It's of course unclear if this is actually ideal in terms of societal survival of the fittest but it is still an effective methods for increasing the fertility rate.
https://discordapp.com/invite/NEZ7um8
If the individual had been intelligent it could have been an interesting discussion since it's currently unclear if forcefully impregnating females via rape (them reduced as property) is the best way to reach the desired fertility rate.
The 'debate' was of course a waste of time where the individual kept repeating the same argument over and over again even after i refuted it. The individual also resorted to personal attack (that are not included here) and then left my server.
When it comes to reducing fertile females to property it can be restricted to males that had reproductive success with free females. Thus it would not make it easier for incels to reproduce, intead it would actually be harder since the pool of free females would be smaller.
Not from a female reduced to property
If a female is reduced to property than you cannot have sex with her via her consent, instead you need the consent of the individual(s) with power over her.
If a female is owned by say her father (rarily ideal) then it's the approval of the father you need, not her approval. Her father may of course be nice and factor in what she want too, it's also possible to have a system where a female is given multiple males to choose from but then once she has selected you her consent is no longer required and you will have more reproductive success if you are willing to forcefully impregnate her.
You do not understand basic biology, even if you are the 'strongest' on earth you should still have more children if possible.
We need more high quality people, by forcing females to have more children we produce more high-quality humans that will have a shot at solving societal issues. It is possible to convert quantity to quality by discarding children that doesn't show promise.
You using the word "strong" prove you do not even understand the basics about evolution. it's about survival of the fittest, Adapting to the environment.
He is fittest in a society where he can get away with it and have 10 children.
He isn't fit if he will end up in jail without even impregnating her once.
Notice how fitness depend on the environment, evolution 101.
It makes you fit if it gives you reproductive success
You can have many children and still invest a lot of resources into each child, if you become a billionare you can have 100 children and still invest 10000000$/child.
The correct reproductive strategy for humans is actually to have more children if you have more resources since you otherwise hit diminishing returns, this means more wives, more children per wive and also maybe also more resources/child than what's typical.
Since Brady Williams is running a construction company he is able to give good financial support to all his 25 children, he is not sacrificing quality for the sake of quantity.
Investing into a single child is actually more appropiate if you are lacking in money/genetics.
https://discordapp.com/invite/NEZ7um8
If the individual had been intelligent it could have been an interesting discussion since it's currently unclear if forcefully impregnating females via rape (them reduced as property) is the best way to reach the desired fertility rate.
The 'debate' was of course a waste of time where the individual kept repeating the same argument over and over again even after i refuted it. The individual also resorted to personal attack (that are not included here) and then left my server.
When it comes to reducing fertile females to property it can be restricted to males that had reproductive success with free females. Thus it would not make it easier for incels to reproduce, intead it would actually be harder since the pool of free females would be smaller.
Not from a female reduced to property
If a female is reduced to property than you cannot have sex with her via her consent, instead you need the consent of the individual(s) with power over her.
If a female is owned by say her father (rarily ideal) then it's the approval of the father you need, not her approval. Her father may of course be nice and factor in what she want too, it's also possible to have a system where a female is given multiple males to choose from but then once she has selected you her consent is no longer required and you will have more reproductive success if you are willing to forcefully impregnate her.
You do not understand basic biology, even if you are the 'strongest' on earth you should still have more children if possible.
We need more high quality people, by forcing females to have more children we produce more high-quality humans that will have a shot at solving societal issues. It is possible to convert quantity to quality by discarding children that doesn't show promise.
You using the word "strong" prove you do not even understand the basics about evolution. it's about survival of the fittest, Adapting to the environment.
He is fittest in a society where he can get away with it and have 10 children.
He isn't fit if he will end up in jail without even impregnating her once.
Notice how fitness depend on the environment, evolution 101.
It makes you fit if it gives you reproductive success
You can have many children and still invest a lot of resources into each child, if you become a billionare you can have 100 children and still invest 10000000$/child.
The correct reproductive strategy for humans is actually to have more children if you have more resources since you otherwise hit diminishing returns, this means more wives, more children per wive and also maybe also more resources/child than what's typical.
Since Brady Williams is running a construction company he is able to give good financial support to all his 25 children, he is not sacrificing quality for the sake of quantity.
Investing into a single child is actually more appropiate if you are lacking in money/genetics.
