THERE's your Lamarck! Some enterprising fellow, through means fair or foul, acquires the mantle of royalty, passing it down to his descendants regardless of other merit, conferring a significant advantage as far as survival. An important acquired trait, wouldn't you say, iceaura? Perhaps you may begin your quest here!
OK, smart guy, I stand corrected. Please provide a copy of the "constitution" of which you speak, it must be an important document. And do the British drink to the health of the doorman, or perhaps sing, "God save the gardeners"? You must think I'm pretty stupid.Originally Posted by Strange
It is a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy (see why my previous answer was so clever?). The monarch has a purely symbolic role. If you think this makes them part of the government, then I guess we would need to include the doorman and the gardeners at the houses of parliament.Look, Great Britain was a MONARCHY then just as much as it is now. A theocracy too, considering that the monarch is head of the Church of England.Absolutely not.
Of course, POSING as a "figurehead" absolves you of all responsibility for unpopular decisions, allowing the monarch to bask in the adulation of the masses without interruption, just as in the good old days of the whipping boys.
None of that "buck stops here" or "L'etat, c'est moi!" nonsense!
Please drop the attitude. It is very tedious.
As I'm sure you know, the UK has an "unwritten" constitution made up of various laws, treaties, precedents and conventions.
Thank you for the graceful concession of defeat. Nazi racial policies were eugenic in nature and therefore owe nothing to Lamarck, ipso facto, Darwin takes the fall, out for the count!!!None, as far as I know. They seem to have made the common errors on their own.
Nope. That's pretty much Darwinian.
? What am I looking for?
Their theories more closely resembled Lamarck's than Darwin's - they had almost no basis in Darwinian theory.
I don't think you can blame Darwin even for someone's honest incomprehension of his theory, let alone the misuse of tangetially related vocabulary for propaganda by tyrants. He tried to be clear about it, and lots of people seem to have understood it just fine.
And I have an "unwritten" check for eleven million Yankee dollars- strangely, nobody will cash it, alas. If my behavior were regulated by solely "unwritten" laws, I could pretty much do exactly as I pleased, couldn't I?Please drop the attitude. It is very tedious.
As I'm sure you know, the UK has an "unwritten" constitution made up of various laws, treaties, precedents and conventions.
Ooooooooh, it's GOOD to be the King!
Any stage magician will tell you that misdirection is the key to a successful performance. When your family business has had centuries of practice and the strongest of incentives for the entire time, you might get bloody good at it.
"But many's the King on a first class throne/If he wants to call his throne his own/Must somehow manage to put through/More dirty work than ever I do!"- Pirates of Penzance
You are merely being contrary without the slightest hint of other consistency. If you want to correct the original Nazis, they are dead. If you want to lecture the neo-Nazis, be my guest. If you want to discuss modern eugenics, you might read up on Galton. If you just want to say "black" when someone else says "white", stay the course.Nope. That's pretty much Darwinian.
? What am I looking for?
Their theories more closely resembled Lamarck's than Darwin's - they had almost no basis in Darwinian theory.
I don't think you can blame Darwin even for someone's honest incomprehension of his theory, let alone the misuse of tangetially related vocabulary for propaganda by tyrants. He tried to be clear about it, and lots of people seem to have understood it just fine.
Nazi "eugenics" was not based on Darwinian theory.
Nazi propaganda and self-justification vocabulary did not create an actual alternate reality even then, let alone now.
This isn't all that complicated - if you have a handle on Darwinian theory in the first place.
Which modern Nazis - a fringe group attracted to black leather and shiny ornaments - do not, by and large.
Great. May I suggest you take your handle to another thread? This one is about the Nazis, remember the Nazis? This is a thread about the Nazis, who, like Darwin and Galton and good old Eddie VIII, were racists.
You're the guy bringing in Darwin for some reason.
I'm the guy who keeps bringing the topic back to "modern" Nazis - who are indeed racists, and without (most of them) having read a word of Darwin, or having been acquainted with his racism (such as it was) in any way.
My suspicion is that we are actually talking about modern fascism, somehow, rather than Nazis per se. As there is no Nazi party or similar organization with validation authority, we're limited to the self-identified as far as Nazis are concerned. So the answer to the question of the OP would be - ask them, and whatever they tell you goes. That would not be the underlying topic though, probably.
Too right, in #11. And I have had ample cause to regret it since, though it is entirely factual and relevant to the original question.
You have to remember that Hitler was Chancellor *before* he started declaring his wars. Had the British possessed a magical crystal ball that could tell them what Hitler was going to do before he did it, I'm sure they wouldn't have supported him, but clear fact of the matter is they didn't have a crystal ball. A lot of people in the USA supported Hitler as well in the early stages.I simply do not understand why you find it necessary to hide your outstanding intellect behind this type of question.
Probably the main cause is modesty altho' it is just possible the questions have an underlying subtlety some of us are unable to grasp.
Of course the English did stand on the sidelines, drinking German beer, and giving Hitler money and orders. What other reason could he possibly have had for planning an invasion, of Britain, and bombing our cities?
Hitler only invaded England because the only way he could go on conquering beyond taking the Sudetenland was to violate the Munich Agreement he had made with Neville Chamberlain, which would enter him into war with England. And once he was at war, well....... I'm sure he kind of wanted to win, so naturally he had to start bombing and invading and such. Also it's likely that he was a psychopath, so personal loyalty wouldn't have meant a whole lot to him.
I'm going to call "revisionist history" on that. Certainly Darwinism in its present form would not be useful as a support for Nazism, but Darwinism in its present form didn't exist back then. Back then, racism was still a highly popular outlook, so I'd say it's highly unlikely that the whole scientific community was in agreement as to its importance or lack thereof.
However, to whatever degree science may have supported or been indifferent to racism then, it has done a full 180 since. The risk of a modern Nazi (the topic of the OP) using modern Darwinism to ignite another race war is minimal at best.
Hitler DID in fact invade England, but only the Channel Islands. And no crystal ball was necessary as Hitler and the Nazis were clearly militaristic and expansionist as spelled out in Mein Kampf. Found a nice article relevant to the subject:
Hitler
If you don't mean Darwinism, don't use the word.
Modern Nazis, in my experience, are mired in the same confusions as Hitler's minions were, regarding Darwinian theory. We are not bound to accept their bs as reflective of reality. Darwinian theory is not what Nazis say it is, and never has been.
Last edited by iceaura; January 27th, 2012 at 04:34 PM.
Nor is it what you claim it is, whatever that might be. And you have attributed to me a statement made by kojax, sloppy, that.If you don't mean Darwinism, don't use the word.
Modern Nazis, in my experience, are mired in the same confusions as Hitler's minions were, regarding Darwinian theory. We are not bound to accept their bs as reflective of reality. Darwinian theory is not what Nazis say it is, and never has been.
As odd as it sounds, I'm rather tired of Darwin and his Nazi offspring for the moment, good night, sir.
Your identification of Darwin as a a racist reveals that your education in matters Darwinian is superficial, ill informed and wrong. You appear to favour what you imagine are potent sound bites in your posts, rather than well reasoned arguments. This has two disadvantages: it uses up bandwidth and makes you look like a bit of a prat.
Redeem yourself by providing direct evidence of Darwin's racism that pays full attention to the context of Victorian thought on such matters. When you do attempt to do so you will qucikly find, if you are honest with yourself, that Darwin's attitude to race was well towards the enlightened end of the spectrum for that time. Nor can you brand him with the stupidity practiced by his cousin Galton.
Uh, yeah, it is.
And if it were not, that would still not make it a theoretical approach that supports the Nazi's goofball "master race" eugenics. It isn't, and never was.
If Hitler had been motivated to mass murder in furtherance of evident Darwinian superiority, he would have marched everyone in Germany with blonde or curly hair into the ovens, and sent their money to Peking for use by the master race.
Last edited by iceaura; January 27th, 2012 at 04:49 PM.
Finally reading up on Galton, are you? Good show, maybe iceaura will follow your example! Using your logic we should therefore exonerate all people who only murder one person, since they are so much better than mass killers or serial murderers. I object to your opinionated description of myself as a "prat" and moreover submit it is irrelevant to the matter under discussion. A "prat" is perfectly capable of speaking the truth, and this I have done- if you wish to contradict me, facts will be more persuasive than insults, and if you wish to present a "well-reasoned argument", this example of yours wants improvement.Your identification of Darwin as a a racist reveals that your education in matters Darwinian is superficial, ill informed and wrong. You appear to favour what you imagine are potent sound bites in your posts, rather than well reasoned arguments. This has two disadvantages: it uses up bandwidth and makes you look like a bit of a prat.
Redeem yourself by providing direct evidence of Darwin's racism that pays full attention to the context of Victorian thought on such matters. When you do attempt to do so you will qucikly find, if you are honest with yourself, that Darwin's attitude to race was well towards the enlightened end of the spectrum for that time. Nor can you brand him with the stupidity practiced by his cousin Galton.
We know racism to be based upon erroneous assumptions based upon trivial physical characteristics. A person who makes such assumptions is a RACIST, pure and simple. An erroneous belief remains erroneous no matter how popular it happens to be at any given time or the degree of vehemence with which it is stated. Saying that Darwin was "less racist" than others is in fact an admission, confirmed by his own words, that he did indeed subscribe to these beliefs.
Good evening, sir.
What "master race"? The Chinese or his Japanese allies? Certainly not the Aryans- see here, are you subscribing to some weird revisionist history or just fantasizing here?Uh, yeah, it is.
And if it were not, that would still not make it a theoretical approach that supports the Nazi's goofball "master race" eugenics. It isn't, and never was.
If Hitler had been motivated to mass murder in furtherance of evident Darwinian superiority, he would have marched everyone in Germany with blonde or curly hair into the ovens, and sent their money to Peking for use by the master race.
This is nonsense. We can only judge an historical person's actions and attitudes within the society they inhabited. It's one thing to say that a certain era or other historical span was violent or enlightened or oppressed women or whatever - that's pretty easy. You're comparing a whole era with the average of the current era.Using your logic we should therefore exonerate all people who only murder one person, since they are so much better than mass killers or serial murderers.
You can't do that for individuals within those societies. Very simply, put Darwin or someone like him alongside the worst and nastiest of our current crop of racists in Western societies. He'd come out pretty well on that comparison. You can do the same for women's rights. There are a whole heap of women and men of decades or centuries ago who stood up for women's rights. But they did it as they perceived them. Modern women and men would see them as stuffy, old-fashioned and prejudiced about the proper role and place of women. Despite being courageous, admirable people most of them would come out pretty badly by a modern comparison.
Sojourner Truth's famous "Ain't I a woman" speech contains notions about women's intellectual inferiority that would make modern people laugh (or squirm or spit with rage). But she's much admired for her standing up for women's rights. Especially working women.
The whole speech is the "unexpurgated" version by Gage at Ain't I a Woman? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . The earlier published versions conveniently omitted the references to class/status/race generally and to slavery in particular and to her children being taken from her.'And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! (and she bared her right arm to the shoulder, showing her tremendous muscular power). I have ploughed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it – and bear de lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen chilern, and seen 'em mos' all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?"
"Den dey talks 'bout dis ting in de head; what dis dey call it?" ("Intellect," whispered someone near.) "Dat's it, honey. What's dat got to do wid womin's rights or nigger's rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yourn holds a quart, wouldn't ye be mean not to let me have my little half-measure full?"
Much has been made of Darwin's gentle personal character on on sites discussing the implications of Darwinist philosophy. Indeed, Darwin personally would likely have been horrified by the antics of maniacal atheists who invoke his name so fervently, as he was educated for the ministry. This does not change the fact that Darwinism led to the eugenics of Galton and the related social Darwinism which culminated in Nazi race science. It would not be the first or the last time unanticipated consequences have ensued from scientific speculation. Was racism common enough in Darwin's day? Of course- and it persists to a disturbing degree today, despite all we now know.
Racism was certainly cultivated to justify chattel slavery- hence, it was a crime to teach a slave to read, despite their assumed mental inferiority. Their reluctance to work fervently to enrich another was attributed to inherent lassitude, rather than understandable or even noble resistance to exploitation, etc.
I think the point she was trying to make in the speech was that her inherent rights as a human being were independent of intellect- that she was entitled to dignity regardless of her degree of formal education or lack of same. I see no evidence that she sought to generalize this "half-measure" to women as a whole, "inferior" or not. Darwin was sexist too. Surprise, so was Hitler.
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi617.htm
Last edited by Arthur Angler; January 28th, 2012 at 12:30 AM.
Victorian attitudes towards homosexuality provided a convenient "out" for Darwin when it came to discussing WHY homosexuality, a phenomenon clearly detrimental to reproduction and hence, self-perpetuation, should not have disappeared. Instead, it is widespread in the animal kingdom.
Same-sex Behavior Seen In Nearly All Animals, Review Finds
Persecution of homosexuals in Germany both preceded and survived Hitler. For that matter, persecution of Jews in Europe was widespread, as were racism and sexism, before publication of Mein Kampf. Does this make Hitler less culpable?
No.
In fact it makes him more culpable.Does this make Hitler less culpable?
A man with certain gifts of oratory and leadership has an absolute duty to use those beneftis for the best in the group/s he leads. He also has an absolute obligation not to exploit the known weaknesses (and prejudices or foolishness or other negative attributes) within those people.
The whole of Europe was pretty anti-semitic, the Russians were horrible, the 'new world' countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA were much the same. But those populations (forget the Russian pogroms for now) simply treated their prejudice against Jews in much the same way as they did against various racial groups. They/we simply presumed our own racial or religious superiority and made reference to the presumed vices of Jews (The Merchant of Venice) and the assumed inferiority of blacks (see Black & White Minstrel Show) as part of general culture - and avoided such people in the street.
Hitler turned that chronic anti-Semitism into a crisis. A vicious unstoppable social force, by playing on the prejudice and fears of a demoralised population. With his abilities as an orator he could have done wonders in a positive direction. The mere fact that he could have done so, or he could have chosen to live a quiet life and not exercise those gifts, but he chose to do evil makes him much much worse than many of those excited, enchanted, mesmerised citizens who followed where he led.
He never got to that point. For the most part he avoided the implications or associations of his hypothesis with humans because of personal struggles from his own training, loss of his daughter and the impact he knew it would have on his credibility in the eyes of others.
Plus it has not been shown that, in relation to the overall group of organisms, homosexuality is a detriment at all.
From what I can tell, it's not so much that he thought Germans were superior as that he believed they should roll the dice on whether they were superior by waging an expansionistic war to take more land, so they could have more children, and food for them. In that light, it's really not so surprising that he would ally with the Japanese.Uh, yeah, it is.
And if it were not, that would still not make it a theoretical approach that supports the Nazi's goofball "master race" eugenics. It isn't, and never was.
If Hitler had been motivated to mass murder in furtherance of evident Darwinian superiority, he would have marched everyone in Germany with blonde or curly hair into the ovens, and sent their money to Peking for use by the master race.
A lot of prominent Nazis were known to say things like "if only he hadn't written that silly book." when talking about Mien Kampf. Apparently some parts of it weren't all that popular with them either.
"Hitler took the writing of Mein Kampf with great seriousness. Dietrich Eckart, Feder, and Rosenberg had all published books and pamphlets, and Hitler was anxious to establish his own position of intellectual as well as political authority in the Party. He was eager to prove that he too, even though he had never been to a university and had left school without a certificate, had read and thought deeply, acquiring his own Weltanschauung. It is this thwarted intellectual ambition, the desire to make people take him seriously as an original thinker, which accounts for the pretentiousness of the style, the use of long words and constant repetitions, all the tricks of a half-educated man seeking to give weight to his words. As a result Mein Kampf is a remarkably interesting book for anyone trying to understand Hitler's mind, but, as a party tract or a political best-seller, it was a failure, which few, even among party members, had the patience to read. --Alan Bullock, from 'Hitler: A Study in Tyranny.'
http://wallyrus.tripod.com/mkindex.html
Homosexuality is not clearly detrimental to reproduction, in Darwinian terms.when it came to discussing WHY homosexuality, a phenomenon clearly detrimental to reproduction and hence, self-perpetuation,
Hardly. anyone who has made a study of Darwin's life and of the reception of evolutionary theory is aware of Galton, just as they are aware of Huxley, and Wilberforce, and Wallace, and Fitzroy, and how Mendel's paper lay unopened in his library, and how he failed to properly acknowledge the influence of Erasmus Darwin on his thinking, and on an on. Once again you display an uncanny ability to jump to a concussion.
Learn to read. I said your behaviour made you look like a prat. I was offering you advice. You are free to ignore it ....... it's just that that makes you look like a bit of a prat.
Really? And here I was thinking it was a much more subtle condition related to evolutionary behavioural tendencies that were beneficial when we lived in tribal settings and it paid to be suspicious of strangers.
At any rate, you still haven't delivered evidence that, in toto, demonstrates Darwin to have been a racist.
Looking for evidence of Darwin's racism and sexism, I found that many promoters of same were put up by religious fundamentalists, which is pretty ironic since the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is packed full of the same stuff.
Just an observation, glass houses and all that...
It is rather a mystery how it is propagated, really, since 100% of organisms exhibiting homosexual behavior arise from heterosexual reproduction.
We lack solid explanation of how any sexual behavior in a social mammal is "propagated" - homosexual behavior no more (or less) mysterious than heterosexual behavior, in any given species.It is rather a mystery how it is propagated, really, since 100% of organisms exhibiting homosexual behavior arise from heterosexual reproduction.
Worker bees do not reproduce but they contribute to the perpetuation of their species by supporting the queen and the hive as a whole. I'm not sure how this would apply to homosexuality, though.It is rather a mystery how it is propagated, really, since 100% of organisms exhibiting homosexual behavior arise from heterosexual reproduction.
What survives, reproduces, etc, is the gene - not the species, not the organism.
Worker bees's genes do reproduce.
In the dark days of homophobia I think most homosexuals still married into heterosexual relationships. They just weren't very happy about it.It is rather a mystery how it is propagated, really, since 100% of organisms exhibiting homosexual behavior arise from heterosexual reproduction.
One reason I'm glad to see homophobia end. Less competition for the females against pretty boys who don't want to be with them anyway.
Not a mystery at all. The flaw in your thinking is that your aren't' considering that homosexuals often do reproduce anyhow and perhaps more important, homosexuality is probably not the only effect of what ever genetics give people the predisposition to become homosexual.It is rather a mystery how it is propagated, really, since 100% of organisms exhibiting homosexual behavior arise from heterosexual reproduction.
Some simple examples:
-lets say that those same genes tend to make people more fertile and the increased number of offspring who are still heterosexual happens to offset the few who choice not to reproduce because they turn homosexual. (as it turns out several studies do suggest mothers that bare homosexual children are often more fertile as well)
-lets say those same genes also make people more social, stronger or have some other favorable characteristic which tends to improve survival of their closest genetic kin such as their brothers and sisters which share half their genes.
Looking at only one trait is often an incomplete picture.
--
Many females are also homosexual, so it's not clear at all that there would actually be more "available."One reason I'm glad to see homophobia end. Less competition for the females against pretty boys who don't want to be with them anyway.
Pretty boys? really?In the dark days of homophobia I think most homosexuals still married into heterosexual relationships. They just weren't very happy about it.It is rather a mystery how it is propagated, really, since 100% of organisms exhibiting homosexual behavior arise from heterosexual reproduction.
One reason I'm glad to see homophobia end. Less competition for the females against pretty boys who don't want to be with them anyway.
They still do.In the dark days of homophobia I think most homosexuals still married into heterosexual relationships. They just weren't very happy about it.
Then they rent guys like Jeff Gannon for sleepovers.
And no one is surprised to see a thread on "modern Nazis" take this turn. Because it isn't surprising - some kind of connection between closeted homosexuality and fascist politics is taken for granted, here and everywhere.
True enough, but all worker bees are potentially queens, being female. They can therefore be seen as "protoqueens", not fully developed or sexually mature examples of queendom. Homosexuals tend not to reproduce their kind(nor their GENES, homosexual or other), yet heterosexuals do so readily, generation after generation in numerous species.Worker bees do not reproduce but they contribute to the perpetuation of their species by supporting the queen and the hive as a whole. I'm not sure how this would apply to homosexuality, though.It is rather a mystery how it is propagated, really, since 100% of organisms exhibiting homosexual behavior arise from heterosexual reproduction.
Not that this, or anything Darwin REALLY meant, was of much consequence to Hitler and the Nazis- remember the Nazis? This is a thread about the Nazis.
Militaristic, racist, anti-intellectual, anti-Communist, monarchist Nazis.
Actually no, they are not potentially queens only sharing the fact that they are female in common with the queen. LGBT people can and very often DO reproduce. Can you supply reliable sources the show otherwise?
Worker bees are not "protoqueens", and none of them are potential queens - new queens are raised from new eggs, and cannot be obtained by converting workers.
Their genes do reproduce, however, due to their efforts and contribution.
You may be thinking of termites? The workers there are of both sexes, and by some evidence in some species choose to stay and help or leave and breed depending on economic factors.
Whether or not "homosexual genes" exist remains an open question, but there is no doubt that even strictly homosexual humans often contribute significantly to the reproduction chances of their genes - more so than many heterosexual humans do.
And a loop into the payoffs of homosexuality closeted and otherwise, in a discussion of fascistic politics, is no great digression.
The human body (or the body of any animal) is really just a hive of cells, not unlike what a hive of bees would be like at the ultimate extreme. Only the sperm and eggs portion of your body's cells will ever give rise to a new human. The rest of the cells are all descendants of a sperm and egg. And yet, selection manages to improve the structure of those non-reproductive cells because of the indirect effect they have on the sperm and eggs' survival and reproduction.
Similarly, worker bees have an indirect effect on the queen's chance of reproduction, and so queens that have better worker bee genes survive more often than queens that have worse worker bee genes, causing the worker bee genes to evolve with her own genes.
If communities that have gay offspring are surviving better than communities that don't have gay offspring (giving the females in that community a better chance for successful reproduction), then we can expect there would exist an indirect selection pressure for gay genes.
LBGT people lack the ability to reproduce with their preferred sexual partners, hello, because they are HOMOSEXUAL. If they DO reproduce, they get really kinky like Mom and Dad did or use a turkey baster.Actually no, they are not potentially queens only sharing the fact that they are female in common with the queen. LGBT people can and very often DO reproduce. Can you supply reliable sources the show otherwise?
"If not for being heavily fed royal jelly, the queen larva would have developed into a regular worker bee."
Queen bee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And has this selection pressure in fact been observed?
Haven't kept up to date with this stuff, but I'd suggest it'd be pretty easy to extend the "grandmother effect". What's the reproductive evolutionary advantage of having humans, and some other primates, have a lifespan beyond their own individual capacity to reproduce?And has this selection pressure in fact been observed?
An extra pair of hands to gather food or care for youngsters while the younger and fitter adults do the harder work is a distinct advantage in a social mammal. In any group where food gathering and processing is partly or entirely social, having a few adults unencumbered by caring for their own young is pretty valuable.
And back to "nature" not having a purpose for homosexuals. Nature doesn't have any purposes. The fact that a proportion of the young produced by a group may not live long enough to reproduce, or never reproduce for failure to attract/be attracted by a mate, is neither here nor there in the greater scheme of things.
Yes, it's the bee thingy. Worker bees care for the young, fight off intruders, keep the wax in the hive from melting, gather food for everyone, including the queen and otherwise worthless males who get to have all the fun. Talk about a raw deal!
Last edited by Arthur Angler; February 2nd, 2012 at 08:23 PM.
Their genes suffer from no such lack of ability, however - distributed, as they seem to be, throughout a larger population of relatives.
And of course no one is restricted to "preferred" romantic partners, for reproduction.
And yet every day homosexual couples do reproduce, as confirmed by your statement. what difference is it if the babies are not created by the missionary position?LBGT people lack the ability to reproduce with their preferred sexual partners, hello, because they are HOMOSEXUAL. If they DO reproduce, they get really kinky like Mom and Dad did or use a turkey baster.Actually no, they are not potentially queens only sharing the fact that they are female in common with the queen. LGBT people can and very often DO reproduce. Can you supply reliable sources the show otherwise?
"If not for being heavily fed royal jelly, the queen larva would have developed into a regular worker bee."
Queen bee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indeed, in today's society, gay people are generally free from the limitations of ritualized and legally sanctioned monogamy.Their genes suffer from no such lack of ability, however - distributed, as they seem to be, throughout a larger population of relatives.
And of course no one is restricted to "preferred" romantic partners, for reproduction.
Lucky sods.
Position don't enter into it so much as like, frequency. Of course the frequency of monogamous heterosexual couples is nothing to brag about, from my experience, and...And yet every day homosexual couples do reproduce, as confirmed by your statement. what difference is it if the babies are not created by the missionary position?LBGT people lack the ability to reproduce with their preferred sexual partners, hello, because they are HOMOSEXUAL. If they DO reproduce, they get really kinky like Mom and Dad did or use a turkey baster.Actually no, they are not potentially queens only sharing the fact that they are female in common with the queen. LGBT people can and very often DO reproduce. Can you supply reliable sources the show otherwise?
"If not for being heavily fed royal jelly, the queen larva would have developed into a regular worker bee."
Queen bee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WAIT A DANG MINUTE!
We are neglecting those poor Nazis again! Dangit, this is a thread about the Nazis!
Springtime For Hitler and Germany - YouTube
Ahh, but your the one who seems to be making methodology of the childs creation an issue. Also where they have the option LGBT couples are just as inclined to monogamous relationships as hetero couples.Position don't enter into it so much as like, frequency. Of course the frequency of monogamous heterosexual couples is nothing to brag about, from my experience, and...And yet every day homosexual couples do reproduce, as confirmed by your statement. what difference is it if the babies are not created by the missionary position?LBGT people lack the ability to reproduce with their preferred sexual partners, hello, because they are HOMOSEXUAL. If they DO reproduce, they get really kinky like Mom and Dad did or use a turkey baster.Actually no, they are not potentially queens only sharing the fact that they are female in common with the queen. LGBT people can and very often DO reproduce. Can you supply reliable sources the show otherwise?
"If not for being heavily fed royal jelly, the queen larva would have developed into a regular worker bee."
Queen bee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WAIT A DANG MINUTE!
We are neglecting those poor Nazis again! Dangit, this is a thread about the Nazis!
Springtime For Hitler and Germany - YouTube
Methodology is pretty straightforward- either heterosexual intercourse or artificial insemination. If you have another alternative, by all means tell us. It is unclear what, if any, policy the Nazis had/have regarding artificial insemination- on the one hand it is not traditional, on the other it has certain utility in application to eugenics, as the market on bull semen will attest. Actually at present there is a lively trade in human semen. I would participate but it is tough to sell what you can't give away.
So, as far as the Marxist perspective is concerned, and in view of the decidedly pro-monarchist bent of the Axis Powers of WWII and presumably their current-day sympathizers, the Nazis are "bourgeois nationalists", insofar as they fit the description given below:
Bourgeois nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Divisions based upon "nationality, race, ethnicity or religion" are pretty much core beliefs of the Hitlerites. So has a small, disreputable, fringe movement initially despised by the ruling class and dedicated to religious bigotry ever before, in a few short years, ascended to prominence?
Yes, at least one example is known to exist- the Orange Order in Ireland in 1796 and 1797. In this case, the group was ANTI-nationalistic in sentiment, at least as far as an Irish nation was concerned. In common with the Nazis, however, it aligned itself with the propertied interests of the day and was so found by those interests to be useful in maintaining the status quo.
Last edited by Arthur Angler; February 4th, 2012 at 08:42 AM.
The common story of fascist movements everywhere - depending on exactly how many years we are talking about, maybe.So has a small, disreputable, fringe movement initially despised by the ruling class and dedicated to religious bigotry ever before, in a few short years, ascended to prominence?
The US, in a few years from 1980.
| « Fingerprints of fraud in British elections | Will Iran strike first? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
4Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
