well leechlet is a guy I never followed, but apparently he left.
don't really know much about him except that a lot of people know him.
in any case this is in the off topic section.
he posted a video on philosophy about LL and why he regrets his complication free internal femur lengthening under gitchet.
I fundamentally disagree with his logic.
there are a lot of things that would be interesting to chat about but some key issues are,
leechlet feels like he let himself down because he took the stance of a conformist, in his mind the values of a conformist are completely opposite to the values that he wants to stand for.
now that is fine. however his argument then becomes that his stance is that (all genotypes) phenotypes should be accepted by society. this is not mutually exclusive to LL unless height is in-fact not related to genes but only related to social engineering.
it is true that one could argue for equality for all phenotypes in the form of acceptance which is a good stance in my opinion that consists of libertarian values, however let us look at a set of genes to examine my argument against leechlet.
a man with a 1 inch penis has 1 genotype and another man has a 9 inch penis as another genotype, both are accepted but 1 of them has superior qualities(genes), the simple fact is that leechlet argues for acceptance but doesn't recognize that all genotypes are NOT created equally, a 1 inch penis will never be superior to a 9 inch penis, he just doesn't have superior genes, both penises can be accepted by society however 1 is clearly superior in quality. my argument is that people of different genotypes can be both accepted and also unequal in quality.
people of different heights can be accepted however, women are after superior genetics, leechlet believes fundamentally then that natural selection should not exist and that all genotypes should be accepted equally and women should have no desires for a particular man. this is fundamentally silly. in fact even being a man should not be a desire according to leechlet and he did not even need to mention transgenders or anything else in his video for me to draw that conclusion, because if you remove the women's right to natural selection and all genotypes become accepted with no preference for superior genes then even the natural selection involved with choosing the opposite sex would go against universal acceptance. in short if a women no longer chooses men based on genes and only for the existence of a genotype and that genotype being universally accepted then that universal acceptance would mean that you can not choose someone based on gender.
in short acceptance of all genotypes is in direct opposition to natural selection. and I believe that a woman has the right to choose superior genetics with the lowest level of mutations and abnormalities as possible for increased reproductive success. and yes women are actually programed to hunt down men who they have a greater reproductive success rate with, height is not a social paradigm as much as it is a indicator for superior genetic capability and reproductive success which is part of natural selection.
in short leechlet you have over thought this too much to the point where you so strongly dislike the idea of being a conformist that you rationalized against the very idea of natural selection in order to validate being a non conformist in the ideological sense
side notes (off main topic) :
ps. Obama might be black however it was social programing that made black people not accepted, this changed when social programing was changed back to equality for black people, however you cant rationalize transgender trait acceptance through your Obama example because being black is not a genetic abnormality, it is a natural evolutionary characteristic. transgender qualities are the result of a chemical and psychological attack which result in a misappropriated sexual inclination on the neuronal level.
in 50 years time the only way people could accept transgender people given that it is an neuronal abnormality, would be if all genotypes were accepted as you want, and natural selection had ended, in short eugenics work towards a definitive genetic direction of traits where as you(leechlet) take the exact opposite choice where all genetics are equal, this can never be because genetics are not equal, therefore if genetics are not equal your model can only work if your target population believe it is equal, which would mean you have to conform all of society on a psychological basis to not care about superior genetics and natural selection, therefore instead of physically conforming to choosing superiority(for women: the mate selector), you are without realizing it desiring that everyone conform on a psychological basis so as things that are not equal are recognized as equal.
side note No 2: a united world like you describe would mean a centralization of power and corruption, your talking about a 1 world government/federation that would be dictatorial and communist in nature, centralization of power is the model for ultimate corruption, and as hitler stated you install such a dictatorial government while screaming in the name of peace. in short your social change model is the new world order. not very wise.
I can only hope that leechlet can 1 day read this
I had to share my opinion, given that so many people have seen his video and his social ideological mentality is seriously flawed and is strongly bias because of his emotional attachment to wanting to be a non conformist in nature.
his video is below:
