Maybe you should use that dictionary of yours to look up the definition of 'ad-hominum' before you call somebody a fool. Clever distinction (I'm laughing, really!) but nicely demonstrates the air of arrogance (READ=LACK OF HUMILITY) characteristic of left wingers. The fact that eugenics was a liberal (READ=PROGRESSIVE) movement is grounded in history not your dictionary. It was a movement based on Darwinian thinking that sought to engineer society using forced sterilization and other immoral techniques. Its leading proponents were the intellectual Liberals/progressives of their time. Thats a fact, take it to the bank.
Now there is some general confusion of definitions with you and a subsequent poster. Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing. I use the terms liberal interchangeably with progressive. I would argue this is a better use. In most every democratic country on this planet you will find a conservative and progressive party. This is the ideological split between those who advocate change and those who maintain tradition. I would argue this is the more accurate distinction. "a political or social philosophy advocating freedom of the individual..." could just as easily be a teaparty member as a democrat. Remember, there's a whole neocon side to the GOP that sometimes sounds allot like the NAACP. Anyways, this whole political ideology stuff is one big cluster&*#$ I would rather not get into, especially on a forum devoted to pharmacy, which makes me sad I ever ventured into this.
I will try to take a look at that study of yours when I get time. I know Sociology to be a very "scientific" field which is why whenever I see an officially published paper with fancy statistics and "controls" I take it as the gospel truth. It really doesn't matter that the field is dominated by che guevara worshippers, I'm sure they're impartial when it comes to studying the intelligence of anybody who disagrees with their politics. [This tirade was brought to you by the word Sarcasm, definition not provided]
As far as my original point: Liberal movements of the past have been just as wrong as they have been right. You can find innumerable examples in history when progressives jacked up society real good. The USSR was a whole society dedicated to a liberal cause and that worked out great for everybody, didn't it? And you can find plenty of examples when conservatives have perpetuated messed up systems.
Put blame where it belongs and don't be such a F&^%% sold-out ideologue
If it's lack of humility you want, lack of humility you shall receive. It's obvious to me that you clearly lack an understanding of what the informal fallacy of "ad hominem" means. Thankfully, I've been to school, paid attention, and even taken Latin (which is why I can actually spell "ad hominem"). Allow me to enlighten you. To wit:
"An ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false"
If you'll go back up and read my original post, you'll see that my argument did not, in fact, take that form. Allow me to break it down for you:
Mariachi claimed that liberalism gave rise to the Nazi party of Germany
This claim is patently false, given what we know of the Nazi party
Therefore, Mariachi looks like a blithering fool.
You see, in a fallacious ad hominem argument, your being a fool would be one of the premises invalidating your argument. In this case, however, it's the conclusion.
See the difference there? it's really subtle.
I'll happily agree that the "study" in question is of little use, as the differences in IQ were only about 6 - 10 points between the two groups, which, while statistically significant, are hardly of any practical significance. I provided a link to it as I was familiar with it and it had been requested.
Furthermore, eugenics as a "science" sprang out of a misguided interpretation of natural selection, was espoused and supported by both prominent liberals and conservatives, and has been soundly rejected by the scientific, liberal, and conservative communities in most every civilized country on Earth. Again, the idea that eugenics is a liberal idea is, at best, extremely tenuous. That is, unless you consider everything produced by science to be "progressive" and "liberal", which would reinforce the belief of many here that you're a mindless conservative bot running blindly from anything that might upset the precious status quo, engaging in an ever growing string of argumenta ad antiquitatem. Watch out for that accusative case there; it's tricky.
