The charity in question has nothing to do with eugenics. It's about preventing the suffering of children being born to drug addicts who then lose them to the foster care system. But you're deflecting since the specific accusation in the tweet wasn't about eugenics.
-
-
Replying to @FakeMeows @arthur_affect and
Ah, hmm, let's not address the socio-economic context that brings about drug addiction, instead let's devise some convoluted, authoritarian, completely unethical eugenics scheme that wouldn't solve fuck all!
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @CasualThonker @arthur_affect and
How is a completely voluntary program to give drug addicts IUDs authoritarian or unethical? It's not even a eugenics program. It's meant to reduce the number of neglected children. It has nothing to do with genetics. Are you against abortion and birth-control?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FakeMeows @arthur_affect and
I don't see anything in that post about voluntary sterilization. All I see is some ridiculous hypothesizing about "preserving" the "diversity" of mental types by encouraging the creation of "castes". Just the most incomprehensible mess of an idea that doesn't solve anything
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @CasualThonker @FakeMeows and
And speaks to this guy's unfamiliarity with/distance from with the sociology of drug addiction and the suffering of the poor. Tops it off with this absurd implication that the "social types" and "classes" we see today are purely the product of genetics.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @CasualThonker @arthur_affect and
Which "guy" are you talking about? Scott is the one who liked the charity. That's it. The rest is the blabbering of a possibly stoned internet commenter from 2012.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FakeMeows @arthur_affect and
Despite that, the implication that drug addiction among the impoverished isn't fundamentally a product of socio-economics/drug policy and is instead a purely genetic disposition that could be solved by "voluntary" sterilization smacks of a coddled, elitist mindset
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @CasualThonker @arthur_affect and
I get it, you lack context and didn't even spend 2 minutes looking up the charity or anything.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FakeMeows @arthur_affect and
A cursory reading of the Wikipedia article includes this quote from the founder: "we campaign to neuter dogs and yet we allow women to have 10 or 12 kids that they can’t take care of". Sound like I was spot on.
1 reply 0 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @CasualThonker @arthur_affect and
That sounds like the woman cares about the kids that are neglected. I don't see any invocation of genetics. She adopted like 6 kids from drug addicts. How many foster kids have you taken in?
6 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Given that we're talking about human parents, not animals, I would consider it far more praiseworthy to be able to brag about helping six parents keep their kids than adopting those six kids, and find focusing on the latter option to be an obvious sign of conflict of interest
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @FakeMeows and
What's really appalling, and part of what makes the foster care system so intensely fraught, is that if we gave struggling parents even the resources we gave foster parents, huge numbers could keep their kids.
1 reply 1 retweet 21 likes -
Replying to @Eristae @FakeMeows and
Public adoption through the foster system doesn't have the same overwhelming level of perverse incentive as private adoption (especially international adoption) But it's really hard not to see the system as still a transfer program of poor kids to rich families
2 replies 1 retweet 19 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
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.