Loading...

Stilted Theories. | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » General » Philosophy/Politics
Dark Enlightenment
Argue a widely discredited argument or make up a theory that you then have to defend. Things like "pro" arguments for racial purity in a species evolution.  


I will attempt that again. 

The tendency of humans towards eugenics is the species way of preserving the best possible genetic offspring through indentification of beauty.  What you view as beautiful is what you have to access to or what your caste qualifies you to get. Deformities, differences, and things unlike your social caste or allele group are segregated.

If humans weren't all inbred every person would have a trillion ancestors after 1000 years (vs. the 300 million total humans on the planet at that time).  Aesthetic beauty and familiarity trumps diversity in the limited and related population our ancestors lived.

Key criteria: Are they noticeably unlike the others (inbred)?

Counterintuitively, the more the population grows the more uniqueness and difference is valued as the need to have genetically superior non-inbred superbabies fades. 


A real life example of the "throwback" human can be found in the coal rich mountains of Appalachia. 


Anyone want to play, or did interactive game threads stop when Jason King started filming his bathroom?

The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Oct 3
Share:
AK Mod
AK Oct 3
Sure. 


Abortion is the one issue that I disagree sharply with the right on. 


They play this game of "ok, when is a fetus considered more than just a clump of cells - at what point is it a human being?" (which is fallacious, because life is an emergent phenomenon - there's no delineating between is and is not with these sorts of things) In failing to draw a definitive line they argue "then abortion is never right, since every fetus is a potential human being" 


Screw that.


I believe in late-term abortion - even up until the age of 7. I believe that up until the age of 7, parents - especially the mother - may elect to have their children euthanized; no questions asked. Anywhere from conception until the age of 7 is fair game. Have at it.


Why? Well


1) because we have no issue sending 18 year-olds off to fight wars and die just out of high-school. 


2) death is guaranteed by virtue of being born. One is only hastening the inevitable in having an abortion or committing infanticide. It's never a question of "if" but of "when".


3) children born to families that do not want them and cannot support them often have a grim prognosis for quality of life - grim enough to where they may, themselves, often wish they had never been born. This is a common human lament. We're preemptively granting wishes in some cases!


4) Children growing up knowing full-well that their parents can end their lives on a whim will make for some seriously well-behaved citizens and early on. No more of the "fuck you mom" generation. Plus it simplifies things. If you're the mother, you can kill it and even eat it whenever you like - up until the age of seven. 


That'll teach these spoiled entitled brats.

The Forum post is edited by AK Oct 3
Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now

Donate

This site is largely funded by donations. You can show your support by donating. Thanks. Every dollar helps.

No content