people sometimes end up accidentally talking themselves into eugenics and promoting eugenics before somebody points out that they’re talking about eugenics
But it is what the comment said. It’s saying that people promote eugenics without realizing it. They do so by talking about the mechanics of eugenics without naming them.
Your confusion comes from the fact that you assume most people like the mechanics of eugenics. If that’s the sort of crowd you hang out with, then you may be associating with fascists.
but that’s literally what the comment’s saying? and you’re saying "that’s an example of the opposite?
e.g., there’s a pretty good argument that pre-natal screening is a form of eugenics
if you describe the mechanics of pre-natal screening to somebody, i suspect most would be in support of that, but wouldn’t be if you described it using the term “eugenics”
like, if you were to notice that completing tertiary education makes it more difficult for people to have children, and you decided to create some form of government aid to offset that, then oopsie daisy you just did a eugenics, but you could absolutely package that idea in a way that most people would instinctively go “yeah that sounds okay”
also to preempt pls nobody do the intellectually dishonest thing of pretending me following this line of argument means im in love with eugenics and am here to argue for more eugenics or that i just dont think eugenics is such a bad thing after all thnk u
if you want to use the sentiment expressed in this post as an argument for marxism being good, which seems pretty transparent in this case, then that same sentiment being used to justify eugenics isn’t a good thing for said argument
i’m not that concerned with the precise definition of “opposite”, but i am concerned with whether or not the post’s logic is sound
but that’s not what the comment said?
people sometimes end up accidentally talking themselves into eugenics and promoting eugenics before somebody points out that they’re talking about eugenics
But it is what the comment said. It’s saying that people promote eugenics without realizing it. They do so by talking about the mechanics of eugenics without naming them.
i’m baffled as to what’s going on here
versus
Your confusion comes from the fact that you assume most people like the mechanics of eugenics. If that’s the sort of crowd you hang out with, then you may be associating with fascists.
but that’s literally what the comment’s saying? and you’re saying "that’s an example of the opposite?
e.g., there’s a pretty good argument that pre-natal screening is a form of eugenics
if you describe the mechanics of pre-natal screening to somebody, i suspect most would be in support of that, but wouldn’t be if you described it using the term “eugenics”
like, if you were to notice that completing tertiary education makes it more difficult for people to have children, and you decided to create some form of government aid to offset that, then oopsie daisy you just did a eugenics, but you could absolutely package that idea in a way that most people would instinctively go “yeah that sounds okay”
also to preempt pls nobody do the intellectually dishonest thing of pretending me following this line of argument means im in love with eugenics and am here to argue for more eugenics or that i just dont think eugenics is such a bad thing after all thnk u
This is all just semantics and how the word ‘opposite’ can be applied in different ways. I wouldn’t spend too much time on this.
if you want to use the sentiment expressed in this post as an argument for marxism being good, which seems pretty transparent in this case, then that same sentiment being used to justify eugenics isn’t a good thing for said argument
i’m not that concerned with the precise definition of “opposite”, but i am concerned with whether or not the post’s logic is sound
Except that doesn’t follow logically, but it’s pretty clear that you’re determined to work hard not to understand that.
logic seems pretty clear and laid out to me but you do you, pal