i mean you all should know i'm anti-capitalist, so arguing about how oppressive states as a tool to abuse the working class really don't dissuade me

because you misunderstood it ped. it wasn't taxing the poor; if anything they should be the ones not taxed for having more kids, but that doesn't solve the problem then because they're some of the least financially fit people to raise a child.

also if someone legit wants to "pass down their genes" they have some serious issues i think; that is some real subversive eugenics

also if someone legit wants to "pass down their genes" they have some serious issues i think; that is some real subversive eugenics

People wanting to have their own children is eugenics?

This post was last modified: Apr 21, 2017 at 8:48 PM by T-man.

also if someone legit wants to "pass down their genes" they have some serious issues i think; that is some real subversive eugenics

This has to be satire. I don't think wanting to have your own child is malicious. You could argue that it's selfish when there are so many orphans in the world, but serious issues?

Come the fuck on.

Is this what college does to people?

having a child is separate from passing down your genes

having a child of your own is suspect, but still not passing down your genes as a sured reasoning

i'm a drop out and the fact that passing on your genes is conflated with children of your own makes me think you guys haven't dealt with pro-eugenics people as much as i have

also if someone legit wants to "pass down their genes" they have some serious issues i think; that is some real subversive eugenics

People wanting to have their own children is eugenics?

okay it's getting silly at this point
are you running these posts into google translate or something?
does your computer interpret them into sign language for you?

how did "it's wrong to use children as a method of obtaining genetic immortality" become "birth is evil"

last i checked poor people still had to pay taxes

my family certainly had to

sure, the tax burden may not be as hefty as on the middle class or upper class, but adding any further taxes at all is going to fuck poor people over completely

living paycheck to paycheck where every penny counts sucks, so adding any additional burden on top of that is fucked


btw does any of this even apply to the YouTube prank family in question or has that ship just sailed completely

To me, population control (preventing people from having their own children) seems WAY more like eugenics than allowing people to have children of their own.

i mean, mason put us on a different track entirely
and my response to the yt family was that some people shouldn't have kids, period. the shouldn't be allowed to care for another person. they aren't capable of rightfully doing it.

also if someone legit wants to "pass down their genes" they have some serious issues i think; that is some real subversive eugenics

it's more like "continue the family name and/or heritage"

no common man really thinks about children in the terms of the gene pool

why is this thread 9 pages long and why the fuck are we talking about eugenics

also if someone legit wants to "pass down their genes" they have some serious issues i think; that is some real subversive eugenics

it's more like "continue the family name and/or heritage"

no common man really thinks about children in the terms of the gene pool

which is why stirling said you'd have to have serious issues to think that way

i mean, mason put us on a different track entirely
and my response to the yt family was that some people shouldn't have kids, period. the shouldn't be allowed to care for another person. they aren't capable of rightfully doing it.

ok but this is why family services and adoption exists

is erasing the kids from existence or preventing their birth entirely really the answer to the YT prank family

also if someone legit wants to "pass down their genes" they have some serious issues i think; that is some real subversive eugenics

it's more like "continue the family name and/or heritage"

no common man really thinks about children in the terms of the gene pool

which is why stirling said you'd have to have serious issues to think that way

who even brought it up, wasn't paying attention to the eugenics argument tbh

also if someone legit wants to "pass down their genes" they have some serious issues i think; that is some real subversive eugenics

it's more like "continue the family name and/or heritage"

no common man really thinks about children in the terms of the gene pool

as i've said like 3 times now, mason brought up eugenics. and you know, if the options are [bad parents] or [foster care forever most likey] then just not having the child born isn't a bad prospect

you have to detach it from the notion of killing the child though

This post was last modified: Apr 21, 2017 at 8:58 PM by T-man.

also if someone legit wants to "pass down their genes" they have some serious issues i think; that is some real subversive eugenics

it's more like "continue the family name and/or heritage"

no common man really thinks about children in the terms of the gene pool

which is why stirling said you'd have to have serious issues to think that way

I don't think anyone sees it as the end all be all of having children. I'm just saying I would bet most people would prefer to be the one who plants the seed they're going to raise for the next 18+ years. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that.

jesus christ why is this thread still going

last time I checked this thread there were two less pages

I don't think anyone sees it as the end all be all of having children

this is an incorrect premise