4 ms·

> Eu-genics is literally good-birth. This is a reverse straw man argument [0]. You present your position as something easy to defend (good birth, choice of mat

> Eu-genics is literally good-birth. This is a reverse straw man argument [0]. You present your position as something easy to defend (good birth, choice of mates, good diet, etc.), even though some parts of it (forced sterilizations, genocide, etc.) are difficult or impossible to defend. [0] https://en.liberpedia.org/Reverse_straw_man https://en.liberpedia.org/Reverse_straw_man

stared 3y ago
A false dichotomy. It is like saying that if I one is in favor of medicine, they are in favor of the human vivisection and lobotomy. We can (and often - need to be) selective. I don’t argue for every kind if eugenics. Yes, a lot of it were atrocious. And I am against that as well. Yet, I guess you are in favor of things we already do (mentioned in my previous comment).
- bdowling 3y ago
  The word eugenics has significant negative connotations that are probably not going away any time soon. So if you continue to use that word for its broader meaning, you will continue to run into trouble.
  - stared 3y ago
    I am dead aware of the connotations. Though, I expect people on HN to focus more on definitions than connotations; the latter is a very approximate tool to grasp ideas, and only the simplest ones). So, I don't use the word eugenics on its own. UNLESS someone says, "oh, this is eugenics" - as a catch-all argument against a thing. For example, the Polish government banned abortions in most cases, including serious fetal defects. It used to be one of a few exceptions, among the mother's health or life being in immediate danger. The government phrased it as "a ban on eugenic abortions". Yes, by all means, these abortions are eugenic - so to argue otherwise would be dishonest. Yet, this is one of the cases where the majority of the population (even in a religiously conservative country such as Poland) would be in favor.
    - bdowling 3y ago
      I think you may be confusing the etymology of a word, i.e., where it came from, with its meaning as used by the speakers of a language. Here's a definition from a commonly cited online dictionary of American English: > eugenics > : the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the population's genetic composition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics#dictionary-entry-1 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics#dictiona... Here's another definition from the Oxford Dictionary of English Third Edition: > eugenics | juːˈdʒɛnɪks | > plural noun [treated as singular] > the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. Developed largely by Sir Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, eugenics was increasingly discredited as unscientific and racially biased during the 20th century, especially after the adoption of its doctrines by the Nazis in order to justify their treatment of Jews, disabled people, and other minority groups.

stared 3y ago

A false dichotomy. It is like saying that if I one is in favor of medicine, they are in favor of the human vivisection and lobotomy. We can (and often - need to be) selective. I don’t argue for every kind if eugenics. Yes, a lot of it were atrocious. And I am against that as well. Yet, I guess you are in favor of things we already do (mentioned in my previous comment).

bdowling 3y ago
The word eugenics has significant negative connotations that are probably not going away any time soon. So if you continue to use that word for its broader meaning, you will continue to run into trouble.
- stared 3y ago
  I am dead aware of the connotations. Though, I expect people on HN to focus more on definitions than connotations; the latter is a very approximate tool to grasp ideas, and only the simplest ones). So, I don't use the word eugenics on its own. UNLESS someone says, "oh, this is eugenics" - as a catch-all argument against a thing. For example, the Polish government banned abortions in most cases, including serious fetal defects. It used to be one of a few exceptions, among the mother's health or life being in immediate danger. The government phrased it as "a ban on eugenic abortions". Yes, by all means, these abortions are eugenic - so to argue otherwise would be dishonest. Yet, this is one of the cases where the majority of the population (even in a religiously conservative country such as Poland) would be in favor.
  - bdowling 3y ago
    I think you may be confusing the etymology of a word, i.e., where it came from, with its meaning as used by the speakers of a language. Here's a definition from a commonly cited online dictionary of American English: > eugenics > : the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the population's genetic composition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics#dictionary-entry-1 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics#dictiona... Here's another definition from the Oxford Dictionary of English Third Edition: > eugenics | juːˈdʒɛnɪks | > plural noun [treated as singular] > the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. Developed largely by Sir Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, eugenics was increasingly discredited as unscientific and racially biased during the 20th century, especially after the adoption of its doctrines by the Nazis in order to justify their treatment of Jews, disabled people, and other minority groups.