It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Where religion was once used to justify the actions of genocide of the state or PTB, science is now used. Different tools, same originator of actions and motives.
Its interesting how they always like to tell blacks to get over the past and forget the horrific wrongs that were done to them.....
Originally posted by Riposte
Its interesting how they always like to tell blacks to get over the past and forget the horrific wrongs that were done to them.....
How can they forget what they never experienced?
Oh, you mean forget what was done to their ancestors, NOT them.
I have ancestors from Gaul (France). What did the Romans do to them?
Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
reply to post by resoe26
This thread is not about what your stereotyping.
NRE.
Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
reply to post by resoe26
As I said, that is NOT what the thread is about. Maybe if you were less concerned with the signature that I use on my posts and threads, and read a bit more of the thread, you would have noticed, as did most that have seen what it is about.
NRE.
Originally posted by resoe26
reply to post by NoRegretsEver
Is this not in line with the thread?
"But there doesn't need to be any whining by ANYONE on behalf of thier ancestors struggles. that's just absurd and childish. "
-What exactly are you looking for with this thread? sympathy? need people to be in shock and horror of what dumb racist people did back when? Great thread by the way.
Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
Originally posted by resoe26
reply to post by NoRegretsEver
Is this not in line with the thread?
"But there doesn't need to be any whining by ANYONE on behalf of thier ancestors struggles. that's just absurd and childish. "
-What exactly are you looking for with this thread? sympathy? need people to be in shock and horror of what dumb racist people did back when? Great thread by the way.
No. That is not in line with the thread. Maybe, just maybe (and least try to take this into consideration) you would read the thread, then maybe you will see what its about.
This is my last post concerning this, as I am sure that if this gets out of hand that a mod will come by and check for themselves, I cannot explain the rules of ATS, and I surely cannot explain to a member that reading is important.
NRE.
Utility, in a philosophical context, refers to what is good for a human being. Utilitarianism is a moral theory according to which welfare is the fundamental human good. Welfare may be understood as referring to the happiness or well being of individuals. Utilitarianism is most commonly a theory about the rightness of actions; it is the doctrine that, from a range of possibilities, the right action is the action which most increases the welfare of human beings or sentient creatures in general. Of the many moral theories now called Utilitarian, all share this claim that morality ought to be concerned with increasing welfare.
The author delineates AHSA's mental health entitlements and limitations of in-patient, out-patient, and other patient care. She enumerates a dozen major imperfections and dangers of this mental health law, especially its medical utilitarianism emphasizing outcomes and quality of life. Dr. Cosman argues that medical cost, outcome, quality of life, and managed competition threaten the essential liberties and the lives of older persons, persons who are chronically ill, fatally ill, and most particularly those who are mentally impaired. She concludes that if limited money, medicine and time are invested only in inevitable medical success, then America's medicine by its medical law will be Medical Darwinism encouraging survival of the fittest by requiring extinction of the unfit.
TIME Magazine, June 16, 1958, p42:
Survival of the Unfit?
Medicine is growing ever more efficient in curing the ills of the human race. But is it simultaneously weakening the race by ensuring the survival of the unfit? The queston, largely academic in Nietzsche's day is being raised anew by a man who has done as much as anyone to help human survival: Rene Jules Dubos, pioneer in the field of microbiology, whose discoveries opened the era of antibiotics.
"For the first time in the history of living things," said Dubos in Omaha, "we are allowing the survival of large numbers of biological misfits, many of whom will become a burden to society... All kinds of hereditary defects that used to be rapidly eliminated by evolutionary selection are now being reproduced in our communities. In other words, we are allowing the accumulation of defective genes in the human stock by providing a type of medical care that permits those suffering from hereditary disease to live longer and have children. This policy may constitute a step toward racial suicide, however noble it may appear in the light of our religious convictions and present-day ethics."
Mental health provisions in AHSA are defiant attempts at social engineering. If you have not studied these recently, I will delineate AHSA[sections] mental health entitlements and limitations of in-patient, out-patient, and other patient care. Then I shall list a dozen major imperfections and dangers of this mental health law, especially its medical utilitarianism emphasizing outcomes and quality of life.
Readers familiar with Hegel and medical utilitarianism in prewar Germany will find the mental health sections of AHSA terrifyingly suggestive of psychiatric Darwinism wherein survival of the fittest requires extinction of the unfit.(11) Those of us studying law and old enough to remember utilitarian controlling ideas and their perversions, know well that judging who shall live and who shall die via AHSA'S criteria of cost, outcome, quality of life, and managed competition will pose great inconveniences upon the liberty of the young and healthy. But medical cost, outcome, quality of life, and managed competition threaten the essential liberties and the lives of older persons, persons who are chronically ill, fatally ill, and most particularly those who are mentally impaired. Their costs of care are astronomical, their outcomes are gloomy, and their life quality to those who observe them, not necessarily in the patients' judgment, is life not worth living.
I believe with Justice Louis Brandeis, that our enemies often are our friends innocently trying to help us.(12) But worse are those who posing as our friends pridefully insist they know our minds and our bodies better than we do, and insist upon controlling what is done and not done to our minds and our bodies. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment of people of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
Note well the consistent, inextricable linking of Mental Health to Substance Abuse treatment. Every American is considered a public health client. Jostling for space in the same psychiatric life boat are the alcoholic snoring in a downtown doorway, my wealthy neighbor's child with lithium-managed bipolar disorder, your fiscally competent nephew with minor retardation and severe cerebral palsy, the new mother with postpartum depression, all the city's drug addicts, plus you, and I.
The Unfit, by Elof Carlson, explores the sources of a movement — negative eugenics — that was used to justify the Holocaust, which claimed millions of innocent lives in World War II. The title reflects the nearly three centuries of belief that some people are socially unfit by virtue of a defective biology, and echoes an earlier theory of degeneracy, dating to biblical antiquity, in which some people were deemed unfit because of some transgression against religious law. The key intellectual theories and their proponents form the framework of this exploration, which includes the concepts of evolution and heredity and how they were applied to social problems. These ideas are followed into the twentieth century with the development of theories of positive and negative eugenics, the establishment of compulsory sterilization laws, racism and anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust. Carlson ends with an exploration of the future of genetics that is based on new technologies and application of the Human Genome Project findings.
Reproductive issues from sex and contraception to abortion and cloning have been controversial for centuries, and scientists who attempted to turn the study of reproduction into a discipline faced an uphill struggle. Adele Clark's engrossing story of the search for reproductive knowledge across the twentieth century is colorful and fraught with conflict.
Modern scientific study of reproduction, human and animal, began in the United States in an overlapping triad of fields: biology, medicine, and agriculture.
Clark traces the complicated paths through which physiological approaches to reproduction led to endocrinological approaches, creating along the way new technoscientific products from contraceptives to hormone therapies to new modes of assisited conception- for both humans and animals. She focuses on the changing relations and often uneasy collaborations among scientists and the key social worlds most interested in their work- major philanthropists and a wide array of feminists and medical birth control and eugenics advocates- and recounts vividly how the reproductive sciences slowly acquired standing.
By the 1960s; reproduction was disciplined, and the young and contested scientific enterprise proved remarkably successful at attracting private funding and support. But the controversies continue as women- the targeted consumers- create their own reproductive agendas around the world. Elucidating the deep cultural tensions that have permeated reproductive topics historicaly and in the present. Disciplining Reproduction is at heart about the twentieth century's drive to rationalize reproduction, human and nonhuman, in order to control life itself.