• Draconic NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    0·
    10 months ago

    You technically don’t need a license to fish, but without one you’ll have to do it in a way they won’t know you’re doing it. You may also have to do certain unpleasant things to avoid punishment.

    The legal team would like you to know that this comment in no way endorses or encourages illegal activity

  • Squorlple@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    10 months ago

    Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Give a man a life and he will be alive for the rest of his life.

  • jopepa@lemmy.world
    0·
    10 months ago

    It’s still funny, but parent licenses are step one of eugenics, and licenses protect fish populations, environment, parks, lots of good. If anyone’s really agreeing with the subtext, learn more about the dangers of both.

    • force@lemmy.world
      0·
      9 months ago

      the lack of parent (and most pet) licenses is how we have so many people with long-term trauma or fucked up lives due to bad parenting… like 99% of people make terrible parents. imo you should at least have to pass a few courses related to parenting funded & certified by the government to possess children or pets, or even pass some sort of psychological examination. it’s extremely important that people who aren’t fit to parent don’t have kids, that’s how you end up with… the average first-world person now (humanity is in a terrible state right now so that’s pretty bad). it is a “slippery slope” to government do bad thing, yeah, but that can be said of most restrictions and it’s up to us as a society not to fuck that up.

      that being said, our current society is NOT able to properly handle the responsibility of anything of the sorts, everything i said doesn’t really apply with such corrupt and immoral governments where literal fascists have a fine time just waltzing in. and it probably won’t ever apply unless we somehow purge all fascist scum from power and don’t let them in again (not happening in this reality). at least in the US and some of Europe looking at how the governments are completely screwing child & potential parents’ rights it gives a pretty clear idea of why it’s a bad idea otherwise (gay couples can’t even legally adopt in much of Europe, including Italy & Switzerland).

    • Knightfox@lemmy.oneEnglish
      0·
      10 months ago

      In all honesty a little bit of eugenics probably wouldn’t be a bad idea, the problem is that once you have government mandated eugenics you begin a slippery slope that should never be approached.

      While not strictly eugenics, similar outcomes have occurred naturally in places where genetic testing and access to abortion are more available. For example Iceland has almost no Down Syndrome persons. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/down-syndrome-iceland/).

      Frankly, now that we can test for these things, there are several genetic disorders which a reasonable society would self select to remove from the gene pool. Things like Huntington’s Disease shouldn’t keep propagating. Basically there shouldn’t be a government mandated program, but if you know you have some horrible genetic disorder you shouldn’t pass it on.

      • jopepa@lemmy.world
        0·
        10 months ago

        To be clear, I don’t think you’re advocating for eugenics. So I hope you don’t feel attacked/defensive by any of the following:

        I can’t speak for anyone who’s living with an impossibly difficult disease, but the fact that so many people are living their lives, finding happiness, and making contributions despite everything they have to get through every day says enough to me that denying their right to exist isn’t solving a problem and is denying the world of their life.

        The problem with eugenics (aside from the obvious history of racism) is that it’s looking at the problem from the wrong angle entirely. Instead of working to make things easier for people with disabilities and working towards cures, advocates for it think the problem is contained and solved by pruning the “problem” vines. We’re people, not produce. People that are neurodivergent, differently abled, or even severely disabled, all belong because we have enough to make room for them to thrive in whatever capacity they can. Whether we’re doing enough is a different conversation.

        Iceland isn’t mandating people to abort chromosomal anomalies, that’s a choice the families make for themselves. So it’s beside the point. More so, it’s not like that can be eradicated either because anyone can parent a kid with DS. Huntingtons might be a valid concern, but sterization is a decision for those suffering it to determine themselves. That’s not eugenics.

        Equating eugenics with family planning is irresponsible because it validates one very bad and widely rejected avenue of science because it’s slightly adjacent to a human right that is valid. Supposing that they are the same ignores history and risks spreading ideology that leads to making those same mistakes again.

        TL;DR: GATTACA!