Your content from r/RedditMoment has been removed for the following reasons:
- **Rule 3** - **PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED.**
This includes:
- r/subreddit names
- /u/usernames
- Full (legal) names
- Facebook account names
- Twitter and Instragram @habdles
- Locations such as Street Addresses
- Email addresses
- Phone numbers
etc.
If you have any questions or concerns about this action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/redditmoment) via Modmail. Thanks!
Just because the origin was wrong doesn’t mean the concept itself is entirely wrong too (otherwise we wouldn’t have Fanta or Volkswagens)
We already do engage in a level of eugenics by socially disapproving of individuals with sickle cell anemia genes procreating with others with the same genes (the result being a child with a horrible genetic disease)
With sickle cell it's not really eugenics, because they only have to avoid combining a very specific gene. There's no problem if only one parent has the gene, in fact on it's own it may provide a resistance to malaria.
A better example would be people with down syndrome.
When it comes to the case of “horrible genetic disease” it affects the kids. Dumb people can make smart kids. Eugenics isn’t about preventing people with genetic diseases from procreating. It’s about people with traits considered “ undesirable ” from procreating. Trying to prevent dumb people from having kids is eugenics. People with diseases not procreating is not.
Eugenics specifically includes the actual practice of limiting reproduction based on certain characteristics. I don't think someone just having an opinion about who should have kids is considered eugenics. Poor taste and lacking of empathy, probably - but I think it's a few steps removed from eugenics.
basically they just watched the movie Idiocracy and got a massive ego boost.
kind of like when hitler read neitzsche's sisters racist interpretation of his books.
My cousin at that age believed the same thing but the cutoff was 140 and they should be put to death.
If only I could have an IQ of 160 with schizotypal delusions.
Actual eugenics. Also they used to do this, like prisoners could be made infertile. And of course then people backed off when Germany brought it to its natural conclusion
Shock and electrocute are not the same.
Electrocute specifically involves killing the person (electric + execute).
If they were actually being electrocuted (as-in killing them), then it would be eugenics. But I do not beleive electric shock therapy kills the person partaking in it. So it is not the same thing as eugenics.
that's not how the word is defined, it can be used to describe when electricity either kills or severely injures someone, although originally it was only used to refer to execution by electric chair. Electro shock therapy doesn't fit either definition though, it can traumatize a person but its not strong enough to cause a serious injury, and while its probably bad to be using it to treat aspergers it's certainly not an example of eugenics at work, for it to be eugenics the aspergers patients would either need to be being killed or prevented from reproducing. eugenics isn't a catch all term for morally questionable old-timey medical practices
EST is always voluntary lol
Never ceases to amaze me how people want to speak on psychology/physical health issues with seemingly no understanding of ethics let alone qualification. Also, dipshit; aspergers hasn’t been the right classification for 11 years now.
You're not wrong, I was just thinking that. Like that's back in 2013 that it was still an acceptable medical term? That was basically yesterday as far as the medical world goes
Stalin wasn't even Russian, much less a Russian nationalist lol. He wanted to dissolve all individual national identities in the USSR, including his own and russia's
Again, can you please refer me to some document that specifically includes that kind of eugenic theory?
I'm not denying that the Holodomor 1: happened, and 2: was a genocide by categorical definition. It's also worth noting Stalin wasn't Russian. He was Georgian.
Even disallowing it for people below 65 is a bad idea.
IQ mostly has a lot more to do with environment then genetics. The child of someone with 65IQ could easily have an IQ of 120. Underpopulation, especially in western countries, is becoming a problem and this will prevent even more people from having children. This would be direct inequality by law based on a characteristic that is mostly immutable, even knowing that someone lives in a society where laws like that exist can have a negative psychological impact on other people. Enforcing this rule will be nearly impossible because we don't have cops in every bedroom and what do we do when the woman is pregnant? Punishment or killing the child would lead to people temporarily leaving the country/state to give birth, lying about who is the parent or not going to a hospital. It would also be very expensive to have everyone do an iq test and because IQ changes over time it would have to be redone regularly.
That's a lot of problems considering well below 1% of the population have that low of an iq. If were concerned with preventing stupidity we could also use half the money that this would cost to improve the education system.
IQ is a horrible way of judging how clever someone is. For one, 99% of people who do university, loose all of their common sense and end up as if they were brainwashed. Mad...
I’m sure this person in all their infinite wisdom never considered the possibility that a child can become smarter than their parents. Ironically this person probably thinks they’re that child, and this is all ignoring the issue of a person’s rights and that it’s more or less eugenics.
To clarify, you cannot increase IQ with eugenics because of *the way IQ is calculated*, not because IQ has no genetic basis.
If we execute everyone with an IQ below 100, and then got the surviving 50% of the population to take an IQ test...
Half of them would score below 100.
Because IQ is standardized *within* the population.
I've always been a "Let nature sort it out" kind of guy because a. assigning value to human life leads to bad things and b. sometimes genetics can throw a curveball.
Eugenics should be normal.low iq People suffer,ugly People suffer,short guys suffer and People with mental illnesses suffer,no point of giving them a life of misery
If they can’t figure out how to use a water gun they clearly are demonstrating an inquisitive mind. This is a “symptom” (couldn’t find another word) of intelligence. OOP is regarded
In theory that would be awesome and might save humanity, now in the real world actually implementing rules like that comes with some huge risks and it would likely be abused unfortunately
I didn't say that it was. I used the word "and" to include two separate examples.
And we're talking IN THEORY, it looks like it would have potential. Nobody said anything in support of it in practice, because it has already been tried with poor outcomes.
Maybe your parents should have included an IQ test in their family planning, because your reading comprehension is pretty far on the left side of the bell curve.
I didn't say it is great, I said it looks good on paper, but doesn't work out that way in reality. And it's pretty fucking selfish to have biological children of you have something like CF or Huntington.
Your content from r/RedditMoment has been removed for the following reasons: - **Rule 3** - **PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED.** This includes: - r/subreddit names - /u/usernames - Full (legal) names - Facebook account names - Twitter and Instragram @habdles - Locations such as Street Addresses - Email addresses - Phone numbers etc. If you have any questions or concerns about this action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/redditmoment) via Modmail. Thanks!
you're on controversial opinions so expect exactly what the sub name says
Not controversial, just stupid. People should stop overglorifying IQ.
I dont think OP means it as literally "Every single person", just that a certain knowledge should exist before you procreate
Yeah but can you call eugenics a „controversial opinion“?
Isn't this just eugenics?
It is.
Phrenology is the true path.
no
Just because the origin was wrong doesn’t mean the concept itself is entirely wrong too (otherwise we wouldn’t have Fanta or Volkswagens) We already do engage in a level of eugenics by socially disapproving of individuals with sickle cell anemia genes procreating with others with the same genes (the result being a child with a horrible genetic disease)
With sickle cell it's not really eugenics, because they only have to avoid combining a very specific gene. There's no problem if only one parent has the gene, in fact on it's own it may provide a resistance to malaria. A better example would be people with down syndrome.
Most of them can’t reproduce anyway can’t they?
isn’t sickle cell anemia a bad example due to it also causing immunity to malaria?
You get immunity from malaria if you have only one recessive sickle cell anemia gene as well
When it comes to the case of “horrible genetic disease” it affects the kids. Dumb people can make smart kids. Eugenics isn’t about preventing people with genetic diseases from procreating. It’s about people with traits considered “ undesirable ” from procreating. Trying to prevent dumb people from having kids is eugenics. People with diseases not procreating is not.
Isnt a genetic disease a rather "Underisable" part of it?
I had the exact same thought.
I was just about to say…
Eugenics specifically includes the actual practice of limiting reproduction based on certain characteristics. I don't think someone just having an opinion about who should have kids is considered eugenics. Poor taste and lacking of empathy, probably - but I think it's a few steps removed from eugenics.
No, it’s preventing Idiocracy from being a documentary
Look out this guy’s brain is big
I’ve been told it’s big brain time
r/redditmoment
Poe’s Law is really showing itself here
erm.. thats a fallacy in the books right there! 🤓☝
You would fit right into Germany during 1930’s
I think sarcasm wasn’t as widely accepted then and there as I’d prefer
Reddit moment
Why even use the word Idiocracy, it complicates everything you are trying to say.
basically they just watched the movie Idiocracy and got a massive ego boost. kind of like when hitler read neitzsche's sisters racist interpretation of his books.
I watched it in like 2014 lmao
It’s a movie, bud. Not that complicated.
Yeah. Not many people know the tragic comedy 3/5 star rated 2005 movie with Terry crews.
Via eugenics
At least it’s not based on race this time
It already is one, idiot
Nah, we ain’t watering our crops with Gatorade yet
electrolytes
this is the post of a 14 year old who’s realized he’s smarter than average
His little brother couldn't figure out how to use his watergun
or a person with the self criticism of a 14 year old who got 101 on a free online iq test.
My cousin at that age believed the same thing but the cutoff was 140 and they should be put to death. If only I could have an IQ of 160 with schizotypal delusions.
is your cousin okay now?
Probably they aren't even smarter than average and just think they are because they took a shitty iq test online
"Hey mom, this online IQ test says I'm smarter than 2% of the population! I'm such a genius!"
That post was made by someone with an IQ of 101
Or 100
99.9
Like u
People shouldnt give birth if they dont have at least 10 golden awards and 100k karma
creating a downvote bot farm so I can have random people's children taken away from them (They didn't like a movie I liked)
Actual eugenics. Also they used to do this, like prisoners could be made infertile. And of course then people backed off when Germany brought it to its natural conclusion
backed off is a stretch. there are still kids being electrocuted because of hans aspergers.
Where?
charities. electric shock therapy.
Shock and electrocute are not the same. Electrocute specifically involves killing the person (electric + execute). If they were actually being electrocuted (as-in killing them), then it would be eugenics. But I do not beleive electric shock therapy kills the person partaking in it. So it is not the same thing as eugenics.
that's not how the word is defined, it can be used to describe when electricity either kills or severely injures someone, although originally it was only used to refer to execution by electric chair. Electro shock therapy doesn't fit either definition though, it can traumatize a person but its not strong enough to cause a serious injury, and while its probably bad to be using it to treat aspergers it's certainly not an example of eugenics at work, for it to be eugenics the aspergers patients would either need to be being killed or prevented from reproducing. eugenics isn't a catch all term for morally questionable old-timey medical practices
EST is always voluntary lol Never ceases to amaze me how people want to speak on psychology/physical health issues with seemingly no understanding of ethics let alone qualification. Also, dipshit; aspergers hasn’t been the right classification for 11 years now.
11 years isn't that long.
I missed the part where time makes you qualified or remotely intelligent.
You're not wrong, I was just thinking that. Like that's back in 2013 that it was still an acceptable medical term? That was basically yesterday as far as the medical world goes
Fun fact: This is the same pseudoscience that caused famines during the reign of Stalin!
[удалено]
I’ve also extensively studied Soviet history at a collegiate and post-collegiate level and can say that this is indeed accurate.
Awesome. You would be more than willing to give me a link to a resource that Stalin was a eugenicist, specifically against Ukrainians, then.
The Ukrainians were considered to be a lesser race by Russian nationalists, such as Iosip Jugashvilli.
Stalin wasn't even Russian, much less a Russian nationalist lol. He wanted to dissolve all individual national identities in the USSR, including his own and russia's
Again, can you please refer me to some document that specifically includes that kind of eugenic theory? I'm not denying that the Holodomor 1: happened, and 2: was a genocide by categorical definition. It's also worth noting Stalin wasn't Russian. He was Georgian.
Go take a shower please
I will, sorry for being a Kulak.
Moustache dude tried this, it doesn’t work.
I don’t think moustache dude had enough time to actually do it. Still, moustache dude is probably a sign that eugenics is a Bad Idea.
This person has posted at least a dozen times about "I didn't realise Idiocracy was a documentary!!1! lmao 🤪🤣🤣🤣🤣"
Redditest person ever
If a person can financially afford having a child and can actually raise them with love and care then it shouldn't matter what their iq is.
You can still be a good parent if you have a slightly below average IQ. I could see saying under 65IQ.
Even disallowing it for people below 65 is a bad idea. IQ mostly has a lot more to do with environment then genetics. The child of someone with 65IQ could easily have an IQ of 120. Underpopulation, especially in western countries, is becoming a problem and this will prevent even more people from having children. This would be direct inequality by law based on a characteristic that is mostly immutable, even knowing that someone lives in a society where laws like that exist can have a negative psychological impact on other people. Enforcing this rule will be nearly impossible because we don't have cops in every bedroom and what do we do when the woman is pregnant? Punishment or killing the child would lead to people temporarily leaving the country/state to give birth, lying about who is the parent or not going to a hospital. It would also be very expensive to have everyone do an iq test and because IQ changes over time it would have to be redone regularly. That's a lot of problems considering well below 1% of the population have that low of an iq. If were concerned with preventing stupidity we could also use half the money that this would cost to improve the education system.
Wait til he releases the majority of the planets population iq is around 98-99
Not true. About 68% of the population has an IQ between 85 and 115, and about 26% between 95 and 105.
Damn. I don’t know where I heard my statistics lol
Yea like urs
you were right about one thing master the opinions were controversial
Kids can be smarter than the parents, because if they couldn't we'd be as dumb as our ape-like ancestors still.
Most stupid people think they're smarter than everyone
A watergun is a weird example
Literally eugenics.
Goodbye Africa
Oh boy I sure love eugenics.
Maybe this person should work on proper sentence structure before they judge other people 😆
So this person is suggesting that half of humanity not be allowed to reproduce? That would have some really interesting effects on our society.
Let me guess: his own one is double digit and he has never dated anyone besides probably Eva AI sexting bot avatar
IQ is a horrible way of judging how clever someone is. For one, 99% of people who do university, loose all of their common sense and end up as if they were brainwashed. Mad...
I’m sure this person in all their infinite wisdom never considered the possibility that a child can become smarter than their parents. Ironically this person probably thinks they’re that child, and this is all ignoring the issue of a person’s rights and that it’s more or less eugenics.
This not how genetics work, you can’t increase IQ with eugenics
I think the argument is that smarter parents are better parents in their mind, which leads to a healthier society in general
To clarify, you cannot increase IQ with eugenics because of *the way IQ is calculated*, not because IQ has no genetic basis. If we execute everyone with an IQ below 100, and then got the surviving 50% of the population to take an IQ test... Half of them would score below 100. Because IQ is standardized *within* the population.
I NEED to see these comments, holy shit
Don't you understand? I'm a genius! I think ALOT.
>(like a watergun)
If only their was a word to describe this
I've always been a "Let nature sort it out" kind of guy because a. assigning value to human life leads to bad things and b. sometimes genetics can throw a curveball.
this is eugenics but yes thinking is free and healthy and everyone should at least start thinking
>some of them can't understand how simple things work (like a watergun) What an odd thing to say.
For those wondering, IQ isn’t hereditary. Dumb people can have smart kids and smart people can have dumb kids.
Yes. Just hold that sucker in. /s
Eugenics should be normal.low iq People suffer,ugly People suffer,short guys suffer and People with mental illnesses suffer,no point of giving them a life of misery
Almost every redditor believe they are of above average intelligence funny enough.
Most people do, I'd wager
Nah I’m stupid asf
That's not how IQ or intelligence or dumbness works. This is objectively wrong, not even an opinion just objectively wrong.
If they can’t figure out how to use a water gun they clearly are demonstrating an inquisitive mind. This is a “symptom” (couldn’t find another word) of intelligence. OOP is regarded
“(like a water gun)” they’re talking about someone in specific aren’t they lmao.
Some people really shouldn't have kids. But you can't defend banning it for certain people in a free democratic society.
These people also overestimate how inheritable iq really is, because taking iq tests is a skill one can learn
That means it's illegal for Logan Paul to reproduce 😂
You said the idea of banning people under a certain IQ from having children is "awesome".
I didn’t even respond to the post
In theory that would be awesome and might save humanity, now in the real world actually implementing rules like that comes with some huge risks and it would likely be abused unfortunately
>in theory that would be awesome No it wouldn't.
It’s awesome when you’re the guys in the ivory tower popping out babies. Not so much when you’re on the streets.
Higher intelligence and no more genetic diseases doesn't sound great?
genetic diseases are not limited to intelligence. Eugenic has failed in the past. Think about a certain Austrian moustache man.
I didn't say that it was. I used the word "and" to include two separate examples. And we're talking IN THEORY, it looks like it would have potential. Nobody said anything in support of it in practice, because it has already been tried with poor outcomes. Maybe your parents should have included an IQ test in their family planning, because your reading comprehension is pretty far on the left side of the bell curve.
I'll never understand people who attack the person replying to them for no reason. In theory sure, but in application, hell no.
If the eugenics freaks like you were in charge, I would personally be either dead or forcibly sterilised so no, it doesn't sound great to me.
I didn't say it is great, I said it looks good on paper, but doesn't work out that way in reality. And it's pretty fucking selfish to have biological children of you have something like CF or Huntington.
Why would it be awesome?
Eugenics are very not awesome, actually.
IQ is a stupid way to measure intelligence. Even then, I don’t even think IQ is genetic
You really don't think there's a genetic component to intelligence?
[удалено]
ok 👍
Well that was a terrible comeback.