User:DBaiocchi78/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:31, 28 November 2024

This is the user sandbox of DBaiocchi78. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

Woah, not worth saving seems really harsh. You don't seem to know a lot about this topic.

It is clear that his cleft palette has nothing to do with this article.That's true.

But there should still be some kind of heading that discusses the enormously influential Habermas. Because what is also true, is that there was a big and lasting controversy in Germany because of his book that was then rehashed after him by the German (new)eugenics proponents Sloterdik and then Sarrazin. These two are widely known. German far right publisher Götz Kubitschek who has a lot of influence on the increasingly powerful Alternative for Germany (AfD) party also talks a lot about it in this tradition. Left-leaning social scientists also often invoke his work to this day.

Habermas is like the European Michael Sandel when it comes to criticizing eugenics, but was also subjected to lots of criticism there. By far most of the scientific papers discussing his book are actually critical of his basic premises, even though the press coverage was strongly in favor of his arguments. He was mostly criticized from the right that I mentioned for ignoring what they claimed to be biologícal facts and criticized by the left for supposedly smuggling in unmistakably Christian talk of fundamental human dignity.

The only fractions that consistently accepted his conclusions within academia were Christian theologians and some constitutional theorists. It was a similar situation in academic France and especially Italy. There was almost no reception from the US for some reason which is likely why you don't know about it.

MY IDEAS:

- Should be slightly shortened with the biased talk of his disability removed

- Compared to Sandel, his criticism was based on an individualistic and not a communitarian concern. Maybe Sandel and Habermas should have headings that complement each other like so?

- Maybe the heading should be changed to something like 'The Continental Controversy' and copied back in? Or, maybe it should be inserted into an article on Designer babies or New Eugenics instead? Would it be allowable to insert it into both?

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 It is clear that his cleft palette has nothing to do with this article.That's true.
-But there should still be some kind of heading that discusses the enormously influential Habermas. Because what is also true, is that there was a big and lasting controversy in Germany because of his book that was then rehashed after him by the German (new)eugenics proponents Sloterdik and then Sarrazin. These two are widely known. German far right activist [[Götz Kubitschek]] who has a lot of influence on the increasingly powerful [[Alternative for Germany]] (AfD) party also talks a lot about it in this tradition. Left-leaning social scientists also invoke his work to this day. These authors shouldn't be glorified, but the controversy is very real and more sophisticated than it appears at first.
+But there should still be some kind of heading that discusses the enormously influential Habermas. Because what is also true, is that there was a big and lasting controversy in Germany because of his book that was then rehashed after him by the German (new)eugenics proponents Sloterdik and then Sarrazin. These two are widely known. German far right  [[Götz Kubitschek]] who has a lot of influence on the increasingly powerful [[Alternative for Germany]] (AfD) party also talks a lot about it in this tradition. Left-leaning social scientists also invoke his work to this day.
-Habermas is like the European [[Michael Sandel]] when it comes to criticizing eugenics, but was also subjected to a huge amount of criticism there. By far most of the scientific papers discussing his book are actually critical of his basic premises, even though the press coverage was strongly in favor of his arguments. He was mostly criticized from the right that I mentioned for ignoring what they claimed to be biologícal facts and criticized by the left for supposedly smuggling in basically Christian talk of fundamental human dignity.
+Habermas is like the European [[Michael Sandel]] when it comes to criticizing eugenics, but was also subjected to  of criticism there. By far most of the scientific papers discussing his book are actually critical of his basic premises, even though the press coverage was strongly in favor of his arguments. He was mostly criticized from the right that I mentioned for ignoring what they claimed to be biologícal facts and criticized by the left for supposedly smuggling in  Christian talk of fundamental human dignity.
 The only fractions that consistently accepted his conclusions within academia were Christian theologians and some constitutional theorists. It was a similar situation in academic France and especially Italy. There was almost no reception from the US for some reason which is likely why you don't know about it.