Eugenics

I was originally going to add this to the Racism thread, but I think it deserves it's own post.

All you white-power racist eugenic-thinking morans are fucking deluding yourself.  Even if this crap was true, think about this; if all the stupid people were culled out for being "inferior" and all that was left was the people of > 100 IQ, where does that leave you?  I doubt that any of you idiots who actually ascribe to this nonsense can be very much above 110, so what if 120 IQ becomes the new 80?  All your life you'll be just a lower, less worthy specimen of humanity because of that, constantly subject to the mandates of the upper, intelligent high holy elites, and if you try to challenge them, tough beans, you am too dumb to make an effective argument.  Don't feel so special anymore, do ya?

Besides, it's not true as was shown resolutely in the battle of "I'm not a Racist but I am..." but that's outside the scope of the argument I'm making here.  I'm mostly trying to make racists look dumb.

Eugenics is the truth so anyone who takes this argument is going to win, even if their other beliefs are liberal.

Good on you!

Well, eugenics is, by definition, quite a liberal belief.  It advocates radical social change in the short term, which is what liberalism is all about...  Only, without the universal love and compassion that usually characterizes liberalism.

>>1
My IQ is about 160 as proved by several online tests. The fact that I am smartypants enough to use teh internets means my IQ might in fact be even higher!

Anyway, if the stupid people were eliminated, I'd just sit back and relax while the people smarter than me built flying cars and robotic maids and shit for me.

>>4

If you're on the internet posting in this thread- your IQ is no where near even 140. And mine definately is. And guess what? Didn't use a shitty online test, used the real McCoy.

>>5
Self-pw3d

>>4
How about when they decide to eliminate YOU?  160 doesn't cut it anymore, jack;  you have to be above 180 to live.  LOL, PWND.

>>7
Basically the point you're making is that they will constantly be "improving" the race by killing off the least intelligent members?    I sincerely doubt it would unfold that way. 

For all you know, they may be able to do it like they did in Ghost in the Shell, where anyone who wanted it could buy external memory and processing devices for their own brains, essentially upgrading them.  Stupidity isn't an unavoidable trait anymore, it's something you can increase at will.

At the very least, I doubt they'd resort to killing.  They'd probably just put restrictions on the least intelligent people reproducing, or require all newborns to be genetically engineered for high intelligence. 

It'll probably be kinder than the worst scenario, but meaner than the kindest scenario.

>>8
The point I had set out to make before getting sidetracked in this post is that morals exist independant of intelligence level.  At least one can hope.

>>9
You're the white highschool boy who got his ass beat in the racism thread, aren't you?

>>7
I agree! But only for women.
Then we'll raise millions of Wolves and Fortunes. Hachachacha!

>>8
Indeed, only stupid people like >>7 have to resort to violence.

Hey hey! Calm down!

Eugenics isn't about killing the stupid, it's about breeding the intelligent. The only thing eugenics is against is those dumbasses who are desperate to pass their own genes on even if their childrne will be worse off as a result.

We could probably eliminate diabetes, sickle cell and cystic fibrosis in a few generations if people realised eugenics is medicine and will probably only burden them with a mouth swab and if not burden them with not having children with genetically passed disease.

>>10

Fallacy of argument: Attacking the character or image of the debater. Fail.

>>13
What makes you think that intelligence is so important anyway?  At this point in history at least we still need janitors, people to drive our airplanes, and people to work the check out line at wal-mart. 

And how are the going to decide who gets to pass on their genes and who doesn't?  Oh, I don't know, maybe they'll start looking at the arguments of scientists like Richard Lynn, who say that black people are the dumbest of races, so that you can only be white, asian, or jewish if you want to pass on your genes. 

And what happens if they discover they do need some dumb people?  Oh, I know, they'll create a caste system, where the laborers of least consequence are so easily identified by the color of their skin!   It's fucking perfect, isn't it?

You're all racists but you don't want to admit it.

>>9
Well, I wouldn't be so sure; I honestly think you all are just dumb, but for the sake of argument let's assume that you people are IQ at least 130.  With that in mind, look at this thread: http://www.world4ch.org/read/newpol/1139680780/1-40

It's so full of hate based on race that it's unbelievable.  This guy would have no problem with the cultural genocide of prohibiting blacks and latinos from breeding, just because of his idea of "intelligence" (which we've already been through doens't actually exist).

All of you might be intelligent (debatable), but you should think before you call yourself "moral" or any derivitive of the term.

>>16
this idea of "intelligence" (which we've already been through doens't actually exist in any difference between races)

Fixed.

>>17 fails it.
Murray and Herrenstein put paid to that notion a decade ago.

>>18
What are you on?  And where can I get some?

Besides that, why have you conveniently ignored any of the other points I made?

OH SHIT GUYS, INTELLIGENCE DOESN'T ACTAULLY EXISTS!1

>>20 wins this thread.

Yep, the existence of intelligence is immaterial, highly debatable. Eugenics based on such a loft concept is idiotic.

>>22
bullshit.negroes are inferior.

>>23

Bullshit, according to who? You?

But...you're stupid.

>>15
I take your lack of mention of eugenic's legitimate use in preventing a children from having disease as acceptance of the fact that eugenics is a good idea.

I agree however that using eugenics to improve people's lives rather than exclusively prevent disease is a controversial subject. It will have to be some time before we can state the fact that the majority of people in existence today would have died as hunter gatherers before they had a chance to reproduce.

Of course we shouldn't force people not to have children or to donate their eggs and semen. However after everything is up and running and people routinely select embryos without genetically passed disease we should at the very least prosecute parents of those with genetic disease with grievous bodily damage for not having a mouth swab to determine whether they are making the conscious decision to force their children to have a crippling torturous disease. Parents should be prosecuted for torturing their children.

>>25

You're insane. There's a difference between eugenics and gene therapy (which is what I'm for). What you keep ignoring is the kind of government and society that would be need to maintain the basic concepts of eugenics. They are governments that annex choice. There's no such thing as a "conscious decision" when it comes to "giving a child a disease". You're addressing a hypothetical that statistically doesn't even exist.

eugenics is bad just because it cost Germany the war, they didn't trust mud people enough to use their weapons until the end, when it was too late. You could just oh I don't know, give them cheaper and less durable versions of everything. Or old shit with enlarged cannons.

>>26
Well, I find it likely that parents will choose intelligent children on their own.

>>26
Well if parents know they can check their genes to see if they should take a simple procedure to ensure they are not giving their child a disease, choose not to and their offspring contracts a disease and they claim they did not force their child to have the disease, it's the equivalent of a couple locking their new born baby outside in the cold, leaving it there to die and claiming they did not murder it.

Sorry, but in the real world the means justify the ends and likewise if the end wasn't just, then the means weren't either.

You are right about one thing though, the difference between genetic medicine and eugenics. Genetic medicine is used to prevent disease and eugenics is to improve. Gene therapy can either be used for eugenics and genetic medicine, but I know you meant genetic medicine.

I may sound insane, but you need to look at the facts rather than how much I stand out from everyone else. I can tell you are a conservative who fears change, don't make the same mistake as the papacy when they burned Galileo and cut short their rennaissance.

You keep telling me I need to "look at the facts".

What facts!?!?!?!

>>30
Take a look at your mom.

>>30
That g-factor intelligence has a high heritability between generations, and that it has a high correlation with later success (as demonstrated by average income later in life). 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_intelligence_factor

Environment doesn't explain everything, as it has been shown that children adopted into foster homes may early in life resemble their foster parents as far as intelligence goes, but later on their IQs more closely resemble that of their biological parents who they've never met.

>>31 = >>32

>>33
Lol teh clevor