The evolutionary benefits of forcing women to give birth

Sep 2019
115
5
Evolution's bosom
Thank you for your expertise in Incels but disagreed on your conclusions.

Are you backpedaling from your assertion that women should be enslaved and treated as brood mares?
The argument is that evolved women such as Marie Curie or Joan of Arc prove their utility to the tribe via their intellect, beauty, or creativity.

While devolved women, much like devolved men, do not and therefore have nothing to offer the tribe, other than perhaps reproduction to sustain population or menial labor.

If a man must resort to "rape" or demanding entitlements to sex, he is devolved and degenerate twofold - one for thinking that "sex" itself is the aim of cultural evolution, as opposed to intelligence and creativity, and two for thinking that he would ever be "entitled" to it - whether in a modern nation, or an ancient culture, no queen would consider such a fool worthy of her, nor any king alot them any rights at all - perhaps even an execution for entertaining the thought that he is worthy of his queen.
 
Dec 2018
6,611
4,301
the Heart of America
The argument is that evolved women such as Marie Curie or Joan of Arc prove their utility to the tribe via their intellect, beauty, or creativity.

While devolved women, much like devolved men, do not and therefore have nothing to offer the tribe, other than perhaps reproduction to sustain population or menial labor.

If a man must resort to "rape" or demanding entitlements to sex, he is devolved and degenerate twofold - one for thinking that "sex" itself is the aim of cultural evolution, as opposed to intelligence and creativity, and two for thinking that he would ever be "entitled" to it - whether in a modern nation, or an ancient culture, no queen would consider such a fool worthy of her, nor any king alot them any rights at all - perhaps even an execution for entertaining the thought that he is worthy of his queen.
The IQ Bell Curve is well known. Regardless, people can, always have, contributed to “the tribe” in one way or another. For the few that didn’t, there were ancient methods of dealing with them. Romans would lay defective babies on a hillside and let them die of exposure or predators. Banishment was a common sentence for those who refused to assist the tribe or broke laws. Your suggestion of sexual slavery is an evil path not required to solve the problem you are claiming to solve.

Given your fantasy world was allowed to exist; how do you plan on determining those who are worthy and those who will be enslaved? How do you think such a society would eventually evolve within a 100-200 years given the known tendencies of human beings? Do you understand why socialism above the tribal level doesn’t work? What kind of moral code would your society develop when it freely enslaves and murders human beings it arbitrarily labels as “devolved”?
 
Feb 2011
18,541
13,347
The formerly great golden state
As we all know now, the myth that women or men "have rights" at all, beyond what comes out of the barrel of a gun or the hilt of a knife, is, evolutionarily speaking, a fairy tale on par with young earth creationism.

From a secular perspective, women therefore might fall into 2 main camps - fit ones who prove their utility to society - like Marie Curie, or Joan of Arc.

And degenerate or unintelligent ones, such as drug addicts who have illegal abortions to support their drug habit.

While the "religious" might appeal to Judeo-Christian values, chivalry, their silly Constitution, or other archaic and nonscientific notions - evolution doesn't care, and no one can provide any empirical evidence, or testability of women's rights at all - the American Constitution itself is an evolutionary heresy, founded on myths and unscientific notions to begin with, and should eventually have no place in an evolved society.

I would argue, therefore, the state would have a vested interest in forcing women of the non-productive variety to give birth, in order to sustain the population, as well as forcing men who father children with them to atone for this - perhaps castrating them if they are serial offenders who impregnate multiple women irresponsibly - since these defective males imagine they have any "rights" as well.
Firstly, having an abortion does not provide money for drugs.

Secondly, if you really want to improve the gene pool, then it makes more sense to force the strong, intelligent women to have more babies, and for the strong, intelligent men to be their baby daddies. Taking the less intelligent out of the gene pool through a spay and neuter program also makes a great deal of sense.

Now, who volunteers to live in a society that is authoritarian enough to pull off such a program? Not me. Let nature take its course, and, if the human race devolves once again to australopithecus status, then so be it. I'll be long gone before that happens anyway.
 

Blues63

Moderator
Dec 2014
14,513
12,306
Mustafa
Thanks for the clarification and the personal attack. Disagreed about an "erroneous claim regarding atheism" since I was putting it in line with the type of atheist who would post the OP not all atheists in general.
There was no personal attack, as your claim that I was defending the op was a stupid suggestion, and how you ever came up with such a ridiculous claim is beyond me. Furthermore, you clearly did not understand that atheism has no doctrine, and that was your erroneous claim.



I've also gone after Christian Identity people and far Right "Christians" with the same vigor and for the same reasons yet you never claimed "your erroneous claim regarding Christianity". It's easy to see why.
a) I've never seen you do that, so there is no hypocrisy as you imply.

b) Christianity clearly has a doctrine, unlike atheism (this is the point I am labouring) and it is known as 'dogma'.

I think this discussion has reached its limit and there is no point in pursuing it any further, as I'm simply repeating myself and it is becoming increasingly clear that you either have no interest in understanding the point, or lack the ability to do so.
 
Last edited:

Chief

Former Staff
Nov 2009
33,511
21,991
SoCal
As we all know now, the myth that women or men "have rights" at all, beyond what comes out of the barrel of a gun or the hilt of a knife, is, evolutionarily speaking, a fairy tale on par with young earth creationism.

From a secular perspective, women therefore might fall into 2 main camps - fit ones who prove their utility to society - like Marie Curie, or Joan of Arc.

And degenerate or unintelligent ones, such as drug addicts who have illegal abortions to support their drug habit.

While the "religious" might appeal to Judeo-Christian values, chivalry, their silly Constitution, or other archaic and nonscientific notions - evolution doesn't care, and no one can provide any empirical evidence, or testability of women's rights at all - the American Constitution itself is an evolutionary heresy, founded on myths and unscientific notions to begin with, and should eventually have no place in an evolved society.

I would argue, therefore, the state would have a vested interest in forcing women of the non-productive variety to give birth, in order to sustain the population, as well as forcing men who father children with them to atone for this - perhaps castrating them if they are serial offenders who impregnate multiple women irresponsibly - since these defective males imagine they have any "rights" as well.
I think instead any time men think they are going to try to force women to do something we should force these men to repeatedly dance the Macarena until it gets out of their system. Here, this one is for you.

 
Sep 2019
115
5
Evolution's bosom
I think instead any time men think they are going to try to force women to do something we should force these men to repeatedly dance the Macarena until it gets out of their system. Here, this one is for you.

Ha ha, it wouldn't be men, it would be women forcing them as well.

In practice, thinking men, as well as thinking women - make the laws and systems which govern society, and will continue to "force" those who lack any self-determination to comply with their demands for the nation or tribe.

Even Eva Braum likely had more say in state affairs than the average male did.
 

Chief

Former Staff
Nov 2009
33,511
21,991
SoCal
Ha ha, it wouldn't be men, it would be women forcing them as well.

In practice, thinking men, as well as thinking women - make the laws and systems which govern society, and will continue to "force" those who lack any self-determination to comply with their demands for the nation or tribe.

Even Eva Braum likely had more say in state affairs than the average male did.
All I can say, is that you have strange ideas about forcing things on others. In general, if you want to fix something, then fix yourself, worry about your own life, and respect others leading their own lives as well.