I’ve asked multiple times for sources discussing eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits.
If the historical context you’re describing does not fall under that request, it’s not relevant because we’d circle back around to eugenics necessitating biologically inherited traits. If the historical context you’re describing does fall under that request, I’m all ears.
Similar to how I understand your example of taking away native American children to fall under genocide and not eugenics, I suspect there’s a misunderstanding in the definition of eugenics.
I’ve asked multiple times for sources discussing eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits.
Haven’t you already given examples with sterilization of indigenous people?
Sterilization is 100% in the realm of biologically inherited traits, as it prevents the passing on of genes, so no, that is not what I’m asking for.
You can genocide people through eugenics, true, but taking kids away is genocide without eugenics as defined by all authoritative sources that I’ve seen, none of which have been contested.
I’ll ask for a 4th(?) time, are you able to share sources that discuss eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits?
If not, then my take away is that you have a personal definition of eugenics that is not shared by society, and your opinions about the role of eugenics in this movie should be considered appropriately.
Sterilization is 100% in the realm of biologically inherited traits, as it prevents the passing on of genes, so no, that is not what I’m asking for.
Even if that was the case (I don’t think it is), you’re talking about our current understanding of biology. Scientists used to think that having a low IQ is a mental illness (“feeble-mindedness”), or that promiscuity is inheritable.
… sterilization would prevent the passing of genes by that individual by mechanism of no longer having kids. Biologically inherited traits are, by definition, determined by genes. These are facts. You can try to hand waive this away and say “who knows our current understanding of this may change in the future”, but that then leaves us with “our current understanding of science informs us that your source did not discuss eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits”
That legal case is once again, about sterilization, which is eugenics by way of preventing traits from being inherited biologically. I’m beginning to think you don’t understand what I mean when I ask for a source discussing eugenics outside the scope of biologically inherited traits.
Do you remember how you brought go that if two parents play violin, their kid probably will too? Would it be eugenics to prevent that kid from playing violin? Unless you believe coco to be a movie about the perils of eugenics, the answer should be no. Substitute passing down “a love for playing violin” with “not prioritizing education” and that explains Idiocracy, without eugenics.
You are choosing to explain the outcome of Idiocracy with eugenics and you’re choosing to ignore equally valid alternatives.
You can try to hand waive this away and say “who knows our current understanding of this may change in the future”
That’s not what I’m saying. I was talking about the historical context. And again: the movie implies heavily that stupidity is inheritable, just like the historical example. Be it via nature or nurture.
That legal case is once again, about sterilization, which is eugenics by way of preventing traits from being inherited biologically.
Yeah. My original point was that Idiocracy is an eugencist movie by implying that stupidity is inherited. I don’t believe that is the case, but the movie argues for it. Stop moving the goalposts.
And again: the movie implies heavily that stupidity is inheritable, just like the historical example. Be it via nature or nurture.
My original point was that Idiocracy is an eugencist movie by implying that stupidity is inherited.
Every definition of eugenics that I’ve seen only discusses inheriting by nature. You have yet to provide a definition that explicitly captures inheriting by nurture as well. The movie does discuss inheritance of stupidity, but is ambiguous about it being nature or nurture. Therefore, the so far uncontested societal definition of eugenics, which focuses just on nature, is only one way to look at how stupidity was inherited. There is the equally valid lens of looking at it through the inheritance of stupidity via nurture.
Choosing to claim that this is movie about eugenics necessitates you either ignoring that stupidity can be inherited via nurture (via deprioritizing of education, etc ), or by applying your own definition of eugenics in order to also include nurture. A definition that you have thusfar been unable to provide authoritative sources agreeing with you on, and that disagrees with the societal definition.
ignoring that stupidity can be inherited via nurture
I refuse to believe thatstupidity is a thing, let alone can be inherited via nature or nurture!
So, you’re just ignoring the historical context of eugenics… Cool /s
definition that you have thusfar been unable to provide authoritative sources agreeing with you on, and that disagrees with the societal definition.
I’m not a big fan of appealing to authority.
Edit:
you haven’t read the article, have you?
Prior to 1924, Priddy had performed hundreds of forced sterilizations by creatively interpreting laws which allowed surgery to benefit the “physical, mental or moral” condition of the inmates at the Colony. He would operate to relieve “chronic pelvic disorder” and, in the process, sterilize the women. According to Priddy, the women he chose were “immoral” because of their “fondness for men,” their reputations for “promiscuity,” and their “over-sexed” and “man-crazy” tendencies. One sixteen-year-old girl was sterilized for her habit of “talking to the little boys.”
You’re simply going to ignore the historical context, are you?
I’ve asked multiple times for sources discussing eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits.
If the historical context you’re describing does not fall under that request, it’s not relevant because we’d circle back around to eugenics necessitating biologically inherited traits. If the historical context you’re describing does fall under that request, I’m all ears.
Similar to how I understand your example of taking away native American children to fall under genocide and not eugenics, I suspect there’s a misunderstanding in the definition of eugenics.
Haven’t you already given examples with sterilization of indigenous people?
Race “science” was always an excuse for racism. First racism, then race. Notthe other way around.
You can genocide people through eugenics (culturally repressive control of reproduction).
Sterilization is 100% in the realm of biologically inherited traits, as it prevents the passing on of genes, so no, that is not what I’m asking for.
You can genocide people through eugenics, true, but taking kids away is genocide without eugenics as defined by all authoritative sources that I’ve seen, none of which have been contested.
I’ll ask for a 4th(?) time, are you able to share sources that discuss eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits?
If not, then my take away is that you have a personal definition of eugenics that is not shared by society, and your opinions about the role of eugenics in this movie should be considered appropriately.
Even if that was the case (I don’t think it is), you’re talking about our current understanding of biology. Scientists used to think that having a low IQ is a mental illness (“feeble-mindedness”), or that promiscuity is inheritable.
Here’s an example of what you asked for. I think it fits the premise of Idiocracy a lot.
… sterilization would prevent the passing of genes by that individual by mechanism of no longer having kids. Biologically inherited traits are, by definition, determined by genes. These are facts. You can try to hand waive this away and say “who knows our current understanding of this may change in the future”, but that then leaves us with “our current understanding of science informs us that your source did not discuss eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits”
That legal case is once again, about sterilization, which is eugenics by way of preventing traits from being inherited biologically. I’m beginning to think you don’t understand what I mean when I ask for a source discussing eugenics outside the scope of biologically inherited traits.
Do you remember how you brought go that if two parents play violin, their kid probably will too? Would it be eugenics to prevent that kid from playing violin? Unless you believe coco to be a movie about the perils of eugenics, the answer should be no. Substitute passing down “a love for playing violin” with “not prioritizing education” and that explains Idiocracy, without eugenics.
You are choosing to explain the outcome of Idiocracy with eugenics and you’re choosing to ignore equally valid alternatives.
That’s not what I’m saying. I was talking about the historical context. And again: the movie implies heavily that stupidity is inheritable, just like the historical example. Be it via nature or nurture.
Yeah. My original point was that Idiocracy is an eugencist movie by implying that stupidity is inherited. I don’t believe that is the case, but the movie argues for it. Stop moving the goalposts.
Every definition of eugenics that I’ve seen only discusses inheriting by nature. You have yet to provide a definition that explicitly captures inheriting by nurture as well. The movie does discuss inheritance of stupidity, but is ambiguous about it being nature or nurture. Therefore, the so far uncontested societal definition of eugenics, which focuses just on nature, is only one way to look at how stupidity was inherited. There is the equally valid lens of looking at it through the inheritance of stupidity via nurture.
Choosing to claim that this is movie about eugenics necessitates you either ignoring that stupidity can be inherited via nurture (via deprioritizing of education, etc ), or by applying your own definition of eugenics in order to also include nurture. A definition that you have thusfar been unable to provide authoritative sources agreeing with you on, and that disagrees with the societal definition.
I refuse to believe thatstupidity is a thing, let alone can be inherited via nature or nurture!
So, you’re just ignoring the historical context of eugenics… Cool /s
I’m not a big fan of appealing to authority.
Edit:
you haven’t read the article, have you?