Immigration, Explained with Gumballs

[Svnla]

Just the 'smart' part. If delving into that single word is pushing too far into semantics for you, I understand. Just understand that as clearly as I saw that, and read 'preference for specific genetic makeup', others can and will as well.

If saying "smart" is somehow related to "eugenic" to you. I want to know what you have been smoking because smart =! genetic controlling. (at least that how I understand the meaning of "smart").

Smart (from Dictionary.com) =
having or showing quick intelligence or ready mental capability:
a smart student.

Nothing about genetic control. Nope. Nada. Zip.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Spain is dreadful for it, whole towns full of finished houses and hotels etc, completely empty.. Abandoned.

The news all across the EU seems to be the same though.. "We're too damn full, we can't handle this many refugees".

Er.. Well, yes, we can. I mean it would be a lot easier if you hadn't shut down all the factories and tried selling off our national health services etcetera, but we have plenty of space.

But hey, most of the complaints about all of these "freeloading immigrants" coming in and sitting on our benefits because they are too lazy to work come from politicians who get paid several hundred thousand a year doing 6 hours work a week....Who all have free cars and free second houses and have all their fuel paid for by our taxes etc.

Hey look, you live in the US after all!

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

If saying "smart" is somehow related to "eugenic" to you. I want to know what you have been smoking because smart =! genetic controlling. (at least that how I understand the meaning of "smart").

Tailoring an immigration plan to focus on only accepting those of greater than average intelligence would indeed be practicing, in the long run, a form of eugenics (hedging your breeding populace in the direction of those of greater intelligence artificially).

 

[Svnla]

Tailoring an immigration plan to focus on only accepting those of greater than average intelligence would indeed be practicing, in the long run, a form of eugenics (hedging your breeding populace in the direction of those of greater intelligence artificially).

That's YOUR thinking/opinion/definition.

I am NOT asking for your opinion. I am asking for FACTS/links/sources.

Wanna go again?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

That's YOUR thinking/opinion/definition.

I am NOT asking for your opinion. I am asking for FACTS/links/sources.

Wanna go again?

That isn't an opinion, I'm not sure how you can interpret it as such. It's a literal definition of eugenics, or at least a form of it. I'm not sure how to make that clear beyond citing the definition of the word which I've already done.

EDIT: If you really insist on having a_link from something_on_the_internet, here:
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay9text.html
It's an essay on the history of eugenics via immigration restrictions/policy throughout early American history, from 1790 until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Very specifically cites examples of restrictions positioned toward the intelligence/mental capacity and capabilities of potential immigrants.

 

[Amused]

My opinion is that your opinion of what the word opinion means is merely an opinion thus my opinion of your opinion is that it is overly opinionated.

Hint: This is not an argument. Opinions are not facts and facts are not opinions.

 

[zinfamous]

Oh. Fair enough.

My opinion on immigration in general is pretty simple..

If we continue to go around blowing up peoples homes, or giving weapons to other people to let them blow up peoples homes, I think it only fair we give them somewhere to stay.

Don't want immigrants? Stop blowing up their #@$%*&! homes.

too complicated.

 

[Svnla]

That isn't an opinion, I'm not sure how you can interpret it as such. It's a literal definition of eugenics, or at least a form of it. I'm not sure how to make that clear beyond citing the definition of the word which I've already done.

EDIT: If you really insist on having a_link from something_on_the_internet, here:
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay9text.html
It's an essay on the history of eugenics via immigration restrictions/policy throughout early American history, from 1790 until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Very specifically cites examples of restrictions positioned toward the intelligence/mental capacity and capabilities of potential immigrants.

From your own article:

It limited the privilege of US citizenship to "free white persons."

...In that same year, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first measure to specifically target immigrants by race or ethnicity.

What did I say earlier? Regardless of race/ethics/background/sexual preference/etc. Here it is again. This is what I said:

I want the best, smart, high skill, business savvy, ability to find the cure for AIDS/cancer, solving problems for human kind such as clean water, healthy foods, clean power, faster internet speed <insert more good stuffs here> (regardless of background/creed/nationality/sex/gender/sexual preference/whatever) people here in the US to help us in the present and future. Period.

and your article also stated:

Congress had expanded the legal definition of those "likely to become a public charge" to include: "all idiots, imbeciles, feebleminded persons, epileptics, insane persons…," "persons of constitutional psychopathic inferiority…, and" "mentally or physically defective..,"

....by a rising tide of intellectually and morally defective immigrants – primarily from eastern and southern Europe.

Feel free to quote anything I said so far in this threat that related to the above. See the "regardless ......" statement above from me.

So I say apple but you say I said orange because...of reasons? LOL.

 

[zinfamous]

From your own article:



What did I say earlier? Regardless of race/ethics/background/sexual preference/etc. Here it is again. This is what I said:



and



Feel free to quote anything I said so far in this threat that related to the above. See the "regardless ......" from me.

So I say apple but you say I said orange because...of reasons? LOL.

you are either willfully ignoring the fact that you are arguing about restricting the breeding of designated "inferior" immigrants based on their mental capacity (potential for success) as a proxy for describing yourself as "totally not racist and not eugenics" in any way, or simply don't understand the simplistic veneer covering your blatant support for eugenics. (you simply believe that arguing "capacity for success" instead of "race" is inherently different when it comes to eugenics...it isn't.)

You're pretty much picking some good blurbs to argue for what [DHT]Osiris has been saying, but you still don't get it. In the early days, classifying and restricting by race was simply an effective and well, the only tangible way to identify the "lessers." The only argument for eugenics has only ever been control for and select the most desirable traits of x population. That's it. It can't be more simpler than that. The eugenics policy that you have pointed out, in the past, is no different: pick those individuals that are best capable in our society, that have none of the "supposed negative qualities." Doing this by simply calling them jews or Irish really is no different than the very same end goal that you propose...but it is actually feasible, in a twisted way.

How do you even propose to select "the good and the smart!" immigrants out of those pool of outcasts? How are you going to screen them for potential economic value? This is more complicated than you are willing to admit, I imagine. It also rejects that "America story" that many seem to get a hard-on for: poor, downtrodden immigrant settles, makes simple life for family, where children and grandchildren thrive and, eventually, can become titans of industry.

Granted, that is rare to non-existent these days, but it certainly can't ever happen through an arbitrary screening process.

How do we determine that an "Elon Mush" (whoever that is) is actually going to be as successful as their credentials, and not just some lazy bum that only looks good on paper...or is simply a phenom in a land with access to nothing, but actually little to no potential in a land of equal competition?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

From your own article:



What did I say earlier? Regardless of race/ethics/background/sexual preference/etc.

and



Feel free to quote anything I said so far in this threat that related to the above. See the "regardless ......" from me.

So I say apple but you say I said orange because...of reasons? LOL.

I never said everything in the essay applies to you. It would be physically impossible to find a_thing on the internet that says 'Svnla is wrong because x', that's not how discussion works.

The link wasn't even intended to be a counter-point to your stated position, just an example of how immigration has been used in the past in an attempt to enforce eugenic-based policies. I linked it because you seemingly insist on having a link/source to something before you personally consider a person's stance to be valid.

In addition, you specifically plucked a couple things out of that essay which are not what you said. As long as we're plucking, why not go with these? Bold emphasis mine.

In the late 1870's.... As the numbers of immigrants increased, eugenicists allied themselves with other interest groups to provide biological arguments to support immigration restriction.

The Public Health Service (PHS), whose duties included performing medical inspections of disembarking passengers at Ellis Island, also adopted eugenic arguments to help stem the flood of "inferior stock" represented by the new immigrants. Beginning in 1914, the Surgeon General and a number of senior officers in the PHS became publicly aligned with the eugenics movement. They took prominent roles in eugenic organizations and published articles to support the eugenicists' position in the immigration restriction debate. The key role of PHS physicians as medical guardians of U.S. ports – particularly at Ellis Island – gave the PHS additional credibility.

In 1920, Laughlin appeared before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. Using data for the U.S. Census Bureau and a survey of the number of foreign-born persons in jails, prisons and reformatories, he argued that the "American" gene pool was being polluted by a rising tide of intellectually and morally defective immigrants – primarily from eastern and southern Europe. Sympathetic to Laughlin's message, Committee Chairman Albert Johnson of Washington State appointed Laughlin as "expert eugenics agent."

 

[Crumpet]

you are either willfully ignoring the fact that you are arguing about restricting the breeding of designated "inferior" immigrants based on their mental capacity (potential for success) as a proxy for describing yourself as "totally not racist and not eugenics" in any way, or simply don't understand the simplistic veneer covering your blatant support for eugenics. (you simply believe that arguing "capacity for success" instead of "race" is inherently different when it comes to eugenics...it isn't.)

You're pretty much picking some good blurbs to argue for what [DHT]Osiris has been saying, but you still don't get it. In the early days, classifying and restricting by race was simply an effective and well, the only tangible way to identify the "lessers." The only argument for eugenics has only ever been control for and select the most desirable traits of x population. That's it. It can't be more simpler than that. The eugenics policy that you have pointed out, in the past, is no different: pick those individuals that are best capable in our society, that have none of the "supposed negative qualities." Doing this by simply calling them jews or Irish really is no different than the very same end goal that you propose...but it is actually feasible, in a twisted way.

How do you even propose to select "the good and the smart!" immigrants out of those pool of outcasts? How are you going to screen them for potential economic value? This is more complicated than you are willing to admit, I imagine. It also rejects that "America story" that many seem to get a hard-on for: poor, downtrodden immigrant settles, makes simple life for family, where children and grandchildren thrive and, eventually, can become titans of industry.

Granted, that is rare to non-existent these days, but it certainly can't ever happen through an arbitrary screening process.

How do we determine that an "Elon Mush" (whoever that is) is actually going to be as successful as their credentials, and not just some lazy bum that only looks good on paper...or is simply a phenom in a land with access to nothing, but actually little to no potential in a land of equal competition?

Well it worked for the Germans.. right.. RIGHT..

oh.

 

[Svnla]

I never said everything in the essay applies to you. It would be physically impossible to find a_thing on the internet that says 'Svnla is wrong because x', that's not how discussion works.

The link wasn't even intended to be a counter-point to your stated position, just an example of how immigration has been used in the past in an attempt to enforce eugenic-based policies. I linked it because you seemingly insist on having a link/source to something before you personally consider a person's stance to be valid.

In addition, you specifically plucked a couple things out of that essay which are not what you said. As long as we're plucking, why not go with these? Bold emphasis mine.

So nothing from what I said applicable? Just what I thought. Apple =! orange.

Folks, this is getting old.

Again, this is what I said:

I want the best, smart, high skill, business savvy, ability to find the cure for AIDS/cancer, solving problems for human kind such as clean water, healthy foods, clean power, faster internet speed <insert more good stuffs here> (regardless of background/creed/nationality/sex/gender/sexual preference/whatever) people here in the US to help us in the present and future. Period.

You guys can think/interpret what the heck I say. It does not matter to me because I said what I need to say and I stand by it. Why? Because what I said was not wrong/offensive and I have several articles to support my statements.

Me => a) best = the highest quality, excellence, or standing.

b) eugenics = the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.

a = b per you guys. Uh huh. Keep using that broad brush. Better yet, get a bigger one.

Anything else beside the crying of "but..but..but..what you said = eugenics"? (eyes rolling upward)

 

[zinfamous]

So nothing from what I said applicable? Just what I thought. Apple =! orange.

Folks, this is getting old.

Again, this is what I said:



You guys can think/interpret what the heck I say. It does not matter to me because I said what I need to say and I stand by it. Why? Because what I said was not wrong/offensive and I have several articles to support my statements.

Of course you stand by it. No one doubts that. I mean, you've said that a dozen times now as if that is somehow a worthwhile defense of any argument. But the more you say that, the more you refuse to acknowledge the inherent defense of eugenics in your proposal. Your ignorance of eugenics is no defense for your supposed rejection of it. You can sit there all you want and say these same things over and over again: "I stand by what I say! I'm right and you're wrong, because I linked two articles! (let me remind you, 10 more times, that I linked two articles!)" ...and none of that means anything if you still can't defend your position through simple rules of debate. You really don't have a sound policy here. Meaning: based on fact. Pleading ignorance (or simple direct refusal to admit that this may be the case) is not a sound foundation for argument, but that is all that you have presented.

It's cool how science works: Your belief for it or against it is irrelevant. It still is, regardless.

and yes, it is getting old. You should stop repeating the discredited things that you said as if that is somehow going to keep working out better for you.

 

[Svnla]

Of course you stand by it. No one doubts that. I mean, you've said that a dozen times now as if that is somehow a worthwhile defense of any argument. But the more you say that, the more you refuse to acknowledge the inherent defense of eugenics in your proposal. Your ignorance of eugenics is no defense for your supposed rejection of it. You can sit there all you want and say these same things over and over again: "I stand by what I say! I'm right and you're wrong, because I linked two articles! (let me remind you, 10 more times, that I linked two articles!)" ...and none of that means anything if you still can't defend your position through simple rules of debate. You really don't have a sound policy here. Meaning: based on fact. Pleading ignorance (or simple direct refusal to admit that this may be the case) is not a sound foundation for argument, but that is all that you have presented.

It's cool how science works: Your belief for it or against it is irrelevant. It still is, regardless.

and yes, it is getting old. You should stop repeating the discredited things that you said as if that is somehow going to keep working out better for you.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...d-with-gumballs.2503206/page-12#post-38850577

Don't be a two-face hypocrite, eh?

Oh, how do you like sig? Bite me.

 

[zinfamous]

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...d-with-gumballs.2503206/page-12#post-38850577

Don't be a two-face hypocrite, eh?

Oh, how do you like sig? Bite me.

lol. you clearly don't know what hypocrite means. Repeating the same stupid behavior, especially after admitting that I will invariably do it again, does not make me a hypocrite. It makes me a fool. You really do suck at this, you know?

You know what makes someone a hypocrite? Spending a dozen or so forum pages ignoring rebuttals to their arguments, demanding that others "respond properly" ...then turn around and do the very same when presented with an uncomfortable challenge.

Yes, we all know that your signature was born from the mind of an overly self-conscious 12 year-old that has and will continue to live their lives in perpetual victim mode. Grow the fuck up.

 

[Svnla]

Anything else beside the crying of "but..but..but..what you said = eugenics"? (eyes rolling upward)

My sig is still there, in one piece. Suck on it.

Bitch gonna bitch.

 

[zinfamous]

My sig is still there, in one piece. Suck on it.

Bitch gonna bitch.

yep. you got nothing but empty pride.

 

[First]

My sig is still there, in one piece. Suck on it.

Bitch gonna bitch.

lol pussy.

 

[Amused]

lol pussy.

Indeed. Not only is he weak, but he broadcasts that weakness with a sad sense of pride in a vain effort to cover his weakness.

 

[Svnla]

Anything else beside the crying of "but..but..but..what you said = eugenics"? (eyes rolling upward)

Anything at all? Beside more whining and bitching from the usual suspects.

 

[zinfamous]

Anything at all? Beside more whining and bitching from the usual suspects.

look man, It sucks that you were bullied as a kid or whatever, but at some point you have to grow up and accept that much of the world isn't out to get you, as you desperately want it to be.

Oh, and please stop over-pluralizing words. It's fucking annoying.

 

[sm625]

It is ironic that he does a presentation using gumballs but never mentions food. The only reason the world has all those "gumballs" is because of private ownership of capital. Socialized capital never produces the excess returns necessary to feed all those people. If you bring in enough low IQ immigrants from low IQ nations into 1st world nations, they will invariably vote to curtail private ownership of capital. (Either through outright confiscation, or indirect confiscation via higher taxation.) If the entire world's food production were to become socialized, we'd have a mass dieoff because there wouldnt be the same incentive to produce. I guess that is what some people want....

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

My sig is still there, in one piece. Suck on it.

Bitch gonna bitch.

yea, and it's a paradigm of grammar.
Derp gonna derp

 

[Svnla]

It is ironic that he does a presentation using gumballs but never mentions food. The only reason the world has all those "gumballs" is because of private ownership of capital. Socialized capital never produces the excess returns necessary to feed all those people. If you bring in enough low IQ immigrants from low IQ nations into 1st world nations, they will invariably vote to curtail private ownership of capital. (Either through outright confiscation, or indirect confiscation via higher taxation.) If the entire world's food production were to become socialized, we'd have a mass dieoff because there wouldnt be the same incentive to produce. I guess that is what some people want....

You better watch out or you will be accuse of advocating "eugenic".

Or whatever the buzzword/flavor of the day is.

 

[Victorian Gray]

It is ironic that he does a presentation using gumballs but never mentions food. The only reason the world has all those "gumballs" is because of private ownership of capital. Socialized capital never produces the excess returns necessary to feed all those people. If you bring in enough low IQ immigrants from low IQ nations into 1st world nations, they will invariably vote to curtail private ownership of capital. (Either through outright confiscation, or indirect confiscation via higher taxation.) If the entire world's food production were to become socialized, we'd have a mass dieoff because there wouldnt be the same incentive to produce. I guess that is what some people want....

Who are these people? Got some names and maybe why they want this?