i have a gay friend who i play games with from time to time. he hates feminists and dont like trannies. lol, he also believes in eugenics to prevent people from being born who might have defects that would negatively affect their lives. xD..
But gays can still contribute to society in other ways - via working and doing stuff child-raisers don't have time or money for, as was basically their traditional place in society. The child-havers just have that third kid to make up for the gay ones.
A detrimental gene would be the ones that cause "autism" and create the real droolers that can't learn at all, and can never do anything more than giggle, grin, and piss their pants, and need their bums wiped by competent humans who could be doing something more productive. And yes, two "slow" people are likely to create one of these, which is why they were sterilized in the past (they're not legally allowed to have sex with mental normals anyway, being on the legal-mental level of children and non-humans.) And by fuck, a dog breeder would be demonized for trying to mate two merles together, it should be just as horrifying to let genetic retards and mutant cripples amongst humans to breed more of themselves, too.
Gay men who choose anonymity over faggot activism should be left alone. it is important to remember that your run-of-the-mill gay person is a good neighbor and a square citizen.
Fags who parade in the streets performing unnatural acts and luring children into their fetishes should be tarred, feathered, and thrown into dumpsters.
Groomer activists are creating the hatred for homosexuals they claim to be organized against.
Everything was live-and-let-live until tranny activists and the freaks who love them started bombarding us with their demonic nonsense. Too many people can't even bring themselves to publicly admit women and men exist as separate sexual entities because they're cowards who fear the repercussions of speaking this obvious truth. Matt Walsh is right.
Their attempt to extort toleration has failed and I hope the backlash will be as harsh as they deserve.
That's ewhy I was trying to define it down without using The Dreaded R Word. Putting useful but oddball evolutionary variances under "autism" is very disengenuous, I think, and came exactly from the defenders of the brain-dead droolers. I have known for a long time that "science" is extremely biased/apolagetic/double-standarded when it comes to humans ... fucking Gould was a stand-out example of that. (He'd probably be crowing on the one hand about how "puncutated equilibrium" has more or less been proving itself (or at least, that evolution can happen at the sub-species level a lot faster than originally postulated), but on the other still insisting that humans haven't had enough time to produce biological races on the other.)
Anyway, speaking of which, anyone else think that Social Media Challenges are someone setting Darwinian Retard Traps? The newest one is apparently "cooking chicken in Ny-Quil". Who would even think of that? And how does someone not stop and consider how dumb that is - unless they're in a whole crowd of "friends" yelling "do it do it do it"?
No, but they're not trashing it, either. They're basically on the same level as contributing non-humans (dogs, cats and horses). They contribute socially or economically, not genetically. There's no point in doing anything to them sterilization-wise, because they're not going to breed, anyway. The whole point of eugenics isn't just to make better individuals, but also a better species overall, and that would include its society (and that goes for ANY social species .. and humans are social apes, not asocial bears.)
This is where I think the wokeists are shitty and sneaky - their idea of "diversity" begins and ends with human skin colour.
Genuinely curious: how does he justify his sexual preference with eugenics? From the pov of eugenics he's a dead end thus not improving the quality of the human population.
You got it the other way around, the question is why shouldn't he be pro eugenics? There's absolutely zero benefit to being "heterosexual" when you can be sexually attracted to males and still get your dick hard to breed a woman, in fact that same "heterosexuality" aka disguised misandry and cuckoldry is what will lead to the fall of any civilized society.
i have a gay friend who i play games with from time to time. he hates feminists and dont like trannies. lol, he also believes in eugenics to prevent people from being born who might have defects that would negatively affect their lives. xD..
But gays can still contribute to society in other ways - via working and doing stuff child-raisers don't have time or money for, as was basically their traditional place in society. The child-havers just have that third kid to make up for the gay ones.
A detrimental gene would be the ones that cause "autism" and create the real droolers that can't learn at all, and can never do anything more than giggle, grin, and piss their pants, and need their bums wiped by competent humans who could be doing something more productive. And yes, two "slow" people are likely to create one of these, which is why they were sterilized in the past (they're not legally allowed to have sex with mental normals anyway, being on the legal-mental level of children and non-humans.) And by fuck, a dog breeder would be demonized for trying to mate two merles together, it should be just as horrifying to let genetic retards and mutant cripples amongst humans to breed more of themselves, too.
Gay men who choose anonymity over faggot activism should be left alone. it is important to remember that your run-of-the-mill gay person is a good neighbor and a square citizen.
Fags who parade in the streets performing unnatural acts and luring children into their fetishes should be tarred, feathered, and thrown into dumpsters.
Groomer activists are creating the hatred for homosexuals they claim to be organized against.
Everything was live-and-let-live until tranny activists and the freaks who love them started bombarding us with their demonic nonsense. Too many people can't even bring themselves to publicly admit women and men exist as separate sexual entities because they're cowards who fear the repercussions of speaking this obvious truth. Matt Walsh is right.
Their attempt to extort toleration has failed and I hope the backlash will be as harsh as they deserve.
Thank you. I would happily give up marriage option in a bundle deal with kicking groomers out of schools.
I think Down’s Syndrome is probably a better example of this, but yea, I agree…
Autism has become super, super broadly defined, to the point of massively watering down the definition…
Non-verbal/non-functional autism, though? Absolutely, I agree…
But then, there’s a lot of “conditions” that could essentially be bred out of society, if we went down that path…
Somehow I doubt that will happen, though, any time soon.
That's ewhy I was trying to define it down without using The Dreaded R Word. Putting useful but oddball evolutionary variances under "autism" is very disengenuous, I think, and came exactly from the defenders of the brain-dead droolers. I have known for a long time that "science" is extremely biased/apolagetic/double-standarded when it comes to humans ... fucking Gould was a stand-out example of that. (He'd probably be crowing on the one hand about how "puncutated equilibrium" has more or less been proving itself (or at least, that evolution can happen at the sub-species level a lot faster than originally postulated), but on the other still insisting that humans haven't had enough time to produce biological races on the other.)
Anyway, speaking of which, anyone else think that Social Media Challenges are someone setting Darwinian Retard Traps? The newest one is apparently "cooking chicken in Ny-Quil". Who would even think of that? And how does someone not stop and consider how dumb that is - unless they're in a whole crowd of "friends" yelling "do it do it do it"?
No, but they're not trashing it, either. They're basically on the same level as contributing non-humans (dogs, cats and horses). They contribute socially or economically, not genetically. There's no point in doing anything to them sterilization-wise, because they're not going to breed, anyway. The whole point of eugenics isn't just to make better individuals, but also a better species overall, and that would include its society (and that goes for ANY social species .. and humans are social apes, not asocial bears.)
This is where I think the wokeists are shitty and sneaky - their idea of "diversity" begins and ends with human skin colour.
You got it the other way around, the question is why shouldn't he be pro eugenics? There's absolutely zero benefit to being "heterosexual" when you can be sexually attracted to males and still get your dick hard to breed a woman, in fact that same "heterosexuality" aka disguised misandry and cuckoldry is what will lead to the fall of any civilized society.
I didn't know Milo was a gamer