Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retards

Hate speech is also protected under 1st Amendment (in US), even if it’s racist, anti-semitic, or homophobic.
(It becomes hate crime when it turns to physical action, or imminent lawless action, or contains “true threat”)

Brandenburg v. Ohio
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenbu … on_test.29
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie
youtube.com/watch?v=V29rN-5FoDU

Pretty funny when I see someone deny that sex is a meaningful part of human experience. Guess the 99.99999% of people for whom this is true don’t particularly matter to you? Just because you’re castrated doesn’t mean everyone else is.

Lol. Castrated? As long as we are throwing shit on the wall, how many gerbils have you sexed to death lately?

At any rate, sure sex is nice and often meaningful. But to say something so pathetic as “sex is the most meaningful, valuable experience” sure does cheapen everything else you will ever say.

Pretty good thing that I never said that, then, isn’t it?

You’re a fucking clown who can’t even quote correctly. Shows you don’t care one fuck what you’re talking about.

Congrats. You’re retarded.

You literally said it. And I suppose you are right about one thing, I do not give any fucks about you. lol!

Wrong.

Splitting hairs there chump

Really! Thing is e.g. communism or commune based living existed long before the Jews became a state from a collection of tribes. Are you going to put all those tribes [Persians, arabs and Europeans [e.g. Palestinians have italic/greek genes mixed with those of the lavant] into the ovens? People want freedom and that’s not something the Jews have any right to appropriate, or for you to say that those things [feminism, anarchism etc] belong to them.

They used up the money gained from capitalism and the banks [the jews - to them] and then ran out and failed. Secondly they failed because people want freedom and so reacted to nazism with force and destroyed it. You could take the jews completely out of the equation and all of that would still have happened, after all we didn’t know the nazis were mass killing until later - after the war had started. It wasn’t the idea of jews being cast out of germany and/or killed, which prompted us too fight them, it was them. We know what people like that are like, because we have had enough of similarly minded individuals. We have been fighting them since the peasant revolt, and the american and french revolutions, and throughout history.

All people like you are doing is giving the jews possession of everything we have fought for. Well done, that’s like handing them a gun and saying shoot me lol.

_

Strong and smart men tend to create good times for, themselves, their kith and kin, at least in the short term, cause what goes up, tends to come down sooner or later.
Strong and smart men tend to create bad times for others.

You don’t need austerity to produce strength and smarts, in fact, I would say austerity produces the opposite, cause the worse your environment is, the less nutrients you’ll have, the more toxins you’ll have, the more genetic mutations will occur, and mutations are almost always bad.

Hard times also tend to produce primitive, physical and instinctual organisms, that have to mature quickly, where as soft times tend to produce advanced, psychological and intellectual organisms, that can take their time maturing.

The strong and smart will still do better than the weak and dumb during good times, cause even if there’s less threats killing the weak and dumb off, there’ll even be less threats killing the strong and the smart off, cause they’ll be able to avoid them even better, and have the time and energy to find ever more ways to maximize the quantity and quality of their offspring, and if they don’t do this, well then they weren’t very strong or smart to begin with, or their strength and smarts were relative to austere environments.

But if it doesn’t pay to be strong and smart, than why be strong and smart?
If machines do all the work, we can afford to get dumber and weaker, so long as this doesn’t affect survival/procreation, and as soon as it does, again the weak an dumb will tend to be weeded out.

Now if the strong and smart start caring for the dumb and weak, to the point where it begins significantly compromising societies survival as a whole, than this is rather dumb, and either the strong and smart weren’t all that strong and smart to begin with, or they’ve been temporarily deceived somehow, perhaps their emotions under these circumstances have overcome their reason to their detriment, and maybe that is occurring presently, and maybe it can be corrected.

Is that what’s occurring today?
Difficult to say.
Are people with severe mental and physical deficits being taken care of today more than yore?
I would say probably, but perhaps the smart and strong are also being taken better care of, and so these two things cancel one another out.
It would be interesting for a sociologist to really look into this in detail, do some investigating.

Myself I’m not a mean person, unless necessary, I wouldn’t advocate killing cripples and retards cause their useless, anymore than I’d advocate killing dogs and cats cause they’re useless, but at the same time, if the mediocre and superior are at risk of being overtaken by the inferior, than something has to be done, like forced sterilization, or contractual sterilization (if you want permanent disability/welfare, than you have to get sterilized first), or forced one child policies, or contractual one child policies policies.

But who is superior?
If you’re rich, or a rich capitalist, does that make you superior?
It doesn’t necessarily, althou the rich tend to be a little smarter on average, and some of this can probably be attributed to genetics, it doesn’t guarantee anything, and it certainly doesn’t make you or your activity more benevolent.
The capitalist class has profited off of nature’s, and in many cases, societies expense.
I don’t think the rich should automatically be deemed superior, if you own casinos, or have shares in fast food or arguably the pharmaceutical industry, or you’re selfish, stupid and inherited your selfless, smart grandpas money, than you too might be just as or more parasitical than a disabled/welfare person.

I think if we are too target anyone, we ought to target the underclass, not for extermination, cause that’d be unnecessarily cruel and many people of all classes would rebel, but for regulation of their birthrates, cause I’m pretty sure almost all of them have little-no productive value, and they’re dependent on government, but as for the other classes, I don’t think we should assume you have value, just cause you’re rich, if we are to target all or some members of the working or middle classes for regulation of their birthrates, we should target all or some of the rich too.
The working and middle classes are arguably the backbone of our economies.
If anything, conditions for the working and middle classes need to be improved.

A great deal of the rich are more cunning than forthright. Is cunning a superior trait?

AutSider

With regards to economics, there’s plenty to argue. What happens if you become unproductive because of terminal illness or permanent disability? So if you become unhealthy and/or dysfunctional(unable to deal adequately with normal social relations) we should dump you in the wilderness - let nature do its thang with you - is that something akin to what you are saying?

:-"

Yes. I would be ashamed to live as a burden on a system.

Actually, a minor correction - I would feel ashamed living as a burden on a system IF the system was such that I wanted to preserve it in the first place and I deemed its standards as worthy of judging me.

Since the current system isn’t like that, I don’t really care.

Well, how convenient.

I would say cunning is an ability, a tool, it can either be good or bad, or it’s good in some senses, like it’s an ability, a skill, advantageous, but bad in others, like it conceals truth, but really it’s the intent that makes it good or bad, cunning when hunting legitimate prey, or thwarting an enemy is good, but cunning in economics is usually bad, selfish, malevolent, not that selfishness is all bad, but in my view, when one is rich, has a lot, and cheats a productive person out of something they very much needed, that’s bad, and many rich are like that and it makes them bad in my view and I know I’m not the only one.

What is “legitimate prey?”

You know, women, children, the disabled, anything weaker than you…naw just kidding, lol, I meant like unendangered species, especially if you put their carcasses to good use, like for food, or to make something useful out of, like a hat or a spearhead.
I suppose cunning isn’t always bad in economics, like if too corporations are competing, and both of them are good corporations with good goods and services, it’s just the town ain’t big enough for the both of you, than out-thinking them, deceiving them and so on would be a legitimate use of cunning, but say selling people drugs and hiding the negative effects would not be a legitimate use of cunning.

Gloominary

Well thought out - I would agree that cunning in economics is usually bad, selfish and malevolent - fighting fire with fire is sometimes the only solution left . . . sad but true . . .

Good points . . . I particularly have an affinity with selling people drugs and hiding the negative effects would not be a legitimate use of cunning. The legitimate use of cunning comes about when it is necessary to fight fire with fire and as you say when hunting . . . I think this has deeper ethical implications too for that matter.

=D>

Well the consciences of the cunning are shallow. Deception is an inferior mode of operation whatever the case may be.

WendyDarling

And that is at the heart of the deeper ethical implications I am talking about . . . Thank you.

:smiley:

In which case it becomes difficult to legitimize cunning in the human sense.

:orcs-cheers:

Exactly, cunning humans are inferior.