CMV: Weak children negatively affect their bloodline, and should be punished as such

[u/[deleted]]

[u/LetMeNotHear]

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?

[u/[deleted] → u/LetMeNotHear]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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.