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.
this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
900 points (99.1% liked)
196
16501 readers
2242 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What are the dangers of protecting fish populations, the environment and parks?
Fishes can bite
Environnement is scary
Parks have other people in them
Licenses are a way to prevent people from overfishing populations. Certain populations have been overfished to the point of being endangered, and if a species gets erased out of an ecosystem, the overlying ecosystem gets thrown out of place depending on how key of a species the fish was.
There are some species the gov does not care about eg the invasive lionfish and asian carp
Thanks for more thoroughly explaining the benefits of parks and preservation efforts. Super import work. If you get a parking ticket for camping with your parks pass in your glove box, don’t dispute it if you can afford it.
I think they were joking about my clumsy phrasing, though
and if a species gets erased out of an ecosystem, the overlying ecosystem gets thrown out of place depending on how key of a species the fish was.
Also if they were a particularly delicious species no one would be able to enjoy them anymore.
load more comments
(1 replies)
A little Eugenics never killed anyone
Can't die if they aren't born
Desecrating corpses never killed anyone. A lot of evil shit doesn’t result in death
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.
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!
load more comments
(1 replies)
Wait, you can get a license to fuck fish?
yes, thats what the vaporeon fans have that we dont
Lisensing fees are a suckers game, what you wanna do is go out into international waters. That’s why so many guys are posing with swordfish.
Lots of guys be fuckin' swordfish, these days?
They use the sword for sounding
one way trip, it won't come out again
I’m not about to go fucking fish with em and find out.
I've been fucking fish without a license for years. Come and get me, BIG GOVERNMENT!
Hey guys, did you know that you need a license to fuck fish? Get yours now!😏
Yes you can! Don't tell me that you don't have a license when eating all of those fish sticks?
The actual question here should be if Troy McClure has one.
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.
So true. We are all here for our whole lives.
If the rapture is 15 minutes late then we’re legally allowed to leave
Technically they can’t rapture you if you don’t want to. You made no agreement with them.
I made no agreement on the inbound but here I am idk
Look, we’re all just a bunch travelers, we have no contracts.
This is the best thing I've heard all day
Still in bed, but what a start
Give a fish a man and he will day for a fish.
Give a gay fish and he will Ye all day
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
Fish in international waters, easy
I dunno man you do NOT want to fuck with FWS Agents. They take to their jobs like zealots, rightfully so.
load more comments
(5 replies)
I mean, fish populations are collapsing, it makes sense to require licenses in lots of areas.
And requiring licences to have kids seems like a dystopian nightmare that would backfire massively.
To be fair we do have a social acceptance license to make sure we pass on the best bet to getting laid.
load more comments
(1 replies)
One increases a population while the other decreases it
friendly reminder to not fuck fishes
The real world was supposed to be the certification test. If you/your family were not good enough, your progeny would either not survive or be less fit to continue the line.
This system may restore itself in due time. Gotta wait and watch.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is just a shoddy ripoff of Keanu Reeves' speech in Parenthood.
Why is this a link to a Google search? Not like, a video clip, or imdb quote, or article? There's even a duplicate word autocorrect.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›