[9Dino]

Keyword: "Likely"

(Also vote no if you're gonna disagree ffs)

99% of people with down syndrome will have kids without it

 

[Circadex]

99% of people with down syndrome will have kids without it

Not true. For females (Which i assume birth the most) the risk is around 30-55%.

 

[Sali]

Tell me, how can an ideology that's goal is to improve the quality of life for people bad? Eugenics (When the means are good) is a undeniable good. I don't care about your moral Olympics, why the fuck can people with down syndrome have kids?.
it is absolutely ridiculous to let these people reproduce, their off spring are more likely to be non contributing mindless vegetables. Anyone with hereditary conditions that are a net-negative on society, or cause discomfort with the person, shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. This also applies to the overwhelmingly weak and stupid. And obviously, those with positive genetic factors should be encouraged to reproduce with similar people via social programs.
What method to i propose to stop the reproduction? sterilisation. All though, if a person is born and doesn't present symptoms (Yet has the genetic risk factor that warrants unfortunate off spring) they should be finically persuaded to have no kids/have less. And also, my own personal prejudice says: "All normies should be killed, and only based ND chads allowed to have kids" but that's just, well based, but not futile.

And if you disagree i ask you, if you had the option to edit the genetics of your child to insure they're smart, healthy & attractive, would you choose for that? or would you risk them becoming a iqlet schizo. You'd obviously choose the first, this is non negotiable. And if you "disagree" you're just virtue signalling or heavily retarded.

Solid and fair point tbh, having kids no matter how horrible your genetics are is setting them to failure. As said, they won't help or contribute to anything society wise, just stupid vegetables floating and voting to fuck up the country. Should have AT LEAST an IQ teste to determine who can or can't have kids

 

[ImmortalVenerableAgj]

Tell me, how can an ideology that's goal is to improve the quality of life for people bad? Eugenics (When the means are good) is a undeniable good. I don't care about your moral Olympics, why the fuck can people with down syndrome have kids?.
it is absolutely ridiculous to let these people reproduce, their off spring are more likely to be non contributing mindless vegetables. Anyone with hereditary conditions that are a net-negative on society, or cause discomfort with the person, shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. This also applies to the overwhelmingly weak and stupid. And obviously, those with positive genetic factors should be encouraged to reproduce with similar people via social programs.
What method to i propose to stop the reproduction? sterilisation. All though, if a person is born and doesn't present symptoms (Yet has the genetic risk factor that warrants unfortunate off spring) they should be finically persuaded to have no kids/have less. And also, my own personal prejudice says: "All normies should be killed, and only based ND chads allowed to have kids" but that's just, well based, but not futile.

And if you disagree i ask you, if you had the option to edit the genetics of your child to insure they're smart, healthy & attractive, would you choose for that? or would you risk them becoming a iqlet schizo. You'd obviously choose the first, this is non negotiable. And if you "disagree" you're just virtue signalling or heavily retarded.

Every human being on this earth implicitly participates in eugenics whether they virtue signal that they don't or not. Eugenics is natural biology and why animals develop in the first place. Attractiveness inherently is a display of the persons health (in a natural society) so you wouldnt have kids with someone thats retarded or born without limbs the same way you wouldnt have kids with someone thats super ugly in relation to yourself. Eugenics to optimize quality of life and not to just create a 7"2 ND supersoldier is based and always will be.

 

[Circadex]

Anybody who finds themself here can probably agree that not all men are created equal. Some traits can be objectively deemed 'inferior' by a majority of people. A lot of superior traits coorelate with each other. These differences ARE real, the question is if and how we should select for them. I personally believe the government should soft select for them through programs incentivizing achievement and supporting voluntary sterilization. The only problem is that a government with such authority can be hard to control and can very easily step beyond whst can be justified.

Yes, the fundamentals of it is completely different to the discussion of implementation. Truth be told the idealistic version i talked about prior is highly unrealistic, you'd have to massively dial it down to even gain an once of public support. Monetary incentive is something I've thought about before, but these thoughts are akin to shower thoughts. Since the discussion of eugenics in positive connotations is widely frowned upon it's almost impossible to actually research anything that'd be relevant for me to conclude a meaningful view. And since my echo chamber days are far gone it's rare to find any like minded individuals that have their own theories regarding eugenics & it's implementation within morden society. It also ties into my democratic views aswell; dumb people (Genuinely dumb people) shouldn't be allowed to vote. And infact, basic political literacy needs to be proven by a truly non bias organisation outside the government to dictate whether you're allowed to vote or not. This way we can insure true voting intention, not like the retarded foids in America who vote for a president just because she's the same gender as them. All told society needs alot of reform to be desirable in my eyes.

 

[sunsetupallnight]

Yes, the fundamentals of it is completely different to the discussion of implementation. Truth be told the idealistic version i talked about prior is highly unrealistic, you'd have to massively dial it down to even gain an once of public support. Monetary incentive is something I've thought about before, but these thoughts are akin to shower thoughts. Since the discussion of eugenics in positive connotations is widely frowned upon it's almost impossible to actually research anything that'd be relevant for me to conclude a meaningful view. And since my echo chamber days are far gone it's rare to find any like minded individuals that have their own theories regarding eugenics & it's implementation within morden society. It also ties into my democratic views aswell; dumb people (Genuinely dumb people) shouldn't be allowed to vote. And infact, basic political literacy needs to be proven by a truly non bias organisation outside the government to dictate whether you're allowed to vote or not. This way we can insure true voting intention, not like the retarded foids in America who vote for a president just because she's the same gender as them. All told society needs alot of reform to be desirable in my eyes.

It sounds like you might want to look into some NRx writing. Its hard to talk about it without being lumped in with legit fascism and shit like forced sterilization. I dont think truly stupid or dysgenic people will be totally filtered out, but there will be an ever-growing gap between them and the capable over the next few decades.

 

[Idec]

yez

 

[Circadex]

It sounds like you might want to look into some NRx writing. Its hard to talk about it without being lumped in with legit fascism and shit like forced sterilization. I dont think truly stupid or dysgenic people will be totally filtered out, but there will be an ever-growing gap between them and the capable over the next few decades.

I'll give it a looking into, thanks .

 

[Gigel]

I agree and there is still people here crying about stuff

 

[9Dino]

Not true. For females (Which i assume birth the most) the risk is around 30-55%.

Not it's not it's 85% down syndrome look up the rates of kids with down syndrome with parents that also have down syndrome

 

[9Dino]

Anyone who thinks Eugenics based doesn't understand his genetics work even on a 3rd grade lvl

 

[Circadex]

Not it's not it's 85% down syndrome look up the rates of kids with down syndrome with parents that also have down syndrome

Im talking about the most common type (Trisomy 21) so maybe you're referring to a different type.

 

[9Dino]

Im talking about the most common type (Trisomy 21) so maybe you're referring to a different type.

Eugenics in general is just a fantasy and has yet to work in the real world

 

[jamesonj200]

Tell me, how can an ideology that's goal is to improve the quality of life for people bad? Eugenics (When the means are good) is a undeniable good. I don't care about your moral Olympics, why the fuck can people with down syndrome have kids?.
it is absolutely ridiculous to let these people reproduce, their off spring are more likely to be non contributing mindless vegetables. Anyone with hereditary conditions that are a net-negative on society, or cause discomfort with the person, shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. This also applies to the overwhelmingly weak and stupid. And obviously, those with positive genetic factors should be encouraged to reproduce with similar people via social programs.
What method to i propose to stop the reproduction? sterilisation. All though, if a person is born and doesn't present symptoms (Yet has the genetic risk factor that warrants unfortunate off spring) they should be finically persuaded to have no kids/have less. And also, my own personal prejudice says: "All normies should be killed, and only based ND chads allowed to have kids" but that's just, well based, but not futile.

And if you disagree i ask you, if you had the option to edit the genetics of your child to insure they're smart, healthy & attractive, would you choose for that? or would you risk them becoming a iqlet schizo. You'd obviously choose the first, this is non negotiable. And if you "disagree" you're just virtue signalling or heavily retarded.

From a utilitarian perspective yeah agreed. To maximize long term happiness and minimize suffering from all parties involved, some sort of fix/solution is necessary. There will prob be meds eventually to get rid of it or whatever. Also obviously I think people with severe challenges would want to be able to function like a normal person so it'd benefit society as a whole, and gene editing 100% agreed with. As a practice though it's just difficult to implement without being a huge overbearing government.

 

[Circadex]

Eugenics in general is just a fantasy and has yet to work in the real world

It was never properly implemented. And i agree with the fantasy (I also brung this up earlier) about just how hard implementing eugenics into morden society would be. However, that doesn't mean i don't believe if executed properly, it'd be a net positive within society. That's just my current views on it.

 

[Circadex]

From a utilitarian perspective yeah agreed. To maximize long term happiness and minimize suffering from all parties involved, some sort of fix/solution is necessary. There will prob be meds eventually to get rid of it or whatever. Also obviously I think people with severe challenges would want to be able to function like a normal person so it'd benefit society as a whole, and gene editing 100% agreed with. As a practice though it's just difficult to implement without being a huge overbearing government.

Well said.

 

[jamesonj200]

Well said.

Thanks G
Utilitarian framework paired with small government involvement best way to go imo