The Darwin Party

You clearly have no idea what he was talking about.

 

Then tell me what he was talking about.

 

The ubermensch was the man who, given the nihilism caused by the demise of traditional morality, forged a new one.

 

He had said man is a bridge between the ape and the Ubermensch. He believed the Ubermensch would be the highest evolution of man kind. A perfect being in inteligence and physical capability. Yes a new morality would be formed but the Ubermensch is not a single man, it is a future race.

 

Pity that evolution doesn't work like that.

 

The rest is fine, but this, no.

This is just an impossible sell, and could only be done under almost Fascist like control. And I assume you are not a fan of that idealogy?

What would happen if tens of thousands just went on to have babies anyway, licence or not?

What are you going to do, tear the baby away from them, and kill it?

Don't say 'adopt it out' as there would never be enough 'suitable people' to absorb a large number.

Put them in an orphanage? Surely not.

You were doing well until you dropped this in.

 

@OP.

This may or may not interest you;

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/213191-make-vote-worth-something-again.html

 

If they were caught pregnant without a breeding license, they would be given a forced abortion.

It would only seem "fascist" to the undesirable unfit people, the normal healthy intelligent people would have all their rights.

Another option would be to allow the stupid undesirable people to have children but make their taxes go up for every kid they have and make birth control easily affordible for them, but to give tax cuts, affordible houses etc, to people who are highly inteligent and have children.

 

Yes it does.

 

No it doesn't. Evolution is not about making people more intelligent, taller, bluer eyes, etc, it's about passing on genes and if getting dumber, shorter and browner eyes does that then that is what will get passed on.

It is not possible to predict where evolution will go.

 

I see.

How would that work?

 

This is called social darwinism, and it was tried to a large extent about 70-100 years ago. The results weren't great, you should learn a little history, it is useful. However if we did have "inteligent" students who "excell" in school, I would at least hope they would be intelligent enough and excel enough, to not make arguments which imply superior intelligence, while misspelling about 15 words!!

 

First of all, social darwinism back then thought that rich people must be smart because they are rich, and poor must be stupid because they are poor. That is false and not scientific. Thats why it didn't work well.

Second, shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up about misspelling words you grammar nazi. I can spell however I want it has nothing to do with intelligence.

 

Police grab em, strap em down, and a doctor comes in and sucks that little untermensch right out of her belly.

 

You do realise that Darwinism was in play well before Darwin came along to tell us there was such a thing as survival of the fittest?

Some Kings even thought that they were divinely evolved.

Look what happened to them.

Which tells us that evolution has a habit of extinguishing those who promote silly ideas.

Now, how does that apply in the modern world?

 

You're a monster.

Freedoms and rights are not selective, what you speak of is priviledge. You can denounce those who oppose you, but your party and your ideology is fascist.

 

A breeding license? Sick authoritarian scum, if you try to impose breeding restrictions on me or anyone in my area, I would defend myself with deadly force.

 

Ask youself this question,

"Will my genetics give my future children the best possible chance to succeed at life?"

If yes, then you are perfectly fine, if no, then you shouldn't have children, simple as that. You are the sick authoritarian scum, thinking people have the right to bring unfit children into this world. Children don't choose to be born, so therefore they shoould be protected that only the genetically fit can birth them.

 

I am the monster because I want to protect innocent children from their parents bad genetics? Yep I am a monster, you are the saint, you want retarded handicapped children to be born and live their whole life being sad that they aren't like everyone else.

 

Despite the misinformation you will receive from the nit picking Awary here is the first thing I found on the subject.

"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24

So a majority of American Scientists believe in God. Being religious covers a lot more territory for one can be Buddhist or Hindi and be religious. Of course a huge majority of the WORLD population are religious and a much smaller group is atheist. Atheists according to one university study are the most hated minority. Its obvious by the comments of some members in this forum why that is a fact. Personally I would like to see a accurate, much larger sampling poll of; Are scientists religious? I would wager that the results would be much like the LA Times article Thank you Jade for your pro religious comments.

Rev A

 

(emcoicons inserted into parody copy mine)

modified parody of original reply>>>>>>>>> If they were caught pregnant without a breeding license, they would be given a forced abortion. (not if the freedom fighting rebels any ammo left after finishing off the leadership of your brave new nazi party)....

It would only seem "fascist" to the undesirable unfit people, (like the Hitler like leaders of your brave new world? the normal healthy intelligent people (those that reject your ideas) would have all their rights (which are all wrong)

Another option would be to allow the stupid undesirable people (your brave new world leaders) to have children but make their taxes go up for every kid they have and make birth control easily affordable for them, but to give tax cuts, affordable houses etc, to people who are highly intelligent (those that reject Orwellian ideas) and have children.<<<<<<<<<<<<<modified parody

If I was a citizen in a Orwellian nightmare in a nation like you propose, I would be using C-4 and Semtex in new and creative ways! Not to mention taking hunting trips with pictures of the new Stalin and Hitler&#8217;s in my pocket for reference. I would not want to bag the wrong species' !

I don&#8217;t even allow my own government to enter my property much less allow them violate my 'current' or 'to be' family. Your ideal of a government might work on a people that has already been beaten down by decades of oppressive rule, but it would not work on a people that have tasted freedom.

Rev A

 

Uhhhh huh. darwinism should have the 'd' in caps. 'Thats' should be 'That's'. Lastly nazi should be Nazi (the first letter in uppercase).

That said the ideas expressed in your OP are replusive.

Rev A

Rev A

 

Oh you are so cool, you can capitalize, good job little timmy, heres a cookie.

 

And who decides which genetics are fit? Unless it's a divine being, you're crazy. You or any other human being has neither the virtue nor the right to determine what genes are worth breeding. So what would determine who has genes that are fit to breed?

 

Well, I am an atheist and I would no more join such a party that I would join the democrats, republicans, or any other party. In fact such a party is bigoted, hateful and illegal. The whole concept is as bad or worse than any religion I know of.