>Eugenics is not the same thing as leaving infants out to die. I hope you’re not focusing on the hyperbole as your point of argument. I didn’t mean we have to make infants suffer, *literally* on the side of a hill; certainly it can be done more humanely these days. The point is about the sustainability of a civilization that’s made itself financially responsible for people who can’t or don’t contribute to the financial development of the same civilization. *Actually* literally the same as niggers. Do you support the idea of welfare for non-violent drug addict criminal niggers who do nothing to advance society? Legitimately, honestly, what’s the difference between the two? Neither benefits society, but neither has control over whether they benefit society or not. A nigger is born a nigger and a retard is born a retard. >You are advocating that we practice it out of cruelty No, I’m advocating that we do what is best for society as a whole. Ancient Rome also reached a point where they were wealthy enough that they could support non-functional members of society out of compassion, so they stopped killing them as babies and started using society’s resources to support them. Where’s the Roman Empire? Do you think they would’ve had as much trouble funding their defenses if they hadn’t depleted so much of their wealth on useless individuals? Individuals either contribute to the growth of society, or they drain from society. There is nothing cruel about eliminating an individual that drains from everyone else for the sake of the well-being and sustainability of an entire culture >A lot of crippleds and retards hold down jobs. Yeah, they hold *subsidized* jobs where a company is willing to have them do half the amount of work in the same amount of time as a person of below average intelligence while the rest of society pays the company back for their loss. They may be able to function, but they aren’t productive, in any sense. And as such, there’s no reason they should be a part of a society that expects to thrive and grow