Boycott Google

I don’t believe it’s human created, but so what? The result is free power sooner than if left to the free market.

And that would have happened before google realized it should ban it. But google doesn’t work for the gov and probably wouldn’t support a war anyway.

I’m with you, but I’m not threatened by this little bit of censoring. If I wanted to, I’m sure I could find plenty about flat-earth stuff. Just like banning drugs… we can still find drugs.

That makes sense, but to stop it google would have to be a public utility with 1st amendment protection.

That’s fine that you think it will work out in a good way if a consensus political and scientific myth is taken as the truth. But the fact that you consider this possible, and in fact share a belief with certian conspiracy theorists, should make you wary of allowing industry to close the door on the spread of not-accepted-by-the-mainstream ideas.

It doesn’t have to support a war, it just has to marginalize critique of the administration that believes there is a conscious plot manipulate us into a war. For example. IOW conspiracy theories, which in that case are no longer considered that.

You could. Many can’t or won’t. The more marginalized the idea is, the fewer well educated people will go…Hm, well, let’s just see if there is any merit in this. Once the bulk of the educated class never even has to notice a single objection to whatever the official story is, the less chance that official stories will be questioned in the kinds of ways they need to be.

Actually Trump just set these guys loose even more. And I am not a legislator. I am someone pointing out the problems of near-monopolies doing this. People acting as apologists, such as yourself, are blocking a response by come citizens to a company policy. I am talking to you. I am not yelling at my senator and saying that they should pass this law I drafted.

But they are not banning climate change skepticism (probably because there is too much science and reason supporting the skepticism). They’re just censoring the flat-earth nonsense and I don’t know enough about 9/11 to say whether it’s nonsense, but whatever. When they start censoring climate change skepticism and other ideas that have good scientific footing, then I’ll start complaining. The idea that the earth is flat is just garbage and a waste of space on youtube. I doubt it’s even about whether someone is likely to believe it… it’s just a waste… and generates traffic for dummies who probably promulgate other dumb ideas.

And all that parroted conservative economic nonsense is too superficially sensible to allow to flourish as it’s akin to mislabeling food or medicine: it’s a lie, believable, and down-right dangerous. The most respected economists, currently and in history, should be the judge of this, and the empirical evidence collected over the last 100 years is absolutely overwhelming. Censor the arrogantly marshaled economic dumbassery just the same as we’d censor medicine bottles of lies because not doing that causes the suffering of too many people and can only benefit assholes.

And it’s not really censoring ideas because the ideas have been noted, judged, and rejected over the course of 100 years. Your voice was heard, now move on. (I don’t mean you KT, I’m just on my soapbox).

Global warming conspiracy is perhaps justifiable because people can profit from alternative energy, but who profits from low taxation? Why would anyone conspire to raise taxes??? It has always been dad’s point: “they” want power. Who is they? The democrats! How do they get power from raising taxes? So they can give tax breaks as favors for their buddies. Huh? That line of reasoning is extremely weak and doesn’t merit assertion of conspiracy. It’s more likely that conspiracy exists on the other side because there are far more elites who’d benefit by lower taxes. Dad needs muzzled, as do those who promulgate that nonsense.

  • 21 times over 80 years the min wage has been raised and those moronic imbeciles still won’t relent with “sky is falling” warnings about raising the wage. Give it a rest and stfu already. They’re worse than flat-earthers.
  • And stifle that “real money” gold standard bullshit. When more people are born, who gives up their gold for them? A fixed money supply is absolutely idiotic and even dangerous since Ben Franklin attributed gold as being the prime cause of the revolutionary war! Now that’s dangerous!
  • “End the fed!” And what? Start a state bank? Idiots! The fed is semi-private and semi-state and is the best compromise between either letting banks run freely as private entities or be under total control of the government.
  • “Free market!” Idiots! Show me one thing that works best without management. Apply your free market principles to your garden and watch the weeds take over. No, better yet, apply it to your car: just let the invisible hand of nature guide your wheels without any authoritarian governance from you.

Damn these people are stupid. And they are! I’ve illustrated the generality of that fact 27 times here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194612 How overwhelming does the proof need to be before action is taken?

I’m exhausted from slaughtering the same arguments over and over and they’re become pests like mosquitoes emanating from putrid water with intent to spread dis-ease.

Dumb people advocating dumb ideas that seem sensible on the surface are dangerous because if too many people start believing that nonsense, then massive chunks of the population will suffer. If morality is in terms of suffering, then the moral choice cannot be the one that leads to more of it.

If an idea has been considered bullshit for 50-100 years by the people most equipped to judge and if said idea seems superficially plausible to laymen, then such ideas should be decreed hazardous bullshit and banned for the safety of the population. Furthermore, the constitution should be amended to prevent any form of trickle-down or supply-side economics from ever plaguing the citizens again. It’s a like a herpes virus that goes into remission for a spell only to rise up and torment again.

I get your point but it’s a bad example because google is liberal and republicans start wars that liberals don’t support, so it’s hard to see them censoring anti-war conspiracy theory.

All ideas started as marginalized because no one knew of them. Then over time everyone became aware of them. Marginalization doesn’t work if the idea is sensible. What they’re censoring is “magicians” making ideas appear more sensible than they are by taking advantage of the fact that people judge ideas by the arrogance with which they’re advanced and by who is advancing them.

My point is the people getting blocked are the same ones protecting google from being a public utility. They are supporting the means of their own extinction.

@Seredipper

Liberal policies protect incompetent, uncaring blacks from being fired.

This adversely affects us all.

Liberal policies discriminate against competent whites, in favor of incompetent blacks, adding to overall incompetency.

Why?

That’s like saying you need (social) Darwinism to gas people in chambers.

No, the religious in general tend to be healthier.

Are conservatives more responsible for disempowering and impoverishing us than liberals?

Conservatives tend to cut taxes for the upper class, but also for the middle class, liberals tend to raise taxes for the upper class, but also for the middle class.

They may not seem like much by today’s standards, but the Romans invented books, the newspaper and the postal service.

That was the their information revolution, it couldn’t save them from tyranny and collapse, and ours won’t save us either.

If that were true, capitalists wouldn’t be exploiting us.

Plenty of philosophers tried to give liberalism a philosophical foundation, Rousseau’s The Social Contract, the Utilitarians, John Rawls’s A Theory Of Justice…

@Seredipper

It’s hard, but you can survive on welfare if you don’t spend all your money on drugs.

It’s not my side, I’m in favor of taxing the rich.

Thousands of more species are going extinct and wilderness is receding, we’re not doing enough.

@Serendipper

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Abortion_and_same-sex_marriage

Other than on abortion, he seems pretty moderate on social and religious issues.

What makes him further right are his stances on immigration, national sovereignty and tax cuts.

Couldn’t agree with you more there.

@Serendipper

Twin studies prove iQ is partly genetic.

Doesn’t matter how much mutton you feed mulattos, they’re never going to be as smart as whites.

Now just because the liberal Jewish historian Jared Diamond said whites had more (kinds of) domesticated animals, doesn’t make it uncontestable.
Which’s not to say we shouldn’t consider what he has to say either, we should.
I wonder how much of the scientific community supports, and contests his narrative?
I doubt Diamond is even willing to seriously entertain the plausibility there’s a genetic basis, even in part, for why whites have been more successful than other races.

Does Diamond also say whites had all these domesticated animals by chance?
Again, why didn’t the Africans and Asians take them back to their lands and support large numbers of them?
And like you said, even if whites had more domesticated animals, doesn’t mean that alone can explain why whites have been more successful than other races.

While some environments are better than others, are we really to believe Europe was the best subcontinent to live in?
Europe had its disadvantages too, especially in the north, again, cold, dark winters.
Whites adapted to these conditions, genetically and mimetically, and prospered despite them, whereas other races weren’t able to adapt to whatever disadvantages they had, and prosper as much despite them.
And even if Europe was the best, again, the ancestors of whites had enough innate sense to migrate to, settle and fight for it, other peoples came and went.

Why can’t someone believe some things are absolutely true and others relatively?
Why can’t someone take the position there’s probably (not) absolute truth?
Why can’t someone be unsure about absolute truth, or waiver?

Or is it because they have an empathetic, fair-minded, peaceable disposition?

Prisoners are averagely different than the gen pop, mimetically, and genetically.

And prison is a very different environment than the countryside, or suburbia.

If conservatives are sometimes guilty of being too dogmatic and legalistic, flaky progressives are sometimes guilty of deciding things on a whim, overturning all conventions overnight, without thinking them through, and of having a mob mentality.

Liberals and conservatives each have advantages and disadvantages.

I think we should sometimes consider what authorities, customs, laws and traditions have to say, but we should never be completely bound by them.

I"m sure for you, nothing in man qualifies as inherent.

Skin color isn’t inherent either, because given thousands or millions of years, through natural, sexual and social selection, it could change, so it can’t even be said whites are white and blacks black, we’re all amorphous blobs of goo, pure potential.

I don’t disagree.

Probably so, but it also benefits us all. The net effect could be positive.

Well millennial whites can’t be the ones complaining about it or it would be evident from the party demographics. And the ones complaining have the least reason to care.

Gas chambers require religion too.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3JyMpwkSew[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45apZ64T_J4[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRBrjt7z5Cw[/youtube]

Show me an evil that was not perpetuated by religion.

“With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” Steven Weinberg

Right, healthier than “average”. Not healthier than atheists. Just about any group that’s a group is healthier than average lol

The healthiest states are the least religious en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U … eligiosity

The places where christianity resides is not any place you’d want to live, unless you like low wages, low education, high poverty, drug use, teen pregnancy, low property values, early death, lots of cops, strict laws, unreasonable judges, and republicans.

The 3 most religious states are the 3 most miserable places to live.

Without a doubt.

I don’t know about that bernietax.com/

That’s not much. They didn’t know much and most probably couldn’t read. I wouldn’t count the printing press until after the population could read.

Watts says they traded all their gold for luxury from india and had no money left to pay an army. Good thing we’re not on a gold standard today and that there are no barbarian hordes lurking out there.

I think that fear is irrational.

I don’t regard capitalism as a hallmark of intelligence. I think Marx put it like this: First we have monarchy with tribal leaders and such; then society progresses to a less feudal, but more class oriented capitalistic style; then they transition into socialism as new evils are recognized, and finally communism when government is no longer necessary because prosperity is so abundant.

I don’t know about that, but the right’s assertion is morality exists and the left’s assertion is only the assertion of morality itself is immoral. The right says some things are wrong and the left says that decreeing things wrong, is wrong. The left is fundamentally amoral. That’s their point of departure. They’re baby killers after all. Of course by “morality” I mean absolute morality and not relative morality.

I know a lot of those people who get a windfall and waste it only to return to their misery, but they were raised in poverty and have brain damage as a result. Plus, one fish isn’t teaching a man to fish and one windfall doesn’t make a new life with new opportunities.

The reason proposed for why whites commit suicide more than blacks is that blacks already know they’re fucked from birth whereas whites think they have opportunity, but later realize they’re fucked and off themselves.

I pin suicides and the opioid epidemic squarely on conservatives.

Yes but you’re not in favor of handing out the money where it’s needed, but giving it back to the same capitalists to incentivize the system. If you’re not providing a basic standard of living, then suicides won’t relent. Simply punishing the rich isn’t going to help anyone.

We have to work towards a basic standard of living for everyone which will put pressure on corps to raise wages in competition with the gov. Then everyone will have the minimum required to develop a decent brain capable of learning what’s necessary to participate in a democratic government instead of making poor decisions and becoming an eternal burden (drugs, crime, early pregnancy, looking like a tatted up meth whore, etc).

Something like 4% of people move from one quintile-class to another and so long as we have poor, we’re going to continue having them because where you’re born is where you’ll stay (brain damage). And if I discovered I had suffered a neurological deformity so that some rich assholes could keep more of their money in order to provide more jobs and therefore more ways for him to become richer, I’d be pissed!

The capitalists don’t realize that if my purpose on this earth is to make them rich, they have to provide me the nurturing environment necessary to develop the skills necessary to do so. But I suppose if disparity is the only goal, which it is, then it’s much much easier to hold everyone down, keep them stupid and desperate enough to work for the peanuts required to generate the profits. Capitalism incentivizes poverty.

What do we do about the emerald ash borer? What about the american chestnut tree? I also saw something about the banana going extinct soon. This isn’t our fault.

It’s entirely genetic, isn’t it? Fish aren’t stupid because of bad environment. But the question is where did the good genes come from? The environment is the answer.

And probably not as arrogant either lol.

If the conditions responsible for the whites being smart were replicated on mulattos, then why would they not become smart?

Diamond is a jewish name? How can you tell these things?

It’s uncontestable because it’s been independently verified. A few minutes spent on google and you can figure out where domesticated animals originated, and the sources have nothing to do with diamond. We’ve been through this before.

We’ve done this before too en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Ger … #Reception

There are criticisms, but no one is questioning where domesticated animals existed.

We all get our genes from the same place. The question is why the genes changed.

I think so. I think that’s the idea. He’s pointing out it’s just a bunch of luck and no cause for celebration (arrogance) on anyone’s part.

For the same reason chimps don’t enslave the africans.

Sure it does since food is the basis for everything. Before globalization, midwestern people were fitter than southeasterners (toothless hillbillies eating only locally grown food). Rejection rates for wwii was 30% in the midwest and 70% in the southeast. Now imagine that persisting for 1000s of years.

Thundering herds of bison could not exist on the soils of the east, which can only muster sparse populations of scrawny deer.

The glacial till is to the north, so the soil compensated for the negative of the cold, which may have been a challenge that selected for intelligence.

All absolutists do because not everything is absolute.

You can. Is murder probably wrong? It’s either absolutely wrong or it isn’t.

They’re too busy railing against the government, calling people lazy, complaining about the kneegrows, and resembling too much the Grumpy Old Men to have time left for empathy and peaceful dispositions. They’ll chew nails and spit venom, but they can’t hit first. If you attack, oh yeah, they’ll kill you and relish doing so. They might even beg you to attack, but they can’t cross the line of integrity. They’re a proud people because “you got to stand for something or you’ll fall or anything.”

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_s-Qk07KxA[/youtube]

Now Daddy didn’t like trouble, but if it came along
Everyone that knew him knew which side that he’d be on
He never was a hero, or this county’s shinin’ light
But you could always find him standing up
For what he thought was right

He’d say you’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything
You’ve got to be your own man not a puppet on a string
Never compromise what’s right and uphold your family name
You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything

If you want to kill someone, just snipe him from a distance and drive off. Whether anyone is armed is inconsequential. In prison they’d shoot someone and dive under something so their buddies couldn’t return fire before the guards intervened. They have nothing but time to plan this stuff. The guns themselves aren’t stopping the use of guns, but the people using them are making decisions not to because it’s a line they can’t cross. I mean, almost no one is really armed in kennesaw and you could still shootup a mcdonalds without getting shot. But still they have no murders in a decade.

Yeah probably. Liberals are flakey, fashionably late, fickle, procrastinators, etc. Conservatives are diligent like machines: on time, keep their word, predictable, etc. That’s why runoff elections ALWAYS go to conservatives… the liberals don’t get around to voting the second time and it’s usually only a one-day election. Liberals blow it off or forget or whatever, but conservatives are there bright n early saluting the flag every time the polls open.

I agree.

Seems right.

@Serendipper

The intelligence of humans is partly determined by genetics, and by nurture.
If you practice healthy eating, sleeping and so on habits, and if exercise your brain, you can increase your iQ.

Or confident in our abilities.

Just because you place race B in a nearly identical environment as race A, doesn’t mean they’re going to adapt the same way.
If race B begins with different genes than race A and different mutations happen to occur in race B than race A, than race B will adapt in different ways than race A.
For example, if you place race A in the arctic, it may evolve greater intelligence to deal with arctic stressors, if you place race B in the arctic, it may evolve hibernation, if you place race C in the arctic, it may not evolve much at all and either die, or not thrive as much as A and B, and if you place race D in the arctic, it may devolve and perish, due to not having good genes to begin with, an accumulation of bad mutations and unlucky natural, poor sexual and social selection, which’s not uncommon in nature, in fact it’s the rule, most species go extinct.

And I mean what’re you suggesting we do here?
Transport all the mulattos to the arctic, so in 10s of 1000s of years, they can be as smart as us?
They are what they are, people who contribute more to society should get more out of it.

From your own citation:

It has no role for human genetics either.

Right, Africans have a lower iQ and they’re more lax.
Look, each race has strengths and weaknesses, and I think every race is beautiful in its own way.
I am just sick to death of liberals attributing all our successes to some combination of luck, and malevolence, completely neglecting genetic, and cultural factors, and then using that to justify discrimination against us.
either we live in a color blind society, or we don’t, I’m fed up with the one-way racism.
And there’s nothing wrong with wanting to live in a mostly homogenous society either.
I say let’s have a referendum on how much immigration we want.
And I want to protect our wilderness, pop density and jobs, we don’t need the growth.

Nutrition is very important, but it’s not the only factor for why one race thrives while another merely survives.
There are genetic factors, cultural factors, climatic factors, geographic factors, predators, access to other (non)renewable resources…

Why can the cold select for intelligence, but poor soil can’t?
So the cold cancels out the supposedly better soil, with which we could support bigger and more livestock (assuming we even had better soil).
So Europe had advantages and disadvantages, it was not Shangri-La after all.

Right, few are absolutely absolutist or relativist, some’re relatively absolutist, some’re relatively relativist.

Why can’t something be probably (not) wrong?
According to the best of my abilities, my reason, research, experience and gut or moral compass, it’s probably wrong.

This just sounds like more unsubstantiated, anti-rural conservative rhetoric to me.
I’m sure this is true of some countryfolk, but not all or necessarily most.
If I’m not mistaken, urban liberals kill the most.
That’s a mark against them.

If you want to use MBTI, liberals are relatively INFP, or perhaps INTP, whereas conservatives are ESTJ, or ESFJ.
And one is not necessarily superior, they’re just different.

@Serendipper

From my research, I believe essential goods and services are overpriced and workers underpaid.
Capitalists could afford to reduce prices and increase wages many times over and still make more and work less than workers many times over.
We produce essential goods/services many times cheaper than we did a couple of centuries ago, thanks to advances in automation and energy production, but this hasn’t translated into cheaper essentials or better wages.
Furthermore, allowing this absurd, hyper-disparity to exist has undermined the integrity of our democracy, as the overclass have the politicians and judges in their back pockets.

Therefore, I’m in favor of increasing wages and decreasing prices of essentials, so long as we help or at least don’t hurt middle class small businesses in doing so.
What workers do with fairer wages and prices is up to them, either they can save/spend more like the upper class/live more leisurely.

However, what I’m not in favor of is a UBI.
The standard of living for the upper and lower classes shouldn’t be kept artificially high and low respectively, but it shouldn’t be artificially high for the idle either.
I believe in treating those who’re genuinely disabled or unable to find employment humanely.
But, people who can, but refuse to work, are entitled to nothing, and whether they wind up on the street, in the hospital, jail or morgue, I don’t care.
We should not weaken our society for their sake.

Not everything is our fault, but what is needs to be corrected ASAP.

My ideas are syncretic, they don’t fall squarely in the left/right camp.

I think both the left/right get it wrong.

They’re controlled opposition, and they’ll continue to get us, nowhere.

People are far too polarized these days, it’s not healthy for democracy, it’ll tear it apart.

@Serendipper

It doesn’t benefit us all, it doesn’t even benefit mulatto Americans, they were far better off economically and socially before the late 20th century when they started blaming whitey for all their woes.
Nigerian Americans fair better than not only mulatto Americans, but white and Asian Americans.
Discrimination is no longer a significant determiner of income, but genetics are and always will be.
I believe in doing more to help the poor, but not especially poor mulattos, or mestizos.

I’m a millennial white, and I don’t want my people being discriminated against.

Hitler was at best, a lukewarm theist, if not an atheist.
Race was his religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

He didn’t need religion to enslave and/or exterminate people, he found all the justification he needed in social Darwinism.
In his mind they were inferior, and in the way.

You know the atheist, communist Russians and Chinese massacred tens of millions.
And before the 20th century, every state was predominantly religious.
Give it time, atheists will kill many millions more.
Lastly just because a genocidal people happened to be been religious, doesn’t mean religion was the primary, or even one of the culprits.
It depends, in fact in some cases religion may have prevented genocide, like if two different classes, nationalities or races share the same religion, they may be less likely to go to war with one another.

But for evil people to do good things, that takes religion.

That may be the case, I have to do more research on how liberals and conservatives tend to tax us.

Much is relative, there’s no magic point where democracy, peace and prosperity are guaranteed.
It’s only been 74 years since WW2, and the cold war nearly erupted into a hot one a few times.
Give it time.
While we may be progressing, I doubt it since the environment seems to be on the verge of collapse, and even if we are ultimately are, the road uphill will at least be bumpy.
Poverty, tyranny and war are inevitable, the only question is: how soon and severe?

I’m totally against a gold standard.
But I’m against central, fractional reserve banking too.
Government should be able to print money debt free whenever it needs to.
Really we don’t even need taxes.

My point is capitalists are averagely a little smarter and 100s-1000s of times wealthier than the people, yet this hasn’t translated into niceness, on the contrary, if anything it’s made them more mean.

Government, or at least individuals and groups arming themselves, will always be necessary.

And the noble savage is a myth.
The murder rate in hunter-gatherer societies is estimated to be about 100 times ours.
So what do they fighter over, if they have so few resources to pilfer, hunting grounds?
Perhaps some of the time, but in the main: women.
Hunter-gatherers tend to be polygamous.
The alpha male(s) sometimes monopolize mates, and so they wage tribal warfare on each other in order to pacify, or eliminate the betas.

The left have a morality, and we all know what it is, it’s similar to conservative morality in some ways, and different in others.
People shouldn’t lie, cheat, steal or kill, but if someone cheats you/your demographic and/or you/your demographic are very poor/large disparities, than it’s okay for Robin Hood to steal from them.
And instead of marginalizing the other (supposedly women, outgroups), we should at least tolerate and accept them, if not reverse discrimination.

Like libertarians and unlike conservatives, liberals believe anything involving consenting adults is tolerable, but libertarians won’t compel you to approve of/support it, liberals sometimes will.
But liberals think it’s wrong to lie, cheat, steal and kill, unless you’re Robin Hood.

Artificial scarcity means the 99% has to work a lot harder than they should have to, which also means the environment takes a hit. I agree wealth and resources ought to be spread more evenly, but everyone should still do their fair share.

Just to throw things back at the topic:

youtube seems different now.

Now, I did clean out all my histories not too long ago. But my sense is that the algorithms have changed. I get more sponsered suggestions and it seems to adapt less to the choices I make. IOW it offers me less things like what I have chosen and more stuff that corporations want to sell, especially movies. This, to me, is less important than Google’s change, which I actually think is extremely damaging, though in tiny tiny increments. But still a trend towards seeing me as not an agent learning about the world and exploring, but a consumer to be manipulated.

Well then use that method to make mulattos smarter.

Every organism is confident in its abilities. Overconfidence, or confidence in ability you don’t have, is different.

How does hibernation favor existence in the arctic? They have to hibernate 100% of the time.

I think it has more to do with the food than the challenges. Challenges can always be found, but abundant food cannot.

Feed em and teach em. They’ll get smarter over time.

Yeah but people who contribute nothing shouldn’t get nothing or else being born is conscription into servitude in order to exist. You may have made a case for the necessity of that 100 years ago, but today the rich are just way too rich and the machines are doing way too much to justify compulsion into the labor force because the justification for suffering is letting the rich keep their money. IOW, I grew up poor so that some rich asshole could keep a few extra bucks that he wasn’t using anyway.

Genetics is an accident. Nobody guided genetics. And if agency exists, it exists by accident as well. Did you cause yourself and create yourself?

Then you have to show it wasn’t luck; that is was guided.

Who’s claiming that?

It’s illegal to discriminate against race.

How are you a victim?

Well, there’s no way to grow a big brain full of expensive machinery devoted to anything BUT surviving (art, science, language) without an excess of food. The only way to have oodles of time left over in order to develop these trivialities is to have an abundance of food. Genetics followed as a consequence of the food.

Probably the biggest leap was learning to hunt which selected for sweating and losing hair and provided the dense energy source in less time eating. Then discovery of fire and cooking which made time for language while pre-digesting food. Because of our meat diet, we lost ability to ferment and synthesize B12 along with nearly losing our carotene to A and K1 to K2 conversion ability. We’re not efficient at gaining nutrition from vegetation as a result of genetic changes which resulted from hunting and cooking.

Then they migrated north to the glacial till soil to take advantage of grains, which could be farmed and stored over winter, and domesticated animals which put out fat-dense milk and eggs.

Then they turned white due to lack of UVB radiation at the latitude and finally they developed the arrogance to congratulate themselves as if the effect had anything to do with the cause.

I think an absolutist only needs one absolute belief and a relativist can’t have any absolute beliefs. Like a theist only needs one god to constitute being a theist, but an atheist can’t believe in any gods.

Well, probably wrong is not absolutely wrong, unless you mean probably absolutely wrong, in which case you’d be an absolutist.

Sure liberals kill the most because they hit first. Conservatives cannot hit first because it’s impossible to circumvent their programming (dogma).

I’ve never had much admiration for that alphabet soup psychology. The bottomline is conservatives could be replaced by machines and not much would change.

I don’t know how likely that is since for goods to be bid up requires a population with enough money to do it. If the price of toilet paper is high, it’s because lots of people are willing to pay higher prices for toilet paper. Corps cannot just raise prices to squeeze more out of the consumer.

The only reason for them to lower prices is to steal market share from a competitor. A gov can’t force them to lower prices; price controls don’t work.

The only way to fix it is to tax the machines and give to the poor.

Fairer wages come from the gov setting a wage floor and being in competition with corps by supplying welfare. Currently, boomers are supplying millennials with shelter which empowers them to refuse low wages. Why work for peanuts when you can live with mom and dad? That’s the only mechanism holding wages as high as they are. Corps have to raise wages to attract workers from their mom’s basement. Welfare accomplishes the same, but without burdening parents. But parents are stupid and would rather support their grown kids themselves than to pawn it off on Bezos and Buffett.

Yes and that’s where your amygdala is showing. You’re terrified that the undeserving might get something.

And that makes you a capitalist minion who is conscripting people into the workforce specifically to enrich the capitalists.

:romance-ballandchain: :orcs-whip: “Unless you lick this guy’s boots like everyone else is doing, you can go starve you worthless bum! The reason you exist is to serve the system and our blessed and most virtuous elites who have most graciously bestowed upon us all these muddy boots to lick, so exercise your freedom to decide which boots you want to clean, or not only can you go starve, but I’ll call you names as well.”

Fixed it for you. In blue.

I don’t see the mechanism of keeping others down to lift ourselves up. Either shoot them or feed them, but allowing them exist in a diseased state is just shitting up your own environment.

One exception. Asians are shorter, but what about that basketball guy? Most millennials are not on your side, but the boomers and silents are. And you’re not complaining because you’ve been personally discriminated against, but are overdramatizing something I’ve never even seen or heard credible instance of. “The sky is falling… quick, run in circles while screaming!”

I think you failed to watch the videos. There is no case to be made that hitler was atheist. If hitler was atheist, so is the pope.

Then go answer all Christopher Hitchens’ “how comes”.

And the whole premise of his rise to power was that the people had forsaken religion! The nasty jews with their sexual immorality had turned germany into a cesspool.

There is no way to throw jews in ovens unless you think you’re doing god’s work. Hitler thought god had saved him in wwi for a purpose.

Darwinism is non-teleological. You cannot guide it. If you do, then evolution will then be working against you. Evolution cannot work unless there is a force opposing it and hitler became that force. I become that force every time I pull a weed from my garden. I become the obstacle that evolution learns to overcome by making stronger weeds. All hitler accomplished was making smarter jews who now rule his “superior” aryans. Hitler was almost as dumb as trump… blunder after blunder after blunder.

Russians were orthodox christians and you may have an example with the chinese because even the buddhists are atheist. Buddhism isn’t a religion and has no god (the people don’t even have souls).

More irrational and unsubstantiated fear.

Yes it does.

Well that’s nice… so religion makes good people do evil and evil people do good. So why have it then?

We could blow the planet out of the solar system and still not stamp out life, but probably wind up with a smarter breed of it as a consequence.

That’s probably the most sensible solution, but then the bank is state-run.

We still need redistribution or else the created money just funnels up to the rich until the rich are rich enough to topple government.

3 people have more wealth than 50% of the people and 2 of them (Buffett and Gates) have been on crusade to raise their own taxes for decades and the 3rd (Bezos) is probably cool with it. The rich want to fix the problem, but the poor stupid ones won’t let them.

Right, people get nicer as scarcity is reduced. When ferraris are free, there is nothing left to fight over. That’s the marxist end-stage communism. It isn’t instituted by force, but arises of its own. The problem comes in when dictators try to implement it as a government when the technology can’t support it.

The left has no absolute morality.

Yes officer, I was wearing my seatbelt.
Sorry officer, I cannot tell a lie.

Take from the rich and give to the poor.
Stealing is wrong.

Kill the fetus so the woman has a better life
Murder is wrong.

I want to marry my boyfriend.
Homosexuality is wrong.

The liberal has no moral foundation because everything is relative.
The conservative cannot bend at all, ever, under any circumstances.

Every conservative could be replaced by a robot and nothing would change.