Theory Half of all women are unfit to reproduce.

[cokeboy]

In all probability, humans get their smarts from their mothers. So, if the average IQ is a pathetic 97, it means half of all women fall below this laughable standard! Should we even let them reproduce? Just picture how much stupider our nation will get over time!

And if women can chase after Chads, then men should damn well have the right to choose bright and intelligent girls with superior understanding!

*from New Scientist: "Eric 'Barry' Keverne ... and Azim Surani ... have evidence that in the mouse the mother's genes contribute more to the development of the 'thinking', or 'executive', centres of the brain, while paternal genes have a greater impact on the development of the 'emotional' limbic brain." (by Gail Vines, 3 May 1997, p 34. https://www.newscientist.com/articl...t-what-does-this-mean-for-us-asks-gail-vines/

 

[Incel Rap Genius]

based and eugenicspilled

 

[copemaxx9002]

based and eugenicspilled

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

That’s mice, not humans.

 

[cokeboy]

That’s mice, not humans.

Man inherits the degree, quality, and tendency of his intelligence from the mother. This assumption finds its actual confirmation in experience, though this cannot be decided by a physical experiment on the table, but follows partly from careful and keen observation over many years, and partly from history.

The old and popular expression “mother wit” in itself testifies to the early recognition of this second truth that is based on the experience gained with both small and great intellectual endowments, namely that they are the ability and capacity of those whose mothers relatively distinguished themselves by their intelligence. On the other hand, that the father’s intellectual qualities are not transmitted to the son is proved both by the fathers and by the sons of men who were distinguished by the most eminent abilities, since, as a rule, they were men of quite ordinary intelligence and without a trace of the father’s mental gifts.

 

[Friezacel]

Yeah. When talking about eugenics, everyone likes to point at the finger at men and say that only the best should reproduce. Meanwhile nobody calls out on short, ugly, obese, mentally ill foids procreating and spreading their inferior genetic

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

Man inherits the degree, quality, and tendency of his intelligence from the mother. This assumption finds its actual confirmation in experience, though this cannot be decided by a physical experiment on the table, but follows partly from careful and keen observation over many years, and partly from history.

The old and popular expression “mother wit” in itself testifies to the early recognition of this second truth that is based on the experience gained with both small and great intellectual endowments, namely that they are the ability and capacity of those whose mothers relatively distinguished themselves by their intelligence. On the other hand, that the father’s intellectual qualities are not transmitted to the son is proved both by the fathers and by the sons of men who were distinguished by the most eminent abilities, since, as a rule, they were men of quite ordinary intelligence and without a trace of the father’s mental gifts.

There are many examples of dumb mothers with bright kids though.

 

[cokeboy]

There are many examples of dumb mothers with bright kids though.

It is also to be noted here that there are certain scientific occupations which presuppose, of course, good, innate abilities, yet not really rare and extraordinary ones; the main requirements, on the contrary, are zealous effort, diligence, patience, early and good instruction, sustained study, and much practice. From this, and not from inheritance of the father’s intellect, is to be explained the fact that, as the son always willingly follows the path prepared by his father, and almost all businesses are hereditary in certain families, individual families can show a succession of men of merit even in some branches of knowledge which require above all diligence and perseverance; such are the Scaligers, the Bernouillis, the Cassinis, the Herschels.

That the father’s intellectual qualities are not transmitted to the son is proved both by the fathers and by the sons of men who were distinguished by the most eminent abilities, since, as a rule, they were men of quite ordinary intelligence and without a trace of the father’s mental gifts. But if for once an isolated exception to this frequently confirmed experience appears, such, for example, as that presented by Pitt and his father Lord Chatham, we are entitled, indeed obliged, to ascribe it to an accident, although, on account of the extreme rarity of great talents, such an accident is certainly one of the most extraordinary. But here the rule holds good that it is improbable that the improbable never happens. Moreover, great statesmen are such just as much through qualities of their character, and hence through the paternal inheritance, as through the superior qualities of their mind. On the other hand, among artists, poets, and philosophers, whose achievements alone are ascribed to genius proper, I know of no case analogous to this. It is true that Raphael’s father was a painter, but not a great one; Mozart’s father and also his son were musicians, but not great ones.

 

[Cobscell]

based and eugenicspilled

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

It is also to be noted here that there are certain scientific occupations which presuppose, of course, good, innate abilities, yet not really rare and extraordinary ones; the main requirements, on the contrary, are zealous effort, diligence, patience, early and good instruction, sustained study, and much practice. From this, and not from inheritance of the father’s intellect, is to be explained the fact that, as the son always willingly follows the path prepared by his father, and almost all businesses are hereditary in certain families, individual families can show a succession of men of merit even in some branches of knowledge which require above all diligence and perseverance; such are the Scaligers, the Bernouillis, the Cassinis, the Herschels.

That the father’s intellectual qualities are not transmitted to the son is proved both by the fathers and by the sons of men who were distinguished by the most eminent abilities, since, as a rule, they were men of quite ordinary intelligence and without a trace of the father’s mental gifts. But if for once an isolated exception to this frequently confirmed experience appears, such, for example, as that presented by Pitt and his father Lord Chatham, we are entitled, indeed obliged, to ascribe it to an accident, although, on account of the extreme rarity of great talents, such an accident is certainly one of the most extraordinary. But here the rule holds good that it is improbable that the improbable never happens. Moreover, great statesmen are such just as much through qualities of their character, and hence through the paternal inheritance, as through the superior qualities of their mind. On the other hand, among artists, poets, and philosophers, whose achievements alone are ascribed to genius proper, I know of no case analogous to this. It is true that Raphael’s father was a painter, but not a great one; Mozart’s father and also his son were musicians, but not great ones.

I meant when you were a kid, it was quite obvious some kids were just quick and sharp in their wit. No amount of discipline or training can teach those kids these kinds of things.

 

[cokeboy]

I meant when you were a kid, it was quite obvious some kids were just quick and sharp in their wit. No amount of discipline or training can teach those kids of things.

It is by no means possible to predict the future intellectual capacities of the man from those appearing in the boy. On the contrary, youthful prodigies, as a rule become blockheads; genius, on the other hand, is often in childhood of slow conception, and comprehends with difficulty, just because it comprehends deeply.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

It is by no means possible to predict the future intellectual capacities of the man from those appearing in the boy. On the contrary, youthful prodigies, as a rule become blockheads; genius, on the other hand, is often in childhood of slow conception, and comprehends with difficulty, just because it comprehends deeply.

That’s true, but when both the parents were slow but the kid was sharp as a knife as a kid does say something about genetics being more complicated.

 

[all this time]

In all probability, humans get their smarts from their mothers. So, if the average IQ is a pathetic 97, it means half of all women fall below this laughable standard! Should we even let them reproduce? Just picture how much stupider our nation will get over time!

And if women can chase after Chads, then men should damn well have the right to choose bright and intelligent girls with superior understanding!

*from New Scientist: "Eric 'Barry' Keverne ... and Azim Surani ... have evidence that in the mouse the mother's genes contribute more to the development of the 'thinking', or 'executive', centres of the brain, while paternal genes have a greater impact on the development of the 'emotional' limbic brain." (by Gail Vines, 3 May 1997, p 34. https://www.newscientist.com/articl...t-what-does-this-mean-for-us-asks-gail-vines/

so are half of men, its over for both of the sexes in 2024, everyone is used or unhealthy as fuck tier

 

[cokeboy]

That’s true, but when both the parents were slow but the kid was sharp as a knife as a kid does say something about genetics being more complicated.

Every child is to a certain extent a genius, and every genius to a certain extent a child.

 

[cokeboy]

Yeah. When talking about eugenics, everyone likes to point at the finger at men and say that only the best should reproduce. Meanwhile nobody calls out on short, ugly, obese, mentally ill foids procreating and spreading their inferior genetic

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

Every child is to a certain extent a genius, and every genius to a certain extent a child.

 

[cokeboy]

He who throughout his life does not, to a certain extent, remain a big child, but becomes an earnest, sober, thoroughly composed and rational man, can be a very useful and capable citizen of this world; but he will never be a genius. In fact, the genius is such through that preponderance of the sensible system and of the activity of knowledge, natural to the age of childhood, maintaining itself in him in an abnormal manner throughout his whole life, and so becoming perennial. A trace of this certainly continues in many an ordinary person right into the age of youth; thus, for example, a purely intellectual tendency and an eccentricity suggestive of genius are still unmistakable in many a student. But nature returns to her track; these assume the chrysalis form, and reappear at the age of manhood as Philistines incarnate, at whom we are horrified when we meet them again in later years.

 

[NeverEvenBegan]

I don't need women to be 'fit' to reproduce.

I just need them to let me CREAMPIE them

 

[Med Amine]

i wanna fuck big booba girls

 

[FucktheFBI]

Half of all women are unfit to reproduce.

 

[Klyternal]

In all probability, humans get their smarts from their mothers. So, if the average IQ is a pathetic 97, it means half of all women fall below this laughable standard! Should we even let them reproduce? Just picture how much stupider our nation will get over time!

And if women can chase after Chads, then men should damn well have the right to choose bright and intelligent girls with superior understanding!

*from New Scientist: "Eric 'Barry' Keverne ... and Azim Surani ... have evidence that in the mouse the mother's genes contribute more to the development of the 'thinking', or 'executive', centres of the brain, while paternal genes have a greater impact on the development of the 'emotional' limbic brain." (by Gail Vines, 3 May 1997, p 34. https://www.newscientist.com/articl...t-what-does-this-mean-for-us-asks-gail-vines/

You didn’t post amy findings regarding human development so this article really doesn’t support your claim. There can manifest genetic disorders but this can be a product of either parent’s genetic contribution to the child. Also, having a higher or lower IQ isn’t gender-based.

I would agree that probably most people shouldn’t have children seeing how they are ill equipped both emotionally and psychologically to properly parent children.

 

[cokeboy]

You didn’t post amy findings regarding human development so this article really doesn’t support your claim. There can manifest genetic disorders but this can be a product of either parent’s genetic contribution to the child. Also, having a higher or lower IQ isn’t gender-based.

I would agree that probably most people shouldn’t have children seeing how they are ill equipped both emotionally and psychologically to properly parent children.

Okay Gray

 

[lifesucksandyoudie]

That's an underestimate. There are just as many subhuman foids as there are subhuman males.