Message from @SoloJones1985
Discord ID: 678930352151986176
Now here's some news
Very concentrated, 10x off the normal max scale for windy.con
It’s
okay
to be
wuhan
Apparently wuhan has an active fire 🙂
That's just human bodies burning
Thats wonderful
Retards are now calling for the deplatforming of Richard Dawkins
Emergency services are having to reroute because of XR
Same fucking shit as Canada
Over there, railroads.
<:angrypepe:497157904743268363> <:angrypepe:497157904743268363> <:angrypepe:497157904743268363>
Fuck those immoral people, jail them and let services operate normally instead.
<:angrypepe:497157904743268363> <:angrypepe:497157904743268363> <:angrypepe:497157904743268363>
.
A 2 minute summary on Dawkins
.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mW3-1L_BSPQ
Even if your goal is to save the planet and even if you have the right ideas on what's going on. Don't fucking block EMS
All that does is kill people
Also, on the concept of eugenics, it really really depends on what you think it can accomplish, what your goals are, what your morals are, and how you view other people.
You can definitely bread for certain physical traits like hair, eyes, skin, and physique. And you might be able to for certain things like genetic disorders and genetic benefits. However, you will never be able to bread for what really matters in a person. Their consciousness and quality of character.
The problem is, most people who have an interest in eugenics also have a view of people as livestock they can bread to produce something better. Which just is not a functional mindset.
Do I think Dawkins should be cancelled? Absolutely not.
@Sq crcl Molyneux completely strawmanned Dawkins
I'll give it a watch.
@Troye Almost every law is eugenics
In some direction
Welfare, for instance, is eugenics in a negative direction
How is "don't kill people" eugenics
I really don't get the fuss. Dawkins is anti-eugenics. He just doesn't want people conflating "it's immoral" with "it's scientifically impossible".
For instance, instating a death penalty for crime reduces the violent genes in that population
Something similar happened in Western Europe between 1000 AD and 1800 AD
> Through its monopoly on violence, the State tends to pacify social relations. Such pacification proceeded slowly in Western Europe between the 5th and 11th centuries, being hindered by the rudimentary nature of law enforcement, the belief in a man's right to settle personal disputes as he saw fit, and the Church's opposition to the death penalty. These hindrances began to dissolve in the 11th century with a consensus by Church and State that the wicked should be punished so that the good may live in peace. Courts imposed the death penalty more and more often and, by the late Middle Ages, were condemning to death between 0.5 and 1.0% of all men of each generation, with perhaps just as many offenders dying at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial. Meanwhile, the homicide rate plummeted from the 14th century to the 20th. The pool of violent men dried up until most murders occurred under conditions of jealousy, intoxication, or extreme stress. The decline in personal violence is usually attributed to harsher punishment and the longer-term effects of cultural conditioning. It may also be, however, that this new cultural environment selected against propensities for violence.
Also, eugenics doesn't necessarily have to be through force. You can pay people to voluntarily get sterilized.