The PokéCommunity Forums Off Topic Discussions Discussions & Debates
Debate Population Control

Discussions & Debates Have a seat at Discussions & Debates for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be. Come be a knight.

Thread Tools
Old 15 Hours Ago (2:25 AM).
Hands's Avatar
Hands Hands is offline
Discord Moderoid
Join Date: Aug 2016
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,114
I wasn't gonna bother with this with the day I was having but I think it's paramount I discredit this false narrative you're spinning really for good here.

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf View Post
I felt like there was no point in replying to Mr. Echo, but here goes. Since we have established laws (what a novel concept) against what was genocide (we're agreeing), no, the new immigrants cannot do that.
I did not ask if they legally could. I asked if it would be ok with you if they did. The Natives had laws and customs too. I was highlighting the massive flaw in your morality over the subject.

Also, the adjective "eugenic" and the noun "eugenics" have different meanings.

One is the practice and one is the theory. Most dictionaries (Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster etc) do not distinguish them as separate terms to begin with. (Oxford simply refers to Eugenic as the act of Eugenics)

So no, you're wrong here.

Your description of the noun is accurate.
Yes because unlike you I've researched the theory.

However, abortion tends to be eugenic in nature.
No it doesn't. Abortions of deformed fetuses or fetuses that will be heavily disabled could be considered eugenic, abortions for financial or personal reasons, health risks to the mother, as a result of rape or other mitigating personal reasons have absolutely nothing to do with eugenics and cannot be considered eugenic.

You see, this is something that appalls even Fox News and the pro-life crowd; no echo chamber here. Research the Donohue–Levitt hypothesis.
You make it sound like it's hard to appall the reactionaries at Fox.

The Donohue-Levitt hypothesis relates mostly to crime trends falling in the post Wade v Roe years. That doesn't at all support the belief that Abortion is a form of state sponsored eugenics.

Last but not least, I never said that abortion hampers "white growth." It hampers growth. Hence, we do not have a massive population problem like other countries. We're not China; we might never need a one-child policy.
"P.S. I meant that "rampant immigration" replaces, or perhaps exceeds, the losses of abortion"

"while foreigners inundate our lands."

"Since then, a staggering 58 million "American" fetuses"

"This is demographic replacement"

It's pretty clear what you meant with these statements. By demographic replacement you had to be talking about whites because they're the only group that has slipped behind in their 'market share' of the ethnic pie in America. Black/Mixed race Americans have seen consistent and continuing rises in their number. At best you were showing you've done as little research into the growth of minority groups as you have in eugenics and white growth rates, at worse I was absolutely correct about your narrative. Neither looks great. We already know that your claims about stagnating population growth are false, and we already know that the immigration claim doesn't hold up either. I don't think it really matters if you were pushing the white genocide myth or were just completely wrong with your claims due to ignorance on the matter. Either way your argument holds no water in the real world.
Reply With Quote

Relevant Advertising!

Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:11 PM.