…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)
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.