Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics

Quote :

[01:29:33 14/03/14] Mo : Or more resistance to certain diseases. <<< [referring to the benefits of being a Negro(?)]

[01:26:08 14/03/14] phoneutria : he who is not in favor of racial mixing is in favor of inbreeding

Disease resistance is led by medical science, ie, by intelligent inquiry, not by breeding disease resistant humans. Diseases change, they evolve. Only intelligence can keep up with them.  

Humanity is a 'shallow' gene pool. The price of evolution is the decline of more primitive traits and their attendant genetic structures, whether through selection or drift. The traits typical of the ones the modern intellect finds comfort in, one's we can all identify with because they are more common or base. Hey look I've got two arms and two legs like you, I've got a stomach that needs feeding like you, I cry and suffer like you. We're the same! (Note how ideas of equality all center on the body and the emotions. Lets steer well clear of the mind).

Remember that old chestnut put about by white liberals, that two blacks from Africa are genetically more different than a white man and a Chinaman? A transparent effort to discredit the importance of appearances, to show how ridiculous it is to point to surface differences when underneath it's patently the reverse. How silly all this racism is.  

But how gloriously it backfires with a little thought.

Guess what... two chimpanzees are more genetically diverse than any two blacks from anywhere, and look how fucking similar they appear. Yes, not surprisingly primates have a much larger gene pool than blacks. Now consider on top of all this how we apparently share 98% of our genes with chimps, yet appear completely different.

The left is up shit creek without a paddle.

It's called the inevitable outcome of evolution morons. Like a piece of masonry is whittled away by a sculptor revealing a more refined form underneath, time and space are natures chisel, carving out more specialized, refined organisms. The excess proto-material is washed away as it becomes increasingly redundant.  

To the modern mind evolution is synonymous with inbreeding, it is so narrow in its vision. And of course, compared to monkeys we are 'inbred'. Yet breeding with monkeys is not evolution. It's devolution. Going backwards.

According to the left we need to start fucking baboons and gorillas again, otherwise we're not going to make it. Our gene pool will be too shallow.

What do these morons have to offer except a return to our primitive ancestry, a desire to go back because consciousnesses points to a reality far less caring and comforting than the one we emerged from with its anthropomorphic Gods and geocentric universe.

How did people react to Copernicus' discovery that the Earth goes around the sun, that we are not the center of existence? They reacted with dismay and derision. Except the most honest amongst them, who always suspected and were not surprised by the imperfect nature of existence.

Too bad Darwin arrived first, before these neo-liberal clerics could silence him. Even though they distort his words in a despicable fashion, and claim that because he was anti-slavery he didn't believe races existed, his words are now recorded in stone and no amount of spin is going to change that.

Yep,

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The relatively young offshoot, whether they become a new species or a new race have a shallower gene-pool at the start. Over time, if no bottlenecks occur, the gene-pool becomes 'deeper' again.

A narrower gene pool hints at stronger selective pressures and bottlenecks in evolutionary history. (Like an ice-age or the Black Death or Modern Liberalism (it's finale))

Here's some context. Two questions...

1. Do any other races have any qualities/traits that you would value?

Resistance to disease might qualify, or intelligence, or strength, or whatever other trait that you value. All you need is one---and it doesn't even have to be the most important trait on your list. All you will have recognized is that, in at least this one respect, this race tends to excel---even if it lacks in other respects.

2. Are you an elitist? I.e., Do you judge a group by the very best amongst it?

The very best are the ones who have assembled the most valuable traits in the greatest proportions. That’s an analytical truth.

Can you answer 'yes' to 1 and 2, and still have a problem with miscegenation, in general?

You can say that it will go badly for some people, or even the majority of people. The valuable traits that they might otherwise have had will be lost, or diluted, or whatever. But if you are an elitist, that shouldn’t matter. You only care about the rare individuals who assemble the best of a diverse range, and those would be the ones who pass on their genes through natural selection, etc.

That’s the context of the conversation.

Actually, the context is that I was the one asking those questions to Satyr… because Satyr asked me to do the Socratic Method on him. If you want my own answer, it's this: To be an elitist, recognize some value elsewhere, and not pursue it, strikes me as inconsistent on its face. What's your answer?

Because traits are not inter-connected. There is also no trade-off. Everything is within reach.

Just look at those cows we have bred - they produce milk at an astonishing rate. And the best part is that they produce it no matter what - just feed them with enough energy and they gonna start producing. In earlier times you had to treat them well to get some good results - but those times are luckily behind us. Well of course the composition of the milk has changed and some parts are missing but the taste is still alright and it looks like milk, so what gives.
They also have a much lower life expectancy but that doesn't impact profits that much.

Can anybody explain why we should not go trans-genetic? Some gorilla DNA in terms of strength for example. I mean, obviously, everything is possible. There is no concern for efficiency. We live in the area that will bring about an energy singularity. Science gonna make it happen, no limits!
Of course, every new generation has to be engineered in the laboratory because otherwise we'd lose the strength attributes or the intelligence if it's not providing an advantage in terms of procreation. And who's procreating anyway today, so...

Let's transform consciousness into a machine. It's gonna be super efficient, you'll see. But then efficiency does not matter, this is the age of the singularity. Limitless wastefulness, no reason to care for anything. It will be glorious.

Remember what's valuable is all just a choice, you just make it up in your mind. No influence from the outside, no limits, no constraints, no necessities. Freedom. Whatever you want.

Mo, you're suggesting that an unspecified race (negroes?) has a resistance to certain diseases, also unspecified. You need to provide some citations for this claim.

You then extend this into eugenics with the implication that one minor trait should be the justification for hybridization.
There is not simply one trait that must be considered, but the entirety of a particular organisms genetic distinctiveness. This... conversation... is not about isolating the gene code for one trait and inserting it into the sequence of the desired organism, but about amalgamating the genetic code of two or more distinct populations; by doing so perhaps resulting in the extinction of the contributors.
Therefore the quoteis a modern rationalization of the elimination of genetic distinctiveness as it pertains to racial diversity, not eugenics.

Quote :

2. Are you an elitist? I.e., Do you judge a group by the very best amongst it?

Surely a group, if it is to be judged as a group, should be done so by it's average, it's generalized accomplishment? If you are selective in who you judge the group by, are you not being dishonest?

If we are to be honest, for a moment, and judge negroes by their average, by their general accomplishments, can we really say that they are candidates for a eugenics program?

For a future humanity, increasingly technologically aided, are athleticism or the resistance to some specific diseases (unspecified) really of very much utility? Shouldn't intelligence rate as a more desirable trait?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

apaosha wrote:

Surely a group, if it is to be judged as a group, should be done so by it's average, it's generalized accomplishment? If you are selective in who you judge the group by, are you not being dishonest?

Do you value Irish creativity and literature because the Irish people on average are generally fairly literate, know how to read just as well as anyone else, can write at a comparatively average level, etc, and have produced a thousand no-names who wrote nothing special? Or do you value Irish literary culture because it has produced a James Joyce, a Bernard Shaw, a C.S. Lewis, a Wilde, a Beckett, and a Yeats?

Surely a group---e.g., the Irish---should be judged on its literature not by a thousand no-names who can write a grocery list averagely well, but by what it does exceptionally well; by its exceptional representatives.

So, no, when I judge a group as a group, I don't care about the averages of the group. I don't care about a thousand Steves who are from Ireland and know how to write grocery lists.

That's honesty.

apaosha wrote:

Mo, you're suggesting that an unspecified race (negroes?) has a resistance to certain diseases, also unspecified. You need to provide some citations for this claim.

You then extend this into eugenics with the implication that one minor trait should be the justification for hybridization.

I'm not talking about some laboratory eugenics program, or forced social breeding, or even choosing your own mate for some minor trait. I wouldn't be in favor of any of those. It is just about how you answer questions 1 and 2.

Do you have a plurality of values, such as intelligence, creativity, beauty, health, kindness, etc? And do you think that one race has a lock on everything valuable? That's question 1.

About resistance to disease: It's well known that some races/populations have a higher propensity for some diseases, and some don't. E.g., Tay-sachs disease among Ashkenazi Jewry. I am not saying that you should throw away everything else that you value so that you can avoid Tay-sachs, if you are an Ashkenazi Jew. The issue is about recognizing valueable qualities that may not all predominate in one population.

Quote :

Do you value Irish creativity and literature because the Irish people on average are generally fairly literate, know how to read just as well as anyone else, can write at a comparatively average level, etc, and have produced a thousand no-names who wrote nothing special? Or do you value Irish literary culture because it has produced a James Joyce, a Bernard Shaw, a C.S. Lewis, a Wilde, a Beckett, and a Yeats?

Well, no. But thanks for the attempt at a personal angle.

Firstly, Irish isn't a race. It's an ethnicity, I suppose, a subdivision of caucasian. You also get the complication of the Anglo-Irish, of whom are some of your examples.

Secondly to reiterate: if we are to judge a race then we must judge it as a whole and not selectively pick and choose what individual examples we are going to consider "quality". This is why race differences in intelligence are determined through population's averages, not by picking the geniuses or retards at either end of the bell curve and trying to pass off either as the rule for that particular race.
But it must also be said that if one race has a higher potential for intelligence that the median intelligence for that race, it's average, would be higher than that of an inferior (in this context) race. And also that it's high-achievers, the high end of the bell curve would occupy a region of IQ unattainable by the inferior race. This is what we see in reality.

For example:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Race, genetics, governs an individual's potential. There are no negroid equivalents of Einstein, Heraclitus, Napoleon, Bismarck, Nietzsche and so forth. There is a good reason for that. And it is not socio-political.

Quote :

Do you have a plurality of values, such as intelligence, creativity, beauty, health, kindness, etc? And do you think that one race has a lock on everything valuable? That's question 1.

Does anyone think that or is this your understanding of race realism, that it equals white surpremacism? Does the admission that human beings differ on a fundamental, genetic level and that these differences result in a definite hierarchy based on ability, in whatever context - does this necessarily entail that one race considers itself the ideal in all things?
The master race? The Herrenvolk, maybe?

Your simplicity is so very transparent.

In addition to your list of positive values above I would add a love and pride in my own identity and ancestry, as it is what makes me possible and what defines my potential. I would not be who and what I am, were I not the product of my parents and their own becoming. I am the ongoing and continuing manifestation of the past; I am the past as it moves into the future; I am not disconnected from it, conflicted by it or dedicated to making war against it.

apaosha wrote:

Secondly to reiterate: if we are to judge a race then we must judge it as a whole and not selectively pick and choose what individual examples we are going to consider "quality". This is why race differences in intelligence are determined through population's averages, not by picking the geniuses or retards at either end of the bell curve and trying to pass off either as the rule for that particular race.

So, you value a group's creativity by what the average among them can produce? Then why are you mentioning Nietzsche and Heraclitus and Einstein, as if thinkers like those mattered to your assessment of a race or a group? You should be telling me only about the averages.

Personally, I think that if you remove from the list the writers I mentioned, and some others, then Irish literature is worthless. It's done nothing that you would want future generations to read. The averages are just that... average.

The danger of your view---i.e., of thinking that a group is judged by its averages---is that small improvements in the average often come at the expense of fostering excellence. Egalitarianism underlies that.

Quote :

Does anyone think that or is this your understanding of race realism, that it equals white surpremacism? Does the admission that human beings differ on a fundamental, genetic level and that these differences result in a definite hierarchy based on ability, in whatever context - does this necessarily entail that one race considers itself the ideal in all things?
The master race? The Herrenvolk, maybe?

Your simplicity is so very transparent.

What simplicity? Do you have my answer, retard? Did you hear something I didn't say?

If there's something wrong with holding one value paramount over others, such that it would trump other values in who you choose to mate with... then say what it is, (because I did not). Do you think that's a simplistic idea? ---Then say so openly, and why, retard.

What is transparent?

Quote :

In addition to your list of positive values above I would add a love and pride in my own identity and ancestry, as it is what makes me possible and what defines my potential. I would not be who and what I am, were I not the product of my parents and their own becoming. I am the ongoing and continuing manifestation of the past; I am the past as it moves into the future; I am not disconnected from it, conflicted by it or dedicated to making war against it.

Nobody values their past for no reason. You value a past because of the values that past contains. If you valued your past for no reason, then any dirt bag can say that he's proud of his dirt bag past---and your statement would be worth no more. Get it?

Mo wrote:

Or do you value Irish literary culture because it has produced a James Joyce, a Bernard Shaw, a C.S. Lewis, a Wilde, a Beckett, and a Yeats?

It has produced.
A potential had to be nurtured in its environment.
It also took someone to recognize the quality.

In short, you don't look at a becoming but you take a photo. Then you look at it and you select what you deem valuable and you don't know anything about the dynamics which produced, nurtured and are required for it to actually come into existence and, because we are changeable and mortal, have to be in place for it to stay alive beyond the very short term.

This approach you take, this atomizing view on individuals and even atomizing of traits and qualities within an individual is incapable of producing or maintaining those very qualities.

Quote :

So, you value a group's creativity by what the average among them can produce?

Again, simple.

A grouping by it's very nature contains individuals of higher and lower ability. When judging a particular trait of that group, in comparison to other groups, you go by the overall average of every individual within that particular group.

Not by the individuals of average ability.

But you are what you are, after all.

In terms of race, the subject is based on genetics and so deals with inherited potentials and/or limitations that cannot be excused or waved away with training. And so an individual becomes bracketed within a spectrum of potential for a given trait determined by his genetics. This spectrum becomes especially clear when you compare it to the spectrum for any given trait of other races.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Irish literature is worthless

You're like a woman losing an argument, trying to shift the focus onto personal recriminations to conceal how much of a fucktard you are.

Quote :

What simplicity? Do you have my answer, retard? Did you hear something I didn't say?

If there's something wrong with holding one value paramount over others, such that it would trump other values in who you choose to mate with... then say what it is, (because I did not). Do you think that's a simplistic idea? ---Then say so openly, and why, retard.

What is transparent?

Your simplicity is that you are trying to accuse me of being a Nazi. Your simplicity is contained in your question: And do you think that one race has a lock on everything valuable?

It's got to the stage in the West at the moment that certain words and concepts have been made into triggers for all sorts of hysteria and emotional imagery. Race is one of them.

Quote :

Nobody values their past for no reason. You value a past because of the values that past contains. If you valued your past for no reason, then any dirt bag can say that he's proud of his dirt bag past---and your statement would be worth no more. Get it?

I value the past because it made me possible, Moron. Without the past I would not exist. Without the past there is no present and no possibility of movement in time, no potential for a future.

My potential is determined and limited by this past. It shapes who I am. I do not resent it or dismiss it - I pay homage to it for making me possible. I honour it and in so doing I honour myself.

apaosha wrote:

A grouping by it's very nature contains individuals of higher and lower ability. When judging a particular trait of that group, in comparison to other groups, you go by the overall average of every individual within that particular group.

Not by the individuals of average ability.

I don't have a problem measuring averages among a race, to learn about averages in that race. But the value of a group as a whole is what it produces, not what its averages are. Again, the danger of your view is that if you judge a group by the average among all individuals, then you will think that small incremental increases in the average are better than massive leaps in excellence by a few, simply because the average so grossly outnumbers the rare.

Quote :

You're like a woman losing an argument, trying to shift the focus onto personal recriminations to conceal how much of a fucktard you are.

What? Justify the bullshit that comes out of your face.

Quote :

Your simplicity is that you are trying to accuse me of being a Nazi. Your simplicity is contained in your question: And do you think that one race has a lock on everything valuable?

Accuse you of being a Nazi? --You're an emotional hypocrite. Try to have a conversation without that kind of bullshit. You can answer the question.

If you value X quality, and you contain valuable Y quality... why not risk an offspring that assembles both qualities? That's the simplistic thought experiment. That's the fucking question of the thread, retard. If you have a problem with it, then say so. As far as I can tell, your answer si that you care to much about the average. How egalitarian of you. Nobody is calling you a Nazi, just a delusional retard. Stop pretending that you hear me say what I haven't said.

vonMo wrote:

If you value X quality, and you contain valuable Y quality... why not risk an offspring that assembles both qualities?

Cross-breeding produces very randomized results. The result won't necessarily be quality X + quality Y but just as likely could be loss of quality X and loss of quality Y, depending which allele is inherited.
This goes for all qualities, not only the desired. So it produces very randomized individuals.
And randomized individuals are unable to form a culture based on a shared heritage, based on shared innate characteristics, shared genes.

So your cross-breeding proposition produces a lot of randomness, and in combination with an environment with low selective pressure produces social disintegration in the long run. That is, if you know that the blank slate theory is bullshit.
Cross-breeding is not required to introduce a quality into a gene pool. It would be an artificial brute force method and would require elimination of undesired outcomes to contain the random pollution - If not, then it would be an act of devolution by erasing established traits in an ocean of randomness.

lol @ thread

Argue away. Won't make my statement any less true.

but... I guess you can do a whole thread in defense of inbreeding. I won't look.

From blind chance we go to universal value.

Sure a worm has some value.
A bird, an ape....a pedophile is not all bad. Hitler was not an all bad guy.
Charles Manson might have been charming.
And what the hell does this have to do with anything?

Simpletons have a goal, a desirable outcome in their sights.
It doesn't matter how they get there, just as long as they get there.

They'll weave and bob and duck, and do whatever, play whatever games necessary to keep that target on focus.

So, if you want to breed a trait, let's say red hair, you would take two individuals at random and hope for the best...because they may, or may not, have some latent red-hair gene.

No, you would not go to a population with a higher probability for the ginger gene to be present...you would just select at random - Flipping a coin selection, rather than Natural Selection.

And yes, breeding an imbecile with a genius will give you another genius.
It's magical.
All random chaotic stuff.

Why increase your odds by breeding two geniuses when you can dip into the holy book, your anus, and draw out a two-headed coin to flip?
And if the outcome is negative, and you have another retard...why, make the best of it.
Suck it up.

Tell yourself, he is a retard buuuuut, he has other good qualities.
He's cute...or he can play the spoons, like a son of a bitch.

So, yes, everything is beautiful and valuable, when you have zero goals, except to comfort yourself and to disappear in the multiplicity.
A piece of shit has a certain je ne sais quoi - and when the light hits it just right you can almost see it glitter - and if you sniff deeply the odor has a pungent charm to it.
And shit is useful.
It can fertilize flowers for one...and it might help you grow tomatoes.

Bring your loved one a turd bouquet.  

Because being retarded and being smart doesn't matter, if being retarded means you are a good juggler...or you can burp the Star Spangled Banner.

I agree...if your motive is to negate perception, then any perception is good enough.

But let's say, for shits and giggles, you value intelligence.
For some inexplicable reason. Maybe you're weird, or have a smarts fetish.

Let's say imagination and creativity is something you like, it turns you on.

Yes, the imbecile makes you laugh, and might be nice, or may have a large penis...and perhaps he can fart a tune on cue...and perhaps, if you really squint hard enough he might look like George Clooney...but that's not the issue here, huh?

Because the issue is not finding that silver lining in everything, but finding that brilliant star.
In a pickle we might fuck the fat ugly chick from down the block - to empty the nut-sack - but she will not do for the long term, if you like a nice firm buttocks with a dimple.

So, if breeding red hair is your motive, just because you have a fetish, then you don't go to Africa....not unless you are a certifiable imbecile.
No, if red hair is what you like you go where it is more likely to find....where it is more probable.
Not as rare as a virgin in a pool-hall.

Sure, you might find some freak, some Albino African with blue eyes and a red tinged afro with a yellow comb in it, but the odds are not with you.
And if you breed a brunette with carrot top, and you expect a red haired baby, rather than, going out of your way to find him a nice copper-top with matching curtains, to do the deed, then you are either a romantic fool, or just plain stupid.

The rest?

Intellectual dishonesty masking as idealistic integrity.  
Need directs reason.
When the need is not to see reality, as it is, but some fantasy, then close your eyes and swing at the pinata.
Go to a party, have a drink.
Why, the fuck, are you in a philosophy forum when having fun and getting a candy treat is all you ever wanted?
For god's sake....fuck off already!

Inbreeding:
When a close relative has your baby.

They say the European race, the one kicked out of Africa oh so long ago, reached the near extinction population of 10,000 or so.
The clever noes managed to make it through...a bit of inbreeding there.

Ashkenazim Jews were cleansed of the shallow end of their gene pool when Hitler did them a favor.
Did they thank him?

The Enlightenment, according to Mencken, was the product of the Black Plague, when over half the European population was eradicated....leaving behind the few, healthy ones.


Uncontrolled breeding, like monogamy and modern paternalism promotes, propagates unfit mutations...and in time these dominate the gene pool.  
Whenever retards are given the right to bear children, and arms, and fucking any gorilla becomes a fun pastime for the healthy risk-taker, another redneck skinhead Nazi cries.

Females, in the wild are promiscuous, but not overly so.
They'll have the alphas brood, but fuck the omega on the side to keep him bringing her chocolates and flowers.
She might have him babysit as she goes out looking for the beta for a quickie.

It's her way of dealing with environmental changes.
Variety gives one a chance.
If stupidity is in....bingo!!!
She has one ready made.
If having huge balls is the ticket to success, then voila!
She has one of those.  

One year having long arms is a benefit, the next, being blind makes you hot.
It's a crap-shoot.
Let's hope being old becomes fashionable.

Of course, intelligence has proven to be useful across environmental shifts and geographical spaces.
This does not mean nature gives a shit, or that she cares to replicate Goethes.
Sometimes too much brains is a bad thing...like in modern human systems in the west.
Increased suicides for one.  
Here a bit of idiocy makes you coooool.

But what if intelligence (imagination, analytical ability, abstracting ability, pattern recognition) is your thing....it makes you hard or wet?
What if the other's dancing ability is nice but whatever?
What if him being nice is a turn-off because you want a man to take change and make you feel like a woman?
What if being able to whistle using your nose isn't all that important talent for you?
What if running fast is impressive, but, in the end, a bit boring?

Satyr wrote:

So, if you want to breed a trait, let's say red hair, you would take two individuals at random and hope for the best...

Who are you talking to? Is it me?

Can you justify any one of your sentences by anything I've said? Literally, anything.

What's the point, if you've stopped reading what people say?

Moo-ron wrote:

But the value of a group as a whole is what it produces, not what its averages are.

The averages serve as a guide to what it can produce. Certain races cannot produce above a certain level. This is why there are no negroid Nietzsches.

Quote :

Again, the danger of your view is that if you judge a group by the average among all individuals, then you will think that small incremental increases in the average are better than massive leaps in excellence by a few, simply because the average so grossly outnumbers the rare.

You're projecting your progressive sentimentality onto me I'm afraid. I'm discussing reality here, not fairy tales. I'm not at all concerned with correcting or improving reality; I have no inclination to escape what is.

Quote :

Quote :

You're like a woman losing an argument, trying to shift the focus onto personal recriminations to conceal how much of a fucktard you are.

What? Justify the bullshit that comes out of your face.

It's redirection. Have you ever been in an argument, trying to communicate your point to the other and suddenly find that the conversation has shifted to a personal, emotional angle? It becomes less about objectivity and more clouded by subjectivity, emotion.

It's a form of evasiveness. We're not really discussing the subject anymore, I'm just indulging your vindictive backbiting.

Quote :

Accuse you of being a Nazi? --You're an emotional hypocrite. Try to have a conversation without that kind of bullshit. You can answer the question.

Another one is when she accuses her man of what she is most guilty of.

So are you suggesting that the question "And do you think that one race has a lock on everything valuable?" is not suggestive of racial supremacy? That you weren't trying to disguise an accusation?

Perhaps it was a slip on your part?

Quote :

If you value X quality, and you contain valuable Y quality... why not risk an offspring that assembles both qualities? That's the simplistic thought experiment. That's the fucking question of the thread, retard. If you have a problem with it, then say so. As far as I can tell, your answer si that you care to much about the average. How egalitarian of you. Nobody is calling you a Nazi, just a delusional retard. Stop pretending that you hear me say what I haven't said.

So your question has already been answered, above, but lets reduce it to absurdity anyway.

Let's say value X is tallness and value Y is blonde hair. I am tall but I do not have blonde hair. I value blonde hair because it is beautiful. You are asking me would I reproduce with a blonde woman in order to have blonde children, who were tall?
Would I wish to appropriate the genes for blondeness into my genepool?

Now lets back up a bit. Is tallness and blonde hair the only traits that I or a blonde woman would be offering on the genetic table? You see I already answered this, sweetheart.

There is not simply one trait that must be considered, but the entirety of a particular organisms genetic distinctiveness. This... conversation... is not about isolating the gene code for one trait and inserting it into the sequence of the desired organism, but about amalgamating the genetic code of two or more distinct populations; by doing so perhaps resulting in the extinction of the contributors.

What if the blonde woman had a really low IQ? What if her entire family and genetic line shared this propensity for low IQ? What if it was pretty much guaranteed that any child I had with this woman would be as pigshit stupid as she (and you) are?

Beyond that, what guarantee do I have that my children with this woman would be both tall and blonde? Do you understand the concepts underlying heritability and crossbreeding? 1 in 4 might have the desired traits, the rest would not.
I guess I'd have to abort those.

Your question is retarded because if I was trying to breed, uh, upwards with a woman it wouldn't be only one trait I was considering but many. And most of the traits I would be considering would be as close to my own as I could manage.

I'm not an Idealist, I want to replicate what I am, myself. My children would be a reflection of that. I want to refine my type, not destroy it.

don't waste your time attempting a conversation with the old man
he only talks to himself

apaosha wrote:

So are you suggesting that the question "And do you think that one race has a lock on everything valuable?" is not suggestive of racial supremacy? That you weren't trying to disguise an accusation?

That's right. It's purely your emotional reaction that sees a simple question as an accusation of being a Nazi. Your delusion is thinking I said something I didn't say. Like someone who has their lunch money stolen, and now thinks that everyone is trying to steal their lunch money. Get over it, and address what I actually do say.

If valuing some quality (like intelligence) above all others, and which would trump all others when you choose a mate---is there something wrong with that? I certainly haven't said so. If that's what makes you a racial supremacist, then so what?

My only objection would be that there are other values than just intelligence, not that the statistics about average Asian IQ levels are what they actually are.

apaosha wrote:

I'm not at all concerned with correcting or improving reality;

Yes, I got that. But it's not reality-denial to choose a mate with qualities you value, even if they're from another race. You'll choose a mate who won't make your community worse, by choosing a mate already from your community. Is there a problem with choosing a mate who might make the community better, even if it could make it worse? The issue actually isn't whether that's a bad thing, it's whether it's a good thing.

Quote :

Let's say value X is tallness and value Y is blonde hair. I am tall but I do not have blonde hair. I value blonde hair because it is beautiful. You are asking me would I reproduce with a blonde woman in order to have blonde children, who were tall?
Would I wish to appropriate the genes for blondeness into my genepool?

Yes, that's basically the question.

Quote :

What if the blonde woman had a really low IQ? What if her entire family and genetic line shared this propensity for low IQ?

I guess you'd decide whether it's worth the risk. Beauty or intelligence. But if you value the other person enough to take that risk, you would certainly be able to love the child enough no matter how it turned out.

In a simplistic, hypothetical world where beauty is confined to one population, and intelligence the other, are you getting people who are beautiful and intelligent otherwise than by taking that risk?

Quote :

I want to replicate what I am, myself. My children would be a reflection of that.

Then fuck your sister. That's the closest you can get, right?

oh my I can't
hahaha
this thread


the more I read...

Is this for real?
What is it with this left and right mentality?
I thought I was the childish one on here.
Want to ask me a few questions and write me off under a neat lil category?
I love it.

Mo wrote:

Then fuck your sister. That's the closest you can get, right?

LOL

Actually in defense of inbreeding, off the top of my head I can think of Wernher von Braun and Charles Darwin both marrying first cousins. It's like a self-congratulatory notion of victory, total approval of self, other routes harbouring more risk. The uniqueness that made said individual is to a higher degree retained. Enablement of certain reccesive genes unlikely to endure several generations.

Phoneutria's attitude resembles that of a resentful pleb; scoffing at the declared victory. It exemplifies the most trustworthy of endorsements, the kind of which frustrated narracism attributes. Admission of defeat.



They only get away with it due to emphasized parody. Though its eternal appeal maintains; that of the aristocratic ego. Wallowing of the self, not in the sense acension through the tearing down of others(psychologically). Just pride of its pure, untainted nature. It really doesn't get any better than this, or so it feels.



Its of such a grand nature, even stating it is usually akin to petty bullying.

my attitude is because I am a cheeky tart.
give me something reverent, and I'll dress it in a bunny suit.

Wow, such romantic sentiments.
Get a microbiologist to choose your procreation partner.

Remember the old irrational Days when attraction, getting along, being passionate about each other, challenging and complementing each other, shared values and all that useless crap determined, at least to some degree, whom one had Children with?

Thank God the dark ages are gone. I mean, you could have ended up being Close to someone of Another race, thrived with them, and had Babies, never noticing all their problematic genes.

Kovacs wrote:

Remember the old irrational Days when attraction, getting along, being passionate about each other, …

And in those days, as with wild animals we see a natural bias* towards likeliness and not towards unlikeliness. It takes unhealthy, un-natural ideals like equality to infest the mind of someone to behave otherwise. It takes concerted propaganda to push people towards unlikeliness in mating preferences.

For example, you have to train the average western female to become obnoxious in behavior, and lose all her femininity, so much that you manufacture a bias towards females from other ethnicities who are not infected - yet - with that disease of the mind. And even given that, the results are limited.

*A bias is not necessarily an absolute - to not confuse the witless.


Cross-breeding would destroy all qualities in individuals which are recessive (not dominant, requires both alleles to affect the phenotype).
Those recessive genes had to go through a long process of selection to become so wide-spread within a population, as to be found on both alleles, as to change the phenotype.

Kovacs wrote:

Wow, such romantic sentiments.
Get a microbiologist to choose your procreation partner.

Going in for the hair or blood sample is a second date kind of thing.

...Have I been doing it wrong?

Kovacs wrote:

Wow, such romantic sentiments.
Get a microbiologist to choose your procreation partner.

Remember the old irrational Days when attraction, getting along, being passionate about each other, challenging and complementing each other, shared values and all that useless crap determined, at least to some degree, whom one had Children with?

Thank God the dark ages are gone.   I mean, you could have ended up being Close to someone of Another race, thrived with them, and had Babies, never noticing all their problematic genes.

LMAO
killing
it

Mo wrote:

apaosha wrote:

So are you suggesting that the question "And do you think that one race has a lock on everything valuable?" is not suggestive of racial supremacy? That you weren't trying to disguise an accusation?

That's right. It's purely your emotional reaction that sees a simple question as an accusation of being a Nazi. Your delusion is thinking I said something I didn't say. Like someone who has their lunch money stolen, and now thinks that everyone is trying to steal their lunch money. Get over it, and address what I actually do say.

There's that girlish evasiveness again. Turning the tables; it continues.

Listen, I realize your master stroke got interrupted but you needn't be such a bitch about it. I only have so much patience for this resentful nonsense. The least you could do is have the courage to own up, fag.

I'm gonna ask this again: "And do you think that one race has a lock on everything valuable?" Why did you ask this question and where were you intending to go with the answer?
Go both routes. Assume I answered both yes and no. Show me both sides of the coin you were trying to sell me.

If you can't do this, then just fuck off back to the barn.

Quote :

If valuing some quality (like intelligence) above all others, and which would trump all others when you choose a mate---is there something wrong with that? I certainly haven't said so. If that's what makes you a racial supremacist, then so what?

People don't go looking for one trait above others, they look for the right traits in the right combinations, as evidence of genetic fitness according to their individual peculiarities.

They also look for undesirable traits, whose presence may trump the presence of any other traits. Stupidity, for example. That one whiff of corruption can spoil a whole garden of flowers.

Quote :

Yes, I got that. But it's not reality-denial to choose a mate with qualities you value, even if they're from another race. You'll choose a mate who won't make your community worse, by choosing a mate already from your community. Is there a problem with choosing a mate who might make the community better, even if it could make it worse? The issue actually isn't whether that's a bad thing, it's whether it's a good thing.

It's not a matter of reality-denial, cupcake. It's a matter of ones disposition toward the self. A desire to improve or correct the self, reality, exposes ones own disposition towards the self... there is an admittance of a flaw, resentment for this flaw and a way in which this flaw may be cured... which exposes the nature of the dissatisfaction.

The issue, actually, is that with sufficient miscegenation there will not be a "community" that is recognizably mine left. Instead there will be a selection of mongrels, all with varied and conflicting ancestry, disconnected from their past. No "community" is made better by being diluted and splintered through crossbreeding it's genetic distinctiveness with other "communities". My goal is to propagate my genetic distinctiveness. I am satisfied by my self, my reality, my race.

Your purported utilitarianism betrays a nihilistic self-hatred of your own race, your own distinctiveness. Of the Self; reproduction is a finite organism's response to mortality. A will to power against death. The replication of the self and it's projection beyond the immediate into the future. The self is itself the projection of a past into the present, the past as it moves into the future. An organism that cannot reproduce it's genetic distinctiveness becomes extinct.

My approach to "bettering" my "community" (what is this faggot language you use: say what you mean) is not to act in conflict with my past, as that which made me possible, but to build upon that foundation. To take my own peculiarities as they emerge from my own unique becoming and ancestry and develop them down their pre-existing channels.

Refinement of type. Raising of type.

Quote :

I guess you'd decide whether it's worth the risk. Beauty or intelligence. But if you value the other person enough to take that risk, you would certainly be able to love the child enough no matter how it turned out.

In a simplistic, hypothetical world where beauty is confined to one population, and intelligence the other, are you getting people who are beautiful and intelligent otherwise than by taking that risk?

Your stuck on the premise of one or two traits for each organism. What results is a fucking strawman of your own devising. As if a race is defined only by intelligence, or blond hair, or beauty, or tallness. The Blonde race, the Intelligent race. The Brown race, perhaps? It's a simplistic and primitive view which typifies you.

From your example, you're getting a lot of unfit hybrids who will be a burden on the society in general, with a small minority of individuals with the desired traits. Meaning that you'd need to produce several generations of such hybrids via selective breeding, culling the ones with undesirable traits until you had a pure strain that would only produce those desired traits and retained no recessive genes from it's imperfect ancestry.
At which point, if you wanted to retain those desired traits you would need to ensure that no out-group breeding, no miscegenation took place. That is, if you were concerned with the establishment of a higher breed and not simply the deconstruction of an existing one.

Do you get me? And do you understand the full implications of what you are asking, especially with respect to the currently existing races? You just stood on your own head, which is hilarious.

So other than that is it possible for you to understand genetic combinations in a way that isn't reduced to the combination of only two traits, and is it possible for you to understand that even when only two traits are looked at in crossbreeding attempts, that there will still be high variation in the offspring which will require culling and eventual selective in-group breeding? There's more to the human genome than tallness and blondeness, or beauty and intelligence. And in one particular race, all four already coincide.

I mean I knew you were a barnyard animal by where you came from, but there's no.... nuance to you.

Quote :

Quote :

I want to replicate what I am, myself. My children would be a reflection of that.

Then fuck your sister. That's the closest you can get, right?

Yes we're done here.

Kovacs wrote:

Wow, such romantic sentiments.
Get a microbiologist to choose your procreation partner.

Remember the old irrational Days when attraction, getting along, being passionate about each other, challenging and complementing each other, shared values and all that useless crap determined, at least to some degree, whom one had Children with?

Thank God the dark ages are gone. I mean, you could have ended up being Close to someone of Another race, thrived with them, and had Babies, never noticing all their problematic genes.

I'm reminded of how the aristocracy selects it's marriage partners. They don't follow animal instincts, but instead take careful consideration of a candidates ancestry and personal history to determine whether they are suitable.

It seems to me that basing a family around transient chemical inebriation is not gonna work out well, even if it did make you possible in the first place.