An investigation determined that the boy was on his way to nearby Grand Prairie Elementary School when his relative intervened, the Will County Sheriff’s Office said.
Licensing for procreation invites eugenics. Better to require free, secular, and culturally diverse parenting classes led by licensed teams of child psychologists and social workers.
The secular aspect is important. The effort must be based on reason. I wasn’t suggesting a genetic solution to social ills but an appeal to rationality.
The problem with such requirements is that it’s extremely easy to abuse them.
Take voting tests. It sounds like a good idea on paper to require people know how the government works and the candidate platforms before being able to vote.
But all it takes is a few ambiguous questions to give the person grading it the ability to deny you based on skin color or other demographics, as we’ve seen in the past.
Adoption is a great example of this. There are some wonderful people who adopt. Then there’s my adoptive parents. On paper, an absolute dream. Everything data and statistics and psychology would lead you to think would be the foundation of a stable, economically viable, well adjusted, healthy, mindful, moral environment.
I met my bio mom and the half-siblings she’d had later and raised when I was 40. She’s had her ups and downs through her life; addictions, on her 4th marriage. But that family is loving and a “family” in spite of all their struggles. When I reappeared it was just “oh, hey, you, welcome back!”. The perfect on paper parents; emotionally, physically, and sexually abusive behind closed doors but shielded by their social standing even when it leaked out. I haven’t spoken to them in two decades and wouldn’t piss on them if they were on fire. I hope they die alone.
The idea that “worthiness” could ever be determined by metrics is a joke. They should have been worthy, but then they got the chance and exposed why “on paper” does not match “in flesh”.
Licensing for procreation invites eugenics. Better to require free, secular, and culturally diverse parenting classes led by licensed teams of child psychologists and social workers.
It doesn’t invite eugenics; it is eugenics.
I understand the prosocial context of the suggestion, but you’re right; licensing would always result in eugenics.
The secular aspect is important. The effort must be based on reason. I wasn’t suggesting a genetic solution to social ills but an appeal to rationality.
The problem with such requirements is that it’s extremely easy to abuse them.
Take voting tests. It sounds like a good idea on paper to require people know how the government works and the candidate platforms before being able to vote.
But all it takes is a few ambiguous questions to give the person grading it the ability to deny you based on skin color or other demographics, as we’ve seen in the past.
Adoption is a great example of this. There are some wonderful people who adopt. Then there’s my adoptive parents. On paper, an absolute dream. Everything data and statistics and psychology would lead you to think would be the foundation of a stable, economically viable, well adjusted, healthy, mindful, moral environment.
I met my bio mom and the half-siblings she’d had later and raised when I was 40. She’s had her ups and downs through her life; addictions, on her 4th marriage. But that family is loving and a “family” in spite of all their struggles. When I reappeared it was just “oh, hey, you, welcome back!”. The perfect on paper parents; emotionally, physically, and sexually abusive behind closed doors but shielded by their social standing even when it leaked out. I haven’t spoken to them in two decades and wouldn’t piss on them if they were on fire. I hope they die alone.
The idea that “worthiness” could ever be determined by metrics is a joke. They should have been worthy, but then they got the chance and exposed why “on paper” does not match “in flesh”.