I don’t think you know anything about her or her politics, but if you want to make a snap judgement based on one photo, who am I to try to stop you?

she was an invited guest who paid her own way to celebrate one of the new media outlets that would let her get her message out. she didn’t make the seating chart.

id argue those incentive programs are, themselves, eugenics policies, but I also think ending them is complicated, as doing so in one jurisdiction and not in others is, you see, eugenics.

whatever metrics you use to decide who gets to procreate, you will certainly bias the gene pool. That’s eugenics

your semantic understanding of eugenics doors not seem to understand why people opposed eugenics and eugenics policies.

it does not address the moral argument that is at the root of this discussion.

the moral argument in this thread is about allocation of resources. if you want to make a separate moral argument, you’re free to do so.

Even if this were true

it is

Human food crops could have been grown instead, on a fraction of the land.

human food crops are grown. soy is a great example. about 80% of soy is pressed for oil, and the byproduct is fed to livestock.

The majority of all the plants that humans grow are fed to livestock.

this is a lie

most people don’t want to eat soy cake, or crop seconds, or spoilage. feeding that to livestock is a conservation of resources, not a waste.

deleted by creator

the vast bulk of the food they eat is grown agriculturally.

sure, but I can’t eat cornstalks and I don’t want to eat soy cake, so feeding that to livestock is a conservation of resources.

no, you said those calories are wasted.

any policy you can implement to address “overpopulation” is eugenics. so there is nothing (ethical) to do about it.

this is legal just about everywhere in the usa.

most of what animals are fed are parts of plants people can’t or won’t eat, or grazed grass. in that way, we are conserving resources.

this just isn’t true.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod