Post: #51

(07-13-2014 10:39 PM)Teutatis Wrote:  I don't get it, are you trying to make fun of me for having a gay friend? If so you can say it directly, no need for cute gifs. And yes, it is true, I do have a gay friend, is that shame worthy here?

Nah, man not at all It was meant tongue-in-cheek.

Post: #52

(07-13-2014 10:39 PM)Teutatis Wrote:  I don't get it, are you trying to make fun of me for having a gay friend? If so you can say it directly, no need for cute gifs. And yes, it is true, I do have a gay friend, is that shame worthy here and must I go on a Auto-da-fé as penance?

tfw the joke goes completely over Teutatis's head

Post: #53

(07-13-2014 09:51 PM)Deluge Wrote:  Word. Most of the ruckus I see over gay marriage comes from straight feminist women and occasionally lesbians. Gay dudes are much less political, they're probably too busy getting dick.

Gay dudes tend to be ultra status conscious and ambitious though. So they have a natural ability to cultivate an entourage of people who can push their agenda. I think it's linked with narcissism and a high degree of dark triad personality traits in the gay community. I do believe that a degree of sociopathy comes with homosexuality. That's why so many of them gravitate towards entertainment and other limelight professions.

Post: #54

Nature's culling the herd.

Good.

Post: #55

(07-14-2014 01:10 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  Nature's culling the herd.

Good.

The joke is on us, because in one way or another, the heterosexual population will spend millions on anti-retroviral drugs over the life of each homosexual. Providing those drugs only increases the spread of the disease, as the medical community doesn't have the authority to prevent it through isolation, chemical castration, or other similar means.

Post: #56

I read that one gay guy in the late 70s who was one of the initial gay guys to spread the disease iinto the wider community was a very handsome, adventureous air Canada pilot. When researchers later went and followed up on his sexual partners... It turned out he was very much into orgies and had well over 1000 partners per year.

My gay brother is quite virginal from what I understand, he;s only had 4 or so and is now marrying #4.

Post: #57

Maybe I'm paranoid but If I was a gay guy I would make sure I was using a condom, infection rates are too damn high not to be cautious. Besides its not like HIV is curable at this point, certainly not something I would want to live with.

Maybe the issue is that with this 100+ partners a year business they cant afford condoms?

Post: #58

(07-14-2014 03:08 AM)Lufty Wrote:  Maybe the issue is that with this 100+ partners a year business they cant afford condoms?

Keep in mind the figures for gays include oral, since gays usually count that as "sex".

Post: #59

(07-14-2014 01:10 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  Nature's culling the herd. Good.

If there is indeed a "gay gene", now that technology has advanced to the point where one can non-destructively sequence the genome of an embryo, one day it will be possible to kill gay embryos before they are even born. Just incinerate the content of a test tube, and no more gay parades!

Call it "selective abortion". The pro-choice progressives will simmer in cognitive dissonance.

Post: #60

Icarus, your post comes off as .. weird..

Just chill out

Post: #61

(07-14-2014 07:17 AM)bacan Wrote:  Icarus, your post comes off as .. weird..

Stating that technology will enable something ethically challenging yet highly amusing does not mean that one advocates it or considers it laudable.

If you find it homophobic, then think instead of non-destructive prenatal genome sequencing to weed out retards. 95% chance of embryo developing into an adult with an IQ lower than 110? Incinerate the embryo! Just imagine how prosperous society would be if the government did not have to spend billions creating busywork for stupid women and other such retards.

If the technology arrives, countries that adopt it will prosper. Countries that don't adopt it will be spending billions keeping useless HIV carriers alive for no good reason, and more billions employing women to shuffle papers so them womynz can feel valued and important.

Post: #62

Embryo modification? Please - there is plenty of research out in the open - not disputed as any conspiracy theory - that modification of human mating has been effective.

They called it "gay bomb" in the 1990s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb
While this kind of bomb was only developed, but never applied in combat, who knows whether some of the chemicals are not included in vaccines and food ingredients.

Since we know that estrogen in the water supply as well as estrogen mimickers like the entire Bisphenol group can create a more female offspring when given to pregnant women, what happens to the males born given those chemicals? Probably an increase of gay-oriented males, since those hormones during pregnancy have a huge impact. We do know that testosterone levels have been dropping among the populations in the West. Do you think this would produce only more effeminate males? Does anyone believe that he can take any degree of estrogen during pregnancy and early childhood and come out as a male similar to 1900?

Undernourished and dirt-poor kids from London 1911 - gender roles strong and valid:
   

Post: #63

Quote:Just imagine how prosperous society would be if the government did not have to spend billions creating busywork for stupid women and other such retards.

I think this would be disastrous. There would be no people with low ambitions and/or that are tolerant of monotonous, menial jobs.

Post: #64

(07-14-2014 08:11 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Embryo modification? Please

No one is talking of embryo modification!

Suppose that the State realizes that, given the cultural decline and dysgenic fertility, its citizens have become too stupid and too feral and can no longer be entrusted with procreation. Hence, at age 18, all males would donate sperm, and eggs would be harvested from females. Sperm and eggs would be stored at the State's genetic bank.

Then, after Susie Rottencrotch has ridden the cock carousel for 20 years, at age 36 she decides that John Beta is not so bad after all, and they decide to procreate. They notify the State. The State gets some 20 frozen eggs from Susie Rottencrotch's genetic bank account, and some sperm from John Beta's genetic bank account. All 20 eggs would be fertilized in vitro.

The beauty is that in recent years it has become possible to non-destructively sequence the genome of embryos. This means that the State can non-destructively sequence the genome of all those 20 embryos, and software can decide which embryos are to be destroyed, without any human input. Call it "computational eugenics".

For instance, suppose that this takes place in Putin & Co's estate (aka: Russian Federation). Since Slate and PuffHo say Putin is a fascist neo-nazi homophobe, it must be true. So, in Putin's Russia, software could decide to destroy all embryos that are likely to develop into gay men. So, say, 1 or 2 of those 20 embryos would be destroyed, and 18 embryos would be left. One could then destroy malformed embryos (e.g., Down's Syndrome). If, out of those, say, 17 embryos left there is one that will develop into a blue-eyed child, you could select that embryo. Lots of blue-eyed babies for Putin. If that sounds too Nazi-ish, then you could select embryos likely to develop into short men, so that Putin will have plenty of Napoleonic "descendants".

Once the embryo is chosen, just find a baby factory, i.e., surrogate mother. The remaining embryos would be destroyed, of course.

Post: #65

Icarus, you realize that doing that on a mass scale would be hideously expensive compared to natural methods of conception and fetal development?

Post: #66

(07-14-2014 08:41 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Icarus, you realize that doing that on a mass scale would be hideously expensive compared to natural methods of conception and fetal development?

A lot of that cost would be labor, i.e., employing qualified people.

No more Down's Syndrome children would be born. No more defective children. No more retarded children. The savings could be significant in the long term.

Post: #67

(07-14-2014 08:41 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Icarus, you realize that doing that on a mass scale would be hideously expensive compared to natural methods of conception and fetal development?

Like all technology, it would be expensive at first but over enough time become very cheap.

Post: #68

(07-14-2014 07:17 AM)bacan Wrote:  Icarus, your post comes off as .. weird..

Just chill out

Not really. Eventually it will be cheap and easy enough for parents to have DNA testing performed at the early stages of pregnancy (it's already very easy to determine the baby's gender). Once that happens, genetic disorders will begin to disappear.

Despite all of the propaganda, I would hazard a guess than most parents would arrange an abortion if it was found that their child was likely to become a homosexual. It probably won't stop all cases of homosexuality because I think there is also a societal aspect, but the numbers would be greatly reduced.

Post: #69

(07-14-2014 08:13 AM)Vicious Wrote:  I think this would be disastrous. There would be no people with low ambitions and/or that are tolerant of monotonous, menial jobs.

That was, I believe, why H. L. Mencken opposed eugenics some 100 years ago.

However, Dubai, Kuwait, and Singapore have shown that one can import people for menial jobs. Give guest workers 5-year visas, and make it a deportable offense to get pregnant or to impregnate while in the country. After 5 years, send them back to their country. The advantage: immigrants don't vote!

The problem would not be menial work, but rather security work. The smartest kids would serve in the signals intelligence corps. The non-brilliant kids would serve a couple of years in the military and police, to ensure that the security forces are loyal to the State. No immigrants would be allowed in the police or military, of course, as that would be the nation's suicide.

Post: #70

(07-14-2014 08:13 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Quote:Just imagine how prosperous society would be if the government did not have to spend billions creating busywork for stupid women and other such retards.

I think this would be disastrous. There would be no people with low ambitions and/or that are tolerant of monotonous, menial jobs.

The world would be a better place. Those "menial jobs," would pay 10x as much if there weren't so many retards around. Furthermore, robots are coming and will eliminate most menial jobs entirely.

Post: #71

(07-14-2014 08:32 AM)Icarus Wrote:  Once the embryo is chosen, just find a baby factory, i.e., surrogate mother. The remaining embryos would be destroyed, of course.

Heh - what's stopping them to modify the embryo in later stages? Who are you going to trust with the eugenics program? The governments, the corporations or the banks who control it all?

There is already a plan in place and Aldous Huxley (brother of Julian Huxley - first UNESCO president) was in on it:

BRAVE NEW WORLD

   

Julian Huxley UNESCO

Quote:“Biological inequality is, of course, the bedrock fact on which all of eugenics is predicated. But it is not usually realised that the two types of inequality have quite different and indeed contrary eugenic implications. The inequality of mere difference is desirable, and the preservation of human variety should be one of the two primary aims of eugenics. But the inequality of level or standard is undesirable, and the other primary aim of eugenics should be the raising of the mean level of all desirable qualities. While there may be dispute over certain qualities, there can be none over a number of the most important, such as a healthy constitution, a high innate general intelligence, or a special aptitude such as that for mathematics or music.

At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilisation is dysgenic instead of eugenic; and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for Unesco to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” – 21

There are great ways to improve average IQ and health in the population: clean pesticide-free food, nutrient dense rich ingredients, supplements, excellent clean water, non-toxic environment and highly important supplementation and nutrition during pregnancy (starting 3 months before conception) and in the first years. Studies have shown that IQs just like height jump significantly between generations, just like IQs in the West have been rising until 1990. After 1990 we are in a drop from 5-10% per decade while tests have been adjusted from the UN.

So what would be the need for selective eugenics? And what would those "unthinkable" things be? Infertility for the lower 95% and rampant fertility for the upper class, who are at ease to reproduce "in the wild", while there will be concessions and fertility clinics for the rest of the population?

And again - who would be in control of the program? Geniuses like George Bush, who have risen through the ranks via wit and merit?

BTW - unless you are one of the super-wealthy, you won't be partaking in the system in any meaningful capacity. While the end-game is still a couple of decades away at least, the signs are clear or have you missed the point of dropping sperm levels in the last decades? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health...-drop.html
Even the mainstream acknowledges that there is a problem, though they will only tell you a partial truth at best.

Post: #72

They already do this in big agriculture. Sperm is harvested and top flight eggs are harvested and both are combined in a lab and planted back into the female hog for instance. Both sets are screened for abnormalities.

In humans the risky pre-netal test to screen for things such as downs is taken by almost the majority of parents in the west even though the test itself has a 10-15% chance of causing development damage to the child in the first place. This has dropped Down's syndrome rates down to the floor. I forget the process in full but if I can remember right they jam something to pull fluid from the cord I believe and test that. Many whom object due it for religious reasons, others view the damage risk to high for a genome deformity that is usually preventable if a women has children in her normal healthy most fertile years.

Th costs that Icarus states will be covered by the eventual birth licenses women will have to pay. You drove up the price of child bearing by actively destroying the base of men. Sperm is cheap but if every guy turns into a hypo-aggressive gay man, or a feeble vegetable omega the female will see zero prospects to pro-create with in a natural setting. Mass agriculture has been able to do all this in less then 40 years. In the majority of commercial animal stocks the ratio of males to females is extremely tilted.

The future female will be no better than the commercial cow. Forced into a life of labour for children she will never raise.

Post: #73

(07-14-2014 09:16 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Julian Huxley Wrote:“Biological inequality is, of course, the bedrock fact on which all of eugenics is predicated.”

Julian S. Huxley also wrote the following article, which may interest you:

• Julian S. Huxley, Eugenics and Society, Eugenics Review (vol 28:1), 1936.
  

An excerpt:

Quote:Eugenics, Dean Inge writes in one of his essays, is capable of becoming the most sacred ideal of the human race, as a race; one of the supreme religious duties. In this I entirely agree with him. Once the full implications of evolutionary biology are grasped, eugenics will inevitably become part of the religion of the future, or of whatever complex of sentiments may in the future take the place of organized religion. It is not merely a sane outlet for human altruism, but is of all outlets for altruism that which is most comprehensive and of longest range.

So much for the myth that eugenics was a Nazi idea...

Post: #74

(07-14-2014 09:04 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 08:13 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Quote:Just imagine how prosperous society would be if the government did not have to spend billions creating busywork for stupid women and other such retards.

I think this would be disastrous. There would be no people with low ambitions and/or that are tolerant of monotonous, menial jobs.

The world would be a better place. Those "menial jobs," would pay 10x as much if there weren't so many retards around. Furthermore, robots are coming and will eliminate most menial jobs entirely.

What are you supporting these rather bold claims on? Societal theory at most, since there is no precedence.
IF I didn't know better I would think that you are advocating a classless society Samseau.

Even I who's a bleeding heart librul to much of the forum don't even believe that any society can eliminate classes and shitty jobs. Human nature being the culprit.

Post: #75

(07-14-2014 12:13 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 09:04 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 08:13 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Quote:Just imagine how prosperous society would be if the government did not have to spend billions creating busywork for stupid women and other such retards.

I think this would be disastrous. There would be no people with low ambitions and/or that are tolerant of monotonous, menial jobs.

The world would be a better place. Those "menial jobs," would pay 10x as much if there weren't so many retards around. Furthermore, robots are coming and will eliminate most menial jobs entirely.

What are you supporting these rather bold claims on? Societal theory at most, since there is no precedence.
IF I didn't know better I would think that you are advocating a classless society Samseau. You pinko!

Even I who's a bleeding heart librul to much of the forum don't even believe that any society can eliminate classes and shitty jobs. Human nature being the culprit.

Supply and demand is not a bold claim. "Menial jobs" will need higher wages without slave labor to do it. Reduce the amount of labor in any labor pool, and wages go up.

Thus by focusing repopulation efforts to bring about a higher quality of people, and not higher quantity, then these people will be offered high wages to do "menial jobs."

Unfortunately, most people don't seem to understand economics, so they blindly support big government and big business as they open the boarders to attract illegal under-the-minimum-wage laws labor.