…if it is a time-bound prohibition, maybe in the order of a few weeks, so society can rethink about their consumption habits.
Indefinite prohibition, of the kind that was amended in the US constitution, denies the human desire to consume alcohol and pretend it can be legislated away. A cursory reading of the Wikipedia article on the capital-P Prohibition showed lasting effects in alcohol consumption (I guess, good in the sense that there’s changes in domestic abuse patterns, for example?) and organized crime (bad, with Al Capone and people like him)
It’s like saying eugenics isn’t inherently bad.
Maybe not but it always leads immediately to bad things.
Eugenics is inherently bad because the premise was that you could “weed” out bad apples in the genetic pool. Many researchers tried to test this theory back in the day. One used fruit flies because they reproduce so quickly you could run tests on removing a trait from the population faster than something like dogs (which take years to breed and grow.)
This researcher found a genetic trait in one fruit fly, white eyes instead of black. He tried to breed this genetic trait out of the population and was unable to do so. He told the other eugenists that he no longer believed their theory was possible because if he couldn’t breed out a trait like white eyes in something as simple as a fruit fly then he’d never be able to breed out something like “dumb” from something as complex as a human being.
You people need to read more history or at least watch some documentaries. Theres a whole PBS doc on eugenics that covers everything I just explained.
I’ve read plenty of history. So one guy said a thing a once so therefore it’s impossible forever. Cool story bro.
I’ll just forget all human history of domesticated animals and genetically modified crops.
You didn’t even name the scientist.
Scientist is Thomas Hunt Morgan. He finally stopped his fly experiment in 1915.
So eye color is attached to the sex of the fly and he couldn’t break that.
That’s one trait for a fly that is attached to the sex of the fly so he had trouble breeding it out.
That a long way from a eugenicsist proving egunics is impossible.
That’s not even close lol
So you’re pro eugenics?
Ah, nice to clearly show your sophistry and disingenuous argumentation.
Nice try sluggo.
So you’re saying eugenics isn’t unethical? Because I said we shouldn’t do it because of ethics. You’re argument was to say I’m wrong, the issue is we CANT do it, when in fact it a pretty big series of industries already.
Therefor the ethics of eugenics aren’t problematic to you?
No, I was pointing out that eugenics has been proven as a pseudo science. Your originally argument seemed to suggest that there were positive aspects of eugenics, which there isn’t since its is a pseudo science.
A better argument would be, “no, eugenics has been proven to be a pseudo science with no benefits.”
“Maybe not but it leads immediately to bad things”
Learn to read. I never said eugenics isn’t unethical. I said maybe there are applications that aren’t unethical, but I’ve never seen one.
Learn to read.
“A better argument would be” no it wouldn’t you unethical monster lol. Is murder wrong because it’s unethical or is murder wrong only because YOU can’t do it?
My argument is it’s wrong because it’s unethical. It’s not a skill issue. You are on team “the ethics are irrelevant!”
Which is a bad take buddy. Maybe quit digging.
Maybe he is anti blatant bullshit? The study you are referring to is from 1915. You aren’t basing yourself on anything modern and you come off as deeply ignorant in the current convo. Spend 5 minutes on Google next time you are challenged.
Dude. You’re running around with the whole “you people” thing, thinking you’re bagging on other people. It completely undermines any attempt you make because it shows lack of good faith, and someone just trying to dunk on people. It’s not cool at all. You could make the exact same comments without being an absolute dick and be just fine.