…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)
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
deleted by creator
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?
deleted by creator
“MAYBE not but it ALWAYS 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.
Ah, nice to clearly show your sophistry and disingenuous argumentation.
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.