Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
The only solution is to cut their goolies off
The would just cause a lot of violence and probably a violent revolution. Now if you could either abort males or do some genetic wrangling to keep them from being born in the first place you'd certainly cut back on violence in society a lot. A small percentage of males could be kept for breeding.(not that I would approve of this...government shouldn't have that kind of power.
Finally some eugenics I can get behind
Take some notes, Luciom
I literally just drove by a bus stop where two cops had their weapons drawn and a perp liquidated on the ground. It's not in the news yet but if you don't believe me google police shooting on Scottsdale and Shea in Scottsdale AZ tomorrow.
Police just assassinated someone in Scottsdale?
The would just cause a lot of violence and probably a violent revolution. Now if you could either abort males or do some genetic wrangling to keep them from being born in the first place you'd certainly cut back on violence in society a lot. A small percentage of males could be kept for breeding.(not that I would approve of this...government shouldn't have that kind of power.
I agree with you a "solution" of giving only men curfews would be unworkable for 100 different reasons, which is why no society would ever try it.
In low trust/low impulse control societies like we see in much of the "developing world," far easier to just force women to cover their bodies and not let them out of the house without male relative chaperone; as we see in many MENA societies. Or just accept you are going to have a society with a lot of sexual violence, like in South Africa.
Your eugenics idea would have obviously been unworkable for 99.9% of the history of humanity, as a society with a very low amount of males would not be economically or militarily viable. but with technological innovations, I guess it could theoretically become possible. Although I suspect even if you could overcome the economic/military drawbacks, it would ultimately break down because most females would want their male offspring (and their genes) to be the ones to survive; and cohesion would break down.
A similar eugenics strategy actually works in haplodiploid insects, where all the females are genetically closely related; so there is less intrasociety gene competition.
Why do you guys seriously discuss things that were never meant to be taken seriously? I’m starting to get worried that some of you can’t tell the difference..
Yeah, like that. It'd be global. Maybe nanobots would do the genetic engineering. Don't spoil anything if this is one of the new Black Mirror episodes!
Take away birthdays for men as well since they never grow up anyway
Why do you guys seriously discuss things that were never meant to be taken seriously? I’m starting to get worried that some of you can’t tell the difference..
It is concerning how much right wing media MAGA males consume. We have a guy at work who is on Info Wars and Gateway Pundit all day long. We're actually concerned about how radicalized he has become.
Well castrating a bunch of dudes would certainly decrease traffic accidents, but it would also prolly increase traffic to 2+2 to whine more about unimportant ****.
If you want to decrease traffic accidents create a way for female phones to be shut off when they enter a vehicle. I just saw a female run over a goose while texting( the female driver was the one texting).
The goose was survived by his wife and 7 cute little babies who were also trying to cross the road. All cars had stopped but she just kept going in the left lane.
men cause more accidents than women, even when adjusted for a higher per capita of men driving, and driving more miles.
[...]
(not that I would approve of this...government shouldn't have that kind of power....but it might well be a better world for those who lived in it)
I mean, you're just describing state-mandated eugenics.
If we ignore the obvious biological danger of reduced genetic diversity, which you probably should not, you only need a quick perusal of history on the subject.
Firstly, the goal of pretty much all such programs have been to make society safer, stronger and better. They have never achieved this. Once you unwrap the shiny packaging that promises a brave new world with all the problems rooted out, you'll find the actual reality of things. That reality boils down to use of force, abduction and forced medical procedures. If you want to stop a certain group from being born, you have to stop the people who want or could give birth to them after all.
And since we're talking control of fairly basic biology, your program has to hinge on a system of almost unlimited authority over other people in terms of surveillance, arrests and lack of due process. So expect extensive abuses of said authority, like violence, murder, rape, torture, corruption and extortion.
And sure..."just a joke, bro". However, eugenics is generally advocated for by people with a very limited understanding of biology, society and the importance of rights. These simple thought experiments of "it would probably become so much better" are what needs to be aborted.
I mean, you're just describing state-mandated eugenics. If we ignore the obvious biological danger of reduced genetic diversity, which you probably should not, you only need a quick perusal of history on the subject.Firstly, the goal of pretty much all such programs have been to make society safer, stronger and better. They have never achieved this. Once you unwrap the shiny pa
Maybe we can move this discussion to the "Pro's and Con's of Eugenics" thread?
Crying while driving…
Crying while driving though
