Boycott Google

@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.

I don’t notice anything different, but I have adblock installed.

Who Will Guard Us From The Guardians? YouTube “Protects” Users By Hiding “Conspiracy Theories” zerohedge.com/news/2019-01- … y-theories

Well, they’re not.

Almost no one is equipped to make a rational decision on climate change, 9/11, JFK assassination, et al and any decision made cannot be cognitive, but emotional.

The crime committed is taking advantage of the ignorance of people to advance bullshit no different than a mechanic telling a woman her car needs a new johnson rod.

@Serendipper

Giving stronger people with more potential more resources is social selection.
Social selection is part of how we evolve, along with sexual and natural selection.
Without selection, we de-evolve.

There is such a thing as over, and underestimating oneself.

There is such a thing as unwarranted guilt.

Okay, say subarctic.

Lack of food is a challenge.
Challenges should be proportionate with reality, or the work society has to do survive(yes, despite advances in automation and energy production, society still has to work to survive, and billions, or at least hundreds of millions have to work full time for society to survive).
everyone who can work, should share in that work, everyone who can’t work can be treated humanely, which includes incarcerating and forcibly sterilizing them should they decide to unlawfully procreate.
Neither artificial scarcity, nor artificial abundance, should be imposed on people.
The former leads to artificial, excess/unnecessary evolution and socioeconomic growth, the latter leads to lack of necessary evolution or devolution and socioeconomic decay.

The contributors shouldn’t be conscripted to take care of the non-contributors, which includes both the idle rich, and the idle poor.

Agency is irrelevant, if I buy a basket of apples and half go bad, I throw the bad ones out.

If I buy fruit trees and discover half of them bear lots of fruit and the other little, I take better care of the more fruitful half, and if I have limited land, time and energy, I mainly or only use the fruitful half for planting seed.
If farmers adopted your methods, well, there wouldn’t be any farmers, we’d’ve all starved long ago.

I already did, I proved whites are more intelligent, which you agreed with, which’s at least in part why we’re more prosperous.

I’ve heard many liberals fallaciously claim whites invented racism, slavery, genocide…

On the contrary, some employers are forced to racially and sexually diversify their staff or prefer minorities and women over whites and men, even at the expense of productivity.

Sometimes incompetent blacks are hired and kept and so the quality of goods and services plummets.

So religious dogma is good sometimes.

Conservatives are more rigid than liberals overall, especially/particularly when it comes to much of their morality, but they can be flexible about other things, which’s not to say liberals are amoral as you suggested either.
Actually these days, I’d say liberals are far more intolerant and strict than conservatives.

Fine. So what you’re saying is allow the people with the most power to decide what ideas people should not be exposed to. IOW there bs will continue to be sacred. And by the way, the official report on 9/11 is a joke. I mean, apart from the whistleblowers, Building 7 is a laugh. I mean, it boggles the mind how educated people talk themselves out of the obvious on that one.

@Serendipper

If unemployed people have kids, they should be incarcerated and sterilized.

However, maybe it’s enough they live in poverty, have a lower standard of living than the working class.
These days hardly anyone has more than a kid or two, rich and poor, 1st and 3rd world alike.
The only continent with high population growth is Africa, which’s unfortunate, as I’d prefer their remaining wilderness be preserved.

In any case, prohibiting this wouldn’t be like prohibiting alcohol, because most people want to drink, whereas only something like 5% of the population is unemployed, and of those 5%, many or most would probably agree to not having kids in exchange for welfare.

The property manager at the apartment my friend lives in is terrible.
She’s rude, and allows thugs who break rules, and laws to live there.
Otherwise it’s a nice apartment in a nice neighborhood.
Lots of people have complained about her, but it’s difficult to have her removed because she’s a protected class (mulatto).

Not to mention their corrupt banking practices and dissemination of anti-white propaganda.

Hitler was plainly anti-Christian, and an atheist or nearly.

He wasn’t serious about Christianity, he was using it until the German people were ready to relinquish it.

Why?

Why can’t you throw them in ovens just because you think they’re inferior and/or a threat to your people?

Social Darwinism is.

We can’t help but guide it, thinkingly or unthinkingly, we discriminate against the weak in favor of the strong.

What you propose is the very antithesis of evolution.
You’re saying by fighting your enemies, you make them stronger, so you should just give up, but if we surrender, we perish.
We do what we can, eliminate our enemies if we can, or at least keep them at bay.
Fighting your enemies weakens them in the short term, but can strengthen, or weaken them in the long run.
It’s best to pull weeds by the root, but sometimes you can’t, but you still have to pull them, keep them at bay so you and yours can survive, and thrive a little.

The communist government and its military were atheist, and they massacred millions of religious, and irreligious.

There you go, the atheist Chinese massacred millions.
Fundamentally people kill people, not religions.
Altho some religions may be more militarizing/pacifying than others, governments and militaries don’t need religion to massacre millions.

The primary reason governments and their militaries go to war is greed, they will distort religious teachings and kill pacifist religious leaders to justify their lust for power.

Religion has good and bad, like just about any activity, I mentioned some of its other virtues earlier, I say leave it up to the individual to decide how much value it has to them.

More unsubstantiated and irrational optimism.

And the state is a democracy, preferably of thinking men and women.

Government can print money and purchase the education and healthcare industries.

If the rich really wanted to fix the problem, there wouldn’t be the rich, or at least not the obscenely wealthy.
The rich want to tax small businesses nearly as much as themselves, and force them to pay the same minimum wage.
This hurts the middle class more than themselves, because the rich can afford to pay the taxes and the minum wage, often the middle class can’t, and because the rich can afford to bribe the courts, hire the best lawyers to find tax loopholes and so on.

Meanness has merely grown more sophisticated, that is it, in the main.
The murder rate may be 10 or 100 times less, but disparities are 100 or 1000 times more.
The powerful have found ways to monopolize wealth without having to shed so much blood.
And what we do to our livestock and nature is atrocious.
Democratic force will always be necessary to bring justice about.

While liberals are sexually looser in many ways, you’ll still hear them say: ‘there’s nothing wrong with adultery or promiscuity so long as it’s open/honest’.
They still think you shouldn’t cheat.

And in other ways, liberals are even more sexually restrictive.
Consent is exceedingly important to them, even innocent flirting is frequently misconstrued as sexual harassment.

Furthermore, there’re some schools of Christian and conservative thought that say it’s okay to choose the lesser of two evils if good isn’t an option.

Yes but they justify stealing or as they like to say: ‘appropriation, reallocation, redistribution’, they say: ‘it’s for the greater good’, not my good or no good, or they say: ‘the rich cheated us’.
Their ethics are based more on consequences than actions.
Some of them also have alternative notions of property, like property is defined by continual occupation/use, or all property is public, a privilege democracy may temporarily bestow you, not a right.
No one on the left thinks it’s right for the rich to steal from the poor, whereas some people further right do i.e. corporatists, fascists.

I’ve never heard a liberal say rape is okay, or murder for the sheer thrill of it is okay.
It’s been said conservatives care most about your life before you’re born or suffering with a terminal illness, as they won’t abort or euthanize, whereas liberals care most about your life in between, as they want to make sure you have access to education, healthcare and nutrition, altho they’re not necessarily more charitable, they’re just more willing to lower someone else’s standard of living to raise yours, which, I am in favor of too, to an extent.

Hitler was sure willing to abort a lot of unborn, and born for his greater good.

‘I only want to befriend and be surrounded by people with the same race and customs as me’.

‘Racist, xenophobe, Hitlerite’!

Liberals are every bit as predictable as conservatives.
The foundation for their ethics is on the pages of various writers from the enlightenment to the postmodern era, just as conservative ethics are, in part.

@Serendipper

The reason why billionaires are billionaires at all, is because they can afford to dramatically lower their prices and raise wages, but won’t.
Instead of charging and paying what’s arguably fair, so we don’t have to work as much, they spend their enormous profits on extravagances, save and reinvest them in increasingly meaningless work we have to do especially for them.
Such’re the origins of our consumerist society, increasingly we produce far more junk than we need to, largely so we can eat, and they splurge, taking a tremendous tole on both the health of the environment, and our own health.
They use both purist, and crony capitalism to exploit us, every tool in the toolbox.
This is why prices and wages ought to be fixed low and high respectively for big business, but either not fixed at all for small business, or fixed higher and lower respectively for small than big, either that or more extreme measures.
Government could print money and forcibly buy much, most or all essential mass production, sell their wares cheap, and pay workers well.

I’m for finding the right balance of capitalism and socialism, and in my estimation, neither the left, nor the right have it, they’re both controlled opposition.

I edited a bunch of times, lol.

No problem man. I usually give it a good while before I even look lol. I was thinking that maybe we should make separate threads for each main point of disagreement. Like the discussion on Jared Diamond’s idea, UBI, and whatever the other thing was. Crap, what was the other thing? Religion? Yeah, is religion the cause of evil. Each of those are pretty heavy on their own.

What haven’t we been discussing? :laughing:
There must be at least a dozen topics.
Our political paradigms are colliding.
I’m fine with keeping it all in one place.
This’s a holistic discussion, everything ties together.
There’s too much to subdivide, and I might lose my groove if we attempt to reorganize and compartmentalize everything now.
Yea, heavy discussion, somehow whenever you and I talk it ends up being about, everything.

I think it’s more likely that the strong simply take it; it’s not given.

But to perform social engineering requires defining what strong means.

What does it mean to devolve? We’ve lost our ability to hunt because of grocery stores, so are we weaker now? Should we abandon grocery stores in order to preserve righteous hunting skills?

This appeal to de-evolution frustrates me because: 1) advance and regress as a society really has no meaning; whether we desire to get smarter or dumber or whatever, it just doesn’t matter. There is no law written in stone saying we have to continually improve. In fact, I’d be happier if things never changed. When we go camping, do we drag our shit in, set up tents, start the fire, and then sit down to enjoy the fruits of our labors or do we keep working all night to justify our existence? The work has been done; it’s time to sit down and relax and enjoy what has been done. 2) Everything that improves us, also weakens us. That’s pretty much the definition of “comfort”. So, whoever holds this “de-evolution” philosophy would have to be in opposition of technology itself, which goes alllllll the way back to fire itself: the original technology! That’s just plum retarded!

In order to advocate the “oh, we might get weak” argument, one would have to be antipodal to technology.

Obviously everyone likes technology and no one is worried about getting weak, so what’s this about then? Hate, fear, amygdala, etc. What else could it be?

The pendulum probably swings both ways.

I might agree with that if the amount of work being done were the same as the amount of work that needed to be done, but you’re arguing for “improvements” and “advancements”, so I don’t feel obligated to join forces in performance of work for the sake of work. I will not be conscripted nor advocate for the involuntary conscription of others into this fantasy requiring servitude.

In the 1800s they would have figured by 2019 that we’d have such an abundance of time that we might not have to work at all, but we’re busier than ever, so busy that we don’t have time to raise our kids. That right there tells me that most of the work done in the world is frivolous. So why should people be compelled, against their will, into doing work that doesn’t need to be done?

Man that’s just all amygdala lol

You’re advocating child labor now? Actually I think I started working at 14, but not enough to make a difference. Mom worked 2 jobs, dad sent child support and we still weren’t middle class. Years later I discover that the reason for that extra struggling, that didn’t have to be, was so the rich could keep more of what they weren’t using anyway… and too many republicans were terrified I might get something for nothing. The joke is on them since the community is reaping precisely what it sowed.

Sure, I agree, so who was the geneticist? Who killed the humans who didn’t bear fruit and fed the ones that did? Who guided this process? If you cut down trees or throw out apples, then you get the credit, so who threw out the bad humans over the 100’s of 1000s of years in order to select for the white ones? Nobody. It just worked out that way.

You’re not acting white, lol, because I didn’t say “prove whites are more intelligent”, I said “prove their evolution was guided.”

If I breed a big tomato plant, then I get the credit for guiding the development of the genetics and not the tomato plant. The tomato plant didn’t select for itself.

If X guided the development of the white race, then X gets the credit and not the white race. The white race could not have selected itself into existence anymore than the tomato plant could.

The way you’re painting this is like a hominid saying “Listen up! In 20,000 years, the next time the earth precesses, we’re leaving half these negros in africa and heading north to the good soil, where we’ll turn a lovely shade of white and grow big brains.” No, the earth precessed and they just meandered that general direction, then were cut off from returning for 1000s of years. The whole thing was chance.

Doesn’t seem like any reasonable person would believe that.

Because an all-white workforce is evidence of discrimination. I mean, it may not be, but that’s how they see it. They want to force different races together to acclimate them so that eventually no one gives a hoot.

Name some way this personally affects you.

Every advantage has a disadvantages. The good thing about conservatives is you can trust them like you trust a machine.

Outlawing disease is not intolerance. They’ll support your right to do what you want, unless what you want is to tell others what to do.

This is like the argument against the atheists: “Why won’t you leave us alone to practice our religion? Why are you on crusade against religion?” Well the genital mutilation community, the suicide bomber community, the wars and atrocities all share religion, so one has a moral obligation from a humanist standpoint to exterminate religion. The left has the same obligation to exterminate conservatism while conservatives appeal to their right to oppress others (homos, nonwhites, poor people, women, druggies, etc) under the protection of religion, politics, and tradition.