On the one hand:
On the other hand:
Posted on 01/17/2011 5:52:26 AM PST by ilovesarah2012
Ah. OK.
The demeaning opinion she voices of certain population segments is carried over into her founding of Planned Parenthood.
I see my mistake now - it’s a chicken and egg issue. Because I acknowledge her support for eugenics, I see support for eugenics in a quote about immigration. Which may be true, but is certainly circular.
vaudine
Perhaps I misunderstod you then? In post 35, you seemed to be saying that Margaret Sanger was NOT “one of the leading voices of eugenics.” I was merely offering evidence that she most certainly WAS a proponent of eugenics. My apologies if I got you wrong.
Is beauty the same as pretty?
Therefore, the more money you make... you can afford to dress better, take better care of your teeth, have your hair done, ect.
It's not that they are prettier, it's that they are able to do more with what they have been given.
The girl in the picture is proof.
Beauty is highly subjective
My explanation is that pretty women can have the pick of men, and smart (rich) men can have their pick of women, so they tend to pick each other. Which results in kids that are above average smarts and looks.
Of course. And to post on Free Republic!
It all goes together.
The gorgeous redhead Jill St. John a genius. Imagine that.
I DO know that the numerous from behind views of Ms. St. John in “Diamonds Are Forever”, made me utterly stupid...
Mia007
4:55 PM
Jan 16, 2011
Really? That's why Hollywood has produced so many nobel prize winners and Einstein was mentally challenged.
"There is a cultural bias against persons who some would say aren't blessed with symmetrical looks. "Lookism" is another form of discrimination."Great. Now we've got yet another Victim Class to tip-toe around less we be accused of "Lookism"!
Would we be "Lookists"?
"Lookers" is more like it!
All right, all you Lookers out there! Tone down the rhetoric!
Aristotle once noted that even circular logic is OK as long as the circles are small enough. Sanger’s immigration quote does not merely “show” a general support for eugenics, but crosses the line by seeking to deploy the power of government to coerce the removal of tainted genotypes from the gene pool. She is thereby providing a functional definition of eugenics as the basis of immigration policy, grounding removal, not merely from the country, but from the gene pool, as a way to maintain “the stamina of the race,” the holy grail of eugenics. To dismiss the evidentiary value of this quote is to ignore the proposition for which it was offered in proof, that Sanger clearly was an avid proponent of eugenics, regardless of the policy area in which that support was manifested.
Don’t confuse intelligence with common sense.
I think I see the point. This (see below) is definitely pro-eugenics and we should not support this policy. We should have 'open-doors' when it comes to immigration except on security issues. I was mixing eugenics up with euthanasia.
“Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.”
If that's the case, it doesn't say much for Michael Moore, Bill Maher, or Michelle Obama, does it?
FIRE TWO!!
OK, I'll bite. Who's smarter, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann?
Cheers!
It explains Helen Thomas. ;o)
I'm afraid all your problems are behind you now...
Cheers!
Intelligence can enhance it.
Many women, I have noticed, are not exactly beautiful, when you stop to think about it, but give the impression that they are. I'm sure the same is true of men.
Remember this?
"Scarlett O'hara was not pretty, but men seldom realized it when caught by her charm."I'm quoting that from memory; so I probably didn't get it exactly right.
There was an interesting program (a re-run I think) on TV the other night about the human body.
It made the point that Greeks of the classical period discovered that exaggerating certain physical characteristics actually increases beauty and vibrancy. This is why people in the art of the classical period are so much more beautiful and vibrant than in the archaic period--why they appear so alive. The artists improved on the normal by exaggerating certain features.
The program then observed that we do the same thing today in our own personal grooming. Women wear makeup. Men groom themselves in certain ways. In verious ways we emphasize certain characteristics and de-emphasize others to give ourselves the best presentation. We do these things almost instinctively.
I learned at an early age to be meticulous about my appearance--i.e. to dress for the occasion. If I were applying for a job I would arrange my appearance accordingly. If I were courting, I would focus on that. Etc.
Some people do this sort of thing better than others, and those who do it well are probably skewed toward the more intelligent.
This improves on "beauty" and gives smart people an advantage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.