To think a policy of killing off the elderly when they “run out” of societal value during a global pandemic isn’t running up to the line of eugenics is, frankly, kind of absurd.
This is the key point and you are simply wrong, as you confuse eugenics and utilitarism. It is not absurd to think of the covid example as eugenic, but it does not withstand a closer look, because, as you point out yourself, it’s about the economic value, not the genetic value.
During this time the centrist right leader held a speech about how “this current situation will cost us a LOT of money, but we need to open our hearts” while the left flat out ignored the problems and said we were a “Humanitarian great power” and stated we were getting highly educated doctors and professors.
Pretty much exactly what happened in Germany. But because of German history there was not even an honest debate about cost and instead a lot mental gymnastics of how it could benefit the country.
That is not eugenics, because the people are not removed from the genepool as a result of eugenic thought, but by people with non-eugenic intentions under the influence of a specific policy that is not inherently eugenic. I see that as a circular argument. They can chose to reproduce. Also note, that this policy would not improve the genepool, but dramatically weaken it, as it would lead to - if somehow a significant amount of people would share your non-sequitur train of thought - only those reproducing who can be sure that their offspring dies early, e.g. families who have certainty that there offspring dies at 50 of cancer. Prenatal diagnostics would turned into the opposite it is used for, where only defective children would be born. You make a case for the opposite of eugenics.
‘I have an opinion and make either the evidence, my perception of it or the terms we are discussing fitting it’
- every troll always
There is no way to see senicide as a eugenic strategy without changing what eugenic means. But, as you point out, I might be wrong. So feel free to score your goal without moving the post.
Funny comment for somebody with the nick ‘KillAllPoorPeople’, but wrong in my eyes, nonetheless. Eugenic is preselection of who gets born by either prenatal measurements or hindering those who are able to reproduce. Killing off people who will have no chance to reproduce anyways is from an eugenic point of view insignificant. There is no longterm downstream effect, only the possibility of some moral change.
No, that’s why I said, that it sounded like tax fraud. So, now that you distracted from it, back to the topic: Are you sure they pay taxes in Spain?
Are you sure, they do?
Until yet. Trump destroyed the political culture in the US. But democracy is founded on a societal consenus and subtile, uncodified institutions.
The real fun were the British immigrants( who of course called themseves ex-pats) who lived full time in Spain. Most were retirees that migrated to avoid taxes and extend their retirement funds.
Sounds like tax fraud, because if you stay for a longer time in another country and/or the main part of your life happens in that place, it is very likely that you have to pay taxes in the new home country.
In the Netherlands the terminals ask if you want a full receipt or a short one with just the barcode to exit.
Exactly. The intention of eugenics is about the genetic value. If improving economic situation of the majority is the reason for a policy, its utilitarian. A eugenetic policy is always utilitarian under the assumptions of the specific eugenists implementing it. But by overwhelming far majority is not every utilitarian policy a eugenic one. You so far, only prestend utilitarian ideas and not a single instance, where improving the genetic value is the actual intention. A utilitarian policy aiming at economic value and by accident also somehow influencing reproduction behaviour is not eugenic.