4 ms·
> and would run the risk of watering down the opprobrium attached to the term "eugenics" by including a thoroughly unobjectionable practice. The opprobrium sho
by msla 9y ago
> and would run the risk of watering down the opprobrium attached to the term "eugenics" by including a thoroughly unobjectionable practice.
The opprobrium shouldn't attach to "eugenics", it should attach to "forced eugenics".
If some people are incapable of making the distinction, well, some people are incapable of making a distinction between male homosexuals and pedophiles, too. There's only so far we can carry an unfounded hatred of an extremely broad concept due to a tiny, distinguishable special case within that concept.
- BrandoElFollito 9y agoI am not sure I understand your analogy (male homosexuals vs pedophiles). Why blending together a sexual preference towards one's own sex, and a preference towards children?
- msla 9y agoIt's an analogy founded directly on history. In the past, it was common to not see a distinction between male homosexuality and pedophilia. I'm absolutely certain some people still see the world that way. In short, it doesn't have to make sense, because it's historical fact. To see this in film, watch the Sid Davis classic "Boys Beware": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_Beware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_Beware > The film equates homosexuals with child molesters and hebephiles, repeatedly describing homosexuality as a mental illness. True to the stereotypes of its time, the gay men in the film have mustaches, sunglasses and/or bow ties. https://archive.org/details/boys_beware https://archive.org/details/boys_beware - Original https://archive.org/details/BoysBewarecolorizedVersion https://archive.org/details/BoysBewarecolorizedVersion - Colorized https://archive.org/details/BoysAware https://archive.org/details/BoysAware - Remake
- BrandoElFollito 9y agoI do not get it. Because in antic Rome it was acceptable (or common) for men to have homosexual relations with young boys you are still making the link between these words today? "heretic" and "science" or "monk" and "psychopathic torturer" are synonyms as well?
- msla 9y agoI'm just using the connection as an example. And it doesn't have to make sense to you. It's historical fact.
- BrandoElFollito 9y agoWhat doesn't make sense is to take a 2000 years old cultural norm and apply it to today. Would you call a black man "negro" today? It was a normal word back then. Good luck explaining the historical context. There are plenty of historical facts which are just that :a historical fact with no connection to today.