either be killed or at the very least castrated for the betterment of future generations and to allow us a chance to reach our potential as a species.

Humanity must evolve on its own or die off due to not evolving. I have no issue with you having your views. Start trying to put your plan into action and you'll see how it's doomed to fail.

1. Read my post again. I already said I will not have a kid.

Alright. Still doesn't make you trustworthy to be around homosexuals.

2. Anxiety and depression are not genetic ergo Einstein would not have been killed. As I said only genetic conditions whether physical or mental need to be expunged.

But then that's letting those who are affected by those conditions exist and holding down humanity. You're being picky on this. Go big or go home.

3. You have no proof in your statement that most pedos are heterosexual.

And you have nothing to the contrary.

4. Just because those you met were clean does not mean all are. There are outliers in any statistical group.

Doesn't mean all aren't clean either.

5. Read my posts again. Where have I said anything of wanting to hold people of color back or of being a racist? I explicitly stated numerous times laws based solely on race are wrong and what happened to Owens + all African Americans was horrible and wrong.

You've got to start going all the way. You agree that race isn't a factor to a person but homosexuality apparently warrants immediate cleansing. You are making absolutely no sense.

6. Wiping out all genetic diseases is not stifling potential. It helps to create more potential. No one should be forced to live with insanity. No one should be forced to live with a physically crippled body due to a genetic condition. Getting rid of all those who carry those gene's ability to breed. To wipe out those diseases from all future generations will make mankind better in the long run and help to make almost everyone's potential limitless.

Wipe them out with medical advancement. Try and kill people in a futile effort to stop genetic disease and you'll be on the other end of the removal because you're pretty alone on that view, and rightly so. Murder is murder no matter how you slice it.

Honestly, if you actually said you were Natsoc I'd have some kind of grip on what you're saying because it would at least be consistent. You either seem like you're intentionally avoiding racial issues but go whole hog on everything else, which even includes you. By your own standard, you should not be listened to. By your own standard, you're in the total wrong.

Apart from seeming picky on what you advocate to seem "not as bad", you at least admit to what you believe and stick to your guns and for that I give you props. I still think you're in the total wrong, but I give you credit. I however do not give you credit for stating you would murder a gay person for being gay while stating that Turing was in the wrong for breaking the law. What does that make you?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

1. Read my post again. I already said I will not have a kid.

Yet you allowed for the possibility and the possibility of having a gay kid included murder. So if you practice what you preach, then you should by all rights seek to be sterilized. At least by your standards.

2. Anxiety and depression are not genetic ergo Einstein would not have been killed. As I said only genetic conditions whether physical or mental need to be expunged.

Well lets see here. Depression ran rampant on my mother's side of my family, my mother had chronic depression. Better still, as far back as I can trace the male side of family, they've all had anxiety disorder. It's been passed down paternally in my family, just because my Y chromosome is fused to an X, doesn't change the fact that I inherited all the same issues going back generations in my family. I'm odd I'm an XX male chromosomal and biologically male by birth, but the evidence I have says one of my X chromosomes carries a full Y chromosome integrated. Either way, your point is moot. Paternally every male in my family suffers anxiety disorder, that doesn't happen by chance.

3. You have no proof in your statement that most pedos are heterosexual.

More girls are molested than boys, though the reports are suspect... One thing that is historically true, taking a wife under the age of 12 years old is ideal... Ummm... That's regardless of the man's age no less. You can't cast that ideal away out of hand.

4. Just because those you met were clean does not mean all are. There are outliers in any statistical group.

Well here's the thing, if I'm connected with most of the LGBTQI+ community in my area, the reports are that they're generally more fastidious with screening for STIs... Especially with threats like HIV to worry them. Then the outliers are the ones who don't get tested and risk others. Where as with every cisgender heterosexual person I've ever met, screening for STIs is a secondary concern. The outliers in this case aren't the ones who intentionally wait for test results, especially considering they're supposed to be in the higher risk category.

5. Read my posts again. Where have I said anything of wanting to hold people of color back or of being a racist? I explicitly stated numerous times laws based solely on race are wrong and what happened to Owens + all African Americans was horrible and wrong.

Except that every historical instance of eugenics is mired in racism, forbidding racial mixing is practically a commandment of eugenicists. Miscegenation is the bane of eugenics after all.

6. Wiping out all genetic diseases is not stifling potential. It helps to create more potential. No one should be forced to live with insanity. No one should be forced to live with a physically crippled body due to a genetic condition. Getting rid of all those who carry those gene's ability to breed. To wipe out those diseases from all future generations will make mankind better in the long run and help to make almost everyone's potential limitless.

Except that leads to genetic elitism, which will wipe out gene lines that produce spectacular individuals. More to the point, you're arguing to reduce the genetic diversity of humans. All crippling genetic illnesses are linked to damaged genes, not unfit ones, and genetic damage is caused by radiation. So are you willing to put out the sun, because that's where most radiological damage originates. If you had any sense regarding this issue you'd be for gene therapy, to repair the damage done by external sources. Most people have perfectly functional genes, damaged genes are passed more often as a person ages. If you wanted advancement, improvement, and a general higher quality of life, you'd support genetic modification. The things we understand though, intelligence is a wild card, as are sexuality and gender identity. You want a genetically superior human race, well the answer isn't by destroying the diversity of genes that ensure our future breeding ability, it's in repairing damaged genes. But you'll throw people under the bus for not fitting your social standards, which means our genetic future, a diverse and strong genetic future, isn't something you support.

Edit: To shoot your genetic theories straight to hell even further. I know of many many gay and lesbian people who have biological children that are straight. Further I know many older transgender parents, who had children before they transitioned, a statistically insignificant number of their kids are transgender. While genetics might play a bit of a role here, the trans and non-heterosexuals amongst them are still the minority. That's all despite being born from a parent that is trans, or gay, but also despite being raised in a gay family. The majority of the children are well adjusted, cisgender, and straight. Then again transgenderism, homosexuality, and intelligence are all separate, and not linked to genes. All the smartest people I've ever met have diverse and mostly unexceptional families, a few come from exceptionally stupid families. That means the brain isn't totally tied to genes, again it makes identity, sexuality, and intelligence a total wild card. One thing that is really well known though? The closer breeding pairs are in familial relation, the more likely genetic damage is. So your eugenics centric thoughts are tied to damaging our species genetically. Not an ideal state, mate.


Edit 2: Also the more of us there are, the faster we advance. Population lows are dominated by technological stagnation. Population booms are accompanied by advancement. That means that genes are a secondary player, quantity on the other hand stresses our local environment, so we have to adapt and improve to sustain ourselves. That means the whole question of eugenics is out the window, because increasing quantity drives increasing quality.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Could be worse, it could've been Argo. In this they avoid the uncomfortable truth, Argo they just knowingly fabricated everything.

 

[Wolf Hagen]

The Movie... don't know what to say about it, even in Propaganda Booksfrom back there Owens was "kinda" Idolized in Germany as an unmatchable runner.
Can't speak from US Historical side though all I have read seemes like: "Thanks for the medals [Insert Racial Slur for maximal- Pigmentet people here]" and thats it concening the modern age.

Maybe I'll check it out, despite it beeing seemingly Oscar bait for next season to see what they made of it.


As for the rest of this Topic.....

I wonder what us gays do wrong, to still potentially get a pink triangle, I just can say: it's not mate hitching, cause you know, full guy / full girl thing.

Why do people still wanna kill us... I mean, we don't do much else, that others don't do too so what...?

 

[Aesir23]

Okay, I have to ask this. Does anyone know of any movies from around this time period (or close to) that aren't going full "USA! USA!"?

I mean, I get that it's Hollywood and they're trying to make movies that will sell well in their home market. However, I'm having a bit of difficulty finding movies about events that involved the USA that don't twist events or outright fabricate them until the script might as well have been written with a quill made from the feather of a bald eagle. Argo was certainly a pain in that sense.

So if anyone has any recommendations then that would be great.