Should poor people receiving govt. benefits be required to use contraceptives?

The question has (I think) previously been discussed on this dark, disgusting corner of the internet, but it has suddenly become pertinent to mainstream British politics thanks to the much-lauded appointment of super-forecaster hopped-up groyper Brain Genius Andrew "Modafinil for the People" Sabisky:

https://www.ft.com/content/7b75c07e-...1-482eed0038b1

and

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQ2Vs7bX...pg&name=medium

Like Cummings, this is an example of a man who's so smart he's actually dumb - so a perfect fit for the English govt. who will wish to keep this bold young eugenicist on its payroll just to troll the libs. But I find myself intrigued by one of his remarks:

Quote:

---

“One way to get around problems of unplanned pregnancies creating a permanent underclass would be to legally enforce universal uptake of long-term contraception at the onset of puberty. Vaccination laws give it a precedent, I would argue.”

---

I suspect that this reasoning is dimwitted legal horseshit, but, legal soundness - and, indeed, truthfulness - notwithstanding, is it philosophically sound? I think there may be people on this forum who believe - firmly or with some ambivalence - that vaccination of children should be mandatory. Does Sabisky's grotesque position on poverty-control present a challenge to those who are proponents of mandatory vaccination? Are the two issues entirely unrelated?

Was there actually a formal job description looking for weirdos? Because I'd like to read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Was there actually a formal job description looking for weirdos? Because I'd like to read it.

---

https://www.businessfast.co.uk/wp-co...weirdos039.jpg

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I suspect that this reasoning is dimwitted legal horseshit, but, legal soundness - and, indeed, truthfulness - notwithstanding, is it philosophically sound? I think there may be people on this forum who believe - firmly or with some ambivalence - that vaccination of children should be mandatory. Does Sabisky's grotesque position on poverty-control present a challenge to those who are proponents of mandatory vaccination? Are the two issues entirely unrelated?

---

Vaccinations and contraceptives are only semi-related since they fall under Public Health and Welfare, and tax dollars are used (for R & D as well as subsidizing the poor). But sex and unintended pregnancies are not contagious viruses or diseases. Treating them the same isn't just philosophically and scientifically unsound -- it's a dangerous conflation. :down:

Seems like nobody believes this, so guess we can move on to the next exercise in bullshit spreading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Seems like nobody believes this, so guess we can move on to the next exercise in bullshit spreading.

---

Why are you so mad? Get mad at your heroes for hiring a fan of eugenics if you find the reasoning so offensive.

I'm not mad. I couldn't give a shit.

Someone said something stupid in the past. Oh gee whiz, I bet if you dig through all of our online histories you can find something stupid all of us have said in the past, though none of that is probably why we were hired for our respective jobs. If the stupid thing that's revealed is a total dealbreaker they should go, but that doesn't mean they were hired because of that.

This debate isn't limited to the UK. And you're fibbing when you say you don't give a shit. ;)

In the US we have a converse argument: should poor people (women) receiving gov't benefits be denied contraceptives? And then there's abortion...

I'm not fibbing, there's no debate here. One bonkers person on the internet posted something outrageous once, that does not a debate make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I'm not fibbing, there's no debate here. One bonkers person on the internet posted something outrageous once, that does not a debate make.

---

BlowJob hired the guy, Rand.

They also did NOT say: "His opinions are not our own." when asked. In fact, they went out of their way to not say that.

We don't live in a Police State, people are entitled to a private opinion and someone being hired doesn't mean their employer shares every one of their opinions.

Especially when they did NOT say "his opinions are our own" and then fired him.

What was this guy hired to do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

What was this guy hired to do?

---

That's not been explicitly said, but most reports have suggested he'd been hired as an adviser as a "superforecaster": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51545541

No suggestions he was hired to design policies relating to eugenics :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

We don't live in a Police State, people are entitled to a private opinion and someone being hired doesn't mean their employer shares every one of their opinions.

Especially when they did NOT say "his opinions are our own" and then fired him.

---

I'd say for an advisor, opinions are relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

I'd say for an advisor, opinions are relevant.

---

Depends what they were advising upon.

And again, they fired him already. I don't think he was hired on eugenics policies do you?

To be clear, he was hired in spite of his reprehensible views, which he expressed publicly on multiple occasions rather than just "once" as RB claimed, even in an interview rather than just writing "on the internet" as RB claimed. Anyone who believes that Cummings - on whose website Sabisky shared some of his views, and who has a similar creepy obsession with right-wing tropes about racial genetic differences in IQ - wasn't aware of these views is either stupid, or believes the chief adviser to the PM is stupid, or is lying, or is suggesting that the chief adviser to the PM is lying. All of these alternatives are almost equally plausible, and several may be true at once. We can be sure Sabisky was fired because these idiots got caught rather than because they had any moral/ethical objections to working with him and paying him from public funds.

Iirc, the discussion about contraceptives for poor people originated in something Chaloobi once said in some thread. If anyone can find it, that would be cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

We don't live in a Police State, people are entitled to a private opinion and someone being hired doesn't mean their employer shares every one of their opinions.

Especially when they did NOT say "his opinions are our own" and then fired him.

---

Dude. When POLITICIANS hire someone then they usually do not do this independent of his political agenda. Next up: BlowJob hires Corbyn as their advisor.

Also, he wasn't fired. He resigned on his own.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...enics-writings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Dude. When POLITICIANS hire someone then they usually do not do this independent of his political agenda.

Also, he wasn't fired. He resigned on his own.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...enics-writings

---

Oh sure he "resigned" :rolleyes:. Because a resignation in politics is never asked for. Don't be naive :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Oh sure he "resigned" :rolleyes:. Because a resignation in politics is never asked for. Don't be naive :rolleyes:

---

The stronger signal would have been to actually fire him. Which you're allowed to do, y'know, with people you hire.

But, seriously, he was not fired in total contradiction to what you stated repeatedly. Even if he was asked for it he was allowed to resign. But nice attempt at gaslighting.

To fire someone you should generally have an issue with their performance in the job, hence asking for a resignation is easier. If you want rid of them then yes of course they should be allowed to resign unless the firing is eg due to something criminal which wasn't the case here.

Twitter Link

You can also fire someone for having views not compatible with the mission statement. And please, Dunn as a source? Why not someone from the DailyFail as well?

Firing without warning should normally only happen for gross misconduct and disagreeing with someone's private views that aren't related to what they've been hired for isn't normally gross misconduct. Easier and cleaner to accept a resignation.

I'll never read The Sun but Dunn is a journalist who is often quoted by other media.

And? Often quoted to show what a dunce he is?

And, Rand, what was he hired to do exactly? I'll wait till you come up with a job description...

No, not a dunce. He's a credible journalist despite the rag he works for and breaks stories quite often. Thankfully online so we don't have to go to the rag he works for.

He was hired as a "superforecaster" and has been sacked so I honestly couldn't care less what his job description was. It was not eugenics policy making :rolleyes:, if you think otherwise then you feel free to quote his job description :rolleyes:

"Eugenics policy maker" would look awful nice on a linkedin page...

:haha:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No, not a dunce. He's a credible journalist despite the rag he works for and breaks stories quite often. Thankfully online so we don't have to go to the rag he works for.

He was hired as a "superforecaster" and has been sacked so I honestly couldn't care less what his job description was. It was not eugenics policy making :rolleyes:, if you think otherwise then you feel free to quote his job description :rolleyes:

---

A credible journalist works for credible journals. Can't have it both ways.

And a superforecaster is so meaningless as a job title that it can mean anything. Probably was supposed to forecast the impact of eugenics on the NHS.

This isn't Germany. We don't do that. :rolleyes: