Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

UK captains of industry have charity night where they sexually assault young female 'hostesses'

Status
Not open for further replies.
[
elbows said:
Excellent, the invisible stealth berets evaded your primitive radar and will not rest until no more dinosaurs roam the earth. There will be plenty more to come for you to get all outraged about, and I look forward to cheering the long overdue progress.
Click to expand...

They are very vulnerable to shotgun action, a bit like clay pigeons. :D
 
Sasaferrato said:
Here here. Absolutely agree. I'm a dreadful person. Really terrible.

Those who know me IRL don't think so, but I must give absolute credence to your incredible perspicacity. With an IQ of 135, I would dispute 'stupid' though.
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks IQ counts for anything is stupid. The only time I even encounter it these days is in the ramblings of 'scientific racists' and other related species of stupid cunt.
 
SpookyFrank said:
Anyone who thinks IQ counts for anything is stupid. The only time I even encounter it these days is in the ramblings of 'scientific racists' and other related species of stupid cunt.
Click to expand...

Yes its normally first warning that you're about to receive a lecture on how misunderstood eugenics is.
 
Teaboy said:
Yes its normally first warning that you're about to receive a lecture on how misunderstood eugenics is.
Click to expand...

If you want to find some eugenicists, have a look at the Labour Party in the 40's. 'Eugenics: the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left's closet | Jonathan Freedland

Such thinking was not alien to the great Liberal titan and mastermind of the welfare state, William Beveridge, who argued that those with "general defects" should be denied not only the vote, but "civil freedom and fatherhood". Indeed, a desire to limit the numbers of the inferior was written into modern notions of birth control from the start. That great pioneer of contraception, Marie Stopes – honoured with a postage stamp in 2008 – was a hardline eugenicist, determined that the "hordes of defectives" be reduced in number, thereby placing less of a burden on "the fit". Stopes later disinherited her son because he had married a short-sighted woman, thereby risking a less-than-perfect grandchild.

Yet what looks kooky or sinister in 2012 struck the prewar British left as solid and sensible. Harold Laski, stellar LSE professor, co-founder of the Left Book Club and one-time chairman of the Labour party, cautioned that: "The time is surely coming … when society will look upon the production of a weakling as a crime against itself." Meanwhile, JBS Haldane, admired scientist and socialist, warned that: "Civilisation stands in real danger from over-production of 'undermen'." That's Untermenschen in German.

I'm afraid even the Manchester Guardian was not immune. When a parliamentary report in 1934 backed voluntary sterilisation of the unfit, a Guardian editorial offered warm support, endorsing the sterilisation campaign "the eugenists soundly urge". If it's any comfort, the New Statesman was in the same camp.

According to Dennis Sewell, whose book The Political Gene charts the impact of Darwinian ideas on politics, the eugenics movement's definition of "unfit" was not limited to the physically or mentally impaired. It held, he writes, "that most of the behavioural traits that led to poverty were inherited. In short, that the poor were genetically inferior to the educated middle class." It was not poverty that had to be reduced or even eliminated: it was the poor.

Hence the enthusiasm of John Maynard Keynes, director of the Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944, for contraception, essential because the working class was too "drunken and ignorant" to keep its numbers down.'

I suspect that for the elite of the Labour Party, not much has changed. The welfare cuts, blamed for a rising number of deaths, were instituted by Labour. (University tuition fees, Student Loans and removal of maintenance grants ditto.)
 
Last edited:
Sasaferrato said:
If you want to find some eugenicists, have a look at the Labour Party in the 40's. 'Eugenics: the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left's closet | Jonathan Freedland

Such thinking was not alien to the great Liberal titan and mastermind of the welfare state, William Beveridge, who argued that those with "general defects" should be denied not only the vote, but "civil freedom and fatherhood". Indeed, a desire to limit the numbers of the inferior was written into modern notions of birth control from the start. That great pioneer of contraception, Marie Stopes – honoured with a postage stamp in 2008 – was a hardline eugenicist, determined that the "hordes of defectives" be reduced in number, thereby placing less of a burden on "the fit". Stopes later disinherited her son because he had married a short-sighted woman, thereby risking a less-than-perfect grandchild.

Yet what looks kooky or sinister in 2012 struck the prewar British left as solid and sensible. Harold Laski, stellar LSE professor, co-founder of the Left Book Club and one-time chairman of the Labour party, cautioned that: "The time is surely coming … when society will look upon the production of a weakling as a crime against itself." Meanwhile, JBS Haldane, admired scientist and socialist, warned that: "Civilisation stands in real danger from over-production of 'undermen'." That's Untermenschen in German.

I'm afraid even the Manchester Guardian was not immune. When a parliamentary report in 1934 backed voluntary sterilisation of the unfit, a Guardian editorial offered warm support, endorsing the sterilisation campaign "the eugenists soundly urge". If it's any comfort, the New Statesman was in the same camp.

According to Dennis Sewell, whose book The Political Gene charts the impact of Darwinian ideas on politics, the eugenics movement's definition of "unfit" was not limited to the physically or mentally impaired. It held, he writes, "that most of the behavioural traits that led to poverty were inherited. In short, that the poor were genetically inferior to the educated middle class." It was not poverty that had to be reduced or even eliminated: it was the poor.

Hence the enthusiasm of John Maynard Keynes, director of the Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944, for contraception, essential because the working class was too "drunken and ignorant" to keep its numbers down.'

I suspect that for the elite of the Labour Party, not much has changed. The welfare cuts, blamed for a rising number of deaths, were instituted by Labour. (University tuition fees, Student Loans and removal of maintenance grants ditto.)
Click to expand...
Did teaboy pay you to do that? :hmm:
 
Sasaferrato said:
Were I 'grid girl' I would be incandescent with rage. Travelling around the world, and paid to do so, and then suddenly someone decides it isn't my right to do it.
Click to expand...
The grid girls don’t travel the world, they’re just picked from local modelling agencies.

no-no said:
They'll all move into another line of work, modelling or similar. and then that'll be in the firing line. The logical conclusion is that women and men eventually will not be able to earn money as models of any form.
Click to expand...
:facepalm:
 
Magnus McGinty said:
An IQ of 135 won’t get you into Mensa afaik.
Click to expand...
It might do some years and not others as it's an entry requirement to be in the top 2% of iqs. This will clearly vary over time. I don't know if they chuck out people who were in the top 2% but fall out of it. But I do recall regularly beating a mensa team in a pub quiz. They didn't like it when I pointed out you can have an IQ of 160 but if you don't know the answers you won't win
 
Pickman's model said:
It might do some years and not others as it's an entry requirement to be in the top 2% of iqs. This will clearly vary over time. I don't know if they chuck out people who were in the top 2% but fall out of it. But I do recall regularly beating a mensa team in a pub quiz. They didn't like it when I pointed out you can have an IQ of 160 but if you don't know the answers you won't win
Click to expand...

I did an IQ test on some app a year or two ago and got circa 135 and it said that put me in the top 30% - certainly not the top 5% - although I could be misremembering!
 
no-no said:
The idea of doing away with grid girls etc is to stop men from objectivising women and change mes attitudes to women right? But that's going to continue whether we like it or not. I'm not even convinced there's anything wrong with sexual objectification. Other societies restrict womens working choices and choice of clothing far more than we do yet the men don't objectify women any less. Some would say men from restrictive societies are worse.

I think all that's happening here is that we're doing women out of lucrative work.

Thin end of the wedge and all that stuff, the prudery will continue.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you’d like to take your clothes off for a living. If it’s good enough for us women it’s good enough for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mojo pixy
Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?
74 75 76 77 78
Replies
2K
Views
64K
Elpenor
E
H
The Liberal Democrats/Lliberals have been deprived of Thousands of Seats
2
Replies
51
Views
1K
tim
tim
Humberto
Heroin Addiction in the UK
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
181
Views
5K
BristolEcho
BristolEcho
Fez909
Japanese attitudes towards immigration vs UK
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
197
Views
5K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
Kid_Eternity
Is a revolution possible in the UK?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
195
Views
7K
A380
A380
Back
Top Bottom