Phono, you have no problem with heaping all those diseases on the shoulders of your offspring and your offspring’s offspring. You understand that inbreeding reveals recessive deleterious genes to be deselected in future generations and thus eventually diminish in the breeding pool. While outbreeding hides defects only to manifest in future generations. Let the new favelas deal with that fallout then.
This is simply not how genetics works. Inbreeding causes decrease in fertility, increase in abnormalities and mortality rates, and ultimately extinction. Examples abound.
But I don’t need to have this conversation again with this same gang, do I?
You kids knock yourselves out, I have toys to deliver.
The “only one”?
How pathetic this theoretical, individual is.
You know much about such types, do ya?
How short is he?
How stubby?
How ugly?
How bald?
How unlike you, right.
I like how you chose this thread to vomit your delusions, with such vindictive passion.
By the way…most sexual encounters depend on a certain level of deception.
Like push-up bras, and high heels, and girdles, and lipstick…and perfume.
Or…the deception of coming to a thread and then pretending you are "forced’ to be there, after mind-fariting insinuations you cannot back-up, and then huffing and making a dramatic exit.
Idiot…in-deed.
Inbreeding like every speciation that took place in the long run of evolution.
This is where male 7 female promiscuity ensures that inbreeding does not exceed a certain destructive point.
Jewish “genius”, is attributed to their socially selecting inbreeding…the tradition where the rich man, gives his eldest daughter to the educated rabbi…and to the holocaust, where genetic unfit mutations were cleanse out of the gene-pool, resulting on a higher average IQ.
Mencken claims that the Black Plague is what made the Renaissance possible…like the Ice Age is what lead to Caucasian dominance, after nearly wiping those tribes out.
Reminds me of royalty only marrying into other royalty. Just like show dogs eh?
According to Helmuth Nyborg and many others before him (and only few others - I am among them - after him) intelligence is mainly based on genetics and on the landscape, the environment, more exactly said: on the regional climate and some of its consequences. One can say that the northern humans (humans of regions with a moderate and especially a cold climate) are averagely much more intelligent than the southern humans (humans of regions with a warm and especially a hot climate). And indeed, this has already been proven, although some other aspects must be and have been taken in account as well.
Now, if a northern human correctly says "I am more intelligent than the southern humans, then this northern human will immediately be called a “racist” or an “IQ racist”. But if a southern human correctly says “I am more athletic and have a larger penis than the northern humans”, then that southern human will immediately get agreement and praise from everyone, nobody will call that southern human a “racist” or/and a “sexist”.
One can state with certainty: There are huge differences when it comes to intelligence. These differences were already proven in the 19th century. But since about the second half or the third third or at least the fifth fifth of the 20th century it has been forbidden to say anything about these differences, because they are mostly caused by genetics (averagely about 70% or even 80%), biology, climate, thus only little by sociology. So our rulers are not only against intelligence differences, they are also against genetics, against biology, against climatology. Probably they are also against intelligence itself.
Who are the more real racist: those who correctly say that they are more intelligent than others, or those who incorrectly say that those who say that they are more intelligent than others are incorrect or even racists?
If there are intelligence differences (and there are huge intelligence differences for sure!), then there are also people who correctly say that they are more intelligent than others.
Why is it forbidden to be intelligent? And especially: Why is it forbidden to be more intelligent than others? And specifically: Why is it forbidden to say this?
There is a huge interest in forbidding all this.
When liberalism and egalitarianism come together “fraternally” (), they have to keep a peaceful distance between themselves: liberalism is for the few rich people, egalitarianism is for the many poor people; and if this peaceful distance is really kept by both of them, then it works like the current globalism works. What does this mean in the context of what I said above? That peaceful distance can only be kept, if there are artificially made differences (for example: “racism”, “sexism” versus “politically correctness”) in order to hide the real differences (such as intelligence differences or the difference betwenn eugenics and dygenics), because this is one of the means which is used in order to control all humans on this planet - according to the established method and ruling principle: divide et impera.
It really isn’t racism though… You can see different groups or sub-groups of humans. All human, just evolved differently. It has happened before as well, Neanderthal era. It will only continue to happen, different environments grant different abilities/traits that one has to utilize to live.
I have no problem with people preserving their own genetic or hereditary physical traits. If they want to do so they have that option.
I do think however the ideal of genetic purity or superiority to be a flawed one.
One must understand that evolution also revolves around mutation and divergence.
But you see, there is no superiority aspect…
What person A is good at, person B may be worse at, what person B is good at, person A may be worse at. It goes on.
It’s a cycle of single/varietal aspect “superiority” that creates a balance/equality between humanity, this cycle is what contributes to evolution by peoples differences/superiorities.
There is superiority in the moment. And life is a thread made up of moments woven together. Therefore, there is superiority in life.
What do you mean in the moment?
Who’s moment, is one superior in this moment?
In any given moment, one is able to deal with the challenges that are present or one is not able. One succeeds or one fails. The one who succeeds is superior to the one who fails.
That’s true, do you mean falls as in death? Like natural selection?
Or just failure in general? One can overcome failure and become stronger from it later.
No. You fail by fucking up … by not having what would be beneficial … by not having food when you need food … by not having money when you need money.
It usually takes more than one fuck up to die, but string together a few failures and you may be dead.
I view genetic or hereditary superiority as cultural and social constructs.
Well is common sense genetic? Because I can see a lot of people dying because they lack it. Perhaps not all of the failure is due to genetics, I was just meaning the superiority aspect between peoples genetic capabilities. But I do get what you’re saying now. I guess it just depends on when and how they fail in order to be killed by it, or the consistency of it.
Well not all of it is right? Like tribes who live in the wild, they don’t rely on social constructs as much as one living in the city
The two will have completely different skill sets and survival methods.
Perhaps intelligence really is partially bound to environment. A more comfy environment negates the need to continue to learn, not to say people don’t enjoy it, like us here. Once an environment is comfortable enough, people usually just carry on with daily routine instead of having to really survive like those in the wild or a place that tests you.
There’s the natural world and then there is the imaginary fictional constructive world of civilization.
I don’t view civilization as an extension of the natural world but rather instead an aberration.