>>10759650Ok this is pretty based but I'd like to counter it with human logical planning and eyes on the ground. It is quite possible for ugly parents to have beautiful children, and beautiful parents to have ugly ones. Sometimes odd features placed correctly creates beauty, or what can be thought of as acceptable beauty in a strife or famine situation. That movie with that hot chick that put out for that Russian soilder Jude Law comes to mind, as all in the moment, they decided to have hot quick sex, the irony being if course that could never, if rarely, happen in real life. But the situation is the same if you take away her beauty - in a do and/or die situation, like a bonsai pilot, knowing that it will likely be your last alive, do you take a mediocre thin girl with a great body but not so great face? Do you settle for less despite wanting more? Furthermore where is the punishment in extra marital or random impregnation? Behaviorally down the line there may be some, possibly, but if Bella Delphanie or any other paid ethot is any indication - there really isn't any punishment at all, the only merit of punishment is whether or not you continue to sexually succeed, and if your children continue to reproduce as well.
So crazy joggers of the jungle or survival of the fittest was and has been laid down as a theory. But what about the losers? What about the 75%? Pajeets, chinks, joggers, beta twink white boi traps, fatties... none of them are saying no to reproduction. Obviously they all do want the best, but they always will seem to settle for what they can get. Like the butter face or fatties at last call, it's either replicate and die or just die without replication.
And are they punished for this? Are thier children failures? Many would say yes, but nature really doesn't stop at trying, as we are built to fornicate and reproduce, as there is no downside to doing so, from nature's prospective, it continues to turn the wheel as long as it has spares to do so.
