Cummings' Jobs Advert
Discussion
This is all a wonderful distraction from the crux of the matter, which is that one of Cummings' hires believes that IQ is linked to race, the 'underclass' should be sterilised and that in a 'Christian' marriage the woman can expect to be raped (and love it).
Let's not forget what this thread was originally about, and how many posters thought it was a wizard wheeze of an idea. This guy only managed a day in office, because he was found out, but how many others slipped through and haven't been discovered yet?
Let's not forget what this thread was originally about, and how many posters thought it was a wizard wheeze of an idea. This guy only managed a day in office, because he was found out, but how many others slipped through and haven't been discovered yet?
Eric Mc said:
s2art said:
Otherwise the rich will go private and have Captain America or Wonderwomen children while the less well off will become increasing disadvantaged.
If the rich go down that route, I bet they won't end up with "wunderkind". Just obnoxious, overbearing brats.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? 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?
The evidence suggests he is cat 3, but is trying to sound a but cat 1/2.
hifihigh said:
amusingduck said:
Jews are an ethnic group, not just a religious group, I think.
HaHa, tell that to the people in the west-bank. It sucks when people fall victim to this stuff.Palestinians are crying out for help, but we are not helping... why is that?
TTwiggy said:
This is all a wonderful distraction from the crux of the matter, which is that one of Cummings' hires believes that IQ is linked to race, the 'underclass' should be sterilised and that in a 'Christian' marriage the woman can expect to be raped (and love it).
Let's not forget what this thread was originally about, and how many posters thought it was a wizard wheeze of an idea. This guy only managed a day in office, because he was found out, but how many others slipped through and haven't been discovered yet?
well, Cummings did advertise for a crack team of Mouthbreathers and Throbbers to drive policy at No10, especially eugenicists and Alt-Right neo-nazis, so could be loads of them hiding in the skirtingboards Let's not forget what this thread was originally about, and how many posters thought it was a wizard wheeze of an idea. This guy only managed a day in office, because he was found out, but how many others slipped through and haven't been discovered yet?
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? 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?
The evidence suggests he is cat 3, but is trying to sound a but cat 1/2.
Let's not forget Sweden were doing cat 2 until very recently.
Cat 1 is where the potential gold is.
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.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?
Drug addicts paid not to have kids, called Project Prevention.
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.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?
Drug addicts paid not to have kids, called Project Prevention.
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 said:
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.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?
Drug addicts paid not to have kids, called Project Prevention.
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 said:
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.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?
Drug addicts paid not to have kids, called Project Prevention.
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?
It may have been stopped further to this but I don't know the current status of the project.
s2art said:
Eric Mc said:
s2art said:
Otherwise the rich will go private and have Captain America or Wonderwomen children while the less well off will become increasing disadvantaged.
If the rich go down that route, I bet they won't end up with "wunderkind". Just obnoxious, overbearing brats.I prefer my brats to be a bit thick.
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? 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?
The evidence suggests he is cat 3, but is trying to sound a but cat 1/2.
Let's not forget Sweden were doing cat 2 until very recently.
Cat 1 is where the potential gold is.
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?
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? 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?
The evidence suggests he is cat 3, but is trying to sound a but cat 1/2.
Let's not forget Sweden were doing cat 2 until very recently.
Cat 1 is where the potential gold is.
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?
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?
andy_s said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I'm sure those in favour of eugenics would be absolutely fine with it right up until the point that their own deficiencies were the ones deemed unacceptable to society.
I'll say it again but "A special adviser to Jeremy Corbyn suggested Jewish people are of lower intelligence and IQ than other races" would be absolutely slaughtered and rightly so.
Yet it's something that apparently has merit when this chap says it.
I don't get it.
I do the same, but in this case it doesn't align with the data that prompted the idea. I'll say it again but "A special adviser to Jeremy Corbyn suggested Jewish people are of lower intelligence and IQ than other races" would be absolutely slaughtered and rightly so.
Yet it's something that apparently has merit when this chap says it.
I don't get it.
In the real-life example, it aligned with the thought that BJ is a racist, and voila.
It's pretty interesting watching the mental gymnastics going on to make this OK though rather than simply saying "good riddance and well done in getting rid of him as quickly as you did".
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I think I said earlier in the thread that whilst I'm no fan of Johnson's judgement I'm happy enough to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one as I don't think anyone would actually be stupid enough to give this guy a job knowing his repellent views.
.
I disagree.There are many people with repellent views who are good at what they do. The secret is employing them in areas where said views are irrelevant. Unfortunately politics is not one of the areas where you can get away with holding such views. I am sure a job in the city awaits him. .
Castrol for a knave said:
No evidence to suggest is is genetic though. The more plausible hypothesis is that their culture is learned, book led and that as a group they are relativity affluent and education is seen as a key goal.
Murray and Hermstein have been pretty well debunked on this - given you referred to the Bell curve I suspect this is where you are getting your viewpoint from. .
I would have thought that would be obvious. When one looks at small exclusive groups which have rigid and unforgiving educational practises positioned in larger groups with more lax practises, differences will be evident.Murray and Hermstein have been pretty well debunked on this - given you referred to the Bell curve I suspect this is where you are getting your viewpoint from. .
I watched a Joe Rogan podcast with an Americanised SIngapore-born lady, the educational aspects of people from SOuth East Asia came up, their culture is just rigidly wrapped about performance and education, they over-perform in a system like America's...which is...not good. More focused on games like football and baseball.
TTwiggy said:
This is all a wonderful distraction from the crux of the matter, which is that one of Cummings' hires believes that IQ is linked to race, the 'underclass' should be sterilised and that in a 'Christian' marriage the woman can expect to be raped (and love it).
Let's not forget what this thread was originally about, and how many posters thought it was a wizard wheeze of an idea. This guy only managed a day in office, because he was found out, but how many others slipped through and haven't been discovered yet?
I don't really watch the news, and only pick up on things on here (mostly), but wow, what a wally. Very good think a genetically backedward think like him has gone. THere's hope for the beeb yet! Let's not forget what this thread was originally about, and how many posters thought it was a wizard wheeze of an idea. This guy only managed a day in office, because he was found out, but how many others slipped through and haven't been discovered yet?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-a...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff