quote:

---

Originally posted by Knickerzohnonnof:
I assume nothing. What I will say is that the current state of human evolution is somewhat amusing. And I would find your solution even more amusing if it weren't for the fact you actually see it as just that - a cure for our species' ills.

Chosen not to recognise what? That we choose to help some causes, but ignore others, and clearly eugenics cures this flaw does it? I don't think so. The decisions of who lives or dies in hospitals for instance is done by judging if a patient will respond to treatment, or if the patient is elderly or severely/terminally ill, whether it is in the best interest to let the patient die. These are purely medical considerations - in most cases the people who die will die pretty soon anyway. It is not like they are going to suddenly get off their sick bed and lead a normal life - far from it. You are skewing the argument. Most people are aware that constraints on resources dictate that such things happen.

I know exactly where this is going as well. You could argue that this is how eugenics would work in practise. Most of us on VVF know that this would be a distortion of the reality under a regime led by people of your thinking.

At this time humans are living outside of nature, I will not dispute this and I have said it many times. But eugenics is removed further still from what we need to consider. I have also said that I do not know the answer to this one because to control the world's population requires world wide agreement; about as unrealistic as it gets at present.

---

We can either have an imperfect answer, or with no answer, let ourselves be wiped out as a species while congratulating ourselves on being "moral."

I think you have failed to notice your assumptions, or fear them, as argumentatively, they exist and you have not documented them. Who taught you your skillz, dawg? Needs some refreshin', yo

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by neoclassical:
We can either have an imperfect answer, or with no answer, let ourselves be wiped out as a species while congratulating ourselves on being "moral."

I think you have failed to notice your assumptions, or fear them, as argumentatively, they exist and you have not documented them. Who taught you your skillz, dawg? Needs some refreshin', yo

---

Imperfect answer? It's nowhere near that good!

You also have ignored the one thing you will need to even begin to implement your half-baked idea, which I clearly stated above - AGREEMENT!

Ingore, assume, fear? What exactly? I am fully aware of the problems that face the world. You could say I am fearful, but only of the future, because I wonder where we will be in, say, 20 years time. If we continue to pursue our unsustainable lifestyle which is increasingly debt ridden and consumption/fashion based I really do fear for the future.

There is precious little time to be ignorant, therefore you should look back into history and realise why eugenics is fundamentally flawed. Your heroes, the nazis, considered themselves to be superior to their peers. Their social policies were an unmitigated disaster. A mighty country was brought to it's knees by a leader who was clearly mad. I am not ignorant. I am mindful of what has passed, and am totally convinced that we should never revisit these policies again.

--------------------

Wait a minute, Prozak doesn't agree with "entertainment-needfulness"

--------------------

I think what you must consider is that your analysis buys into the left-right partisan division of politics, which I find laughable.

In fact, if I were a paranoid, I'd say it was a giant stumbling block to keep anyone from seeing the situation clearly.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knickerzohnonnof:

Leave evolution to natural forces.

---

I couldn't have said it any better.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by LEGION:
I couldn't have said it any better.

---

Although, Prozak with his wit: "Evolution in the current time is not left to natural forces."

Nothing is "natural" with mankind involved.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by neoclassical:
Clearly mad... like the current leader of the USA?

I think what you must consider is that your analysis buys into the left-right partisan division of politics, which I find laughable.

In fact, if I were a paranoid, I'd say it was a giant stumbling block to keep anyone from seeing the situation clearly.

---

My political views are irrelevant. I don't, nor have I ever believed, that one partisan view has all the answers. The left-right agrument is irrelevant because both wings of the political divide have shown themselves to be impotent when dealing with the serious issues that concern the environment and sustainability of our current lifestyle. While the big corporations have the politicians wrapped around their fingers, therefore perpetuating the consumption culture, this will always be the case, and to be honest, without massive civil uprising I can't see that changing. When I mean massive I mean world wide, and I really cannot see such an event happening any time soon. That isn't negative or wanting to see the status quo exist. That is simply being realistic; knowing that to effect real change it will have to be on a global scale, not just locally. For instance if we in the UK became all environmentally friendly and took out policies to encourage sustainability how much does that affect the global environmental landscape? Barely a jot! It would require the whole continent of Europe to follow suit to make any noticeable difference. And that's exactly my point - that to effect that sort of change it has to be done multilaterally and it just won't happen, not in the current climate at least.

G.W. Bush is not exactly the best president the US has ever chosen, but if I had to choose between him and Hitler? No-brainer, Bush wins. I would take up arms and fight to my death if ever a man like Hitler got into power again.

--------------------

--------------------

Carry on with your ignorance

--------------------

Historically illiterate? This from the man that denies the testimony of hundreds of thousands of death-camp survivors, allied and russian soldiers, Nazi documents, and the evidence of the German people who had to clear up afterwards, that millions of Jews and other "undesirables" were murdered?

Next you'll say the conference at Wannsee was Heydrich's birthday party.

Unlike you, I do RESEARCH. I READ. With an OPEN MIND.

Believing something vehemently does not make it real.

Carry on deluding yourself, skippy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neoclassical:
"My political views are irrelevant" - yes, that's why you're making political comments in this thread! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

---

You misundertand fool. You clearly only understand in a context the requires a one dimensional explanation to everything. Therefore you are a child and I shall treat you as such.

I shall re-phrase so the single celled organism rattling around inside your cranium, allegedly called a brain, can understand.

No, on second thoughts I'm not going there, it'll take an entire page of this thread and I really can't be bothered to expend that much energy for your benefit. I reckon that everybody understood teh thrust of that post except you. Figures...

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by neoclassical:
Eugenics was not originated by the Nazis. Other than that, only one thing to say to your laughable, historically-illiterate post: the Nazis and Japanese were massively outnumbered and outfunded, and that they held out as long as they did was a miracle.

Carry on with your ignorance

---

Carry on with your diversion from the fact you cannot win this argument.

Did I say the Nazis originated the idea of eugenics? No. Has anybody suggested they originated it? I don't think so. Did I say it was very destructive? Certainly. And I stand by it.

The German army, even at the time of the D Day landings were considered to be the best fighting force in the world. One of the reasons why it took so long to break them down was precisely because of this - they were a very well trained and disciplined unit. The Japanese were also a very formidable and disciplined fighting force, the allies took a long time to make significant gains on their territory, although I am struggling to work out exactly where they come into this because nobody has even mentioned the Japanese in this thread. I was under the impression this had become a debate about a certain policy known as eugenics, the known fact that the Nazis undertook this policy, and your belief that it will solve the world's population problem.

On the subject of funding it's not always about money: The SAS could hardly be described as the best funded army unit in the world, but it is probably the most feared and respected.

--------------------

quote:

---

Did I say the Nazis originated the idea of eugenics? No. Has anybody suggested they originated it? I don't think so. Did I say it was very destructive? Certainly. And I stand by it.

---

His point was referring to mine, which I had deleted. All the same, I never mentioned their invention of it, I merely used them as an example of the most recent abortive failure of this theory.

Similarly, Mr. NeoNationalSocialist, you appear to have a very poor grounding in military history and theory. Time and again a numerically inferior force has triumphed, by deint of superior generalship and superior troops. As these men were supposed to be our superiors in every way, what happened?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lycanthropy:
His point was referring to mine, which I had deleted. All the same, I never mentioned their invention of it, I merely used them as an example of the most recent abortive failure of this theory.

Similarly, Mr. NeoNationalSocialist, you appear to have a very poor grounding in military history and theory. Time and again a numerically inferior force has triumphed, by deint of superior generalship and superior troops. As these men were supposed to be our superiors in every way, what happened?

At any rate, I really am quitting this argument now. Disagreement is futile, with the blind, deaf and moronic Neo-crusader!

---

Ah, I missed your post.

Neoclusterfuck likes to get the wrong end of the stick doesn't he?

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lycanthropy:
Being outnumbered made no difference in the early stages of Barbarossa. Massive territorial gains were made against the numerically superior, and worse-equipped Russians. These same Russians turned around at the Volga and raped the Wehrmacht in the ass, to put it bluntly.

Historically illiterate? This from the man that denies the testimony of hundreds of thousands of death-camp survivors, allied and russian soldiers, Nazi documents, and the evidence of the German people who had to clear up afterwards, that millions of Jews and other "undesirables" were murdered?

Next you'll say the conference at Wannsee was Heydrich's birthday party.

Unlike you, I do RESEARCH. I READ. With an OPEN MIND.

Believing something vehemently does not make it real.

Carry on deluding yourself, skippy.

(For anyone reading wondering what he's referring to, I made a long post, then deleted it as I knew it would achieve nothing, as it has).

---

You discount weather, numbers, and a massive supply chain from the US-UK.

Please READ and CONSIDER (new one!) before posting.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knickerzohnonnof:
Carry on with your diversion from the fact you cannot win this argument.

Did I say the Nazis originated the idea of eugenics? No. Has anybody suggested they originated it? I don't think so. Did I say it was very destructive? Certainly. And I stand by it.

The German army, even at the time of the D Day landings were considered to be the best fighting force in the world. One of the reasons why it took so long to break them down was precisely because of this - they were a very well trained and disciplined unit. The Japanese were also a very formidable and disciplined fighting force, the allies took a long time to make significant gains on their territory, although I am struggling to work out exactly where they come into this because nobody has even mentioned the Japanese in this thread. I was under the impression this had become a debate about a certain policy known as eugenics, the known fact that the Nazis undertook this policy, and your belief that it will solve the world's population problem.

On the subject of funding it's not always about money: The SAS could hardly be described as the best funded army unit in the world, but it is probably the most feared and respected.

---

The Japanese, Germans and Italians formed a side in that war, called the Axis, because they were all Nationalists and believed in roughly the same things.

Now that you know that, maybe reading your "history books" will be more of an edifying experience for you.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lycanthropy:
His point was referring to mine, which I had deleted. All the same, I never mentioned their invention of it, I merely used them as an example of the most recent abortive failure of this theory.

Similarly, Mr. NeoNationalSocialist, you appear to have a very poor grounding in military history and theory. Time and again a numerically inferior force has triumphed, by deint of superior generalship and superior troops. As these men were supposed to be our superiors in every way, what happened?

At any rate, I really am quitting this argument now. Disagreement is futile, with the blind, deaf and moronic Neo-crusader!

---

Translation: you got caught on an inaccuracy, deleted your post and have run away in disgrace after claiming victory.

That's very, very, very post-1997 internet

*

I find it gratifying that many of the people here have stumbled into the original trap: trot out the platitudes they teach you in school, without going deeper into research or consideration, and then falling back on outrage and name-calling when your magic formula doesn't work.

Your society is failing and still you bleat its dogma; why?

--------------------

Remember, of course, that Russia's higher echelons were ceaselessly purged before WW2. Hell, Stalin would not even admit that the Nazis were invading until two days afte rit happened, so Russia was ripe for the taking. Peasants were flocking to the Nazis, hoping that they would liberate them from Stalin! So... what went wrong?

Germany and its occupied territories were more than capable of competing with their opponents. However, they squandered many resources on the unnecessary parts of the wars they were fighting - the exterminations, and chiefly the endless tides of new weapons, so many of which were designed that few could be built in any great quantity. If these resources instead had been used to build simple, reliable and useful equipment (as both the USSR and the USA had done), then you could have argued that point. Their problem was waste, so you can't.

Weather: Understandably, this is a crucial factor in the battles on the eastern front, as many German units were woefully underequipped to deal with the Russian winter. But, was it not the job of their superiors to properly equip and feed the men? Hitler and his cronies were blind to the suffering of the men on the eastern front, believing their physical superiorities and will to do things "for the Fatherland" would prevail. But they were running out of food, many had no boots, and ammunition was becoming scarce. The winter merely took advantage of the disasters of Nazi beaurocracy.

Outnumbering is not necessarily key to a victory. For example, if D-Day had failed, despite the numbers of American (not necessarily British after such a catastrophe) troops remaining, and willing to fight, in America, it was unlikely that a landing would have been attempted again. Here are some other examples of outnumbering not necessarily being key to victory:

*1914-1917: Russian army vastly outnumbers German army on the eastern front. Achieves little, except stirring up the conditions in Russia which led to revolution.

*490 BC: Battle of Marathon. Darious, King of Kings' crack Persian troops outnumber the Athenian citizen soldiers. Result is 292 Athenian dead, compared to 6,400 Persians.

*Summer, 1940: The Battle of Britain and Operation Sealion. Failure of numerically superior Luftwaffe to overcome the RAF leads to the permanent postponement of plans to invade small, weak Britain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hex:
lyc, i'd like to debate some of your points. Let's do it in a separate thread tho, ok?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Planetary Eulogy:
It seems some of you are even less familiar with the factual realities of military history and military science than you claim neoclassical to be. While it is true that superior leadership and troops have won many battles (as the Wehrmacht proved time and again), it is insufficient in and of itself to win a WAR against a determined enemy who enjoys a vast advantage in resources. Total war isn't won and lost on the field of battle, it's won and lost in the factory, in the foundry, on the farm etc. Once the US entered the war, the resource disparity made an Allied victory essentially inevitable so long as they retained the political will to continue to fight.

---

So where does Vietnam fit into this nice little scenario?

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by neoclassical:
The Japanese, Germans and Italians formed a side in that war, called the Axis, because they were all Nationalists and believed in roughly the same things.

Now that you know that, maybe reading your "history books" will be more of an edifying experience for you.

---

Oh please, is that the best you can do???

I am not interested, nor were we discussing the nationalist elements of the German, Italian and Japanese at that time, nor what alliegences they had. This discussion was about eugenics and the environment. The Nazis are a prime example to use because it was such a spectacular failure.

Now, how about staying with the topic instead of diverting away from it? Or is the reason you're diverting from the topic is because you cannot argue against what has been put forward?

Are we seeing the 'trolling tactics' in use here? Mmmmm, ponder ponder...

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Planetary Eulogy:
Let's be honest with ourselves, lyc. There is no Kursk without 30 German divisions tied down in North Africa, Italy and along the Atlantic Wall by the US and Britain. There is no Kursk without the massive US military aid which allowed Britain to hold on to Egypt in '42 (and prevent Rommel from rolling up the southern flank of the USSR). There is no Kursk without the massive shipments of American steel to armor Soviet T-34's and American oil to keep them gassed. The decisive element, ever and always was the economic might of the United States. Every other Allied victory was merely a side effect of this.

---

Not quite...

It is still said even now that if the massive deception, that was primarily British driven, to confuse the Germans into where the D-Day landings were to take place had failed and the Germans were in the right place, that mission would have failed. To get onto the beaches was largely thanks to the fact we managed to get the Germans to assemble en-masse at Calais, well away from where the landings actually took place.

There are so many factors that swung it our way, however. The fact that when Hitler could have taken England in 1940 if he so wished, but instead turned his attention to Russia. He was impotent when it came to the UK because he admired us, and our Empire. But had he decided to carry on pushing towards the UK we could not have resisted for long. The home guard was a joke, they had guns but no bullets! If you have ever seen a comedy show called Dad's Army, that was terrifyingly close to the actual situation! I should know, my grandfather was part of the home guard and told me what it was like! Again, it was all part of the deception. What won the war for us in truth was that we sold them a pack of lies about our military position and they fell for it hook, line and sinker.

It is also said that had we failed with Operation Overlord, to repeat such a massive assualt would have been years away, and possibly would have failed again because we had given away our gameplan.

--------------------