Why do we get triggered by eugenics/social Darwinism and say its bad when we have things like
>top 100 universities in the world
>best undergrad student of the year award
>best research project of the semester
>recognizing one valedictorian at the end of the degree
>various awards and competition to recognize the best of the best
>only the best candidate will get the job
>have a global ranking system on Runescape
>measuring self worth by the number of likes and retweets
>measuring self worth by the number of likes and retweets
stop projecting adolf
nice picture you got there. He's your reason. Eugenecisits at the end of the day want to recreate the world - often times by erasing those of lesser standing. Our current system allows for competition and rewards merit; it doesn't eliminate people from the gene pool.
Those who fail to compete fail to reproduce. It's the same.
That's inaccurate. The conclusion may be the same, but the odds are drastically different. The number of people that would be automatically precluded from even having a chance at a life is different. They're not logically equivalent.
Because people are allowed to be failures. Nothing wrong about pointing out that they are failures though.
Eugenics is just progressive Darwinism. No killing fields or gelding needed. Anything with intent to affect genetic heritability for social or personal gain. Screening for genetic syndromes, the good rationale for abortion (NIGGERS!!!), any pro-social institutional barrier to reproduction (like marriage), all of this can be argued to be eugenic practices.
Stop being a reactionary darwinist, shitlord
You're naive if you think that's all eugenics amounts to. By your line of reasoning, simple using modern medicine amounts to eugenics. T
Have you studied the history of the eugenics movement? I swear kids like you are credulous
You say that as though there is a universal standard for termination in eugenics, there is not.
Also, let me add that embryo selection is imminent and will likely be ubiquitously adopted
totally consenting, very low risk, no harm no foul eugenics.
If history is any indication, there will be a a standard. And it'll be imposed on the people by those that have the power to do so.
If anything, the practice of modern medicine has contributed to dysgenics.
Yet it is not universal, it is to be determined by the society which practices it, in accordance with their beliefs.
You cannot imply there is inherently a favorable or unfavorable difference in odds. Only approx 81% of men procreate as it is.
>Only approx 81% of men procreate as it is.
A good share of that is consenting, in some way at least. The man chooses to abstain from reproduction, rather than his fitness and his place in the statistical left nook being parallel. and proportional.
There is no basis on which such an assessment can be made.
Even numales get married, user
for proofs, consult v or pol
Again, no basis.
Numales are no doubt represented in the 81% regardless.
People are going to be performing self-eugenics pretty soon with designer babies. Of course they are going to want their kids to be the most attractive, most intelligent, most healthy etc
I foresee a massive number of blue eyed 'Caucasian' type kids being born in China and Asia, since white features are seen as being most attractive on a virtually global scale.
I'm fine with natural selection as long as it's not enforced upon the general population. If a bunch of people want to come together and make a "best x of the x award" I don't give a shit. What I have a problem with is creating special advantages/disadvantages to certain people based on natural selection cuz le nature. It's equally as arbitrary as basing your entire economic system on photosynthesis.
>I foresee a massive number of blue eyed 'Caucasian' type kids being born in China and Asia, since white features are seen as being most attractive on a virtually global scal
>GUYS, GUYS THESE PEOPLE USE WHITENERS
>OBVIOUSLY WE WUZ ATTRACTIVE N SHIET
Daily reminder "pale skin" was attractive here on:
1) Women alone.
2) Before we even saw white people.
>tfw can't even discuss curing/removing retardation/autism without MUH EUGRNICS happening
How do people equate curing a birth defect with no positive traits to killing off ethnicities?
Depends.
What do you mean by 'curing'?
Because in the past, edgy racists identified other races as "defects in human evolution."
So Eugenics is ruined like term Aryan, the toothbrush stache, and the Roman Salute.
Autism seems to be polymorphic and associated with intelligence, the recessive detrimental aspect seems to be 'autism'.
tl:dr: it's never going away.
Freedom is the right of all sentient beings
Whites are the elves of the human race. They're pretty and everyone thinks so, but all they want to do is both sit on their high and horse and talk about oppression
im white and i don't
because the best arise without tampering
tampering migth just as well fuck it all up
no need to fix something that aint broke
now socio-economic problems therre you have something that needs fixing
>Why are we against systemic genocide when we have university rankings?
The mods on this thread can suck my dick
>reactionary
>darwinist
The fuck?
>eugenics is comparable to class rank or retweets
you didnt even try
Because normies are stupid, instead of trying to prevent cystic fibrosis and things they would want to breed everyone to be blonde blue eyed aryans and prevent negro supergeniuses from applying themselves.
We should leave it in the realm of science and medicine.
Is that why Asians dye their hair colours unnatural to their race? Is that why they use coloured contacts? Is that why they get double eyelid surgery? I know the pale skin thing existed before the Western hegemony, but come on man, get real.
I expect whites to get pronounced cheek bones and slender faces and frames as well.
Eugenics by itself is something we actually do - when breeding animals. Every animal breeder knows that it's very nasty thing and involves(or involved, at some point) tons of inbreeding and even bigger tons of "failed experiments".
We don't understand human genetic code well enough to do it. Then again by the time we'll be able to manipulate genes to pick the traits of your unborn child the issue will come back.
Social Darwinism by itself is redundant because it assumes that everybody MUST be dick to everybody else. Forget the fact that it's the people - that is biological organisms that apply Social-Darwinist rules without realising it - have build things like welfare state, religious morality or socialism.
This is a fallacy most people seem to fall into - when left to their own, people are more likely to cooperate than to compete with each other and all the structures that "enslave" us from our evolutionary-harcoded "kill or be killed"(eat-or-be-eaten) was a pre-emptive mechanisms to prevent that "be killed" part, therefore a product of social-darwinism.
...
If she was white, then she would just be some brunette from Jersey with bleached hair and a spray tan
Spray tan, botox and a perm
Kek
The most sought after sperm donations are from Germanic and Scandinavians.
You're probably a butthurt Indian.
And what are the basis for you argument? What are the basis to even say that the people who are not reproducting are not doing so because they have bad genes or such? Why don't you show actual studies instead of bullshit conspiracy articles?
Basically this. Nothing wrong with Eugenics- but germans are retards and messed it up for everyone as usual.
Plebs ruin everything.
The danger is that there is no restriction on who is a plebs or not and they exist in every strata of society and hell everyone is in somepoint or someway . The most dangerous are of course the politicians because their ignorance can be applied in a wide fashion.
More like the allies ruined it by endlessly shaming believing in anything the germans believed in
because it's undemocratic and mean just like gym class. a lack of athleticism is associated with leftism and there may be something to the intersect.
Isn't a lack of competency in anything associated with leftism?
>pic very related
>mfw conservatives are actually more likely to place social goals over individual well being