At Oberlin, a Tipping Point

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

OSU79

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 22, 2009
10,954
10,700
1,743
Back home in God's (Green) Country
#81
Uh, I'm not the eugenicist here.
Yeah, the problem is I think I would be an excellent judge of who should reproduce, others think there would be great at it - but so did Stalin and Mao and Idi Amin and Hitler. As soon as you start making this decision someone/group becomes the arbiter of good/bad, right/wrong, good/evil. If you agree with them, they are the heroes, if not they are the tyrants.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,748
50,382
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#82
Yeah, the problem is I think I would be an excellent judge of who should reproduce, others think there would be great at it - but so did Stalin and Mao and Idi Amin and Hitler. As soon as you start making this decision someone/group becomes the arbiter of good/bad, right/wrong, good/evil. If you agree with them, they are the heroes, if not they are the tyrants.
It doesn't matter whether someone thinks of them as heroes, it is objectively evil.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
23,143
21,787
1,743
#83
The thing that I find fascinating is that when people start talking about limiting reproductive rights they always assume they would be in the class that would get to reproduce.

People who are concerned about there being too many people on the planet never offer to personally depopulate.

People who are concerned there are too many idiots never offer to raise the collective IQ by eliminating theirs.

So, tell me donny, exactly what groups would you target for elimination?
We could eliminate some genetic diseases for example. And don't get me wrong..... I'm not saying we need to go around sterilizing gingers or people under 5'2. I'm saying that eugenics is immediately associated with Hitler level racism and that's not what it is.
 

Pokit N

Cashing Checks & Snapping Necks!
A/V Subscriber
Sep 29, 2006
7,200
4,327
1,743
40
South Elgin, IL
#84
From Beethoven to Dez Bryant the world is full of amazing people coming from terrible circumstances....It's just the absolute height of arrogance (or worse) to control who can and can't have children.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,748
50,382
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#85
We could eliminate some genetic diseases for example. And don't get me wrong..... I'm not saying we need to go around sterilizing gingers or people under 5'2. I'm saying that eugenics is immediately associated with Hitler level racism and that's not what it is.
"Useless eaters" was the term the Nazis used for people with genetic diseases that they felt couldn't contribute enough to society to make their existence worthwhile. Eugenics wasn't just about racism. Congrats, you're a Nazi!
 

CTeamPoke

Legendary Cowboy
Jun 18, 2008
44,544
47,199
1,743
Dallas, TX
#86
So it's arrogant to think that you should have to pass some basic competency test like "I'm not going to drown my kid in a bathtub" or "I understand that children grow on a diet of Cheetos" in order to reproduce... but it's not out of line to believe that people should have to jump through at least 6 different hoops in order to cast a vote?



And I was told on this very board not too long ago "kids in inner-cities don't deserve a good education if they can't afford it."
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
23,143
21,787
1,743
#87
"Useless eaters" was the term the Nazis used for people with genetic diseases that they felt couldn't contribute enough to society to make their existence worthwhile. Eugenics wasn't just about racism. Congrats, you're a Nazi!
Yeah I'm not calling them useless eaters.... you are just taking this back to the Nazi's as I stated is immediately done.
 

Pokit N

Cashing Checks & Snapping Necks!
A/V Subscriber
Sep 29, 2006
7,200
4,327
1,743
40
South Elgin, IL
#88
So it's arrogant to think that you should have to pass some basic competency test like "I'm not going to drown my kid in a bathtub" or "I understand that children grow on a diet of Cheetos" in order to reproduce... but it's not out of line to believe that people should have to jump through at least 6 different hoops in order to cast a vote?



And I was told on this very board not too long ago "kids in inner-cities don't deserve a good education if they can't afford it."
Besides being 18 what hoops are talking about? Getting an ID? Not being a felon?

Yes, you are very I mean VERY arrogant if you think you know who should and should not be a parent..
 

CTeamPoke

Legendary Cowboy
Jun 18, 2008
44,544
47,199
1,743
Dallas, TX
#89
Besides being 18 what hoops are talking about? Getting an ID? Not being a felon?

Yes, you are very I mean VERY arrogant if you think you know who should and should not be a parent..
I think the people that are so arrogant to think that they shouldn't vaccinate their kids should have their kids taken away.
 

Pokit N

Cashing Checks & Snapping Necks!
A/V Subscriber
Sep 29, 2006
7,200
4,327
1,743
40
South Elgin, IL
#90
I think the people that are so arrogant to think that they shouldn't vaccinate their kids should have their kids taken away.
How we deal with people who mistreat kids is a wholly different conversation than preventing people from having children in the first place.

I know where your heart is at, it's in good place with good intentions etc. But it's a very bad idea to go down this road.
 
Nov 6, 2010
920
338
613
#92
"Useless eaters" was the term the Nazis used for people with genetic diseases that they felt couldn't contribute enough to society to make their existence worthwhile. Eugenics wasn't just about racism. Congrats, you're a Nazi!
Come on man. How about this one, which has affected my family directly. What if this genetic curse could be eliminated from the human experience?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/147960.php
 

Pokit N

Cashing Checks & Snapping Necks!
A/V Subscriber
Sep 29, 2006
7,200
4,327
1,743
40
South Elgin, IL
#93
Come on man. How about this one, which has affected my family directly. What if this genetic curse could be eliminated from the human experience?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/147960.php
That would be great...but you realize people w/ this disease don't have fewer rights than you. You are saying people w/ this gene (or whatever) shouldn't be allowed to have children? I don't want to put words in your mouth...is that what you are saying?
 
Jul 10, 2009
225
164
1,593
58
Stillwater, OK
#94
That would be great...but you realize people w/ this disease don't have fewer rights than you. You are saying people w/ this gene (or whatever) shouldn't be allowed to have children? I don't want to put words in your mouth...is that what you are saying?
I'm butting into this conversation, but I would think that any victim or carrier of the disease would probably want to get some significant genetic counseling. I've wondered if medical advances have actually weakened the health of the human race over time and what the long term future holds.

This is certainly not the only disease that used to be fatal in early years, that now has more of a potential to be passed on to future generations. Decades ago, people with significant mental illness would not be allowed to have children. I think some of the increase in mental illness has to be attributed to them passing on their genetic heritage to their children. But weighing a desire to have children from an individual rights basis against the common good is a huge dilemma, and most people are going to weigh in on rights winning that battle.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,904
32,170
1,743
oklahoma city
#95
The thing that I find fascinating is that when people start talking about limiting reproductive rights they always assume they would be in the class that would get to reproduce.

People who are concerned about there being too many people on the planet never offer to personally depopulate.

People who are concerned there are too many idiots never offer to raise the collective IQ by eliminating theirs.

So, tell me donny, exactly what groups would you target for elimination?
You can wrap it with a different bow, but it is still the same thing.
Yes, it is very troubling when someone else with a completely different life, experience, and background decides that they get to mandate what you do with your body. No matter how they try to wrap that bow, when push comes to shove, they know they are in a position to avoid the very control they want to put on you.
 

Bowers2

Stackin' Joe's Cups
A/V Subscriber
Jul 31, 2006
7,127
5,372
1,743
Edmond
#96
Yes, it is very troubling when someone else with a completely different life, experience, and background decides that they get to mandate what you do with your body. No matter how they try to wrap that bow, when push comes to shove, they know they are in a position to avoid the very control they want to put on you.
I knew something like this was coming when an anti-abortion person said "reproductive rights."
 

NotOnTV

BRB -- Taking an okie leak
Sep 14, 2010
8,543
6,395
743
Gondor
#97
Terms like "reproductive rights" and "women's health" are dog-whistles for proponents of infanticidal blood-lust.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
8,028
3,769
743
49
#98
That would be great...but you realize people w/ this disease don't have fewer rights than you. You are saying people w/ this gene (or whatever) shouldn't be allowed to have children? I don't want to put words in your mouth...is that what you are saying?
I'm butting into this conversation, but I would think that any victim or carrier of the disease would probably want to get some significant genetic counseling. I've wondered if medical advances have actually weakened the health of the human race over time and what the long term future holds.

This is certainly not the only disease that used to be fatal in early years, that now has more of a potential to be passed on to future generations. Decades ago, people with significant mental illness would not be allowed to have children. I think some of the increase in mental illness has to be attributed to them passing on their genetic heritage to their children. But weighing a desire to have children from an individual rights basis against the common good is a huge dilemma, and most people are going to weigh in on rights winning that battle.
Along with increasing life expectancy of people who have existing diseases there are also now a larger number of genetic anomalies and mutations. The longer the human race goes the more introduced these become. My daughter has a spontaneous mutation that was not really heard of until 20 years ago maybe but it's become more common. And part of that factors into play of being more awareness, but these are like I said spontaneous this is a mutation that has no carrier.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

osupsycho

MAXIMUM EFFORT!!!
A/V Subscriber
Apr 20, 2005
4,143
2,497
1,743
Valhalla
#99
Terms like "reproductive rights" and "women's health" are dog-whistles for proponents of infanticidal blood-lust.
Ok I know wading into this is probably a mistake and I don't really have a dog in this fight but REALLY??? Infanticidal blood-lust???? With a comment like that you make it sound like anyone wanting to have an abortion is just wanting to become a killer and can't wait to start killing infants. I highly doubt most seeking abortions are doing it for homicidal reasoning so the blood lust portion is a little much. I mean its far flung comments like this that cause all discussions/debates/arguments today to end up being nothing more than shouting matches that get nothing done. Sorry to jump on my soap box, I will retire now and await the inevitable downpour of attacks that is sure to come (which will just prove my statement).
 

osupsycho

MAXIMUM EFFORT!!!
A/V Subscriber
Apr 20, 2005
4,143
2,497
1,743
Valhalla
Along with increasing life expectancy of people who have existing diseases there are also now a larger number of genetic anomalies and mutations. The longer the human race goes the more introduced these become. My daughter has a spontaneous mutation that was not really heard of until 20 years ago maybe but it's become more common. And part of that factors into play of being more awareness, but these are like I said spontaneous this is a mutation that has no carrier.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Yes but speaking from a strictly scientific standpoint the more genetic variation and mutations a species gets usually means the more robust the species becomes. Thus elimination of some from the population could make the species weaker. Normally nature takes care of things anyway and even humans are not above that.