I fully support eugenics.
Ugly people shouldn't be allowed to breed. Kill all inferior ugly male species. Only Chads should be allowed to thrive. All other people are suffering anyways. Also, biology also supports the view. So I fully support eugenics and the process of extermination of inferior humans. It's just the next step in human evolution.
16 comments
Realizing this is a troll, I will respond anyway.
Bananas. Read up on the history of yellow bananas if you think that's a good idea.
Also, beauty is relative, and no indication of quality other than an agreed-upon aesthetic.
Pop quiz: Who had the more lasting influence on human society?
Louis XV?
image
James Watt?
image
If you really feel that you are "ugly", and that ugly means you're unlikely to breed, then nature will take care of it .....uh.....well, not in our lifetime.
I can't speak for Pharoah, Skide, but I can speak for myself: You shouldn't suffer for being the product of a flawed ideology. I am also a product of failed ideology. But you will not find any love for negative eugenics - I'm actually all for positive eugenics - from me, It's wrong from a human rights standpoint. It's also pseudoscience. Researchers are just now learning about epigenetics; that narture really can balance nature. Before that, eugenics was based largely on the idea that heredity was extremely fixed, to the point where drinkers or regular drug users were assumed to raise more drinkers or regular drug users not because children copy their parents, but because children are destined from conception based on the few heredity traits and diseases science fully understands at this point.
If we don't fully understand genetics, we have no business fucking with negative eugenics. In fact, even when we can create genetically enhanced persons fit to order, we still don't have any business in the sex/reproductive lives of other persons (and this is coming from someone who thinks people who drink regularly knowing they're pregnant are of the lowest sort...total scum of the earth).
@The Angry Dybbuk
They believed they were saving my life in doing so from an extremely painful and nasty death by radiation sickness, that the danger itself was greatly exxagerated was a different matter alltogether.
you know my stance on the entire matter, it is similar in that these mechanisms are already almost incredibly complex and by their very nature will only become more so. When learning new art, one should always first learn and practice on the basic version of the instruments before taking on the tools of the masters.
ps. It`s not even the damage, it`s the full and total awarness of it and doing it anyway, If I get the belly at any time not an enchancer nor even fast food will find a way inside my body.
I can see that, Skide; I think persons who refrain from having children after their own DNA has been partially lysed by radiation are doing a service to humanity and posterity with their forbearance. In fact, I think they should be rewarded (as is fitting for someone who supports positive eugenics). But disability is ultimately an innocent condition of being - one any person can experience at any time for so many different reasons, and one many people live with not feeling as if they've been somehow ripped off.
I worry that negative eugenics devalues the lives of disabled people with genetic defects. A person's worth can be measured in part by the good they do, in part by the evil they don't do, but it shouldn't - and I'm not accusing you of doing this - be measured by circumstances beyond their control.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
