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
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?
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.
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
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
multiple people are working hard to explain the obvious holes in it to you in this very thread pal 😂
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?
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.
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