I mean, I agree with Arch, there, as well.

violence is the nature of life

Rye your not a political scientist so why are you making political arguements that would effect alot of people.

That same logic applies to you.

did rye claim you needed to be a geneticist?

he just claimed you were wrong

affect*

a lot*

Your the one who used that logic in the frist place.

The simple fact is, I'm not trying to castrate people.

I'm not cutting people's genitals off, I'm preventing them from having children.

And you believe there's a difference.

why are you preventing people from having children?

Moreover, how?

why dont you just use natural selection like the rest of us decent people

Because they have bad genes.

If you're not castrating an individual, chemically or otherwise

how would you be preventing someone from having children?

sounds like a argument for darwin

Would you be giving out state-issued chastity belts?

believe it or not people with bad genes on average dont breed as much as those who can speak without stuttering

Rye I said I would have them sterilized, aka not cut their genitals off.

So, checmically castrated.

Yes.

your silly

Furthermore, he doesn't understand what he's talking about.

i dont think he realizes that low iq and genetic disorders arnt the real problem the world has

the real problem is boomers

Look I think eugenics is a good way of preventing bad genes from being prevalent.

it actually isint

for 2 reasons

I'm think of the future as well as the present. It will make both better.

I*

present*

Eugenicist, castrate thyself.

I'm dyslexic nothing to do with genes.

Is dyslexia hereditary? Dyslexia is regarded as a neurobiological condition that is genetic in origin. This means that individuals can inherit this condition from a parent and it affects the performance of the neurological system (specifically, the parts of the brain responsible for learning to read).

Cool I don't have that gene.

Well, if you're suddenly not dyslexic, what IS your learning disability, then?

what it does is put genetic development into the hands of people or worse, the state, both of which are lazy the latter being criminally lazy. this means what will likely happen is any natural genetic divercity in reaction to natural influinces on selection will be overruled, lowering a shield agianst pathogins. its not a nail in the coffen but it does suck. the second problem is that it doesent actually work, because you cant actually predict mutation, there will never be a time when mutation wont occur until you have ofspring manufacturing where you basicly leave the phenotypical development of our ofspring up to a machine. till then eugenics can only react to bad genes that for the most part will be done away with by natural selection anyway and cant help with the incredibly wide spread genetic disorders that effect hundreds of millions of people in any reasonable timeframe

I concur with Arch-fiend on both points.

I'm dyslexic and don't have that gene I've been tested.

basicly the problem with eugenics is that its old science

That's convenient.

doesent actually line up with what we currently understand about genetics and evolution. at best it would only have a 1% effect per generation and only if you had a global scale application

That's my situation.

Because otherwise, for the glory of the Fascist Republic of America, we'd have to castrate you. It's okay, it's not death. And it'll only be chemical. You'll still have your gnards, but they just won't work.

infact you might actually get worse results when you lump society into the factors of eugenics because you will get rebels

If it was genetic I wouldn't have kids I don't want anyone to have to have that problem.

Could I ask, aryan, when you were tested?

trust me nigga genetic defects may be heritble but they never leave the genepool until you stop being the species suseptible to it. its a possibility, you can only at best lower the chances but not even down to those extreme probabilitys mathmaticians talk about all the time

I was tested in 2010.

I've got bad news for you.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713002218?via%3Dihub

This study came out in 2013.

Ok then I'll get retested.

you would have better chances ended genetic diseases by blocking out the sun than you would with eugenics

also currently the only people known for being immune to hiv are an extremely rare subset of black people

Just be careful when you DO chemically castrate yourself while being the change you wish to see in the world. Chemical castration tends to promote man-tits.

i get the feeling your not interested in doing whats nessicary to spread aids immunity

Eugenics is selective breeding of people like farmers selectively breed animals and crops. Just becuase we don't know all the bad genes that doesn't mean we can't use it to deal with the genes we alreadly know about.

no we can for the reasons i just discribed

Eugenics hasn't done very many good things for farming, either.

Frequently, when they solve for one problem, they create another.

or i should say eugenics doesent really do what you think it does

selective breeding uses VERY small populations and creates highly geneticly similar ofspring within racial populations

you dont want that

you couldent actually get that with humans

Really have you ever eaten wild vegetables lately. The food you eat is the result of thousands of years of selective breeding.

if you chemicly castrated every human who can spread a genetic disorder we know about youd kill more than half the world population

I can most definitely tell the difference between a store-bought tomoato and an heirloom tomato.

theres also a reason that sheep are used for cloning experiments

I don't want to sterilize every one. I want sterilize violent criminals.

You want eugenics.

again with this pussification of populations

sterilizing violent people is what wars are for

You want to use what your science recognizes as 👍🏻 Good Enough 👍🏻 for castration and removal from the gene pool.

regardless of the margin of error.

Yes there will be a margin of error but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

It would be kind of funny if it turns out Aryan has those genes and got castrated.

it would mean I have principles.

i dont think peaceful people are all that great

I think having less criminals is a good thing.

it aint violent criminals who are poluting the earth and buring down rainforests

criminals*

If you have less people there would be less pollution and deforestation.

And having principles doesn't mean a whole lot when those principles take away the general point of life.

it aint violent criminals who rely on a finite fuelsource without ever developing an alternitive which will eventually cause the worst economic collapse in human history when it begins to run out

Yes I think we should have fewer and better people Fiend.

violence isint a bad thing though

violence is one of the 3 forms of social conflict resolution next to discussion and seporation

It depends on the situation, in war yes it's good to be better at using violence then your enemy but it isn't a good thing to have random people commiting violent crimes.

this trait isint just used during war, its used to figure out if you need to have a war

It's also used in natural disaster.

That urge to fight is very similar to other base survival instincts.

hence the 'fight or flight' reaction.

If you're artificially selecting for people who choose flight

you're intentionally declawing the human race.

I'm talking about people commiting violent crimes.