you’re supporting the idea that there should be fewer disabled people in the world, which is “latent eugenics.”
Eugenics is objectively correct and should be practiced more.
The only problem with old timey eugenics was that it was sometimes based on racism, not science, but in modern times we can apply eugenics in an extremely race-neutral and scientifically proven way to simply reduce known genetic defects. It's insane that we aren't doing it.
Humanity gives eugenics a bad name because eugenics could only work in a utopia. I for one am not going to allow any government to decide if my genes are worthy of passing on even though I'd easily pass for doing so unless I have some hidden genetic issues
It need not be a role of the state. The fact that most Down's Syndrome fetuses are aborted in Europe is eugenics, even if they pretend it's not. Also it doesn't have to involve abortion. Parents could use genetic screening to decide whether to have their own children, use donor sperm/eggs for in-vitro, or adopt. Yes that would lead to "Designer Babies" and that is something society will have to grapple with, but there's a middle ground between genocide and outright encouraging dysgenics.
Lol do you seriously think any government or massive corporation would pass up the opportunity to get their hands in this immediately. This is a more slippery slope than homosexual marriage
I like to call it "selective breeding." If it's good enough for livestock, by god, it's good enough for homosap!
People selectively breed every time they choose a partner to have children with. Choosing mates for specific types of offspring makes sense. The only problem is, as you say, state-or-otherwise-enforced pairings.
Nah it was the 90s. I think my teacher was just like "so since I have glasses, should I be executed?" and I thought that was weird since I was only talking about sterilization of people with serious genetic defects.
You see, incest produces disabled and deformed offspring at a higher than otherwise rate, so you being against incest means you’re supporting the idea that there should be fewer disabled people in the world, which is “latent eugenics.”
"Good news, everyone! I have just discovered a panacea that cures all cancers!"
"Why do you hate cancer sufferers? Why do you want to eradicate them from the world? Are you a Nazi?"
This is what you get when you care more about identity groups than the people that constitute them. The extinction of the "disabled people" class is only a negative if it is accomplished by converting the disabled into the deceased; if it is accomplished by preventing people from becoming disabled in the first place, that's a purely good outcome.
Advocacy groups for Autism and Deafness are already doing that. They don't want to cure those disorders, they'd rather people who are autistic (neuroatypical) or deaf embrace that as part of their identity and get special privileges.
Omar remarried for immigration fraud, not incest. She broke up with her first husband for just long enough to secure her second husband's entry to the United States, then returned to her first husband.
Wait so they are for birth defects in order to argue for incest? That does make them anti-science then given the amount of research and development in techniques to reduce or eliminate birth defects.
Though that's actually it, the left are anti-science, they wear it as a skinsuit to go "trust the experts". ALL their issues are solved by rigorous scientific debate, theory and experimentation that they want to silence.
Woody Allen has left the chat.
Eugenics is objectively correct and should be practiced more.
The only problem with old timey eugenics was that it was sometimes based on racism, not science, but in modern times we can apply eugenics in an extremely race-neutral and scientifically proven way to simply reduce known genetic defects. It's insane that we aren't doing it.
Racism is science
Shh, don't let the normies know.
The Nazis gave eugenics a bad rap. They originally got the idea from the US where eugenics was big at the time.
Humanity gives eugenics a bad name because eugenics could only work in a utopia. I for one am not going to allow any government to decide if my genes are worthy of passing on even though I'd easily pass for doing so unless I have some hidden genetic issues
It need not be a role of the state. The fact that most Down's Syndrome fetuses are aborted in Europe is eugenics, even if they pretend it's not. Also it doesn't have to involve abortion. Parents could use genetic screening to decide whether to have their own children, use donor sperm/eggs for in-vitro, or adopt. Yes that would lead to "Designer Babies" and that is something society will have to grapple with, but there's a middle ground between genocide and outright encouraging dysgenics.
Also replying to u/ernsithe's objection.
Lol do you seriously think any government or massive corporation would pass up the opportunity to get their hands in this immediately. This is a more slippery slope than homosexual marriage
I like to call it "selective breeding." If it's good enough for livestock, by god, it's good enough for homosap!
People selectively breed every time they choose a partner to have children with. Choosing mates for specific types of offspring makes sense. The only problem is, as you say, state-or-otherwise-enforced pairings.
Yeah when I was in middle school I wrote a science project about how we should bring back eugenics lol.
I'll bet that was well-received. Did they force you into "counseling"?
Nah it was the 90s. I think my teacher was just like "so since I have glasses, should I be executed?" and I thought that was weird since I was only talking about sterilization of people with serious genetic defects.
Another example of an idiot teacher. There's lots of em.
"Good news, everyone! I have just discovered a panacea that cures all cancers!"
"Why do you hate cancer sufferers? Why do you want to eradicate them from the world? Are you a Nazi?"
This is what you get when you care more about identity groups than the people that constitute them. The extinction of the "disabled people" class is only a negative if it is accomplished by converting the disabled into the deceased; if it is accomplished by preventing people from becoming disabled in the first place, that's a purely good outcome.
Advocacy groups for Autism and Deafness are already doing that. They don't want to cure those disorders, they'd rather people who are autistic (neuroatypical) or deaf embrace that as part of their identity and get special privileges.
That is some well-explained neo-Marxist identitarian rationalizing.
It's fucking sick. it's like existing (can't call it living) in an anthill.
These people are literally cancer
[squints] malignant tumours on society that kill the host country
Checks out- use of literal was correct
I’m only surprised Ilhan Omar hasn’t marched for incest pride yet
i still don't understand why foreigners are allowed to run for office.
Omar remarried for immigration fraud, not incest. She broke up with her first husband for just long enough to secure her second husband's entry to the United States, then returned to her first husband.
How do we know it wasn’t both?
Nature intended the genetically retarded and crippled to be cat food.
WE. PREDICTED. THIS. WOULD. HAPPEN.
Slippery slope isn't a fallacy, it's a natural law.
In less than 3 years,we gonna see pedos be a protected class.
It's always been about depravity and evil.
Wait so they are for birth defects in order to argue for incest? That does make them anti-science then given the amount of research and development in techniques to reduce or eliminate birth defects.
Though that's actually it, the left are anti-science, they wear it as a skinsuit to go "trust the experts". ALL their issues are solved by rigorous scientific debate, theory and experimentation that they want to silence.