He published a book. You aren’t about to say that publishing things is “shelving” as I meant it. “Shelving” it would be non-action. Publishing is an action.
I would have no control over it. Do you want the findings of how to modify the bird flu released and popularized? Look that issue up.
You gave a category of study (genetic deficiencies based on race as being suscpetible to diseases)(to which I credited you). The application of it is what you are avoiding. To “apply” it would be to come up with methods of use…
Looks like every argument you make, you make one against yourself as well. If the eugenecists have created race specific disease, or implemented policies against certain races, they’ve inevitably created a counter-market of resistance to these policies. Which would stand to reason scientific study into the methods of race-targeting proves beneficial to both sides.
Studies on this subject have already been published, those behind the studies have been explicit that they don’t advocate any social or political action in regards to their findings.
Also, you never answered my question about Darwin’s ‘motivation’ to do his science.
I would think it’s pretty obvious what the application could be - Advances can be made medically to condition particular genetic types and repel diseases susceptible to them.
And don’t disregard this as just wishful thinking, because your example does explicitly say that “advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes MAY transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
That is just pessimistic thinking.
Well, we’ve made some great scientific breakthroughs in the last few hundred years (particularly in the medical field), there’s no reason to think we can’t go further. At the same time, we’ve created a lot of bad things with science.
…yeah and slavery created an abolitionist movement. Beneficial to both sides…
Please do not interact with me anymore.
What about schools?
I don’t know Darwin’s motivations…maybe he just wanted a realistic notion of life? He ate one of every animal he encountered. Maybe he was looking for the right spiced meat?
I don’t discount it. Freud says in the link I provided “Are we to ignore the medical advancements?” It is an apt point.
Duh. Does any one bother clicking links? For fuck’s sake.
The Mises forum is the private property of the LvMI, and as such they are free to impose any restrictions on its use and remove or close threads for any reason.
I think you need to check yourself here. They provide this forum to us and it is a mutually beneficial arrangement. We get discussions with uniquely non-statist people (a rare quality these days) and the LvMI gets to become better-known as more people get involved. But all of us - you, me, others, LvMI - benefit by learning about Austrian economics. That’s why most of us are posting here in the first place.
Or else what? Has the “worker revolt” theme in all the socialist threads started to get to you? Jeez, calm down. It was a thread that invited people to come out as racists and discuss their pseudoscientific justifications for it. I hope you’re not honestly upset about it being gone?
The LvMI does a lot for us and we’re thankful for that. But that obviously doesn’t make subdueing truth any less acceptable, nor does it make it any less cowardly.
The first 3 pages (all I saw) were completely respectful. Did the discussion begin to change or something? If not, then there is absolutely no excuse.
I never said it didn’t have a respectful tone. I said the thread invited members to identify themselves as scientific racists. Doesn’t sound like a particularly useful topic, and indeed it sounds like something that could conceivably result in mises.org winding up on certain internet blacklist filters as a “hate site” - not to mention it attracts elements of the “storm front” crowd. All of which does little more than provide fodder for those who seek to discredit anarcho-capitalism.
And just because a discussion might be about something real doesn’t mean LvMI should be obligated to maintain it in their archive. For example you might post a treatise on the average dimensions of your dingleberries and their variance depending on cotton or linen drawers, complete with scatterplots and time series. It might be the gods-honest truth, but I would sure hope mods would delete it for those reasons already mentioned.
And a thread about defending the confederacy invites racists to use academic claims to justify their bigotry. So what? Since when did the usual loons of libertarianism stop us from discussing controversial topics? Do you know the freakin’ motto of the site? Seems like you want to give in to evil.
As for the relevance, well..
Rothbard wrote about race realism and identified as such (not sure if he used the same term, but he held the same position).
Racial egalitarianism is stupid, liberal religion and implicitly denies evolution.
IQ differences could explain (in what degree, I don’t know - it could be none) income differences in the U.S., which would bolster the argument against the idea that we’re somehow all equal, and that any differences in income are due to “capitalism’s exploitation of minorities”
It is a very popular topic in libertarian circles.
I mean, seriously, there are a ton of socio-economic implications, and even if it is a bit off topic, why not acknowledge the demand for the discussion and not be a top-down forum Hitler. I thought this place held to a principle of decentralization.
And yea, if bigotry actually evolved out of that thread, it could easily have been deleted then. Once again, there really is no excuse.
its hard for me to imagine why this would be a “good” explanation. It seems like you could just as easily get to “capitalism exploit aggrhrhgaghahhd” with those statistics as without.
then there shouldnt be much trouble finding a new place to discuss
I’ve been reading your posts so far and I think you might not realize some of the implications of your premises.
It seems to me you have basically claimed that there are certain thinks humans should not enquire about because they might cause some of them to act immorally. In particular they might treat others unjustly in some way or advocate agression.
I have encountered these claims in many other discussions before and I would like to point out some of them so that you can see what you must advocate if you are to be consistent in most people’s eyes.
First thing to notice is that you are implicitly agreeing to the idea that you would like not to be discussed. Unless you think that people are unable to arrive at truth through dialogue. You must be implying that the truth is in fact something other than what you’d like it to be and that those bringing up the issue might be correct. Then we must conclude that your arguments is de facto supporting the idea of racial reality (or whatever you are discussing here) and not opposing it.
Second I’d like to challenge your premise that we must avoid thinking and discussion because someone might get hurt. If that was the case we would have to drop everything and live a quite and secluded life. For you must acknowledge that some libertarians might resort to violence against percieved oppressors given their view of morality. Some Irish people might resort to violence if we discuss history.
Your constant and only point about eugenics is dissengenuous, there is nothing that would imply scientific inquiry MUST amount to that. That isn’t sufficient for you to want to sensor people.
What we must do is constantly search for the truth and commit ourselves to spreading the idea of non-violence in order to combat this ignorance in people. I am very disturbed at the whole sensorship thing. If anything, that has been the cause of more violence and suffering than has the search for truth. Think of all the people that have suffered because of sensorship, I am sure you have a good idea about this, so I will save the examples.
I have no opinion on “racial realism”. I would prefer that this isn’t discussed on this forum and I support the mises forum’s decision to use their private property in the way they see fit. The moderator should not be blamed, everyone has the choice of taking this discussion elsewhere. If I was the moderator, though, and had control over the property, I would allow the post and merely give my opinion.
Yea, whatever. Their property, their decision. I respect it. Now how about giving the same attention to the numerous other problems on this board, which pose far greater significance?
I still think egalitarian bashing is always warrented, but I guess this is the MISES instititue. not the Rothbard institute. Rothbard the bauss woulda kept it, I’m sure.
