the necessity of eugenics

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=479269 time=1604969675 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=479260 time=1604965318 user_id=15238]
[quote=Sculptor post_id=479256 time=1604964328 user_id=17400]
Please explain what role "eugenics" can play here!
[/quote]

Same role it plays today when children with birth defects are aborted or adults with schizophrenia are "let go" at hospice, only with common sense involved. Soft power should be used first, of course, but we still need to get the population down and increase efficiency much more than we should rely upon hypothetical technological solutions.
[/quote]
Congratulations, A.

You are finally on exactly the same page as A. Hitler. He was a huge fan of eugenics, and he wanted to kill many of the same people you want to kill. https://www.ushmm.org/collections/bibli ... sabilities

Well done. :oops:
[/quote]

As always, your example fails to resemble in character or fact anything presented here or elsewhere. Eugenics is not inherently negative and all eugenics are not the same. Also eugenics could be for increasing population as easily as decreasing it.

[commonsense]

Oh no you didn’t.

[Advocate]

[quote=commonsense post_id=479275 time=1604972777 user_id=14610]
Oh no you didn’t.
[/quote]

That's racist.

[Immanuel Can]

Eugenics is not inherently negative and all eugenics are not the same.

Yeah, well, since Hitler showed where it goes, it's had a very bad name, and justly so. But it was popular in the US before they realized what it really meant. The Democrats, in particular, were all for it, because it would suppress the black population. And Margaret Sanger, founder of "Planned Parenthood," confessed in a letter to Dr. Gamble that the surreptitious goal of her efforts at increasing abortions was "to exterminate the Negro population." (her words) Meanwhile, in England, John Maynard Keynes favoured eugenics because, he said, the population of British working class folks was "too drunken and ignorant to keep its numbers down." (his words)

Fascism has many nasty faces, it seems...but eugenics is its favourite.

I think the better strategy is to educate young women and offer them alternatives, so none of that is even necessary. Killing people is so....evil.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=479281 time=1604974546 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=479273 time=1604972353 user_id=15238]
Eugenics is not inherently negative and all eugenics are not the same.
[/quote]
Yeah, well, since Hitler showed where it goes, it's had a very bad name, and justly so. But it was popular in the US before they realized what it really meant. The Democrats, in particular, were all for it, because it would suppress the black population. And Margaret Sanger, founder of "Planned Parenthood," confessed in a letter to Dr. Gamble that the surreptitious goal of her efforts at increasing abortions was "to exterminate the Negro population." (her words) Meanwhile, in England, John Maynard Keynes favoured eugenics because, he said, the population of British working class folks was "too drunken and ignorant to keep its numbers down." (his words)

Fascism has many nasty faces, it seems...but eugenics is its favourite.

I think the better strategy is to educate young women and offer them alternatives, so none of that is even necessary. Killing people is so....evil. :shock:
[/quote]

Killing people is called murder, not eugenics. Eugenics can be done by attrition just as well as by genocide.

We shouldn't educate young women and offer them alternatives, we should educate all young people and offer them alternatives.

[Immanuel Can]

Eugenics can be done by attrition just as well as by genocide.

Eugenics that is not done deliberately is a thing we call "death-by-natural-causes."

We shouldn't educate young women and offer them alternatives, we should educate all young people and offer them alternatives.

Oh, that again...yes, you're a "wonderful" egalitarian. There are only two problems with that theory...far more males already have full educational access anyway, and men don't have babies.

That is why no statistical analysis of population suggests more education for males reduces population; but it's well-established that giving opportunities to young women does reduce population...painlessly, voluntarily, by giving them benefits. So it's a perfect way to solve the whole problem, while helping young women instead of killing babies, the handicapped, or any other people whom the government deems "undesirable" for some reason it decides to have.

Think again.

[henry quirk]

there ain't nuthin' libertarian in your fascism, advocate, old buddy

[commonsense]

Oh no you didn’t.

That's racist.

Excuse me?

[Advocate]

[quote=commonsense post_id=479333 time=1605025506 user_id=14610]
[quote=Advocate post_id=479277 time=1604973311 user_id=15238]
[quote=commonsense post_id=479275 time=1604972777 user_id=14610]
Oh no you didn’t.
[/quote]

That's racist.
[/quote]

Excuse me?
[/quote]

I was hinting at the fact that "Oh no you didn't!" is a an American black female/any color gay trope, but basically just speaking nonsense, same as you.

[DanDare]

That's racist.

Excuse me?

I was hinting at the fact that "Oh no you didn't!" is a an American black female/any color gay trope, but basically just speaking nonsense, same as you.

Well, not everyone here is from the US. For folks outside the US "I don't believe you went there" or "Oh no, you didn't!" are perfectly acceptable rebuke slang that has nothing to do with race.