your friend a dog posted:

TCS caster uses "cucks" to describe tahms abilities

Reality Winner posted:

Which ability

Hashtag Yoloswag posted:

the one where he fucks your wife

Powaqoatse posted:

A HUNGRY MOUTH posted:

Pɪᴄᴋᴇᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛʜᴇ ᴄʟᴀᴡʙʙ.

Candlelight Virgil posted:

I love how everyone is making fun of me even though I was using the girls I wouldn’t even want to hang out with to act stupid to

Breetai posted:

You're the Bob Ross of painting a clear picture as to why you're single.

Groovelord Neato posted:

he wanted her name in quotation marks ("danica") he didn't actually write danica roem. he wrote "danica" roem every time you saw ms. roem.

belt posted:

Straight from the Trump playbook.

Trig Discipline posted:

Nah Trump would call her "Rocketless Man"

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

Dallas has a skyline?

Barudak posted:

There's a book depository and not much else to lose your head over

McGiggins posted:

Castrating people (preferably chemically) can, in certain cases, be a good idea, even morally required in some cases. An example that helped bring this point to me was a pair of downs syndrome adolescents that had partnered with each other, and according to their own statements, planned to have "at least 10 children" despite the fact that both were judged legally incapable of understanding what that actually entailed, and both were entirely dependant on full-time support staff just to stay alive themselves, especially considering that the partnering of a DS couple has an extremely high chance of passing on the condition to the children as an active trait, and certainly as genetic carriers if it doesn't show as active.

Does the rights of the individual, to self determination, to make widereaching decisions that involve dozens of other people that they are literally not capable of understanding the consequences of supercede the moral right of the society around them to intervene and make a better choice for them that is factually provable to have net less harm?


The Hendra crisis included a some breeding stock, and the application of eugenics in this case was to weed out the affected ones before they contaminate the stud horses. You need not actually pass traits in order for it to be a eugenical act, it merely needs to affect the transmission of traits. Eugenics through culling, which is my favorite kind, as it is the one I am most qualified to do, not being a full rate vet, as it were.


Yeah, it is in relation to his potential reproductive efforts, as he needs to stop being such a downer and put himself out there, or he'll never get that big Greek family his mother keeps badgering him about.

Self help advice increases his chances of getting laid instead of paying for hookers, and thus potentially making little greeklings.


I disagree with this statement, though it may just be the wording you used. What they did wasn't bad because it was eugenics. What they did was bad because cutting eyes out of twins and swapping them over to see what happens as part of human experimentation is bad. The process of encouraging white mother's and father's to breed together (while stupid) is eugenics, but isn't bad because eugenics itself isn't bad, as I expressed above. It matters what you do, why you do it, and the outcome of the two.

Eugenics is not automatically a -1 to morality.


As laid out above, I'm not necessarily convinced that true in all cases. Two people who have higher than normal statistics on any tests might agree to breed together for a child. They have willing decided make a eugenical choice of their own volition and pre-plan and construct a human being based on informed understanding of how dna smooshes together and are attempting to influence this for an optimum result by convince what they consider to be superior genetics (regardless of their race, backgrounds or political affiliations).

Doesn't seem inherently evil to me, consenting_adults.exe.

Abortion is eugenics, and everyone seems to agree that's just dandy. So we can use this as a baseline, and judge that if people are allowed to make eugenical decisions for themselves and their offspring, regardless of how well thought out or ill-advised the choice is, it would necessarily follow that in the DS case exampled above, who are legally required to have all decisions of consequence made for them, could then have their progeny quantity, or their being allowed to have any progeny at all, decided by another, nominally their caretaker.

To me, it burns down to outcome:
If you go around randomly punching women in the stomach or castrating people over 6 foot, that's bad eugenics.

If you have to stop people being born who are carriers for Fragile X, and you can mathematically prove that failure to intervene (either through abortion or genetic modification of the embryo) will be a massive problem in 150 years for whatever reason, possibly causing the end of your space colony or whatever, then it seems if the facts are the facts, then that has to be good eugenics. After all, it's not hypothetical if it's properly done, peer-reviewed and tested science.

I support the supremacy of the individual, but don't think that it extends to forcing everyone around you to live with the results of your current (or planned) decisions. I am not free to swing my fists until they hit your face, etc.

However, I do see situations coming about whether the reverse may be true, and where society may need to punch an individual in the face for some reason or another. I would only ever support such interventions when the processes and reasonings are well known and according to strict guidelines (no filtering out genes because you want a white only kid, for example).

Let me know if you want me to clarify any of the points I have made.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Ariong posted:

If there were still a PYF ban/probation thread, I would post this there. It’s time to play... Guess! The! Subforum! Hint: it’s not DnD!

Also, for bonus points: guess how long the probation is for. Hint: not as long as you would expect.


If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a million times: horses and people are basically the same thing.

Ariong posted:

If there were still a PYF ban/probation thread, I would post this there. It’s time to play... Guess! The! Subforum! Hint: it’s not DnD!

Also, for bonus points: guess how long the probation is for. Hint: not as long as you would expect.


If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a million times: horses and people are basically the same thing.

theflyingorc posted:

Before I check, my guess is "Traditional Games"

edit: drat, dug one layer too deep

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Forums ranked by likelihood of seeing long ranting political posts:

1. Games
2. Games
3. Games
4. Every other forum

Ariong posted:

If there were still a PYF ban/probation thread, I would post this there. It’s time to play... Guess! The! Subforum! Hint: it’s not DnD!

Also, for bonus points: guess how long the probation is for. Hint: not as long as you would expect.


If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a million times: horses and people are basically the same thing.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Forums ranked by likelihood of seeing long ranting political posts:

1. Games
2. Games
3. Games
4. Every other forum

Antivehicular posted:

I like how that dude is trying to be as Professor Rational Science Man as possible about eugenics while believing that you can be a "carrier" of Down Syndrome

http://americanpregnancy.org/birth-defects/down-syndrome/ posted:

Translocation Trisomy 21-Sometimes (in 3-4% of cases) part of chromosome 21 becomes attached (translocated) to another chromosome (usually the 13th, 14th or 15th chromosome) before or at conception. The carrier (the one having the translocated chromosome) will have 45 chromosomes instead of 46 but they will have all the genetic material of a person with 46 chromosomes. This is because the extra chromosome 21 material is located on a different chromosome (the translocated one). A carrier will have the extra material but will have only one chromosome 21. The carrier will not exhibit any of the symptoms of Down syndrome because they have the correct amount of genetic material.

Facebook Aunt posted:

Games naturally lead to trying to min-max society. Like Dwarf Fortress taught me women shouldn't be allowed in the military, because they will charge into battle carrying babies.

SplitSoul posted:

Almost all men with Down's are infertile and so are most of the women. I wouldn't be too worried if eugenics were my thing.

Facebook Aunt posted:

Games naturally lead to trying to min-max society. Like Dwarf Fortress taught me women shouldn't be allowed in the military, because they will charge into battle carrying babies.

Ariong posted:

If there were still a PYF ban/probation thread, I would post this there. It’s time to play... Guess! The! Subforum! Hint: it’s not DnD!

Also, for bonus points: guess how long the probation is for. Hint: not as long as you would expect.


If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a million times: horses and people are basically the same thing.

Subjunctive posted:

?

Facebook Aunt posted:

Games naturally lead to trying to min-max society. Like Dwarf Fortress taught me women shouldn't be allowed in the military, because they will charge into battle carrying babies.

General Dog posted:

If you write the first installment of a series without including any terrible sex parts, you have entered an implicit contract with the reader that you will not introduce this element in later installments of said series. I'm looking at you Justin Cronin, you idiot gently caress.

canyoneer posted:

Terrible Sex Parts would be a good name for a rock band

Best Bi Geek Squid posted:

all fantasy tropes, races, and concepts are extremely loving haram. And no, you can't get around this by coming up with a mysterious race of immortal, slowly dying magic users because, guess what, those are just loving elves.

Bertrand Hustle posted:

I thought the bollocks were the terrible sex parts.

Picnic Princess posted:

Depends on your taste.

OutsideAngel posted:

would argue that it depends on their taste

Bertrand Hustle posted:

Is that the same shitlord that lost the election to her because his campaign was equal parts "transgenders, ew" and "danica roem plays in a metal band and that is scary to me, an intolerant old white man trapped in 1950"

Meanwhile Ms Roem ran a campaign that addressed the issues that people in her district cared about and actually went door to door to talk to people