At 08:22 AM 7/3/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:

...

Eugenics - the management of reproductive choice by the state.

No. No more than your choice of reading materials is censorship.

If I chose not to publish or buy text-X its not censorship. If the government interferes, it is.

Now if I choose a spawning mate based on their apparent fitness (as judged by me), this is personal 'eugenics', and its fine morally. (Similarly with those who voluntarily delegate the choice to family members.)

Now if the State does the choosing, its coercion by the state, which was pretty tainted by the German Socialists a generation or two ago, regardless of the possible future benefits, even if 'fitness' is agreed upon by all. Regardless of the benefits, its coercion.

Private choice vs. Coercion by the State. Simple. Not all choice is censorship, or bad eugenics.

Huh? Did you read what he said? As much as I hate to stand up for Choate, you seem to be reiterating his point--that Eugenics is management of reproductive choice by the state. Normally enough, Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com both disagree. I tried the OED, but they want $550 a year for access. Sorry guys.

Aside: When the State enslaves 'fit' citizens as soldiers, some fraction of which are taken out of the gene pool, an indirect form of eugenics (animal husbandry) is taking place. Selection against 1As and carriers of patriotism traits, for instance.

But the *really* good ones, and the absolute cowards come back to breed. -- -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.