Blackpill Breeding is fundamentally immoral.

[Zer0/∞]

Some of you guys claim to have tall chad fathers and stacy mothers but came out ugly and short, and yet personally want to have children?!

How stupid do you have to be to actively produce more incels and sluts into this world? Even couples with models and actors produce disabled children, Bill Gates’ slut daughter is dating a Tyrone, genetic lottery and daughterpill means no one is safe.

Breeding for the purpose of having children is animalistic and serves no purpose except for feeding one’s ego.

 

[Luzifer]

 

[subhuman]

Some of guys claim to have tall chad fathers

My dad is a tall chad that used to slay in his glory days. I'm a short repulsive truecel.

The problem with height is that it tends to regress towards the mean. Tall parents usually have kids shorter than them, and short parents tend to have kids taller than them. Also, since foids are so hypergamous, genetic trash foids usually get to reproduce and so even if the dad is a chad the kid will still be subhuman (thats what happened to me).

Ultimately though, creating any life is evil because life is suffering. People shouldn't reproduce. It's pure fucking evil.

 

[DespressedCurryCel1]

I'll only breed when gene editing is common and available to the public.

 

[Incelrito]

My dad is a tall chad that used to slay in his glory days. I'm a short repulsive truecel.

The problem with height is that it tends to regress towards the mean. Tall parents usually have kids shorter than them, and short parents tend to have kids taller than them. Also, since foids are so hypergamous, genetic trash foids usually get to reproduce and so even if the dad is a chad the kid will still be subhuman (thats what happened to me).

Ultimately though, creating any life is evil because life is suffering. People shouldn't reproduce. It's pure fucking evil.

Brutal! women are so disgusting tbh

 

[Izayacel]

 

[Man]

Genotype < Phenotype

It’s also true that you could have model children while having two subhuman parents (like Jeremy Meeks).

If having ugly kids is a reason to not breed, why is the possibility of having attractive kids not a reason to breed?

 

[Zer0/∞]

Genotype < Phenotype

It’s also true that you could have model children while having two subhuman parents (like Jeremy Meeks).

If having ugly kids is a reason to not breed, why is the possibility of having attractive kids not a reason to breed?

a lifetime of suffering and loneliness is a 1000x worse fate than having a chad son

 

[hollowcel]

humans aren't breeding nowadays anyway so what's your concern

 

[gonzoalez]

I think procreation is murder because fecundated zygottes spontaneously abort for every successful conception.
Basically the population of "human souls" is like X2 of every one ever born + billions of aborted humans through the abortive pill(may its inventor be damned) who no one even registers.

 

[based_meme]

I'm a eugenicist, not an anti-natalist. I hold the position that it's only immoral to have children if the probability of having a child with subhuman genetics or defects is high enough to pass some "don't-breed" threshold.

 

[vidyacel]

It violates the so called "consent" every single time.
That´s why, it´s an evil act by default. ( nevermind the normalfagging mental gymnastics that goes along with it )
You know.. those who justify bringing life to this shithole.

 

[Transcended Trucel]

based post

 

[PLA1092]

a lifetime of suffering and loneliness is a 1000x worse fate than having a chad son

i am coming close to your postcount

 

[SocialzERo]

based post

 

[Grim_Reaper]

If I am having children I would make sure they are gene editing maxed

Will gene editing even exist in the near future?

 

[Govid_Dorious]

Breeding for the purpose of having children is animalistic and serves no purpose except for feeding one’s ego.

 

[ElTruecel]

Anti natalist propaganda

 

[Zer0/∞]

Will gene editing even exist in the near future?

of course not, genes are far too complex, we share 60% of our DNA with Bananas and yet are completely different

 

[InMemoriam]

valid asf

 

[sadcel05x.r]

i‘d breed because having kids will atleast give me a purpose in life.

 

[PoodankMcGee]

Always gotta applaud based antinatalist posts.

 

[HomicidalSuicidal88]

Having kids just so they can suffer in life is fucking cruel women are cruel

 

[northwesterner]

Brutal

 

[verzetn]

based post

 

[verzetn]

Also you’re condemning them of going to hell and bringing them into an evil wretched and depraved world

 

[RollD20]

Breeding for the purpose of having children is animalistic and serves no purpose except for feeding one’s ego.

Yeah but people will still do it
And why do you think men want sex it’s hard coded in their brains
What can you do

 

[Ahnfeltia]

I'm a eugenicist, not an anti-natalist. I hold the position that it's only immoral to have children if the probability of having a child with subhuman genetics or defects is high enough to pass some "don't-breed" threshold.

If people were to adhere thereto, wouldn't the "don't-breed" threshold slowly move up and up until nobody's procreating anymore? Seems to me you're proposing a painfully dragged out death over a quick and painless one.

Normal people do not seriously contemplate the inadvertent misery caused as they copulate. Neuro-chemistry, biology and the instincts, so on and so forth.

While certainly true, just because sheeple don't contemplate the consequences of their actions, don't mean they shouldn't. You sound like you're equating morality and commonplaceness.

 

[Azaylias]

Brutal! women are so disgusting tbh

Say hello to reddit for me

 

[based_meme]

If people were to adhere thereto, wouldn't the "don't-breed" threshold slowly move up and up until nobody's procreating anymore? Seems to me you're proposing a painfully dragged out death over a quick and painless one.

Not until human evolution makes leaps and bounds in a short time window. Beauty is objective and universal. Social Darwinism already takes care of that aspect of selection, but it's currently dysgenic in that women select for savagery and barbarism to go along with it. Violent and aggressive men are consistently selected for in today's world, but we're not living a million years ago.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

Not until human evolution makes leaps and bounds in a short time window.

I don't think that's really germane. While absolute beauty is certainly important, I think that relative pulchritude becomes more important at some point. Imagine being the girl in the group with the ugliest bf

Men at the bottom of the beauty hierarchy will never be chosen. Virtually everyone else is a better catch after all. When you're shopping for vegetables, do you ever pick the ugliest specimens?

Here's another consideration. People still complain obstinately about society even though it's undeniably better than hundreds, let alone thousands, of years ago. Maybe not in every single aspect (e.g., the relation between the sexes) but certainly on the whole. What makes you think hypergamy will be any different?

 

[based_meme]

What makes you think hypergamy will be any different?

It won't.

The point is to try to curb the destructive elements of our nature, including hypergamy. The point of systematic and selective breeding is to fight against our nature (that has evolved from millions of years in a harsh environment) and direct our own evolution in a direction befitting a creature capable of exploring space and understanding the mathematics of the universe.

 

[Incedel]

Based, EUGENICS is the only way of ethical reproduction, because it ensure a more equitable soyciety, meaning things like height and NT can be assured. Foids hate it because a good chunk of them are also genetic dead ends that only get to breed because of hypergamy and matriarchy

 

[Ahnfeltia]

It won't.

The point is to try to curb the destructive elements of our nature, including hypergamy. The point of systematic and selective breeding is to fight against our nature (that has evolved from millions of years in a harsh environment) and direct our own evolution in a direction befitting a creature capable of exploring space and understanding the mathematics of the universe.

I didn't realize you meant to filter out hypergamy through eugenics as well. My bad. In that case I'm not so sure whether this is gonna work. In your original post you eluded to doing eugenics based on estimating probabilities. While this sounds reasonably doable when it comes to physical comeliness, guesstimating someone's character with any degree of veracity before conception seems nigh impossible. Astrology is probably the best tool humanity has in this regard, but I'm guessing you're not a fan.

 

[based_meme]

I didn't realize you meant to filter out hypergamy through eugenics as well. My bad. In that case I'm not so sure whether this is gonna work. In your original post you eluded to doing eugenics based on estimating probabilities. While this sounds reasonably doable when it comes to physical comeliness, guesstimating someone's character with any degree of veracity before conception seems nigh impossible. Astrology is probably the best tool humanity has in this regard, but I'm guessing you're not a fan.

Female nature currently selects for aggression in males, as an example. This is a useful trait, because aggressive males are much more likely to fight, which means they're more likely to fight and defend her and his babies. Hypergamy, however, runs amok with this selection process (there are no caps or brakes on it), and women easily select for high-criminality males. This is obviously not conducive to a civilized society.

As for character, I'm referring to more than the tendency to commit violence for evil and selfish reasons (usually criminality). "Character" is having the values and virtues of order and goodness that is promoted by the society in question. Simply having a moral compass and being a law abiding citizen is usually enough.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

Female nature currently selects for aggression in males, as an example. This is a useful trait, because aggressive males are much more likely to fight, which means they're more likely to fight and defend her and his babies. Hypergamy, however, runs amok with this selection process (there are no caps or brakes on it), and women easily select for high-criminality males. This is obviously not conducive to a civilized society.

As for character, I'm referring to more than the tendency to commit violence for evil and selfish reasons (usually criminality). "Character" is having the values and virtues of order and goodness that is promoted by the society in question. Simply having a moral compass and being a law abiding citizen is usually enough.

While I get the idea, this post feels like a non sequitur.

 

[based_meme]

While I get the idea, this post feels like a non sequitur.

 

[buried_alive]

Given the chance incels should absolutely breed. Even redpillers too. Based people having children is much better than woke people having children. They need to be outbred of the gene pool and society.

If you have a son make sure to looksmax and socialmaxx him to the moon during teenage years.

 

[LDARbeforeROPE]

Some of you guys claim to have tall chad fathers and stacy mothers but came out ugly and short, and yet personally want to have children?!

How stupid do you have to be to actively produce more incels and sluts into this world? Even couples with models and actors produce disabled children, Bill Gates’ slut daughter is dating a Tyrone, genetic lottery and daughterpill means no one is safe.

Breeding for the purpose of having children is animalistic and serves no purpose except for feeding one’s ego.

The point of life is to breed dude, after survival

 

[Ahnfeltia]

I just realized you might have misunderstood what I meant by "I'm not so sure whether this is gonna work". I meant to say that I wasn't so sure that your ideal was actionable. If it were to be actionable, it would surely accomplish its intended purpose. Whether this is desirable is different story altogether. You said yourself

"Character" is having the values and virtues of order and goodness that is promoted by the society in question.

which would be very detrimental in contemporary society indeed.

Regarding the non sequitur remark, I meant to convey that you elaborating on what the intended purpose would be is rather apropos of nothing when I was talking about actionability (and still being under the impression that we were on the same page).

 

[based_meme]

I just realized you might have misunderstood what I meant by "I'm not so sure whether this is gonna work". I meant to say that I wasn't so sure that your ideal was actionable. If it were to be actionable, it would surely accomplish its intended purpose. Whether this is desirable is different story altogether. You said yourself

It's not actionable in current society. Whatever plans I have for it is irrelevant, because the current society would need to be destroyed.

If I don't explicitly offer and state a practical plan and solution, assume that everything I say is theoretical.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

It's not actionable in current society. Whatever plans I have for it is irrelevant, because the current society would need to be destroyed.

agreed

If I don't explicitly offer and state a practical plan and solution, assume that everything I say is theoretical.

I'll try to remember.

 

[vidyacel]

Efilism @vidyacel

Definitely.