• polonius-rex@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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

    • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • polonius-rex@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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

              • polonius-rex@kbin.run
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                i wouldn’t say you’re working particularly hard given that all you’ve done is issue a blanket “no”, and cowbee seems to be coming at the problem from the angle that i’m secretly the ghost of joseph mccarthy

                i’ve given you two examples where i think most people would agree with the concepts of eugenics before being told it’s eugenics, and so far nobody’s disagreed with them? what’s your issue? that you don’t think most people would agree with them, or that you don’t think that that fact draws enough of a parallel between eugenics and the post?

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  As I’ve said earlier, if you genuinely believe that most people are into eugenics, then you’re likely a fascist and there’s not point trying to have a discussion with you. Bye.

                  • polonius-rex@kbin.run
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    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

                    wow you did the thing well done

                    you made a bad argument, it’s okay

                    if your argument was good you wouldn’t be working so hard to avoid defending it like you are