>humans breed animals to serve their purpose for thousands of years>no, but don't try it on humans it's totally unscientific and unwholesome!!
>hey, i got a great idea, how about from now on we cut off the tip of every baby boy's dick so we know which ones are from feminized, servile, sissy cultures 4000 years later>durrrrrr humans haven't been selectively bred for servility yet, why don't we get started on it? hey wheres the tip of my dick?
>>13264138Who ever called eugenics unscientific? The objection to eugenics is just that it's tremendously unethical to prevent somebody from having a family.
eugenics always falls apart when you seriously consider who gets to decide who reproduces. I have yet to find two people on this board who give the same criteria
>>13264186It's easy: only people that think exactly like me get that power, and nobody else.
>>13264215Why not just you then?
>>13264220That's a great idea. Unless you are antiscience, you will give all power to me without compromise.
>>13264224Ok. hold on I’m sending all the power rn
HOW CAN WE USE EUGENICS IN OUR DAILY LIVES TO FIGURE OUT WHO TO PROCREATE WITH???
>>13264138>How is this possible>Kid: one pizza must have been bigger than the other>Teacher: Not possible. 1kg of steel is heavier than 1kg of feathers Pisses me off
>>13264138>humans breed animals to serve their purpose for thousands of years>no, but don't try it on humans it's totally unscientific and unwholesome!!Google the meaning of the word 'goy'.
>>13264185So we should ban aboritions then? Because women keep practicing active eugenics on men for several decades now
>>13264138>if you trick the animal into suiciding itself, you aren't morally culpablehttps://odysee.com/@Realfake_Newsource:9/RFNS-5.21-001-026:0
>>13264185Eugenics is unscientific. It works on the presumption that desirable traits can be passed off to future generations without the need for the close inbreeding that serves as the cornerstone for animal husbandry.
>>13264439The fact that we've been doing eugenics on animals for thousands of years does prove it and make it scientific. Where the fuck were you in 9th-grade bio you stupid forgetful fool
>>13264138>don't try it on humans it's totally unscientific and unwholesomeJust curious, but to breed something you have to have a goal, an ideal specimen.So what color human are you breeding?
>>13264454As white as the blinding snow in February
>>13264453Animal husbandry isn't eugenics. The theory of eugenics works on a model of constant outbreeding which is something animal husbandry specifically disallows. In order for eugenics to actually work as intended, there needs to be careful breeding among family members with occasional outbreeding to keep the breed from collapsing.
>>13264476The breed only collapses if there are bad genes. Eugenics, fucktard.
>>13264494The breed collapses when the coefficient of inbreeding exceeds 25% which can easily happen over a couple generations.
>>13264502Because although the white race is already at the top, we could be whiter
>>13264354It's a female early education teacher. Shouldn't be surprised they can't do math. Can still be pissed off though.
>>13264539why do you want to be whiter though, as opposed to olive colored? like, can you list reasons?
>>13264185>tremendously unethicalit is unethical, it is not TREMENDOUSLY unethical. I think it is not as unethical as putting people in jail.
>>13264186>who gets to decide who reproducesi do
>>13264584I think it is moreso.
>>13264138>>humans breed animals to serve their purpose for thousands of yearsMost of them are just retarded versions of animals found in the wild. Pic related.
>>13264469>As white as the blinding snow in FebruaryWell, that is a definite answer
>>13264568No vitamin D deficiency.
>>13264439Are you such a midwit you can only think in slippery slopes? You think encouraging healthy, 120+IQ individuals and discouraging sick <100IQ individuals leads to inbreeding? Ok retard.
>>13264366they're not being prohibited to breed.They're deciding themselves to not.retard nigger
>>13264439>>13264476>>13264497based. The fact that the nitwits don't get this simple, plausible arguments shows the absolute state of /sci/
>>13264185If I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone say "Eugenics is unscientific" I'd be a millionaire. A lot of these people also own dogs...
Women practice eugenics all the time
>>13264167Essentially this. Most people don't realize how they'd been breed to be servant slave cattle. I meant many Europeans lived thousands of year in serfdom or slavery, no wonder they're so fucking pozzed. I personally refuse to consider anyone who is circumcised to be an intelligent being.
>>13265023Joke's on you, I'm uncircumcised and I'm still a retard.*dabs*
It is done on humans 100% of the time.
>>13264698Even pug population alone is larger than wolf population, and number of all dogs totally destroys wolves. Dogs are clear evolutionary winners.
>>13264454>Just curious, but to breed something you have to have a goal, an ideal specimen.>So what color human are you breeding?It must have cat ears, color doesn't matter.
>>13265017Both sexes do. How else would women have evolved large breasts and hips ?
>>13264185Do you know what eugenics is? Because something tells me you don't. Your idea of eugenics seems to be "that thing when you sterilize people"
>>13264186>autists on 4chan have different opinions of X therefore X could never work in real world
>>13265264If you consider every example of reproductive selection eugenics, then it is ubiquitous.
>>13264494It's inevitable. Look at dog breeds 100 years ago and today.
>>13265023explain how you are not a slave to someone
>>13264138Eugenics was being pushed hard by Science Inc. in the early 20th century and was endorsed by Churchill and multiple American presidents, but after Hitler it became uncool. It's still ok to endorse it today though as long as you don't call it by its name and have politically correct goals.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
>>13265060By this measure the absolute pinnacle of life on earth is the mosquito.
>>13265371True. Shitlibs are unknowingly promoting the biggest eugenic force in Western world under the guise of "women's right to chose" Fucking lol. Can you believe that? What a clownworld
>>13265372I still don't understand why this made twitteroids so mad. But the replies were comedy gold. They were describing dysgenics and called that eugenics. lol
>>13264185Whats scientific about eugenics? Does it follow the scientific method? Where is the peer reviewed eugenics research?
>Where is the peer reviewed eugenics research?
>>13264138remember, those who can, dothose that can't, teach
>>13265379>I still don't understand why this made twitteroids so madWell no one likes to be told publicly that they're dishonest or stupid.
>>13265396Well sure, where is it? What makes it scientific?
>>13265447What are your criteria for something being "scientific"?
>>13265060There are no winners. Life is not a prize.
>>13265452>hahahaha le epik le Nazis were le right meme
>>13265449Any knowledge derived via the scientific method.
>>13265457Eugenics isn't a knowledge. It's a process of improving humans gene pool via selections of desirable traits.
>>13265461A process is knowledge. Like a recipe, a procedure. I cant believe you are resorting to pilpul so soon, playing games with the dictionary instead of talking about ideas.
>>13265463I mean there's a difference between a recipe and a meal cooked with the recipe. The knowledge of eugenics is not the same as doing eugenics. But there is still knowledge involved, which is not scientific.
>>13265463Well the only necessary knowledge behind eugenics is selection of heritable afaik. Do you think that's not scientific?
>>13264138This image is soul crushing. A system designed to destroy any creative thought.
>>13265473It is not scientific what is meant by desirable trait. Sometimes it can be. Birth defects are not good. But you can't just say manlets or average people are defective or that blonde hair is superior like there's any science to that.
>>13264224Same, sending power now check your venmo
>>13265479Yeah what is considered "desirable" trait is subjective but that does not make eugenics unscientific.
>>13265469>The knowledge of eugenics is not the same as doing eugenics. Sure, but it is part of doing eugenics.>But there is still knowledge involved, which is not scientific. It largely is.
Here's your purebred royalty bro
>>13264186The pressure should be broad and weak desu. Strict enforcement is what everyone whines and moans about. In fact, maybe a better approach would be to only encourage certain groups and not discourage anyone. If intelligent people were highly influenced for example but no pressure applied to normals I dont imagine the push back would be too strong.
>>13265477The worst part is that it is designed to encourage "thinking outside of the box" and questioning the premises. But it makes it so you can only think inside another box outside of the box.
>>13265485>everything i like is scienceIf all you want to say is that traits can be inherited that's science. Genetics. People knew about that millennia before the discovery of DNA, they just talked about blood. But the "only desirable ought to reproduce" is a political statement, not a scientific fact. What is desirable is not an universal truth and the idea that only them ought to reproduce is also not a scientific truth.Just say it would be better for future generations and make a case. Just dont lazily throw around the word science for points like bugmen do.
>>13265500For instance you can say that if only tall men reproduce because then humanity as a whole gets taller. That would be a scientific statement. What isnt scientific is to say that would be "good".
>>13265500>If all you want to say is that traits can be inherited that's science. Genetics. People knew about that millennia before the discovery of DNA, they just talked about blood. But the "only desirable ought to reproduce" is a political statement, not a scientific fact. What is desirable is not an universal truth and the idea that only them ought to reproduce is also not a scientific truth.I agree with everything said here.>Just dont lazily throw around the word science for points like bugmen do.If you remember it was you who was obsessed with eugenics being scientific and peer reviewed >>13265388If you just said this in the beginning you would save us both a lot of time
>>13265499Its a system designed to be pedantic>vague problem with poor wording>hahaha you couldn't predict our stupid answer as this is problem literally designed to break your confidence in your own intuition so you become a good little wagecuck.
>>13265513Me obsessed? I was just answering to an earlier post that said eugenics was scientific. Because everything HAS to be scientific eh?
>>13265513Bro there are no IDs here you dont know who you are answering to
>>13264138>reasonablenessthe ness words put me on edge
Eugenics is not as good as direct genetic engineering and modification. I don't think it would be possible to bring forth the Amazon female small male master race with just eugenic breeding practices, we need to modify the Y chromosome in a way that eugenics can not do.
>>13264138>humans breed animals for their meat, milk and fur for thousands of years>you can't do this to humans because ?????
>>13265819Domestic animal breeds are often prone to genetic problems. Look at dogs for example. Some breeds are now so inbred that their life expectancy is perhaps half of that of a healthy dog.
>>13264964Do pugs look like the Aryan masterrace of dogs to you, retard?
>>13264964My dog is a mutt
>>13265797wrong with advanced enough genome analysis you can just pick the gametes that have the traits you want
>>13265948You can't do that to gametes because you have to extract the dna to analyze it, and so you destroy the cell. It's only possible with embryos with cells to spare.
>>13264138Marty's pizza is bigger, who wrote that in green?
>>13264138what's with that pizza question? how could it say that marty ate more pizza? unless the pizzas weren't of the same size and 4/6ths of marty's pizza is bigger than 5/6ths of luis' pizza
>>13265717>/sci/poster hates philosophyNews at 11
>>13266384a woman that hates children and who probably gleefully enjoyed the spiteful murderous aspects of her dozen abortions
>>13266407That's it. The child called the problem correctly but the teacher essentially said that a one pound of feathers weighs less than one pound of steel.
>>13266699damn, i didn't even read the kid's answerkind of surprised the teacher would make such a mistake though, the "how is that possible?" in the question means that it is true, just that you're asked to explain it, not that it's some trick question where it's actually false and luis actually did eat more pizza than marty
>>13266746makes no sense, maybe it's fake
>>13264138Let x, y be positive real numbers that represent the volume of Marty's and Luis's pizza, respectively.According to the problem statement, 4x/6 > 5y/6x > 5/4 yHence, Marty's pizza is at least 25% greater in size than Luis's pizza.QED
>>13266746she was probably winedrunk while marking and forgot what the question was, just saw 5/6 and 4/6 through the alcohol haze and was like "come on kid, do better"