Cummings' Jobs Advert

[Sway]

R Mutt said:

Sway said:

Can we separate "eugenics" into three separate categories, or is that verboten?

Category 1 - editing genes to prevent passing on of specific genes that cause (for example) breast cancer, alzheimers, Ehlers-Danloss Syndrome or the many others that science is recognising are caused in virtually all cases by a specific gene that could be replaced by a myriad of alternative ones currently existing in the spectrum of the human genome.

Category 2 - the Swedish model. Sterilisation of people with specific genetic abnormalities which lead to reduced quality of life and increased burdens on society.

Category 3 - killing people who display certain genetic traits which are considered undesirable.


Or is that too nuanced for the board?

For me - option 1 is to be supported. Option 2 could find my support, but is far more emotionally challenging and risky and so I don't think I could support it in any likely scenario. Option 3 is beyond the pale.

Does that make me a nazi worshipper?

What's funny is you've missed the one that's actually happening in America.

Drug addicts paid not to have kids, called Project Prevention.

That's a bit different isn't it?

That's not related to genetics, instead seemingly (I have no knowledge or interest in the American scheme) trying to prevent those 'incapable' of raising kids from having them - more a social care scheme designed to reduce total costs to the state and the number of kids in care?

[Sway]

DeepEnd said:

Sway said:

DeepEnd said:

Sway said:

Can we separate "eugenics" into three separate categories, or is that verboten?

Category 1 - editing genes to prevent passing on of specific genes that cause (for example) breast cancer, alzheimers, Ehlers-Danloss Syndrome or the many others that science is recognising are caused in virtually all cases by a specific gene that could be replaced by a myriad of alternative ones currently existing in the spectrum of the human genome.

Category 2 - the Swedish model. Sterilisation of people with specific genetic abnormalities which lead to reduced quality of life and increased burdens on society.

Category 3 - killing people who display certain genetic traits which are considered undesirable.


Or is that too nuanced for the board?

For me - option 1 is to be supported. Option 2 could find my support, but is far more emotionally challenging and risky and so I don't think I could support it in any likely scenario. Option 3 is beyond the pale.

Does that make me a nazi worshipper?

No but do you think Cummings mate is cat 2 or 3, noting his interest in peddling known lies about IQ, race and immigration policy?

The evidence suggests he is cat 3, but is trying to sound a but cat 1/2.

I don't recall seeing anything about "euthanising" people. Most of his comments seem rooted in category 2.

Let's not forget Sweden were doing cat 2 until very recently.

Cat 1 is where the potential gold is.

Perhaps the categories need to be a bit broader.

I’d put his views on race, IQ and immigration in Cat 3 - I don’t think you’d say they were Cat 2 like Sweden, would you?

I think part of his patter is to talk around things to seem like they are reasonable and cuddly, but there really is no defending his race / IQ angle.

It’s like Nigel and his chums the AfD. It’s not really OK, is it?

I've never suggested they are "reasonable" nor "cuddly".

There are differences between the various races. That's intrinsic in the fact there are different races.

What he'd do if absolute ruler of the globe due to his beliefs on those topics is impossible to say, therefore I can't align them to any of the categories.

I've never passed judgement on Nigel nor the AfD. They really don't register on my radar.

Tell me, when did you stop beating your wife?

[Sway]

DeepEnd said:

Sway said:

DeepEnd said:

Sway said:

DeepEnd said:

Sway said:

Can we separate "eugenics" into three separate categories, or is that verboten?

Category 1 - editing genes to prevent passing on of specific genes that cause (for example) breast cancer, alzheimers, Ehlers-Danloss Syndrome or the many others that science is recognising are caused in virtually all cases by a specific gene that could be replaced by a myriad of alternative ones currently existing in the spectrum of the human genome.

Category 2 - the Swedish model. Sterilisation of people with specific genetic abnormalities which lead to reduced quality of life and increased burdens on society.

Category 3 - killing people who display certain genetic traits which are considered undesirable.


Or is that too nuanced for the board?

For me - option 1 is to be supported. Option 2 could find my support, but is far more emotionally challenging and risky and so I don't think I could support it in any likely scenario. Option 3 is beyond the pale.

Does that make me a nazi worshipper?

No but do you think Cummings mate is cat 2 or 3, noting his interest in peddling known lies about IQ, race and immigration policy?

The evidence suggests he is cat 3, but is trying to sound a but cat 1/2.

I don't recall seeing anything about "euthanising" people. Most of his comments seem rooted in category 2.

Let's not forget Sweden were doing cat 2 until very recently.

Cat 1 is where the potential gold is.

Perhaps the categories need to be a bit broader.

I’d put his views on race, IQ and immigration in Cat 3 - I don’t think you’d say they were Cat 2 like Sweden, would you?

I think part of his patter is to talk around things to seem like they are reasonable and cuddly, but there really is no defending his race / IQ angle.

It’s like Nigel and his chums the AfD. It’s not really OK, is it?

I've never suggested they are "reasonable" nor "cuddly".

There are differences between the various races. That's intrinsic in the fact there are different races.

What he'd do if absolute ruler of the globe due to his beliefs on those topics is impossible to say, therefore I can't align them to any of the categories.

I've never passed judgement on Nigel nor the AfD. They really don't register on my radar.

Tell me, when did you stop beating your wife?

The suggestion about races and IQ being genetically linked has no scientific basis. It makes you wonder why some like Sabisky might try and imply otherwise and worse.

Further, knowing it’s unproven means that if you go public promoting it like Sabisky as fake facts suggests an agenda - saying his “beliefs are impossible to know” is trying a bit too hard to make excuses for him.

Nigel and the AfD has been discussed often in the Nigel thread - I can’t recall if you joined in but it is not difficult to get educated on the issue and jump off the fence if you want to.

The tired old wife beating saying smacks of protesting too much, and quite unnecessary given the neutral tone of my post which did not accuse you of anything - over sensitive, much? You might be doing it just to disagree with me as a matter of habit but suggest you need to chose such topics carefully - you really want to defend Sabisky because you want to disagree with me?

I have no idea about the 'link' between IQ and race, and haven't commented on that. My posts have solely been on the concept of eugenics - frankly the last thing I'm going to do is publically support or condemn people purely because of apparently having a single view in common (in this case, supporting the current tory party).

But there are, self evidently, differences between races genetically. How wide ranging those differences are, and which are due to nature versus nurture is in general is suggest inconclusive.

I've never posted in the 'Nigel' thread. Think that probably tells you all you need about how much I think about him, and AfD I have zero interest in.

Your initial comment to me (after I'd posted about how damned cool "eugenics" is in a lot of scifi) was exactly the same wounded innocent tone you use a lot. When I gave a very clear and personal series of reasons why I think certain types of "eugenics" are things I can support - amazingly you didn't bother replying.

Again, only jumping in when I posted about the potential nuances of the term "eugenics", and my views on the different options. What views others have I couldn't care less - but how I'd feel about other people supporting the different types I presented was clear.

On Sabisky - I've seen nothing suggesting he'd support killing living people, based on genetics as you've asserted. I've not even seen that he is on record as supporting sterilisation (as the Swedes actively engaged in for decades in recent history) - 'merely' contraception for all to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Hence it's impossible for me to know what his opinions are - I'm not about to assume his opinions on conflated areas of stated opinions. Mainly cause it's worthless and a guess, with a big dose of giving very few sts.

I've never yet met anyone that I agree with in every way. Every single person I've 'learnt' properly has at least one view I very strongly disagree with.

If Sabisky does support "category 2", then as I've already said I have immense reservations about it, although can logically understand the premise.

If he supports "category 3", then his views on that are abhorrent.

[Sway]

DeepEnd said:

the splinters must be painful

You have exceptionally poor reading comprehension skills.

[Sway]

DeepEnd said:

Sway said:

DeepEnd said:

the splinters must be painful

You have exceptionally poor reading comprehension skills.

I really don’t, I’m observing you deliberately sitting on a number of fences.

For someone normally so keen to give absolutely concrete opinions on a wide range of subjects this is proving quite a spectacle.

Please feel free to point out exactly what fences I'm sitting on.

You should be very aware of what being a spectacle looks like.

Or should I start demanding you condemn every remain supporter who has separate views that are challenging, disagreeable or abhorrent?

[Sway]

I haven't defended Sabisky. Crack on chap. Although it's a shame you haven't stopped beating your wife.

[Sway]

DeepEnd said:

TTwiggy said:

Sway said:

I haven't defended Sabisky. Crack on chap. Although it's a shame you haven't stopped beating your wife.

You’ve not condemned him either, despite it being a matter of record that he equates IQ with race, supports the idea of sterilisation of the underclass and seems to think that it’s a man’s Christian duty to rape his wife.

If you support the current Tory party it shouldn’t be difficult to say that you’re pleased he was removed so quickly but concerned that a person with his views got so close to Number 10.

Bingo.

It should not be difficult.

And yet it is.

The wife comments are fundamentally unpleasant, especially given recent events. Who was it using “Depression” as an ad hom?

You're merely extending the assessment of your simplistic binary thinking and lack of reading comprehension.

I used the word depression in a specific, stated context. One that was self identified within a YouGov poll - as you well know.

Hence the "when did you stop beating your wife?" questions. You've not said you haven't, therefore you must still be doing it...

(for the record, and those of simplistic comprehension, I don't think you do beat your partner - it's a useful and insightful demonstration of the line of argument you are using, yet dislike when applied to you... Telling.).

[Sway]

TTwiggy said:

Sway said:

I haven't defended Sabisky. Crack on chap. Although it's a shame you haven't stopped beating your wife.

You’ve not condemned him either, despite it being a matter of record that he equates IQ with race, supports the idea of sterilisation of the underclass and seems to think that it’s a man’s Christian duty to rape his wife.

If you support the current Tory party it shouldn’t be difficult to say that you’re pleased he was removed so quickly but concerned that a person with his views got so close to Number 10.

He does equate IQ with race, yet I've no geneticist and from what I have seen there are varying scientific conclusions. Which doesn't seem a surprise, as there's a massive level of debate over what "intelligence" actually is.

Is it a matter of record he supports sterilisation? Or are you using hyperbole and misleading terms for what is on record (which from what I can see is contraception, not sterilisation, to prevent 'unplanned/unwanted' children - which I can understand the logic of due to the statistically likely social outcomes of such pregnancies especially at a young age. I'll let you read my previous posts on my views on such activities... If you're bothered, instead of lighting the pitchforks).

[Sway]

TTwiggy said:

More wriggling. And no comment on his religious fundamentalism, despite ‘sky fairy’ and ‘imaginary friend’ bring such popular tropes on here.

It shouldn’t be hard to say his views are concerning and his appointment equally so, and yet you, and others, continue to dance on pin heads.

I already have...

Still nothing on you deliberately lying about what he's stated. It shouldn't be hard to actually tell the truth, but it seems that you must support every fraudster on earth.

My views on religion in general are already on this board. Or should I pander to your banal soundbyte crap by restating in every thread everything I like, dislike or "condemn"?

[Sway]

DeepEnd said:

Sway said:

You're merely extending the assessment of your simplistic binary thinking and lack of reading comprehension.

I used the word depression in a specific, stated context. One that was self identified within a YouGov poll - as you well know.

Hence the "when did you stop beating your wife?" questions. You've not said you haven't, therefore you must still be doing it...

(for the record, and those of simplistic comprehension, I don't think you do beat your partner - it's a useful and insightful demonstration of the line of argument you are using, yet dislike when applied to you... Telling.).

The rather large and embarrassing difference for you is that I haven’t mentioned domestic violence or mental health.

I have discussed Sabiskys views, given a view that they are abhorrent, and you have voluntarily challenged that, inventing safe categories for him to sit in. WTF are you doing?

Not what you've stated I am...

You've made sweeping assumptions about Sabisky's views - assuming that contraception means sterilisation and that this is really a cover for killing people. As such, it's impossible for you to actually comprehend my comments as you've demonstrated a dozen times in this thread.

The rather large and embarrassing thing is that you're so binary, simplistic and literal that you cannot see the alignment between my questions on wife beating and your mode of comprehension and debate.

[Sway]

bhstewie said:

I think you're being a little harsh there to be fair.

They have made it very clear that they're only in favour of the good eugenics.

Why would you want to perpetuate seemingly now preventable illnesses such as breast cancer or sickle cell anemia?

[Sway]

bhstewie said:

Sway said:

Why would you want to perpetuate seemingly now preventable illnesses such as breast cancer or sickle cell anemia?

I wouldn't but I tend to leave that sort of thing to doctors and medical professionals rather than special advisers who so far as I know have no medical expertise.

Strange chap to go to bat for but I guess it takes all sorts.

He didn't "bat for" CRISPR techniques. Nor did he suggest sterilisation as some are repeatedly claiming, nor killing people in a Nazi fashion.

However, it is by definition "eugenics", which you seem by your comments to think is beyond the pale in any circumstances.

[Sway]

El stovey said:

Sway said:

bhstewie said:

Sway said:

Why would you want to perpetuate seemingly now preventable illnesses such as breast cancer or sickle cell anemia?

I wouldn't but I tend to leave that sort of thing to doctors and medical professionals rather than special advisers who so far as I know have no medical expertise.

Strange chap to go to bat for but I guess it takes all sorts.

He didn't "bat for" CRISPR techniques. Nor did he suggest sterilisation as some are repeatedly claiming, nor killing people in a Nazi fashion.

However, it is by definition "eugenics", which you seem by your comments to think is beyond the pale in any circumstances.

Sure eugenics is a big topic but it’s not fair to defend his comments by saying why shouldn’t we try and get rid of some awful genetic diseases. He wasn’t talking about disease, he was talking about lower IQ of black people and enforcing contraception to stop an underclass and making pretty awful comments about women.

Comments which most people don’t want to be associated with especially elected politicians.

Yet plenty on here have conflated things massively, so that any form of eugenics is evil fascism - and even to the point of outright lying about Sabisky's views...

He does indeed seem more than "pretty awful". I don't know whether I should be upset about his job. Would it provide the opportunity to drive through pretty awful things, or is it a case like Von Braun or indeed Douglas Bader who also had rather awful opinions on things yet achieved great things in their respective fields?

At the moment, anyone even positing such a question is being tarred and feathered.

[Sway]

isaldiri said:

Sway said:

Would it provide the opportunity to drive through pretty awful things, or is it a case like Von Braun or indeed Douglas Bader who also had rather awful opinions on things yet achieved great things in their respective fields?

Perhaps if sabisky truly was an expert in a scientific field considered to be of vital importance to national security rather than some pseudoscience that Cummings believes in, the comparison to von braun might be a little less ridiculous....

I'm not trying to "compare" - I'm pointing out that people think things that have little to no impact on their ability to do a role.

Von Braun being a great example. Not only believing in, but being part of the organisation that committed genocide. Yet post war treated very well in order to design rockets and missiles.

So it's OK to be a fascist if you're really useful?

[Sway]

El stovey said:

isaldiri said:

El stovey said:

Yeah but you’re not being hired by number 10 for your super forecasting abilities.

I think the comments are about someone asking for evidence of his abilities in forecasting that led him to be hired in the first place.

From the article much earlier about Sabisky...

"explains that a score of 0 equals perfect foresight – “god level” whereas a “random dart-throwing chimp” would get around 0.5. The worst possible score is 2 – “maximum failure”.

His highest score is 0.22, “which is pretty good”, but he is at 0.3 after failing to predict Brexit. "

if a chimp is 0.5 and Sabisky's at 0.3, if he is supposed to be a 'super' forecaster one has to somewhat wonder what kind of range of scores other people are getting then tbh...

That’s the interview I saw.

Seems a pretty harsh environment.

0=omnipotent
0.5= random dart-throwing chimp
2.0=Maximum failure

Isn't it the case that most people predict things worse than if they'd just permitted random predictions to occur? So most people would end up over 0.5?

[Sway]

DeepEnd said:

Sway said:

DeepEnd said:

Sway said:

Can we separate "eugenics" into three separate categories, or is that verboten?

Category 1 - editing genes to prevent passing on of specific genes that cause (for example) breast cancer, alzheimers, Ehlers-Danloss Syndrome or the many others that science is recognising are caused in virtually all cases by a specific gene that could be replaced by a myriad of alternative ones currently existing in the spectrum of the human genome.

Category 2 - the Swedish model. Sterilisation of people with specific genetic abnormalities which lead to reduced quality of life and increased burdens on society.

Category 3 - killing people who display certain genetic traits which are considered undesirable.


Or is that too nuanced for the board?

For me - option 1 is to be supported. Option 2 could find my support, but is far more emotionally challenging and risky and so I don't think I could support it in any likely scenario. Option 3 is beyond the pale.

Does that make me a nazi worshipper?

No but do you think Cummings mate is cat 2 or 3, noting his interest in peddling known lies about IQ, race and immigration policy?

The evidence suggests he is cat 3, but is trying to sound a bit cat 1/2.

I don't recall seeing anything about "euthanising" people. Most of his comments seem rooted in category 2.

Let's not forget Sweden were doing cat 2 until very recently.

Cat 1 is where the potential gold is.

Sway - your category, and your words.

I think it’s perfectly clear you want to make Sabinsky seem as harmless as Sweden.

Which I find pretty disgusting, but you cling to it if you want.

Seem. At the time. My later posts clarified that...

Since then, all I've seen is that he supports contraception to prevent unplanned/unwanted pregnancy at young ages - nothing relating to race in that.

In which case, it's far from "category 2", which is sterilisation... Whilst you're, as per your own quote, suggesting he wants people killed that don't conform to a genetic 'ideal'.

Nice to see you think Sweden's action's were harmless - I fking don't, and nor do they now. Was an abhorrent strategy, but gets your support by 'your words'...

[Sway]

bhstewie said:

Sabinsky said:

One way to get around the problems of unplanned pregnancies creating a permanent underclass would be to legally enforce universal uptake of long-term contraception at the onset of puberty. Vaccination laws give it a precedent, I would argue.

Personally I'd read that as going a little further than "supports contraception".

Does it?

We've a 14 year old daughter. We've been dis

[Sway]

bhstewie said:

Sabinsky said:

One way to get around the problems of unplanned pregnancies creating a permanent underclass would be to legally enforce universal uptake of long-term contraception at the onset of puberty. Vaccination laws give it a precedent, I would argue.

Personally I'd read that as going a little further than "supports contraception".

Does it?

We've a 14 year old daughter. We've been discussing with her getting the implant in a year or two, so that all through the rest of her education it's simply not something she needs concern herself about (whilst still recommending strongly the use of barriers to prevent STD).

It's certainly not sterilisation, as presented by DeepEnd and others as being his views...

[Sway]

DeepEnd said:

Sway said:

I have no idea about the 'link' between IQ and race, and haven't commented on that. My posts have solely been on the concept of eugenics - frankly the last thing I'm going to do is publically support or condemn people purely because of apparently having a single view in common (in this case, supporting the current tory party).

But there are, self evidently, differences between races genetically. How wide ranging those differences are, and which are due to nature versus nurture is in general is suggest inconclusive.

I've never posted in the 'Nigel' thread. Think that probably tells you all you need about how much I think about him, and AfD I have zero interest in.

Your initial comment to me (after I'd posted about how damned cool "eugenics" is in a lot of scifi) was exactly the same wounded innocent tone you use a lot. When I gave a very clear and personal series of reasons why I think certain types of "eugenics" are things I can support - amazingly you didn't bother replying.

Again, only jumping in when I posted about the potential nuances of the term "eugenics", and my views on the different options. What views others have I couldn't care less - but how I'd feel about other people supporting the different types I presented was clear.

On Sabisky - I've seen nothing suggesting he'd support killing living people, based on genetics as you've asserted. I've not even seen that he is on record as supporting sterilisation (as the Swedes actively engaged in for decades in recent history) - 'merely' contraception for all to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Hence it's impossible for me to know what his opinions are - I'm not about to assume his opinions on conflated areas of stated opinions. Mainly cause it's worthless and a guess, with a big dose of giving very few sts.

I've never yet met anyone that I agree with in every way. Every single person I've 'learnt' properly has at least one view I very strongly disagree with.

If Sabisky does support "category 2", then as I've already said I have immense reservations about it, although can logically understand the premise.

If he supports "category 3", then his views on that are abhorrent.

Some more to choke on here - given the continuing wife comments I think it only reasonable.

- there is no scientific basis for linking IQ to race. It doesn’t help society to repeat these false lies. Saying it’s inconclusive is false and divisive. Sabinsky was rightly binned for this remember.

- you are mentioning Sweden in a defensive way, and suggest you can “understand the premise”.

I do think this sort of thing needs calling out in the clearest possible way.

There is plenty in my post you haven't bolded that show how your selective emphasis is flat out incorrect...

[Sway]

bhstewie said:

Sway said:

Does it?

We've a 14 year old daughter. We've been discussing with her getting the implant in a year or two, so that all through the rest of her education it's simply not something she needs concern herself about (whilst still recommending strongly the use of barriers to prevent STD).

It's certainly not sterilisation, as presented by DeepEnd and others as being his views...

I guess it depends whether you give Sabinsky the benefit of the doubt when taking it into account with all of his other "interesting" views.

If your daughter had a child and it was unplanned would you consider the child part of a "permanent underclass"?

I doubt it.

Do I think that my daughter having a child before she completes her education seriously impacts her lifestyle and economic attainment through the rest of her life? Yes - it certainly did for my other half.

Would I use that term? No.