NSRXN @ nsrxn @lemmy.dbzer0.com

About

---

Read more

Posts

6

Comments

662

Joined

7 mo. ago

you're the one who can't seem to count.

it is functionally equivalent to voting for the candidate furthest away from that non-voter’s preference.

no, it's not.

where's the money, Lebowski

so you know non votes don't get counted for Trump

id argue those incentive programs are, themselves, eugenics policies, but I also think ending them is complicated, as doing so in one jurisdiction and not in others is, you see, eugenics.

trump only gets to count votes for him. any other vote is a vote against him, and a non vote is a non vote

whatever metrics you use to decide who gets to procreate, you will certainly bias the gene pool. That's eugenics

your semantic understanding of eugenics doors not seem to understand why people opposed eugenics and eugenics policies.

if you didn’t vote you voted

the mental gymnastics inside one clause are incredible

it does not address the moral argument that is at the root of this discussion.

the moral argument in this thread is about allocation of resources. if you want to make a separate moral argument, you're free to do so.

Even if this were true

it is

Human food crops could have been grown instead, on a fraction of the land.

human food crops are grown. soy is a great example. about 80% of soy is pressed for oil, and the byproduct is fed to livestock.

The majority of all the plants that humans grow are fed to livestock.

this is a lie

most people don't want to eat soy cake, or crop seconds, or spoilage. feeding that to livestock is a conservation of resources, not a waste.

the vast bulk of the food they eat is grown agriculturally.

sure, but I can't eat cornstalks and I don't want to eat soy cake, so feeding that to livestock is a conservation of resources.

no, you said those calories are wasted.

any policy you can implement to address "overpopulation" is eugenics. so there is nothing (ethical) to do about it.