Cummings' Jobs Advert

[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...

[DeepEnd]

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.

[bitchstewie]

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.

[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.

[DeepEnd]

Sway said:

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

I’m disappointed that you’re happy with the bold.

Proves I’m no liar though, which is something you should retract, but I suspect you won’t.

[bitchstewie]

Sway said:

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.

Of course you wouldn't because it's repellent.

But Sabinsky would if he didn't make her legally use contraception.

I'd caution against trying too hard to see any merit in this chap.

Slippery slope.

[Sway]

DeepEnd said:

Sway said:

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

I’m disappointed that you’re happy with the bold.

Proves I’m no liar though, which is something you should retract, but I suspect you won’t.

You invented a quote as though it was from me. That was a lie.

The bold is ste, if ignoring the rest of the sentences/paragraphs - which is a dick move.

[Sway]

bhstewie said:

Sway said:

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.

Of course you wouldn't because it's repellent.

But Sabinsky would that's if he didn't make her legally use contraception.

I'd caution against trying too hard to see any merit in this chap.

Slippery slope.

Where have I "seen merit" in this chap?

[bitchstewie]

Sway said:

Where have I "seen merit" in this chap?

It's a perception thing.

You seem very fixated on "show me the exact quote" type questions.

Sometimes it's just the sum total of how a series of posts come across.

Happy to accept that maybe it's me as we all interpret things differently.

[Sway]

bhstewie said:

Sway said:

Where have I "seen merit" in this chap?

It's a perception thing.

You seem very fixated on "show me the exact quote" type questions.

Sometimes it's just the sum total of how a series of posts come across.

Happy to accept that maybe it's me as we all interpret things differently.

Not at all.

What I'm not up for is having my posts twisted to try to show I'm racist, or support the evil kinds of eugenics that have been used in the past.

Nor do I think it fair that Sabisky's comments regarding contraception of adolescents has turned into him supporting sterilisation (or as DeepEnd has suggested, actually being a cover for wanting to kill people)...

Especially when DeepEnd has brought it over to a different thread, and then completely invented a quote attributed to me. After being called out on it, a lovely bit of selective emphasis again creates a completely false narrative when the full sentence and paragraph clearly shows a very different opinion to the one he claims...

[gregs656]

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...

Do you not see the difference between discussing this with your daughter so she can make an informed choice and having that choice removed from her?

Sabisky doesn’t say when the legally enforced contraception would stop, or for what reasons. It is possible that your daughter would lose the choice to have children at all and would effectively be sterilised by the state.

He statement is so far removed from the kind of discussion you are having with your daughter that I don’t understand why you mentioned it at all.

I find it absolutely incredible that on this thread we have people defending Sabisky’s comments which include the state controlling the fertility of women and on another people are losing their st because a private company with the support of its staff changed their expenses policy. Madness.

[bitchstewie]

Sway said:

Not at all.

What I'm not up for is having my posts twisted to try to show I'm racist, or support the evil kinds of eugenics that have been used in the past.

Nor do I think it fair that Sabisky's comments regarding contraception of adolescents has turned into him supporting sterilisation (or as DeepEnd has suggested, actually being a cover for wanting to kill people)...

Especially when DeepEnd has brought it over to a different thread, and then completely invented a quote attributed to me. After being called out on it, a lovely bit of selective emphasis again creates a completely false narrative when the full sentence and paragraph clearly shows a very different opinion to the one he claims...

The bit in bold is the kind of thing I meant when I referred to not trying too hard to see merit in the chap.

When he refers to legally enforcing contraception to avoid a "permanent underclass" I'm guessing he doesn't mean legally enforcing it for the likes of your daughter when taken as a whole with his other comments.

I suspect she'd have a choice but of course that's just a guess.

You have former government advisors who even anonymously say "Hiring this imbecile is an insult to those who came before, which is a minor point I know, but Jesus wept it makes me ashamed." yet you seem to think you need to make the point that he's been treated unfairly.

Honestly I'm really struggling with why you'd go there for this chap.

[Sway]

gregs656 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...

Do you not see the difference between discussing this with your daughter so she can make an informed choice and having that choice removed from her?

Sabisky doesn’t say when the legally enforced contraception would stop, or for what reasons. It is possible that your daughter would lose the choice to have children at all and would effectively be sterilised by the state.

He statement is so far removed from the kind of discussion you are having with your daughter that I don’t understand why you mentioned it at all.

I find it absolutely incredible that on this thread we have people defending Sabisky’s comments which include the state controlling the fertility of women and on another people are losing their st because a private company with the support of its staff changed their expenses policy. Madness.

Of course I can - and I wouldn't support what appears to be Sabisky's views, although it's exceptionally difficult to figure those out what as per your points there is no detail available.

I mentioned it, as there is very little between the outcome of the discussions with out daughter and the limited amount that's been publicised of Sabisky's suggestion. Essentially, it's the difference between trusting parents to promote good dental hygiene, and 'forcing' fluoridated water into the supply - but much more emotive and contentious.

Is it something that should be verboten to even think about? I don't think so, even if I don't agree with the suggestion - yet others have instantly leapt to the Nazi and fascist claims, which seem an immense stretch.

I've made no comments on the expenses thread, so the conflation isn't suitable - and nor have I defended Sabisky other than to point out where posters are deliberately misrepresenting what he's said.

[gregs656]

Sway said:

Of course I can - and I wouldn't support what appears to be Sabisky's views, although it's exceptionally difficult to figure those out what as per your points there is no detail available.

I mentioned it, as there is very little between the outcome of the discussions with out daughter and the limited amount that's been publicised of Sabisky's suggestion. Essentially, it's the difference between trusting parents to promote good dental hygiene, and 'forcing' fluoridated water into the supply - but much more emotive and contentious.

Is it something that should be verboten to even think about? I don't think so, even if I don't agree with the suggestion - yet others have instantly leapt to the Nazi and fascist claims, which seem an immense stretch.

I've made no comments on the expenses thread, so the conflation isn't suitable - and nor have I defended Sabisky other than to point out where posters are deliberately misrepresenting what he's said.

If you don’t support them, why are you drawing this peculiar parallel between the discussion with your daughter and legally enforced, potentially life long, contraception for women?

The only reason to do that is so show it’s not so bad, it’s just like giving sensible advice for people to do with as they please.

If we can lead a horse to water we can damn well make it drink.

There is a huge difference in outcome. Not having a choice to start is huge difference, not having a choice to stop is a huge difference.

This is like saying there isn’t much difference in outcome between the state force feeding you what ever Its likes 3 times a day and you choosing what to eat, or the state choosing your occupation, or really any other situation where the state can force you to take a course of action you were free not to choose before.

You have no autonomy. You are a slave to the state.

Who said anything about banning discussion of it? We are having this discussion, it’s been going on for pages.

If you don’t support the idea of the state forcing women to be on contraception for life (in terms of difference in outcome, this is identical to sterilisation) because they are not good enough in the eyes of Sabisky then I suggest you stop supporting it.

[Sway]

gregs656 said:

Sway said:

Of course I can - and I wouldn't support what appears to be Sabisky's views, although it's exceptionally difficult to figure those out what as per your points there is no detail available.

I mentioned it, as there is very little between the outcome of the discussions with out daughter and the limited amount that's been publicised of Sabisky's suggestion. Essentially, it's the difference between trusting parents to promote good dental hygiene, and 'forcing' fluoridated water into the supply - but much more emotive and contentious.

Is it something that should be verboten to even think about? I don't think so, even if I don't agree with the suggestion - yet others have instantly leapt to the Nazi and fascist claims, which seem an immense stretch.

I've made no comments on the expenses thread, so the conflation isn't suitable - and nor have I defended Sabisky other than to point out where posters are deliberately misrepresenting what he's said.

If you don’t support them, why are you drawing this peculiar parallel between the discussion with your daughter and legally enforced, potentially life long, contraception for women?

The only reason to do that is so show it’s not so bad, it’s just like giving sensible advice for people to do with as they please.

If we can lead a horse to water we can damn well make it drink.

There is a huge difference in outcome. Not having a choice to start is huge difference, not having a choice to stop is a huge difference.

This is like saying there isn’t much difference in outcome between the state force feeding you what ever Its likes 3 times a day and you choosing what to eat, or the state choosing your occupation, or really any other situation where the state can force you to take a course of action you were free not to choose before.

You have no autonomy. You are a slave to the state.

Who said anything about banning discussion of it? We are having this discussion, it’s been going on for pages.

If you don’t support the idea of the state forcing women to be on contraception for life (in terms of difference in outcome, this is identical to sterilisation) because they are not good enough in the eyes of Sabisky then I suggest you stop supporting it.

Crikey. Huge Strawmen there.

The outcome is clear - no babies.

Whether it's chosen or not (and I note you ignore the example I gave where the State 'takes control'), that is the outcome. It seems you can agree that such an outcome could be preferable as long as the person is willing - I agree, as there is a huge body of evidence that the biggest barrier to female social mobility is early parenthood.

The only person suggesting it would be life long, is you. Which then creates the leap to the comparable outcome that it is the same as sterilisation. Same as the concept that those young women are 'not good enough' - I've seen nothing that suggests the idea would be in anyway selective. The notion that he's aiming to prevent 'unplanned' pregnancies strongly implies a level of personal choice...

For the last time, I am NOT supporting forced contraception, regardless of whether it is lifelong or not.

The banning of the discussion is done by those that have forced Sabisky out of a job which is entirely driven by throwing out and discussing outre ideas, because of an outre idea. It seems that's only OK if those ideas are the 'correct' ones.

Saying that, some of his other personal views are sufficiently indicative of a lack of logical reasoning that I think he was the wrong man for the job anyway.

[turbobloke]

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".

Likewise.

[andy_s]

turbobloke said:

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".

Likewise.

I saw it as an idea, not dogma. I think he did too.

[Sway]

andy_s said:

turbobloke said:

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".

Likewise.

I saw it as an idea, not dogma. I think he did too.

Indeed. The inclusion of the word 'unplanned' seems key - and I've seen nothing to suggest any form of selectivity based on race or any other criteria...

Thought experiment:

Is there any scenario where it's deemed positive for society, the mother or the child for a young woman to have a child whilst a teenager?

From what I can tell, nothing inhibits social mobility more for women than early parenthood. As such, is there a section of society 'permanently' dependant on the state/society due to having children 'too' young? Seems entirely plausible.

How about the kids? What does the data say for their life chances?

If there's not a positive argument for teenage parenthood, then how can we as society support young women to avoid having children that young?

There is the implant, which iirc lasts five years.

Could we as a society enforce having the implant, for the 'good of all' (using a similar 'benefit to whole society as well as the individual' applied to the concept of enforced vaccinations)?

We could, but it'd be rather draconian and not acceptable for all the emotive reasons given.

Could we make the implantation of the coil a particularly easy thing to do, even easier than today? For example, much like the old 'nit nurse' or the BCG injection, conducting 'opt out' clinics in schools once a year?

Seems more reasonable, but still perhaps challenging emotionally.

Could the State reinforce the adoption of the implant at mid to late teens - through spending on increased awareness and education, use of stats to show why early years parenthood is much less likely to be a good idea AND easy drop in clinics at schools (for example).

Now that seems a decent idea to me - with likely a superb RoI for the taxpayer.

[gregs656]

Sway said:

Crikey. Huge Strawmen there.

The outcome is clear - no babies.

Whether it's chosen or not (and I note you ignore the example I gave where the State 'takes control'), that is the outcome. It seems you can agree that such an outcome could be preferable as long as the person is willing - I agree, as there is a huge body of evidence that the biggest barrier to female social mobility is early parenthood.

The only person suggesting it would be life long, is you. Which then creates the leap to the comparable outcome that it is the same as sterilisation. Same as the concept that those young women are 'not good enough' - I've seen nothing that suggests the idea would be in anyway selective. The notion that he's aiming to prevent 'unplanned' pregnancies strongly implies a level of personal choice...

For the last time, I am NOT supporting forced contraception, regardless of whether it is lifelong or not.

The banning of the discussion is done by those that have forced Sabisky out of a job which is entirely driven by throwing out and discussing outre ideas, because of an outre idea. It seems that's only OK if those ideas are the 'correct' ones.

Saying that, some of his other personal views are sufficiently indicative of a lack of logical reasoning that I think he was the wrong man for the job anyway.

That isn't the only outcome is it, the other outcome is a loss of control due to the state controlling your fertility.

I am not the only person suggesting it is lifelong, it is there in the Sabisky's wording 'from puberty'. No end date there.

Also, what he is trying to prevent is a 'permanent underclass' which is clearly selective. He is not talking about people whose nannies look after the children. Perhaps your daughter is good enough in his eyes to have children, perhaps not. Perhaps it would only be with someone he deemed suitable, perhaps not. Surely you can see the slippery slope of his comments?

Being dismissed from your post because of your view points is not the same as banning the discussion, it is simply stating those view points are not comparable with our organisation. Nothing stopping Sabisky to continue promoting his idea.