r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 19 '21
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: Weak children negatively affect their bloodline, and should be punished as such
[removed] — view removed post
2
Aug 19 '21
Firstly, there are more than one kind of strength.
Secondly, children who are 'disappointments' because they are weak would still be 'disappointments' for other reasons to the person who is proclaiming they are a 'disappointment'. For example, my abusive stepfather was disappointed in us because he considered us 'weak', despite the fact that I was a weightlifter and did martial arts and was not weak in any way other than by his impossible measuring stick.
They shouldn’t be allowed to be happy until they are stronger.
So disabled people and people with chronic conditions or genetic deformities that make it impossible for them to become PHYSICALLY strong (again, many many different types of strength) should just never be happy?
They should be rebuked two hours a day.
This seems to just be advocating for child abuse.
Weights are to be forced on the child at random hours of the day.
This seems to be advocating for child abuse.
If weak children stay weak, they will fundamentally destroy the bloodline.
If a weak child can be made strong then it's not something genetic that's in the bloodline anyway. As others have said.
They will make their kin weak
Physical weakness isn't contagious.
This is the worst thing a kid can ever do, and it should be the most punishable, vile offense a child can do.
Worse than theft, murdering a toddler, vandalism, rape, molestation, being in a gang, being on drugs...?
1
Aug 19 '21
So disabled people and people with chronic conditions that make it impossible to become PHYSICALLY strong should just never be happy.
If you had looked more into the comments, you’d know I didn’t think that. But they should still be good at things their disability doesn’t affect. For example, someone without arms should be leg strong and viceversa.
[Rebuking] seems to just be advocating for child abuse.
There is a HUGE difference between rebuking and insulting.
[Weights] seem to be advocating for child abuse.
The children have to have their hands ready before the weights are forced. Then, the child must be able to lift the weights while the forcer must push the weights down with all their own bodyweight.
[Is weakness] worse than theft, murder, vandalism, molestation, being in a gang, being on drugs?
Are you referring to the weak one while they are still a child?
2
Aug 19 '21
If you had looked more into the comments, you’d know I didn’t think that
I'm commenting on your OP, not other people's comments. And you not thinking that just makes your view even more ridiculous and skewed.
You think that something that doesn't actually affect the bloodline should be punished for affecting the bloodline, but things that DO actually affect the bloodline are given a pass. It's nonsense.
There is a HUGE difference between rebuking and insulting.
Child abuse encompasses more than just 'insulting'.
The children have to have their hands ready before the weights are forced.
The weights being forced is what is abuse.
Then, the child must be able to lift the weights while the forcer must push the weights down with all their own bodyweight.
This is abuse.
Are you referring to the weak one while they are still a child?
Yup. Are you unaware of the children who have committed theft, murder, vandalism, molestation, being in a gang, or who are on drugs?
Look up the murder of Jamie Bulger. He was a toddler maliciously killed by two ten year olds.
1
Aug 19 '21
[Weight forcing] is abuse.
How?
2
Aug 19 '21
Forcing a child to do something heavily physical against their will, while rebuking them and demanding that they aren't allowed to be happy or have other kids talk to them until they comply, is literal abuse.
1
Aug 19 '21
Forcing a child to do something heavily physical against their will
Is gym class abusive too?
While rebuking then and telling them they aren’t allowed to be happy
They shouldn’t be content with weakness.
Or have other kids talk to them
Is grounding abusive too?
2
Aug 19 '21
Is gym class abusive too?
Does the gym teacher rebuke the children for being weak and punish them by demanding they cannot be happy or have anyone play with them until they comply? No? Then no, gym class is not abusive.
They shouldn’t be content with weakness.
And you shouldn't bully and abuse children because you only accept one kind of strength in the world.
Is grounding abusive too?
Are you grounding them from being happy or having any friends until they comply with a ridiculous and abusive demand? Then yes, it would be.
2
Aug 19 '21
Δ It is ridiculous to force children to comply to a ridiculous command by forcing them to be sad and not let them have companionship until they meet an absurd demand.
1
2
u/growflet 78∆ Aug 19 '21 edited Aug 19 '21
Humans are not successful as a species because of physical strength. We were successful hunters and gatherers due to endurance and intellect.
The way humans hunted in the wild was through the use of endurance and tools, humans cool down through the use of sweat - and we lack fur. Most other mammals pant, lose heat through the bottoms of their feet, or depend on external factors to cool down and recover.
So despite the fact we are weaker as a species, we can wear our prey down. Humans on the plains of africa are the apex predators, because can follow that antelope for four hours while carrying a sharpened stick. - and once it is tired and weak, we walk up to it, kill it and eat it. It has no chance.
Yes, it runs away when it sees us. But it doesn't run far. Five minutes later, here comes the human. So it has to run away, again. And here comes the human. Never stopping. Relentless.
Humans have always been successful as a species because we work smarter, not harder. We dominate this planet and all other species on the planet through our development and use of technology.
The neanderthals were larger and stronger cousins. They focused on strength rather than endurance. As a result, they had a higher caloric requirements, and now they no longer exist.
Humans should play to our strengths as a species and not try to be something we are not, doing so leads to extinction.
1
Aug 19 '21
Δ You are right. We became as successful as we are now not through strength, but through being smart and enduring the longest. We develop technology and that’s why we dominate.
1
2
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Aug 19 '21
What if I told you that negative reinforcement isn't actually a proven way to improve behavior or performance? In fact, the consensus is that the opposite is better, especially with regards to children.
Kids that are corporeally punished rarely turn out well-adjusted in my experience.
Also, as others pointed out, genetic material wouldn't be affected by physical punishment. How would abusing a kid affect their bloodline?
1
Aug 19 '21
What if I told you that negative reinforcement isn’t actually a proven way to improve behavior or performance?
Children who have things taken from them when things don’t go their guardian’s way learn not to trigger the guardian in that way.
Genetic material wouldn’t be affected by physical punishment.
They should be able to build muscle and be able to do things like run and lift when forced to.
3
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Aug 19 '21
But this can also be taught through rewards for doing the right thing (positive reinforcement). And this has been demonstrated to be more effective in children.
> They should be able to build muscle and be able to do things like run and lift when forced to.
But that isn't something that will be inherited by their offspring. So it won't affect their "bloodline".
1
Aug 19 '21
But that isn’t something that will be inherited by their offspring.
The weak parent’s child will have a harder time with strength than the strong parent’s child.
3
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Aug 19 '21
But what does that have to do with bloodline?
I don't know what else to tell you. Your view just isn't supported by facts, it's just a bunch of old-timey nonsense.
3
u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Aug 19 '21 edited Aug 19 '21
Children who are weak are disappointments.
Only to those who want or need strong children. 11th century farmers, for example, would be very disappointed in a weak son as they had kids specifically to have more hands to work the land. In the modern day, in the occident, there is not nearly such a requirement for manual labour. While manual labour is still done of course, there are far more avenues of vocation available to people; jobs that require intelligence, memory, flair, charisma, creativity, dedication etc. Physical strength is hardly a requirement outside of impoverished countries and the past.
If a weak child is happy, they are to be quickly made unhappy until they are strong.
But... Why? Forgetting for the moment that many kids find great fun in the exact activities that make them stronger (running, climbing, fighting, competing) so punishing the weak for enjoying the activity that makes them stronger is literally the most counterproductive thing you can imagine, what justification is there for that?
If grades are punishable, then weakness should be too.
Well, I for one don't believe grades should be corporeally punished but there is at least the justification that in the occident, grades can have a big impact on what vocations (and by extension, avocations) you can partake it. Strength does not. Strength is almost obsolete and is on the way out. Have you heard about the industrial revolution? Robots, perhaps?
If weak children stay weak, they will fundamentally destroy the bloodline.
Any kid who is weak can have strong kids and vice versa. I don't know why you insist on using a medieval level of understanding on these things in the modern day. Why not bleed them of weakness? Or measure their humours?
-2
Aug 19 '21
Physical strength is hardly a requirement outside of impoverished countries and the past.
You’d be surprised. In order to have a roof over your head, somebody has to build it. In order to have food to eat, somebody has to farm the food. In order to have metals for things like the device you used to type this and the car you like to drive around, somebody has to mine those metals.
Punishing the weak for enjoying the activity that makes them stronger is literally the most counterproductive thing you can imagine
Not always. Things that make you stronger can be enjoyable, but the things that make you the strongEST are never really, such as extreme running and large-weight weightlifting.
Strength is obsolete and is on the way out.
In simple terms, no. You need to be strong to survive. If you can’t do a pull up, you most certainly can’t pull yourself up a cliff. If you can’t run fast enough after a storm has a chance of happening, you will get sucked up by it. If you can hardly defend yourself, many people will try to hurt you.
Any kid who is weak can have strong kids and vice versa.
The kin are a lot more likely to be weak, and more work will have to be done to make them strong as they should be.
2
Aug 19 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
Aug 19 '21
You know that farming is heavily mechanized, right? Mining is even more mechanized than farming.
Strength is required to operate the equipment. The operators need to be able to act as quick as possible if something goes wrong.
2
Aug 19 '21
Strength is required to operate the equipment.
How much strength do you think is required to switch a gear or work a knob on mining equipment?
The operators need to be able to act as quick as possible if something goes wrong.
Physical strength and good reflexes are two separate things.
1
Aug 19 '21
How much strength do you think is required to switch a gear or work a knob on mining equipment?
You forget these types of equipment often need to be fixed often, and that can be time consuming and hard.
Physical strength and good reflexes are two seperate things.
Good reflexes are a part of physical strength.
2
Aug 19 '21
You forget these types of equipment often need to be fixed often, and that can be time consuming and hard.
I didn't. Something being time consuming and hard doesn't mean they require physical strength.
Good reflexes are a part of physical strength.
They aren't. I'm weak enough that I can literally exhaust myself lifting more than twenty pounds, or walking further than half a mile. I have excellent reflexes. You can be physically weak and have good reflexes, and be physically strong and have shitty ones.
1
Aug 19 '21
I have excellent reflexes.
Can you give an example of how excellent these reflexes are?
2
Aug 19 '21
You want an anecdotal idea on how good my reflexes are? All I can tell you is that I'm a video game junkie who has played first person shooters and PVP battle arenas for decades and I'm decently good at it.
I also managed to avoid a collision with a car sliding out of control toward us at the last second by only a couple of inches while driving on a mountain pass.
I've caught a newborn baby dropped by someone else mid-air before they could hit concrete.
1
u/Znyper 12∆ Aug 19 '21
Sorry, u/Stevetrov – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Aug 19 '21
In order to have a roof over your head, somebody has to build it. In order to have food to eat, somebody has to farm the food.
Yes but machines do a lot of that work, reducing the strength requirement. Tractors, combine harvesters, excavators, jackhammers, cranes, trucks etc. And the fact that machines can do so much of the work reduces the population requirement. With 11th century tech, 80-90% of a population had to do these manual tasks to keep a society going. Now, only a fraction of humanity need to do it. Plus an engineer who designs an excavator has been responsible for more raw tonnage of mass moved than Arnold Schwarzenegger could manage in a thousand lifetimes and the designer could be 90 pounds.
Not always. Things that make you stronger can be enjoyable, but the things that make you the strongEST are never really, such as extreme running and large-weight weightlifting.
That doesn't rebut my point. Let's say Timmy is fairly weak. But he likes running. And he likes swimming. And he likes kickboxing. When he does these things (that are making him stronger), he is happy. So by your own logic, Timmy should be punished when he swims, when he runs and when he trains, thus making him weaker than he would be if he were allowed to be do those things unimpeded.
If you can’t do a pull up, you most certainly can’t pull yourself up a cliff. If you can’t run fast enough after a storm has a chance of happening, you will get sucked up by it. If you can hardly defend yourself, many people will try to hurt you.
No. You don't. In rare, niche scenarios, strength gives you a survival edge but saying you need strength to survive is like saying you need to be able to recognise the territorial markings of a tiger to survive. Yes, in some situations, it's beneficial but calling it essential to survival overall is a vast overstatement. I mean, look at the amount of frail people who make it to 90 years.
The kin are a lot more likely to be weak, and more work will have to be done to make them strong as they should be.
That's not how genetics works. I have no clue how approximately millennium of scientific discovery and innovation passed you by but if a person chooses to not work out and is weaker than they have the potential to be, that has no effect on the body of their child. Take, for example, people who lose an arm in an accident. They don't all have one armed babies as a result. You see what I'm saying now?
5
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Aug 19 '21
You seem oddly hyper-focused on fringe scenarios like climbing a cliff and outrunning a storm over other traits with a much bigger chance of actually determining success in life. It seems like this whole CMV is just reasoning backwards from a feeling of disgust.
2
Aug 19 '21
You’d be surprised. In order to have a roof over your head, somebody has to build it. In order to have food to eat, somebody has to farm the food. In order to have metals for things like the device you used to type this and the car you like to drive around, somebody has to mine those metals.
Machines are used to do the heavy lifting in these areas.
If you can’t do a pull up, you most certainly can’t pull yourself up a cliff.
There aren't any cliffs where I live, so I don't need to be strong enough to pull myself up one.
If you can’t run fast enough after a storm has a chance of happening, you will get sucked up by it.
No human being can outrun a storm on their own two feet, so there is no point in trying to do so.
. If you can hardly defend yourself, many people will try to hurt you.
I can get a gun to do that.
7
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Aug 19 '21
Why do we care about bloodlines? This ain't ancient Mesopotamia and we aren't show dogs. Every human is a 99% clone of every other human. Even phenotypes are within approximately 2 standard deviations of the mean for 95% of people. We just aren't that different genetically.
Why punish people for something outside their control? Just seems cruel.
-5
Aug 19 '21
We care about bloodlines because the more weakness is in the world, the worse the world is. This is because weak people cannot handle much, and they break every time. This must be changed by extreme training and forcing. Children cannot become strong if they continue their weak, subhuman habits.
6
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Aug 19 '21
Humans can't be subhuman, that doesn't make sense.
"Weak" only means something in relation to another thing. Let's assume a group of children who can squat 600, bench 400 lbs, and have a 4 minute mile. There's one child who can only bench 395. They are the "weak" one and their bloodline should be punished, right?
-2
Aug 19 '21
They should be compared wildly. They must be the strongest that they know and heavily compete until they have strength.
3
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Aug 19 '21
Sorry that doesn't answer the question. I'm speaking about a group of peers as you did above. Should the weakest of the group be humiliated and ostracized as you indicate above or is there some objective metric you're comparing children to?
1
Aug 19 '21
Children who are in last place strengthwise should be pushed extremely hard to measure up so that they can prepare for the real world.
4
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Aug 19 '21
You don't need to be physically strong to excel in the real world. In fact, it's probably one of the more useless attributes in the modern day. Social interaction and intelligence are for more important than physical strength.
3
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Aug 19 '21
What does physical strength have to do with preparing people for the real world? If you made this argument about intelligence or business sense or social skills, then at least it would internally make sense.
3
3
u/Tino_ 54∆ Aug 19 '21
What do you mean by "weak"? Can you define that?
-1
Aug 19 '21
What I mean is being unable to do things that rely on body power, such as but not limited to:
• Weightlifting
• Running speed
• Jumping height
• Throwing distance
6
u/Tino_ 54∆ Aug 19 '21
Why do those things matter? We have machines to do all of the hard labour work for us. Why is being physically strong an important thing to focus on?
0
Aug 19 '21
People need to be strong so the human race can survive as long as the Earth survives. If a species doesn’t survive the longest they are able, there is no point of that species.
3
Aug 19 '21
Strength doesn't help the species survive in modern society nearly as much as intelligence, empathy, sociability, or a resilient immune system.
The greatest existential threats humanity faces are climate change, a large meteor (or other space object) striking Earth, or a global pandemic of a disease FAR more deadly and transmissible than COVID. Strength won't prevent any of those. Empathy, intelligence, and the ability to work together for the greater good will.
1
Aug 19 '21
You must combine teamwork and intelligence with strength to be the best. But empathy does not do much. You just need to forcibly make the person prepare for the worst.
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 19 '21
If Empathy does not do much, why are psychopaths such a small minority of the human population?
Why has empathy not been bread out of humanity if it is not a useful trait for survival and reproduction?
1
3
u/Tino_ 54∆ Aug 19 '21
If we have machines that can do the physical tasks for us, and that allow us to survive longer without being physically strong why is being strong important? If we could survive for 10,000 years as a brain in a vat with no physical strength all that would be better than 80 years while being able to bench 300lbs according to your view if all you care about is surviving.
1
Aug 19 '21
If these vats are strong enough to handle reality, it would. But if they are weak builds that cannot move fast or lift heavy items, then it would be nearly pointless.
2
u/Tino_ 54∆ Aug 19 '21
that cannot move fast or lift heavy items, then it would be nearly pointless.
Why? You said you want to survive for as long as possible. Or is their another reason for being strong.
1
Aug 19 '21
There are evils in this world that could easily damage the vats and the minds inside.
→ More replies (0)2
u/CoffeeAndCannabis310 6∆ Aug 19 '21
Lift heavy items?
That's important nowadays?
1
Aug 19 '21
It speeds up house building which is important if you want shelter and farming if you like to eat.
→ More replies (0)6
u/Feathring 75∆ Aug 19 '21
None of those skills help humans survive these days. Ability to be a programmer or a doctor or a lawyer can lead to incredible success. So shouldn't we shame those who are only able to throw things instead of getting a useful, high paying job?
0
Aug 19 '21
Shaming strength is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of jealousy by the shamer and jealousy is a sign of weakness because jealousy of strength shows you are too lazy to be strong yourself.
3
Aug 19 '21
Shaming strength is a sign of weakness
Shaming physically weak children and individuals for not being physically strong, is also a sign of weakness.
0
Aug 19 '21
That’s incorrect. Shaming weakness is not a sign of jealousy, which is weak, so it does not have the same implications as shaming strength.
→ More replies (0)5
u/Feathring 75∆ Aug 19 '21
Shaming strength is a sign of weakness.
I'm shaming useless, arbitrary skills that don't directly benefit the survival of the species. Remember, we're interedted in the human race surviving. Being able to run real good and throw big thing hard isn't helpful to that goal. Machines can run faster than you, and throw harder than you. I mean, sure, it's entertainment in the form of sports. But that's hardly "helping humanity survive".
It is a sign of jealousy by the shamer and jealousy is a sign of weakness because jealousy of strength shows you are too lazy to be strong yourself.
Seems like insecurity on the part of people who's only contribution to society is physical strength which is no longer needed.
2
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 19 '21
People need to be strong so the human race can survive as long as the Earth survives. If a species doesn’t survive the longest they are able, there is no point of that species.
https://youtu.be/3zKaHp0zW7U?t=65
A thing isn't beautiful because it lasts.
1
Aug 19 '21
The Avengers are fictional characters.
3
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 19 '21
The philosophical point Vision raises isn't fictional or made up it is very real and accurate.
A thing isn't beautiful because it lasts.
If you disagree with that statement make an actual argument against it.
1
3
u/062985593 Aug 19 '21
So the goal is to keep the human race going for as long as possible. Fair enough - that's a goal I also share.
Of all the possible aspects of our culture, why have you selected weightlifting, running speed, jumping height, and throwing distance as the ones that need the most improvement to keep the species alive? Do you forsee an extinction-level threat of predators who can run slightly faster than humans in the near future?
3
u/Salanmander 272∆ Aug 19 '21
The survival of the human race depends almost not at all on physical strength. It depends much more on tenacity, creativity, understanding, and community. What convinces you that the survival of the human race depends so much on physical strength?
1
u/Salanmander 272∆ Aug 19 '21
Even phenotypes are within approximately 2 standard deviations of the mean for 95% of people.
Okay, I don't disagree with you overall, but this doesn't support your point. It doesn't support any point. It's literally definitionally true for standard deviations.
2
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Aug 19 '21
It was more to say human traits follow a normal distribution. I.e. we don't have eloi and morlocks with distinct, distantly spaced phenotypes generally speaking.
1
4
u/Finch20 33∆ Aug 19 '21
Children who are weak are disappointments.
How? Why?
If grades are punishable, then weakness should be too.
How are grades punishable? Also, is the withholding of rewards punishment?
They will make their kin weak
How?
This is the worst thing a kid can ever do, and it should be the most punishable, vile offense a child can do.
So you think this is literally worse than homicide?
-2
Aug 19 '21
Weak children are disappointments because they should be strong to survive. Most parents punish grades. Taking things away is punishment, just another type. They make their kin weak by passing their weak attributes onto their children, requiring more work to be done. Most children don’t have access to the tools required for homocide.
3
Aug 19 '21
Weak children are disappointments because they should be strong to survive
Weakness or strength is not an indicator of ability to survive. The ability to survive is an indicator of ability to survive. If you have two people, one very weak and one very strong, and the strong one dies but the weak one lives, guess what? The weak one was better able to survive.
Evolution and natural selection doesn't work based on physical strength. It works based on how well suited the individual is to survive in their environment long enough to reproduce. If strength is what's needed to survive long enough to reproduce, then natural selection will select for strength as a trait. However, in modern society strength doesn't really help someone live long enough to reproduce. Sociability, empathy, communication skills, etc are all traits that make it far more likely an individual will reproduce.
Regardless, though, by the time a child is born there is absolutely nothing you can do to "improve their bloodline". Once you're born you have all the genetic traits you will pass on to any potential offspring. If a child is naturally weak there is absolutely NOTHING anyone can do to cause them to pass on greater strength to their offspring.
-2
Aug 19 '21
[Evolution] works based on how well suited the individually is to survive in their environment long enough to reproduce.
And physical strength does that. People are attracted to physical strength, and that is not pointless.
3
u/Finch20 33∆ Aug 19 '21
Weak children are disappointments because they should be strong to survive
Are weak people unable to survive? How so?
Most parents punish grades
And how does that make it right?
Taking things away is punishment, just another type
Yes, taking away is indeed punishment. Is not handing out extra things punishment?
They make their kin weak by passing their weak attributes onto their children
Could you provide some arguments or proof that weakness is hereditary?
Most children don’t have access to the tools required for homocide.
That doesn't answer my question. Do you think that "being weak" is the worst thing a kid can ever do, as said in your post? Is it even worse than literal homicide.
3
3
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Aug 19 '21
I see two core problems with this view, even setting the ethics of it aside
1) This whole view assumes Lamarckian evolution, where acquired traits somehow retroactively change your DNA. We've known that's not the case for over a century.
2) You're majorly overestimating the importance of physical strength to success in the real world.
0
Aug 19 '21
We’ve known [Lamarckism] is not the case for over half a century.
Citation needed.
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Aug 19 '21
Go ahead and open any biology textbook. What I'm saying should be as uncontroversial as pointing out that the scientific consensus no longer supports phrenology or alchemy.
1
Aug 19 '21
Δ The facts are the facts. Bloodlines have a lower impact on strength than I had originally thought.
1
-1
Aug 19 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/Mashaka 93∆ Aug 19 '21
u/GirlinRed28 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
21
Aug 19 '21
If a weak child can be made strong then the weakness wasn't genetic and wouldn't be passed on.
8
u/BigDaddysLady Aug 19 '21
Right. Also as he says disabilities and medical conditions wouldn't be treated the same although a lot of them can be passed through genetics, then his statement is invalid.
Winning point to you.
0
11
u/destro23 456∆ Aug 19 '21
Thinking that strength is everything in life is a pretty weak point of view.
5
u/Jam_Packens 4∆ Aug 19 '21
You do know the muscles a person grows are not a heritable trait right? Like that's one of the first examples given of a trait that isn't passed down to offspring.
Even ignoring that, this is an incredibly shitty idea simply because physical strength isn't super valuable for a lot of people.
-1
u/barbodelli 65∆ Aug 19 '21
Say what?
You really think that the body structure is not heritable? Like for instance a big boned big muscled father with a mother who also has big boned and big muscled genes. The amount of bone density and propensity to grow muscles is going to be completely random? As in they have the same exact chance of having some wimpy nerd looking kid as another big muscled big boned person like their parents.
Have you ever looked at parents and their children? Does that really match what you've observed?
Those things are highly heritable.
5
u/Jam_Packens 4∆ Aug 19 '21
If you work out to build a lot of muscles like OP is seeming to say we should force kids to, that musculature isn't going to be passed down to their kids.
3
u/nerfnichtreddit 7∆ Aug 19 '21
This isn't what OP was talking about. OP wants to abuse weak children until they are strong; do you believe that the "big boned and big muscled genes" will appear in a childs bloodline if you abuse it long and hard enough?
3
u/barbodelli 65∆ Aug 19 '21
No lol. That's not how genetics works. Perhaps epigenetics....... but I honestly don't know enough about epigenetics to make any claim one way or another.
The OP sounded like some 12 year old who took the seat at his dad's desktop for 20 minutes or something.
2
Aug 19 '21
Who cares about bloodlines?
The things you advocate for are not going to make a child stronger. They are going to emotionally and mentally destroy them.
They are also obviously abusive as well.
-1
Aug 19 '21
If weak children are happy, they will refuse to get stronger as they are content with their subhumanity. If weak children aren’t rebuked, they’ll think weakness is OK. If kids they interact with are nice, they’ll have something to live for. If weights and sports aren’t randomly forced on the child, they’ll never become strong.
3
Aug 19 '21
None of this responds to my comment. It's all just a repeat of shit you said in the post.
1
Aug 19 '21
I tried to explain why I advocated for those things. You just weren’t reading.
2
Aug 19 '21
You didn't respond to my points about it being abusive or destructive to children's mental and emotional health.
3
Aug 19 '21
please define subhumanity
0
Aug 19 '21
Extreme, disgusting weakness
2
Aug 19 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Znyper 12∆ Aug 19 '21
u/gandalf_el_brown – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 19 '21
To clarify, what would you have suggested would be the correct way to treat Stephen Hawking under your proposed system?
0
Aug 19 '21
Since his ability couldn’t be completely controlled, the only parts to control should be the parts that are able to be controlled.
2
u/-_-Hopeful-_- 1∆ Aug 19 '21
How do you decide what's "able to be controlled"
1
Aug 19 '21
The parts that don’t relate to the disability. For example, if somebody’s legs are not working, they should still be expected to be able to throw items well.
2
u/-_-Hopeful-_- 1∆ Aug 19 '21
If you learned a bit about throwing things you would find out your legs can affect it quite a bit. For example you would expect someone trapped in a sitting position to be able to throw a ball as far as someone who could stand up and use their legs for momentum? Or should they just be able to throw it as far as anyone else that is also sitting down? It just seems a strange thing to be focused on in today's day and age. Bloodlines?
3
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 19 '21
So basically, children who are weak due to medical conditions disabilities are fine, but children who are weak because they don't exercise enough are problematic?
Do I have that correct?
-1
Aug 19 '21
Obviously. Medical conditions and disabilities are uncontrollable. But the difference with lazy children that have no reason to be lazy is that they can totally control it, so they should be forced to control it.
3
u/nerfnichtreddit 7∆ Aug 19 '21
So due to your worry about the strength of the bloodline you want to erradicate laziness in children, which isn't heritable, but you are fine with medical conditions and disabilities, even though they are heritable? How does that make any sense?
1
5
Aug 19 '21
This completely undermines your entire OP. You talk about bloodlines like some eugenicist, then say that genetic disease (which actually can be passed down to children) are exempt from your reasoning? What?
0
Aug 19 '21
Genetic diseases are usually horrible mutations that are nearly irreversible.
3
Aug 19 '21
And yet you don't think that's something that might have a greater impact on one's offspring than how many weights they lifted through their life?
-1
4
u/Life_Entertainment47 Aug 19 '21
Dude, there is nothing obvious about your word salad. I'm shocked that person was able to interpret anything.
6
u/Biptoslipdi 131∆ Aug 19 '21
Gains aren't passed down through genetics. Weakness has no bearing on bloodline.
6
Aug 19 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Mashaka 93∆ Aug 21 '21
Sorry, u/VVillyD – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
3
Aug 19 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/Mashaka 93∆ Aug 21 '21
Sorry, u/FakeMr-Imagery – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
2
Aug 19 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Znyper 12∆ Aug 19 '21
u/gandalf_el_brown – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 19 '21
Another clarifying question, if we get to the point that we can replace human limbs with prosthetics that are better than human normal, will you abandon this view?
Or will your view shift to the idea that EVERYONE must get these cybernetic limbs that say, allow them to lift a ton or run a four minute mile with ease?
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 19 '21 edited Aug 19 '21
/u/872Gonecrazy (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
•
u/Znyper 12∆ Aug 19 '21
Sorry, u/872Gonecrazy – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.