Uhh, based? Between this and pushing back against the trans stuff, Im starting to like this boomer.

Uhh, based? Between this and pushing back against the trans stuff, I’m starting to like this boomer.

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Umm, has Richard Dawkins seen the ungodly abominations the selective breeding of animals has produced?
    Industrial raised cattle should be reclassified as a biohazard.
    Look at this short-faced, bug-eyed freak. And you want to try something similar with humans?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Holocaustianity

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Eugenics?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Cows sometimes need to have exhaust holes put through their stomachs to release methane build up

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        hahaha brap

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        How often does that happen though? Like what's the incidence? I've never seen it IRL

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      FRICK history and humanities
      this is now a SMASHED and SLAMMED thread

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Your a fricking moron. Dawkins just made a factual statement. He did not morally condone eugenics. He also did not say that it should be practiced or that it leads to any desirable results.

      Bro you got reddit mindrotted, like 50% of this thread.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        yeah it's just a random piece of trivia that popped into his head. have a nice day moron.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Can you read and comprehend sentences or are you just faking it?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I really don't think I can dumb it down to your level if you don't get it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            lmfao
            good luck out there anon, you'll need it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They bred for one specific feature at the expense of everything else, and that's what they got. Ergo, it works. If we're smart enough to do it well is a whole other question (we're not).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Read
        The Revolutionary Phenotype: The amazing story of how life begins and how it ends.
        by Jean-François Gariépy

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Fact is... he's right. That's a fact.
      But we're a bunch of pussies and cowards unable to acknowledge our own flaws. If we want it done, we'll need a third party to enforce it on us.

      Those were the product of crude selection over a certain feature. It's impressive even if you don't like it.

      https://i.imgur.com/W17hK0F.jpg

      Cows sometimes need to have exhaust holes put through their stomachs to release methane build up

      This is used to study their stomach content. You can release the methane of a sick bloated cow with just a puncture.

      >We have the better genes
      >But we'd lose in natural selection
      Yeah okay coping genetic deadends. The original social darwinists were just consistent anti welfare guys. Those who are unfit to survive won't. But eugenics isn't natural selection it is artificial selection. By office bureaucrats who fetishize their political power because they have no personal power.

      There is no longer a natural selection, not in human society. Our hierarchies produce few quality aristocratic lines and tons of lower class with low standards but great quantity.
      What happened in India should tell you all.

      How the frick do you breed someone for something as nebulous as "intelligence" lmao. Plus humanity had 299,000 years of nearly all physical and mental deficiencies resulting in immediate death and definitely no breeding yet we still have those deformities. Getting the government involved in human breeding won't give any returns beyond homosexualry totalitarianism.

      You can effectively measure it, evaluate the performances of each individuals and grant them mating rights.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >There is no longer a natural selection
        This is wrong. And everything about India's population rise is natural.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Good morning sir, doing the needful?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's 1pm here and evening in India my 52% friend.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There is natural selection.
        You just aren't being selected.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What elements of the environment do you feel are putting evolutionary pressure on humans? We live in every environment on Earth.
          Do people who lack body hair fail to reproduce as well because they get cold?
          Do people who suffer from bad eyesight get selected against because they can't function as well?
          Do people who can't digest abundant food sources get selected against because there is no other food for them to get by on?
          What happens to people who have immune systems that couldn't deal with influenza? Do they die because they can't be immunized to it?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What happens to people who have immune systems that couldn't deal with influenza? Do they die because they can't be immunized to it?
            Yeah...? What do you think COVID did?
            Humans can adapt to certain environment pressures due to their intelligence giving them the ability to create technology, but only that can go so far.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Millions of people who were born unworthy were saved from dying by COVID by the vaccine.
            Is that what you think natural selection is? We give each other inert antibodies grown in a lab and squabble about its political implications?
            Do you think that's how the birds on the Galapagos Islands grew different beaks?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Millions of people who were born unworthy were saved from dying by COVID by the vaccine.
            The COVID vaccine killed millions of people though and didn't work.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Imagine a caveman like you being smart enough to select for genes which create an actual human. Bro everybody with 2 brain cells can see, that all you want is power over other people to favor your own genes. Instead I suggest, you do the gene pool a favor and have a nice day. With your statements you have just proven that otherwise you are unfit. Your criteria for selecting better humans are as much a bad joke as your genes are.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Are you moronic? Those dogs were selected to be faulty so of course they turned out that way. When people think of human eugenics they mean selecting only the healthiest, attractive, strongest and intelligent specimens.

    • 1 month ago
      Cult of Passion

      >And you want to try something similar with humans?
      Jordam Peterson agrees, Pugs specifically are the worst dog breed.

      Mouth of Sauron, he bids you his welcomed arrival.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Mainstream people that you imagine to be your ideological enemies most often aren't. They are just people making a lot of money quoting current thing, they really don't give a shit. If the pendulum flipped overnight, they'd say something different in the morning, sure as shit.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Two eugenically approved people can still have a child that has a disability, making the whole process pointless.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >making higher IQ people who are less likely to produce offspring with congenital diseases is pointless

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >he thinks eugenics is to make people more smarter instead of servile

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You think improvement is pointless unless it directly leads to total perfection?

        Eugenics was never about "improvement" or "making high IQ people" more than it was about killing or sterilizing undesirables.
        Eugenics only treats the symptoms of a problem in a population and not the cause.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Eugenics was never about "improvement" or "making high IQ people" more than it was about killing or sterilizing undesirables.
          Literally the same thing.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Eugenics was never about "improvement" or "making high IQ people" more than it was about killing or sterilizing undesirables.
          If you want to have a population with good genes you need to stop certain people from breeding, in other words sterilization.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >good genes
            Can you point out which genes are the good genes EVERYONE needs or ELSE?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Above average fitness, above average intellectual potential, above average height, conventionally attractive facial features, graceful aging, resistance to degenerative neurological problems, etc..
            There's no GUARANTEE that any of this will make a person happy, but it makes the average human life easier and prevents people from being fricked over by RNG. It will even the playing field and open up opportunities for them to figure out the rest of their life.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Intellect and physical health are inherently good but height isn't. It could easily just lead to people trying to one-up each other until our kids all hit their heads on doorways and our grocery bills are sky high

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        How the frick do you breed someone for something as nebulous as "intelligence" lmao. Plus humanity had 299,000 years of nearly all physical and mental deficiencies resulting in immediate death and definitely no breeding yet we still have those deformities. Getting the government involved in human breeding won't give any returns beyond homosexualry totalitarianism.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You think improvement is pointless unless it directly leads to total perfection?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      what? you wouldnt let that offspring reproduce. How is breeding such a hard concept to grasp once we apply it to humans instead of horses?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Breeding plants or animals works because they are bred for one specific purpose and overseen by an intelligent outsider who gets to harvest the results and we're apathetic to the costs.
        Honestly the atgument is moot anyhow. Gene selection and artificial wombs will solve all demographic problems within the next 50 years. All that matters is who will be in power then.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I appreciate how he realized the horrors of mudslimes and mudslime diaspora.
    Better late than never.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I think atheists need to embrace their cultural Christianity for a few generations for the sake of everyone on earth. New atheism failed, they aren't capable of bringing forth this scientific utopia promised by the 4 prophets of new atheism, it's time to sit back and wait for their next messianic figure

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Bullshit. He was already criticising Islam when you still thought it's offensive.
        Cultural christian means it's better to say merry christmas than stab 10 people in a supermarket.

        >the 4 prophets of new atheism
        What a load of horseshit. No atheist put half as much stake in Dawkins as christlarpers do the millisecond he says something positive about christjudaism.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >cultural Christianity
        Just say liberalism, that's what him and that bimbo Allah Hirsi Huakbar actually mean. Specifically, they want to isolate and freeze in time a particular moment of the process during which Christianity was toppled by the liberalism and individualism it enabled, but during which one could still have the benefits of both.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Dawkins has said he likes Christian culture, and has no problem with belief. His only concerns are when religion is obscurantist and interferes with secular progress.

        This is a position he has held for what.
        20-30 years? Yet it always seems to come as a surprise. Remember Moldbug's how Dawkins got Pwned what was that twenty years ago, and even then he got btfo when people pointed out Dawkins has always been a cultural Christian/liberal.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >interferes with secular progress.
          Progress towards what?

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >We have the better genes
    >But we'd lose in natural selection
    Yeah okay coping genetic deadends. The original social darwinists were just consistent anti welfare guys. Those who are unfit to survive won't. But eugenics isn't natural selection it is artificial selection. By office bureaucrats who fetishize their political power because they have no personal power.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Eugenics was pioneered by a feminist. That's all you need to know.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Uhhhh indiabros? We gotta do something about this

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why are we equating the notion that maybe having fewer hereditary diseases would be nice with the excesses of aesthetic breeding of pets to the point of crippling health problems?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      In case you're serious: It's a gigantic political and ethical step to say someone is less desirable to reproduce because of their genetic predisposition.
      We can add to that the fact that most of these genes can be activated or deactivated epigenetically and that lastly hereditarity isn't black or white.
      Pic rel. Father has down syndrome son is a doctor and outperforms every edgy eugenics supporter in the world.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >a woman fricked that thing

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The alternative to Christainity is gay-shit Marxist-Leninism atheist communism.
    I'm not sure why I would I bother with the alternative when history shows its a disaster.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Define eugenics, because in practice among humans it always eventually meant failed incest-abomimation experiments with shrinking genepools, sustained only by secretly mixing in transiant hobo "untermench" DNA.

    Now, of course, if you do it on a global scale and based on real biological factors, it could work, but somehow I doubt you'll sign up for the global interracial ubermench breeding program.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >dawkins
    >morality

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *