There’s plenty of discussion as to the relative merits of the US and Europe.
In fact, there’s been so much that the posts have become modem killers, and I stopped reading them. But a lot of it seems to be an American perception that Europeans are arrogant and look down on them morally and culturally.
Fair point. But on the other side, Americans seem to view us Euros as some form of mentally deficient communist plant life who associate with “evil” countries.
Why do you think this mutual misunderstanding arose?
By: Geforce - 26th July 2002 at 17:12
RE: Eugenics
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 26-07-02 AT 05:20 PM (GMT)]I still have my ‘##### Chirac’ T-shirt 🙂
Let us continue the Eugenetics thread somewhere else cause this is a modem-killer.
By: Snowman - 26th July 2002 at 11:39
RE: Eugenics
We have indeed come a log way, Kev. Interesting read, though.
Geforce, I understand what you mean about the leader of a particular country reprensenting the nation and its inhabitants. But there are instances when the elected governement makes decisions you disagree with. (you might not even have voted for them). It is then unconfortable to be associated with the country making these decisions. An exemple: when Chirac was elected in 1995, one of the first things he did was to resume nuclear testing in the Pacific. There was an international outcry. Some of the French who did not vote for him or those who did but disagreed with the nuclear testing felt very uneasy and resented being tarred with the same brush as him.
Same remark for the scenes you sometimes see on television, where French dockers or lorry drivers blockade ports near the Channel. I cringe with embarrassement to share the same nationality as the selfish morons who take foreign holiday makers and family hostage. I utterly disagree with the blockades. But for many Brits, it’s typical of “the French”.
This “strike” business is certainly a French attitude and to an extent a disease, but it also affects French citizens. When postal workers go on strike, businesses and ordinary people suffer the consequences. When railway workers or the charming people at Air France go on strike (usually at busy holiday times) a lot of French users bear the brunt.
My point is that it is really important to distinguish between a group of people making a decision or taking action , and the nation as a whole. I think we agree on this… but I just wanted to point it out, because it really rankles to be associated with a decision made by someone in your country, especially if you were against it in the first place. It is surprising sometimes to see supposedly clever and cultured commentators in the papers or on TV relinquish all sense of proportion and pontificate on one country’s inhabitants as though they were all the same.
As for your remark on sympathy, of course I do not mean a shallow display of solidarity. If you choose to express your sympathy with flags because it works for you, fine. But if it’s an empty gesture, obviously, one shouldn’t bother. I actually beleive flags and candles and vigils we saw in many countries were expression of strong and genuine feelings in the aftermath of the attacks.
I think the events of 9/11 shocked the world in a way rarely seen in recent years. Hence the pretty universal reactions. It’s not to say that other tragedies do not deserve our attention. I feel quite strongly for civilian victims of Allied bombardments, for victims of other terrorist attacks around the world, victims of torture, of hunger, disease, pollution… But there was something unique in the attacks on the USA which struck our collective psyche I think. (quite apart from the fact that there foreign nationals also died in these attacks).
By: kev35 - 26th July 2002 at 10:05
RE: Eugenics
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 26-07-02 AT 10:07 AM (GMT)]Mongu,
Let me start by saying how sorry I am for your loss.
“I am still curious as to what exactly eugenics is.For instance, if parents have a designer baby (ie. preselection of attirubutes) is this a similar thing?”
Eugenics in the fashion that I am talking about was considered during the early part of the 20th Century and it was proposed that all people with mental disability in particular be segregated from society and even segregated by sex. This segregation was to bring to an end thepossibility of any child of the future having a mental disability. Hitler was taking it even further with the Aryan ideal of a race of pure humans.
“You could even stretch the argument a little with reference to selective breeding to achieve a desired result – like with race horses. Is this similar?”
In the broadest sense, yes it is. Sacrificing a foetus because it is likely to have ginger hair is disgusting and I don’t think we have any right to interfere.
“Kev, you mention that some disabled kids are remarkable. I
agree – my cousin was mentally disabled from birth, but he was a happy presence until he died in his mid 20’s. If they aren’t mentally disabled, they may even contribute something to society as a whole.”
AAAAARRRGGGHHHH!!! You were doing ok up till that last line. People with mental disabilities can enrich our lives just as much as someone who has no disabilities. A few years ago I took a group of kids on holiday to an outdoor activities centre. Several of the staff had learning disabilites but worked fine both in that environment and amongst society in general. In fact, one of the waitresses was leaving that week to work as a silver service waitress in a country house hotel. two years later I was told she had become a supervisor. So, obviously it depends on the degree of disability.
“But, what if your doctors told you and your pregnant wife that your child was going to be disabled – but that, hypothetically, you could alter his genetic basis to remove the disability. You might kill off a genius, or you might bring joy to someone eho otherwise would be at a disadvantage. What would you do??”
This is not in my opinion eugenics as such. Society deems we have a right as prospective parents to terminate a pregnancy if there is some kind of defect discovered. I’m not sure whether I agree with that or not. Rabie mentions amnioscentesis for prospective Down’s mothers and can in some cases offer a termination. All I can say is I have never met a person with Down’s syndrome who I believe should not take their rightful place in society. As for the prospect of terminating a foetus who is known to have serious disabilities then it is I suppose a matter of deciding how serious it has to be before they are viable.
“I appreciate that such personal stuff is a step removed from wholesale mass eugenics ala Hitler or Churchill. But the
morality sems vaguely similar.”
The similarity is only very vague. Nowadays we are looking at individuals on individual merits. Churchill was looking to segregate and incarcerate a whole element of society while Hitler preferred wholesale slaughter.
Haven’t we come a long way from ‘Euro bashing’?
Regards,
kev35
By: Rabie - 25th July 2002 at 23:18
RE: No more crusades, Geforce
1) that was a great post snowman
2) eugenics is any kind of medeling with procreation to change the evolution of the human race. screaning for down’s sybdrome could be called this but the choice is voluuntary
3) can we leave the abortion debate to some other time
4) eugenics was favoured by lots of people unfortuntely, including some american states (they neutered the meantally ill).
5) churchill wasn’t 100% right on everything (the empire will last 1000 years springs to mind) but 95% of the time a brilliant guy and spectacular wartime leader.
i was going to say something else but im tired and i can’t reember
night
rabie :9
By: PhantomII - 25th July 2002 at 22:30
RE: No more crusades, Geforce
Mongu, I’m sorry to hear about your cousin. That’s very saddening.
Geforce, what irritates me is that in every other post you refer to Bush as an idiot because you don’t agree with his policies. I’m certainly not and expert on politics. And while I personally feel you think you are, you claim you aren’t either. My point is that this man has worked his way up through the ranks only to become the most powerful man in the world. He has more responsibility than you or I could ever dream of. Some how I’m thinking that even if you don’t agree with everything he does and says, that he is indeed NOT an idiot. I’ve noticed you tend to get all irritated and call people idiots when they don’t agree with you. Bush’s policies may not suit you, but he knows what he is doing. Just chill out on the anti-Bush crusade. Everyone here knows you don’t like him, and some of us care as you claim and others like myself couldn’t care less, so I’m asking you, just chill out a bit on it. I’m not saying don’t criticize, but stop with the insults.
Lighten the grip you’ve got on those trees there man. 😉
And another thing, stop trying to relate Sharon and Churchill to Hitler. No one (except maybe Stalin) could even compare to what Adolf Hitler did. Sharon nor Churchill aren’t/weren’t evil men.
By: mongu - 25th July 2002 at 22:10
RE: Eugenics
I am still curious as to what exactly eugenics is.
For instance, if parents have a designer baby (ie. preselection of attirubutes) is this a similar thing?
You could even stretch the argument a little with reference to selective breeding to achieve a desired result – like with race horses. Is this similar?
I’m not trying to be disingenious. But I do see similarities here and I have no idea where the line is.
Kev, you mention that some disabled kids are remarkable. I agree – my cousin was mentally disabled from birth, but he was a happy presence until he died in his mid 20’s. If they aren’t mentally disabled, they may even contribute something to society as a whole. Stephen Hawking is a good case, although his disability was progressive and he was not really handicapped as a child.
But, what if your doctors told you and your pregnant wife that your child was going to be disabled – but that, hypothetically, you could alter his genetic basis to remove the disability. You might kill off a genius, or you might bring joy to someone eho otherwise would be at a disadvantage. What would you do??
I appreciate that such personal stuff is a step removed from wholesale mass eugenics ala Hitler or Churchill. But the morality sems vaguely similar. I suggest you check out the following work on figuring out morality:
http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm
“Mongu the Money Mad Moralist”
By: kev35 - 25th July 2002 at 17:30
RE: Eugenics
“Sorry to post twice in quick succession, but I was curious about Kev’s and Geforce’s stance on Eugenics?
Why do you object so strongly? I’m not saying I agree with it, but your rejection seems very absolute.”
I would imagine much of my view has been coloured by the fact that I worked for several years with children aith children and adults with physical/learning disabilities. Many of these people can and do lead very rewarding lives. Technological and medical advances have meant that many of these people get a better chance at life than could ever have been expected. I was taking a teenager with Down’s syndrome to the cinema and this couple sat behind us and kept muttering about how it was ‘such a shame’ and ‘how sorry they felt for him.’ Sorry for him? This young man was going to represent his country at the special olympics and it was extremely likely that he would win a medal. He was embarking on a career as a sports and fitness intructor and last time I saw him was learning to drive. So, don’t automatically write people off.
Now for foetuses who are likely to develop profound and multiple learning disabilities there may well be a case for termination. For older children and adults with PMLD there may even be a case for euthanasia. (My own personal jury is still debating that one.)
Now, conversely, or should I say perversely, advances in medical science mean that premature babies are surviving from an earlier age but unfortunately these heroic efforts to save a child are not always without the cost of some disability to the child.
Eugenics as a blanket option as supported by Churchill and carried out by Hitler are immoral and should be abhorred by any right thinking compassionate individual.
Don’t destroy a child because they have a disability, instead, nurture what abilities they have.
Regards,
kev35
By: Geforce - 25th July 2002 at 17:11
more
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 25-07-02 AT 05:38 PM (GMT)]1. Snowman,
Well I did say you shouldn’t generalise a whole nation, and I always use the term Bush-administration rather than America. But it makes it easier ofcourse, and if a nation’s policy doesn’t represent half of its population, than what’s the use of democracy ?! It’s America’s politics, therefor not the politics of ALL Americans, that’s a big difference. But people vote for a leader and that leader is supposed to represent that nation, therefor not all of its people. I hope you understand what I mean.
I agree with the sympathy-part, Snowman. But we should have sympathy for everyone who suffers, wheter they are Americans, Russians, Chinese, Afghans, Israeli’s, Serbs, Iraqi’s or Palestinians … If this is the sympathy you mean I agree, but if you mean hanging out the stars and strips out of my window on IX-XI, sorry that’s not me. That would be against my principles (not because I’m anti-Americanist or so, just because I think that has nothing to do with sympathy but with politics). A couple of days after IX-XI, on school, we HAD to keep 3 minutes of silence. For the massacres in Rwanda (for which our nation was partially responsable) we didn’t even keep 3 secondes of silence, eventhough about 300 (or more) as many were killed, so make the sum 300*3 min = 900 min.
2. PII
I’m not questioning Bush’s legitimacy. I’m over that stage already. But even for a fairly elected president,t is it OK for me to finds his politics short-sighted? As the most powerful man in this world, isn’t it normal that he gets the most criticism. OK for me if you want to bash the PM of Belgium (hell I do it all the time) or New Zealand if you know who they are ofcourse.
By: Snowman - 25th July 2002 at 15:25
RE:
Hi skythe,
Well, I guess I am thicker than most, because I thought you meant Europeans generally.
It’s very difficult to get accurate and trustworth information about the Middle East in Europe. People on both sides in the conflict throw accusations of bias at journalists, and rebut each other’s claims with evidence, witness accounts, pictures… It’s a bewildering maze and sadly, the more sources you try to refer to, the more confusing it becomes. I don’t think either side should turn their backs on Western media and western governements. The best way to make headway is to help outsiders undertsand what is going on. I feel you consider yourself cut off from the rest of the world, as though they do not understand what is going on and you can only rely on yourselves. I really believe it is not going to improve matters to stop explaining things.
The only thing I can see clearly about the conflict is that the suffering is on both sides and it seems to be self-perpetuating. But do not think that we do not care…
Geforce, I still disagree with the idea of lumping a whole nation together. under one description. You can say, the “Bush administration”, or “Bush supporters”, but to say “Amercians” is I think inaccurate. There are plenty of US commentators who disagree with some of the aspects of contemporary USA.
It feels like the country has been brought together, though in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and it is one way in which you could describe a collective sense of purpose among US citizens.
One last thought: it is slightly odd to be looking for causes of disagreements between Europe and the USA at the moment. I thought we had all realised we were in this together. There was a tremendous feeling of sympathy in many European countries after the Spetmeber attacks on the USA. G Bush himself underlined the ties between the USA and Europe on a recent visit to our continent.
And no later than July 14th, a NY Fire Department truck took part in the French national day military parade on the Champs Elysées, as did Cadets from West Point and they got a rousing reception.
There are clearly signs of strong friendship and partnership uniting people and governments on both sides of the Atlantic. We disagree sometimes, but allies (and friends) sometimes do…
By: Geforce - 25th July 2002 at 15:21
RE: Geforce, get over it
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 25-07-02 AT 03:23 PM (GMT)]Nope, some people actually do care, not because they like me that much, but because there are others who share my opinion, my dearest Phantom. Anyway, you called me an idiot about a zillion times (and vice versa about a zillion times minus one, but I’m willing to raise that number to a zillion times if that will make you happier. ).
Maybe you should buy a calender of Bush, one which will tell you exactly how much days he’ll remain in office … 620-619-618 … LOL 😀 on the back, you can add some of his most intelligent quotes. I’m sure that will sell good in Europe. }>
By: PhantomII - 25th July 2002 at 15:15
RE: Geforce, get over it
I didn’t want to get involved in this thread, but I must make on correction. Mongu stated that Americans voted for someone else yet we want Bush. If you mean by this that Al Gore got more votes you are wrong, the results finally ended up coming and Bush won the election fairly. And Vortex, is correct, since he has been elected, his popularity has risen owing to the way he has handled the incident with China and 9/11. He’s not the idiot some of you paint him to be. He’s a much better president than Al Gore would’ve ever been. And Geforce, consistently calling someone an idiot is rather childish and I ask that you stop. Nobody cares how you feel about Bush so stop posting your opinion of him.
By: Geforce - 25th July 2002 at 14:10
RE: Aye Cayramba, haha very funny…
1. Eugentics is not the same as trying to prevent ill children of being born. The Nazi’s were the ones who wanted to use this technique so only Aryans could be born. I’m pro-Abortion, if you think a child will have no chances of surviving, you can better make a wise decission.
2. People will have to pay for this technique, which means a bigger gap between the rich and the poor, who can’t afford this. So the rich people will become even more perfect and the poor ones will be left out of society, ending in a modern nazi-world.
3. It’s practically impossible because you’ll need to perform tests on foetusses. I think this alone is already immoral.
By: mongu - 25th July 2002 at 12:52
RE: Aye Cayramba, haha very funny…
Sorry to post twice in quick succession, but I was curious about Kev’s and Geforce’s stance on Eugenics?
Why do you object so strongly? I’m not saying I agree with it, but your rejection seems very absolute.
By: mongu - 25th July 2002 at 12:50
RE: Aye Cayramba, haha very funny…
Funny how Americans voted for somebody else but they still want Bush.
Maybe they ought to get a real royal family to get over this personality and popularity obsession!
By: Geforce - 25th July 2002 at 12:15
RE: Aye Cayramba, haha very funny…
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 25-07-02 AT 12:18 PM (GMT)]Well, I guess this forum is quite neutral when it comes to nationalities. We’ve got Britons, ze Germans, Dutch, Indians, Pakistani’s, Americans, Canadians who wanna be Americans, and loads of Aussies and Kiwi’s. So saying the forum is based in Europe is a bit too easy as an argument.
“knowing how arrogant those Europeans are” … LOL LOL LOL 😀
Well, some of it must be true. BTW, where did I say Bush is an idiot? 😀 Sorry now I’m being hypocryt, I’m must have said it already a zillion times }>. I thought only 52 % of the Americans still supported Bush. Am I so incredibly wrong? When are the next parliamentary elections planned in the US? Than we’ll see who’s right.
By: Arabella-Cox - 25th July 2002 at 08:18
Aye Cayramba, haha very funny…
what kind of idiot you take us non-Europeans for? Asking us about greivences against Europe at a European based web forum. I think i’ll do better on the defensive side. :7
By the way, Bush is getting 70+% support from Americans, so i guess in our eyes he’s not such an idiot, so please don’t call him so because it’s like calling all of us idiots. But, knowing how arrogant many Europeans are, i guess it’s ok, we’ll be the humble ones, no problemo with that. Speak softly and carry a BIG stick. Yup. What’s that again?
By: kev35 - 24th July 2002 at 21:29
RE: Euro bashing
Mongu,
Churchill was indeed a great man and without him I doubt this country would be what it is today.
I just find it interesting that a man who was a strong supporter of the eugenics movement eventually went on to make a stand against a man who was of much the same mind, albeit on a far larger scale.
Regards,
kev35
By: mongu - 24th July 2002 at 21:20
RE: Euro bashing
You are saying that it is immoral in this day and age. But in Churchill’s time things were seen differently. We must not fall into the easy trap of imposing our morality and values onto another generation.
Besides, Churchill was a great man. He had certian bad qualities, but overall he had enough good qualities to save they day.
By: Geforce - 24th July 2002 at 17:45
RE: Euro bashing
I know what eugenetics are, they are immoral.
By: kev35 - 24th July 2002 at 16:03
RE: Euro bashing
Just a point about Churchill and being racist. Before the First World War and, I think, for a time afterwards, Churchill was a supporter of the eugenics movement in the UK. Their aim was that all people with any kind if mental disability should be incarcerated and the sexes kept separate to avoid such people ‘breeding’. In this way it was thought that the gene pool would be purified and mental disability would become a thing of the past.
Does that sound familiar?
Regards,
kev35
Sign In
July 22, 2002 at 11:03 pm