A Brazilian slave who had more than 200 kids

[Soul Kaizer]

You seem to have favorable views on eugenics or perspectives along that gene-centric disposition of populations.

It's kind of fucked up.

Not really eugenics is not fucked up its a process we already do.

Humans already perform a primitive version of eugenics when we choose our partners. We look for signs of health, good genetics and status/income.

We do eugenics on animals for livestock and pets.

We do eugenics on plants for taste/appearance and yield.

Eugenics is only wrong when you force humans.

 

[Bazed]

That's Genghis Khan type shit

 

[Angelina]

You seem to have favorable views on eugenics or perspectives along that gene-centric disposition of populations.

It's kind of fucked up.

Lol, I don’t, if that was to happen in real life I’d think it’s messed up but I’d still be interested In the results. I mean a good looking man with 4 good looking model tier women would generally be consensual as that would be my biggest worry. Definitely better than those ugly old odeys marrying multiple younger women and having lots of kids that look like him. Let the very good looking tall men have multiple women, at least then there is a societal benefit lol.

 

[Keep it a boqol]

you guys are acting like he had a beautiful harem. the man was forced to breed with unconsenting linebacker slaves

 

[The alchemist]

Not really eugenics is not fucked up its a process we already do.

Humans already perform a primitive version of eugenics when we choose our partners. We look for signs of health, good genetics and status/income.

We do eugenics on animals for livestock and pets.

We do eugenics on plants for taste/appearance and yield.

Eugenics is only wrong when you force humans.

You visit 4chan recently or something?

You compared the domestication of animals and plants as an example of how eugenics is good. Domestication is to only maximize suite biological life in a very narrow streamlined way to cater to our needs, not for them to have the best fitness for their own survival in the wild. A cow used to be a bigger-sized auroch in the past. A cow will likely die out in the wild, but an auroch will survive on its own. It does not help your argument.

Domesticated plants also have less resilience out there in the wild environment. We made them so weak and specific that we have to carefully manage them or they die. Their wild ancestors used to live pretty robustly in the wild.

So those desirable traits in those domesticated fauna and flora are purely for our own needs, not for them to exist in a wild-form non-human regulated environment as they would die off more often than not.

You're also comparing animals and plants to the analogy of humans which is kind of an already bad comparative displacement even though the point supported my views on it. We are neither animals nor plants. That's a significant fact.

It's like those fools who claim different biological races exist by showing how a rottweiler is different from a pug in phenotype and behavior, trying to make the claim that deep differences in humans exist on racial ground, which has strong behavioral and cognitive consequences. This is quite unscientific and such a notion would not survive in any credible research.

Who are we to say what is desirable and what is not and designate humans in that regard? You never want to go down that path for humans in the scientific field. A person who might not look subjectively as good on the face might have a better overall health profile and vice versa. This is too complex to deal with. You can see what experts are saying about how gene editing might be our downfall. That shit ain't no joke and making light of the conversation about eugenics casually is irresponsible, in my opinion.

You're also being a bit dishonest by claiming eugenics happens everywhere and every time by people wanting certain traits. A woman wants a tall man, a man wants a sexy woman. These are normal things that come down to the tastes of individual people of what they desire for whatever reasons which are often individualized. We know those things are very specific to time and place and are very circumstantial and rather natural to any specific culture, social, traditional, and religious setting. This is just humans living. Calling this eugenics is semantical distortinous trying to pretend the boundaries are non-existent and that it is practiced on acceptable gradients removing the categorical existence of eugenics as a distinct ideology -- which it is.

That's why you use the word "eugenics." There is also the attempt to shoehorn a dangerous ideology by using conceptual arbitrariness as a trick. A hospital is not a damn "eugenics" center. Looking out for the health of the population is not a "eugenics" policy. At that point, you have re-defined the meaning of what it is just to desperately push for your ideology. It's dishonest. Be forthright with it. I have seen this type of argumentation with unsavory people many times over the years. And by the way, when actual racist eugenicists make the case for eugenics, they say exactly the talking point you use. Verbatim. Literally.

The choices we make individually, have an infinitely complex way of how they play themselves out on a macro scale and you have in-computable stochastic effects that make us robust for survival because of genetic diversity and the interaction of it. If we want to pronounce specific traits on very selective artificial ground we are indeed reducing diversity and that shit will make us weaker and susceptible to diseases and other issues.

Both positive and negative eugenics is bad because although the latter encourages people to mix based on desirable trait and on the latter you have people who deny people with undesirable traits to mix, both of them goes out of the notion that the people who promote either side, knows what desirable traits are. In the "positive" eugenics notion, you have literally people who in their hierarchy of desirability, in their unethical minds, set a blueprint of what is better than the other. Who has the right to tell what section of the population carries desirable traits? And when such notions gain traction, what do you think happens to the moral conditions of that society where people born with what is considered less "desirable" traits are outwardly looked down upon? This is no different from this:

This is an un-Islamic social paradigm with degenerate values that will corrupt a society where strong social inequalities happen. Since what is "desirable" can best be maximized by the wealthy. You will only breed a garbage population that obsesses about this and you will see starker injustice and inequalities. And these inequities will follow along on a macro scale as well since guess what, some countries are richer and have stronger soft power to project their own ideologies. Oftentimes, what is desirable is what is closer to the most powerful, traits of the poor, are undesirable.

Now you have people on a country-wide scale considered on average less desirable than others, justified by "science" and whatnot. Oh wait, isn't this just similar to what came out of the social Darwinism that you claim is the bad kind? You see, it always ends in corruption on the land. So please remove this notion of nice sexy eugenics. It's all fucking evil shit put in different words. It's like putting fragrance in xaar and telling me it ain't shit. The roots of this kind of thinking however people who want to dress it, always come from racist ideology and people who adopt them always internalize that racism irrespective if they don't subscribe to the root racist disposition.

People who bring these things up usually look down upon their own people -- class them as lower so they have to improve their "IQ" or temperaments or whatever else. It's all the same thing. None of these people are ever educated in what they talk about. Still, they have gotten an ideological package they want to spread out, with instruction, pre-packed convenient views about the pre-supposition that tries to justify such worldview so that the material practices can take place. It's insulting. Every African that has proposed eugenics always assumes their people are inferior. That's a fact. No one with intelligence, confidence, dignity, or self-respect proposes eugenics upon their own people. Interestingly, all these niggas always exeptionalizes themselves. They have an okay "IQ" that looks alright, average in looks or above. Conveniently they never subject themselves to the eugenics they want to see performed. That's a good joke to me.

You cannot know what selecting for "this" trait means in a multiscale society where you cannot compute the complexity and have complete data of a whole population and its infinite interaction. We are not God and thus we cannot predict what these eugenic actions mean years down the line. What happens on an individual scale cannot be extrapolated to a whole population. You never know what that means. When people just pick their partner as usual the whole population has complex checks and balances where things don't go too out of hand. Try to set fixtures on these things and you will not know what you are in for. Because eugenics is not what one person does, it is to change a whole society to make "desirable" traits ubiquitous. It's an ignorant path fueled by a lack of values and a sense of inferiority.

 

[Emir of Zayla]

View attachment 302296View attachment 302297

What is his qabil called?

 

[The alchemist]

Lol, I don’t, if that was to happen in real life I’d think it’s messed up but I’d still be interested In the results. I mean a good looking man with 4 good looking model tier women would generally be consensual as that would be my biggest worry. Definitely better than those ugly old odeys marrying multiple younger women and having lots of kids that look like him. Let the very good looking tall men have multiple women, at least then there is a societal benefit lol.

I will drop a truth bomb on you. I think those old men might have been good-looking. I think old men with young wives were probably good-looking in their younger days. What else explains the confidence to have young women if they did not think of themselves as "that nigga"? And as "that nigga" myself, "that nigga" energy only comes from being "that nigga." So don't let old age deceive you. Pick an old man-playa and don't be an old-man-playa hater.

 

[Angelina]

I will drop a truth bomb on you. I think those old men might have been good-looking. I think old men with young wives were probably good-looking in their younger days.

That’s a plausible explaination, but not in the Somali community. I’ve been around Somalis my entire lives, been back home and the confidence of our men is verging on the unnatural. In our community, one of the biggest issues which many men might not agree with is that low value men routinely marry again. Lower resources and attractiveness levels yet they’ll marry again despite not even having the ability to which is why polygamous marriages have been damaging towards the family unit and why divorce levels are astoundingly high. Most men around the globe wouldn’t be able to have the confidence to start multiple families without proper resources, but not the ultra confidence Somali male. Confidence is great, I mean it’s their confidence that’s allowed them to open the doors of polygamy, but they can’t back up their confidence which is why unions disintegrate as fast at it starts. That’s why humble observation.

What else explains the confidence to have young women if they did not think of themselves as "that nigga"?

We Somalis are just predisposed to a lot of confidence and our culture facilitates it. There is a reason why Western Faraxs who are also handsome and have means aren’t as confident as a downtrodden unattractive Farax from back home. Culture plays a big role. Back home shocked me.

And as "that nigga" myself, "that nigga" energy only comes from being "that nigga." So don't let old age deceive you. Pick an old man-playa and don't be an old-man-playa hater.

I’ve seen far to many men who aren’t that ‘nigga’ amongst Somali men. Men who have married multiple women who aren’t old. 30s and 40s who are fat, balding and just all around very unattractive.

Btw, women can tell when a man used to be attractive as they tend to still have attractive features. I’ve seen many older Somali men who are still handsome and from looking them, it’s obvious they were very handsome growing up.

 

[Camaar]

Thats what we need to do. Round up all the Model tier Somali Men and each one marry a model tier Somali women each one has 4 wives with model tier children.

Soon walking through Mogadishu will be like a vogue catwalk.

Gay

 

[Gaandheri]

The African Genghis Khan

Genghis Khan was a men of many talents he was conquering physically, sexually, and was a eco friendly man who reduced pollution. Genghis was not a lab rat or a lab sperm.

 

[techsamatar]

Thats what we need to do. Round up all the Model tier Somali Men and each one marry a model tier Somali women each one has 4 wives with model tier children.

Soon walking through Mogadishu will be like a vogue catwalk.

The odds of two incredibly attractive individuals producing equally good-looking offspring are surprisingly low. It's a fascinating scientific phenomenon. Challenge yourself to examine the parents of handsome celebrities or models; you'll often find that they are both average in appearance, or one is average while the other is strikingly good-looking, and sometimes one might be less attractive while the other exudes beauty.

This is how God distributes beauty between humans.