It sure seems like you're confused. Your argument is that paying people to get reversible birth control -> forced sterilization. By that logic offering any free birth control -> forced sterilization as well.
-
-
Replying to @FakeMeows @colourmeamused_ and
Scott didn't know it was reversible when he made that comment - he said he'd "feel better if it was something more reversible" but when he made the comment he fully accepted OP's framing that it was about "getting snipped"
1 reply 1 retweet 15 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @FakeMeows and
See, we are not talking about the charity itself, we are talking about Scott and what this comment about the charity reveals about Scott You are changing the subject, blatantly
3 replies 1 retweet 16 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @FakeMeows and
I'm not sure these people actually know how to read for comprehension, tbf.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @iridienne @arthur_affect and
i guess that depends if they are in the phase ‘eugenics is actually good so what if siskind's an eugenicist’ or the phase ‘siskind's not an eugenicist’
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @_amtiskaw @iridienne and
Scott is obviously pro-eugenics, but clearly distinguishes between types of eugenics.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FakeMeows @_amtiskaw and
Good, so we're all on the same page
1 reply 2 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @_amtiskaw and
Not distinguishing between types of eugenics or whether they are compulsory or voluntary is pretty dumb.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FakeMeows @arthur_affect and
No, it isn't. Even completely ignoring the morality of it (which... no...) eugenics is not just bad science, it's *anti*-science. The whole idea of eugenics is that deliberately *reducing* genetic variations in a population provides an evolutionary advantage.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @HickeyWriter @FakeMeows and
That is precisely, one hundred percent, utterly, the opposite of what science says. The greater the genetic variation, the more evolutionarily advantageous. "Let's reduce our options! That's a good idea!" said nobody who had ever heard of Ashby's Law of Requisite Varity.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes
This is why I semiseriously say I'm a dysgenics advocate I mean I think everyone who wants to have kids would have them and everyone who doesn't should not But I *extra* think that in the face of some busybody trying to stop them
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.