EXCLUSIVE: South Carolina parents living in the state’s measles epicenter tell Rhian Lubin of their devastation after their unvaccinated 7-year-old son, Ethan, developed encephalitis, a complication from the virus that causes swelling and inflammation in the brain
the instant your administration changes, those restrictions will change too.
This applies to a lot of things. It’s a reason why you don’t want too much infrastructure in place that can be used for oppression, even if such infrastructure is put into place by a benevolent administration.
Please explain to me how you would go about selecting who can reproduce and who can’t then. I’ve asked this question multiple times and so far none of you “eugenics are good when it favors me” seem to want to answer it.
Eugenics is about purity of your population. That is a textbook component of fascism, whether you like it or not.
All of the “problems” they’re pointing out against letting stupid/evil people have a dozen kids are problems that still exist without such a restriction. Inability to isolate variables and saying we shouldn’t do anything because “the system is imperfect” defines conservatism.
Unfortunately true, I agree. There would be an enormous amount of work to be done, starting with replacing that admin, and it would take time and effort. Still, I don’t see a way, even with all the benevolence in the world, to restrict reproduction in a positive way. Also, I honestly believe that it would end up having a similar effect to banning alcohol for example: people wouldn’t stop reproducing, they would hide it, which in turn means no access to healthcare or education for those children, as they would have to be hidden from the government, thus complicating things even further.
This applies to a lot of things. It’s a reason why you don’t want too much infrastructure in place that can be used for oppression, even if such infrastructure is put into place by a benevolent administration.
Yes, and in the case of restrictions on reproduction, I do not see any way to implement that without having that gigantic oppressive infrastructure.
Also, “benevolent” eugenics is still eugenics, still fascist.
Getting to “fascist” seems to be your only endgame here. It’s a label. Paved roads and running water are “fascist”.
Please explain to me how you would go about selecting who can reproduce and who can’t then. I’ve asked this question multiple times and so far none of you “eugenics are good when it favors me” seem to want to answer it.
Eugenics is about purity of your population. That is a textbook component of fascism, whether you like it or not.
All of the “problems” they’re pointing out against letting stupid/evil people have a dozen kids are problems that still exist without such a restriction. Inability to isolate variables and saying we shouldn’t do anything because “the system is imperfect” defines conservatism.
If you bothered to read the whole thread, I do propose a solution. Education.
But the current administration would not properly implement education
Unfortunately true, I agree. There would be an enormous amount of work to be done, starting with replacing that admin, and it would take time and effort. Still, I don’t see a way, even with all the benevolence in the world, to restrict reproduction in a positive way. Also, I honestly believe that it would end up having a similar effect to banning alcohol for example: people wouldn’t stop reproducing, they would hide it, which in turn means no access to healthcare or education for those children, as they would have to be hidden from the government, thus complicating things even further.