You have to believe a few things >Indigenous populations had a desire to spread and leave their homeland - where have we seen this with present indigenous tribes
Never have we seen Papua New Guinean tribes travel to Australia or spread out from their islands. There is no desire for them to do so because their populations never grow outside of their means.
Also, most of their creation myths are heavily tied to their present occupying lands.
>Indigenous populations were capable of building rafts strong enough to pass through vast waters that separated landmasses - especially Australia
This is perhaps the biggest one. Have we ever seen a Papua New Guinean or African tribe construct a means of transport sturdy and reliable enough to cross vast swathes of water - especially to reach Australia?
No, we have not. Why should we believe humans were capable of doing this during the great human migration?
>There have been no other animals or insects in history to spread so wildly without human interference or importation Speaks for itself.
>This is because the body of such animals struggle in other climates and ecosystems. Somehow humans are supposed to be any different
>Neanderthals 'suddenly die out' despite still being able to physically rival primitive tribes and that's not accounting for the fact that it's really fucking hard for such an able species to go extinct without a big environmental cause
I struggle to believe that all humans originate from Africa. It doesn't make any sense to me.
Either there a categories of 'humans' with a different subspecie origin (like neandertahls etc) or all creatures are the result of some spiritual or godly providence and we physically manifest that
Well if you go by evolutions logic, people should of been born everywhere, not just one spot with long term migration.
Jackson Scott
That doesn't make sense. Shouldn't human birth be localised to their species of origin?
Oliver Russell
It's fairly obvious
>whites came from Antarctica
Joseph Harris
So what do you think happened? Humans developed independently on Australia and we just happen to be able to interbreed with them? Of course they must have traveled across by boat, it's literally the only possible way for there to be aboriginal Australians. And the origin in Africa is easily proven by the genetic distance between Africans of different types and between non-africans. The distance between African groups is larger because they've had more time to develop differences because they were there / separate from other groups for a longer time.
Christian White
Also here is another one
>Indigenous tribes from all over Earth use almost the exact same tools and have very similar traditions and cultural practices >All except for indigenous peoples in Europe and the Middle East
This shit makes no sense
Kevin White
>Of course they must have traveled across by boat, it's literally the only possible way for there to be aboriginal Australians.
Where is the evidence that any indigenous tribe from Africa had the technology to perform such a feat?
Bentley Watson
Tribal people left behind are those more primitive, the smarter, better-evolved man left the rest behind, and those men became the travelers and conquerors. Also, you're ignoring that primitive nomadic peoples did and still do exist.
Papua New Guinea and Australia were once one continent, the abos didn't need to build boats
Mason Roberts
That there are humans living on Australia. You don't think they swam there do you? The Polynesians had boats, why is it so crazy to think some of them or their ancestors sailed to Australia?
Isaiah Reed
>Papua New Guinea and Australia were once one continent, the abos didn't need to build boats
Wasn't that long before human migration?
Also isn't it weird that these people would notice the slow drifting away of their neighboring tribes
Jaxon Garcia
Because there is literally no evidence past or present that they were capable of constructing naval transport that was sturdy enough to travel long distances
Jaxon Jones
Whites used to sacrifice animals and wear paint and live in huts too. We just don't see it anymore because more civilized whites (and Semitic people) wiped them out
>Aboriginals and PNG natives >American Indians >More advanced and smarter than African tribes
?
Juan Phillips
i have problems believing evolution, how do squinted eyes help you survive better in Asia. how could so much genetic change happen in just 5000 years of separation?
Kevin Reed
>Either You're not very creative, that you can only think of those two alternatives.
>This is because the body of such animals struggle in other climates and ecosystems. Somehow humans are supposed to be any different Tool use gives us advantages beyond the limits of our biology. Are you unaware that we're still in the same situation today? We can't survive in cold climates without clothing and fire.
It's possible that the larger migration was due to advanced technology that was lost during a global catastrophe, but it still starts with the same common origin.
Again, what do you think happened? Aliens abducted them and dropped them on Australia?
Henry Adams
>Whites used to sacrifice animals and wear paint and live in huts too. We just don't see it anymore because more civilized whites (and Semitic people) wiped them out
And these more civilized people sprang out of nowhere? You realize that 'civilized' people aren't randomly born but taught? Most people born with differing ideas of social organization are indoctrinated to accept the prevailing one. It's very, very hard for a culture to change
Gabriel Myers
It's eyelid fat, not "squinted eyes". It helps keep you warm in colder, northern climates. Mongolian and Eskimo populations have such features.
Aaron Flores
Nice now show me Aboriginals doing the same thing.
Pro-tip: You can't.
>Again, what do you think happened? Aliens abducted them and dropped them on Australia?
Does the absence of evidence force me to draw a conclusion?
Cameron Nelson
These weren't exactly organized tribes seeking to expand their territory, but nomadic peoples just going where the food source goes or a new one can be found. This is the reason why the time scale for migration is hundreds of thousands of years, not thousands.
The current inter-glacial began ~10,000 years ago, before that the sea level was considerably lower. The trip to Australia would have been across shorter spans of water because there was more land in the South Pacific that is now sunken.
Luis Bell
>>Indigenous populations had a desire to spread and leave their homeland - where have we seen this with present indigenous tribes
The barbarian invasions? The Sea Peoples?
The Papuans aren't nomadic to begin with in the same way as tribes in Central Asia were. Those fuckers got around closer to our own time.
>Also, most of their creation myths are heavily tied to their present occupying lands.
The Sioux hold the Black Hills to be sacred -- "Paha Sapa" they call it. Every part of the buffalo was "sacred" too. But they were only in the Great Plains about 100 to 200 years longer than the white man was. Moreover there is almost nothing of their past in the woods of modern Wisconsin & Minnesota in their myths. When you don't have a written history, it seems pretty easy for things to shift.
Dominic Bell
It' still astounds me that No Africans made it to Madagascar.
James Perez
Boats are made out of wood Bruce, wood decomposes
Isaiah Scott
Not if its possible that every race was born at once and didnt develope.
Oliver Jackson
I don't understand your point. I'd rank nomadic Injuns as the smartest of the three, then Africans, then abos, but I don't see what difference that makes. The point is that they are all primitive, but you see differences in terms of how they operate.
Are you denying human evolution now? Obviously there is a transition from a purely primitive population to one that contains a few smarter members (probably better at making traps or planning things) to eventually a more advanced population. Culture isn't everything.
Robert Powell
northern Europe has a cold climate. why didn't European populations develop eyelid fat.
Sebastian Hernandez
>You're not very creative, that you can only think of those two alternatives.
What are some others leaf? So far you strike me as an evangelist of the prevailing idea.
>It's possible that the larger migration was due to advanced technology that was lost during a global catastrophe, but it still starts with the same common origin.
Lots of statements here but where's your evidence? Why don't we see remnants of this evolving technology in some of the more primitive tribes?
The advance in technology has to presuppose the move to a hard environment, otherwise, guess what, the people migrating die.
Joshua Taylor
>humans develop somewhere on the earth >??? >humans now on both australia and not-australia
name one ??? that doesn't include humans crossing an ocean.
Sebastian Peterson
is it bad to be 9% neanderthal?
Oliver Phillips
>indigenous populations had no desire to spread Irrelevant, their is archeological evidence of three waves of migrations of the human race.
>we didn't see it, therefor it did not happen The archipelago at SE Asia was not always like that, there used to be land bridges connecting those islands, all the way to Australia I believe. They did build boats, how do you think tribes settled every hospitable island out in the Pacific Ocean? Aliens?
>Humans do not adapt Our intelligence is the reason we were able to ADAPT to our different range of environment. This is something every animal experiences. Even then, the Sahara was not always desert, there used to be a forrest there, and one of the reasons humans went out of Africa.
>Neaderthalensis There are multiple theories as to what happenes with them, the most plausible answer is that their subspecies was lost through inbreeding. The fact that sub-Saharan Africans lack neanderthal genes should nudge at this
Brandon Price
Both the Sami in Scandinavia and the Khoisan in Africa have them
Jeremiah Campbell
>The Papuans aren't nomadic to begin with in the same way as tribes in Central Asia were. Those fuckers got around closer to our own time.
What influences a tribe to become nomadic?
Rest of your post is good. Thanks.
Thanks this is good stuff.
Elijah Peterson
no one mutated for a gene for that to happen, and even if it did it didn't provide a great enough advantage to have any influence in the gene pool. Simple.
Jason Reyes
a professor made a reed boat and went from south america to africa. its basically a shoddy row boat thingy made of a bunch of reeds just tied together at the ends and no sail just a stick to paddle with
he made the trip 2 times 1 of which was supervised to prove he did it with no assistance
Xavier Hughes
>I'd rank nomadic Injuns as the smartest of the three, then Africans, then abos
There's a contradiction with your initial post.
>Tribal people left behind are those more primitive, the smarter, better-evolved man left the rest behind,
Abos were smarter than the initial African tribes they "left behind"?
Also, what do you have to suggest that Injuns are more advanced in warfare than the other two? They use practically the same tools.
Robert Moore
Round eye here. I am not buying the eyelid fat to keep your eyeballs warm in winter story. It's just vestigial reptilianism. Slant eyes have no souls like reptiles.
Ian Campbell
No, neanderthal were the superior species, but sapiens were basically the niggers/muslims of their time and outbred them to death.
Luis Brown
the sami are a finno ugric people like the udmurts and maris from russia.
Caleb Miller
>Are you denying human evolution now? The advance in technology must presuppose the advance to new terrain. If a tribe engineers something new, it benefits the whole tribe, not a special select subset within it that then abandons the rest for being less intelligent. That's the picture you're painting and it doesn't make sense.
>Are you denying human evolution now? Oh no, what if I am?
William Perez
>no one mutated for a gene for that to happen, and even if it did it didn't provide a great enough advantage to have any influence in the gene pool. Simple. Seems like a convenient bullshit explanation considering Scandinavians and other Asians from separate parts of the world developed them, and yet others didn't.
Jonathan Diaz
maybe the human race is actually way older than people thought?
Lincoln Cox
one day the out of africa theory will be discredited and we will all worship our native american ancestors whom we ALL evolved from
Brandon Ward
That explanation was working on the explanation of "if". If Scandanavians did not develop eyelid fat, if would be for that reason. You have a very poor comprehension of natural selection.
>Irrelevant, their is archeological evidence of three waves of migrations of the human race.
What caused the three waves?
James Cook
We don't find fossils of anatomically correct humans during the time of Pangea. They are only found around up to 200k years ago.
Adam Russell
If something is a benefit to one people in similar conditions, then logic follows that it would be beneficial to another people in similar conditions. Natural selection still follows rules of logic and not randomness like you suggest.
Benjamin Evans
so do genetic mutations happen randomly? or do they happen in response to environmental changes?
Adam Long
What contradiction did I make? The only one making claim of a direct link between population movement and intelligence is you, I was just providing it as one counter-example to your claim. It's not applicable in all cases; some Asian populations were very smart but limited in range, some people like to move because they're primitive and just follow food around.
Not sure what warfare has to do with it. I'm making the assumption based on IQ tests and other things available to us now, but I don't particularly care exactly which group is more advanced than the next
William Sullivan
Irrelevant. Ask an antropologist, however even if there isn't an indisputable theory on why, it doesn't contradict the fact that it happened.
Josiah Bennett
>Does anyone else have problems believing the human migration story?
It's been disproven by modern genetics, and Chinese archeologists have disputed it for decades based on evidence from yellow river valley sites.
Kayden Phillips
Completely random. Extremely rarely a mutation occurs that has a significant impact on the gene pool. 99% of mutations actually do nothing.
Jaxon Harris
>The advance in technology must presuppose the advance to new terrain. If a tribe engineers something new, it benefits the whole tribe, not a special select subset within it that then abandons the rest for being less intelligent. That's the picture you're painting and it doesn't make sense. Not at all. A population could live in the same physical location but uncover a new ecological niche. E.g., discovery of fire could have come anywhere with things to burn, and presumably it came from one of the most intelligent humans/proto-humans of the time.
Sebastian Morales
You can claim it's irrelevant all you want but it doesn't make it irrelevant. Especially if it occurred in "three waves", which suggest there was a primary cause.
Evidence on ancient history is already sketchy, with logic filling the gaps. Evidence beyond ancient history is even worse. The relevancy of my question is directly tied to the logic we employ to fill the gaps.
Benjamin Green
>he didn't read my reasons There needs to be that mutation in order for that trait to take effect. Those two populations are in different gene pools.
Chase Williams
they're random. if someone with a mutation reproduces, they have a chance of passing it on. the more beneficial a mutation turns out to be for an environment, the higher the chance that individual has of passing off the mutation
Nicholas Myers
>It's been disproven by modern genetics, and Chinese archeologists have disputed it for decades based on evidence from yellow river valley sites.
Can you provide some sources on this?
Ryan Green
Which doesn't contradict the fact that it happened.
Bentley Hall
(((out of afrika))) (((everyone is niggers, goy, except the chosen...)))
Juan Gutierrez
Holy shit boats are not a super advanced invention that only the master races.
Also people move and spread out more then there's fucking virgin unoccupied land to go to. If there's already people all around you, you can't just immigrate into your neighbor's territory whenever you feel like it.
What are you talking about? Why would people appear in multiple places at once? I see no support for that in evolution whatsoever
Liam Campbell
Yes. And of course more often than not mutations don't really affect the phenotype (physical attributes). When they do, it is more often than not deleterious to the organisms survival.
Carson Lee
>Whites used to sacrifice animals and wear paint and live in huts COMPLETE fucking bullshit. It's embarrassing you believe the fucking cave man jewshit.
Henry Barnes
This
Benjamin Harris
>the fact that it happened I highly doubt there's indisputable evidence it happened without speculation filling gaps.
So you're saying a one member in a tribe needs to randomly develop a beneficial mutation which the people of his tribe then select for its usefulness (assuming its usefulness is discovered within this one member's lifetime and that this one member isn't shunned for 'looking different').
We are then expected to believe that random mutations can compound to such a degree that it changes the entire biological structure of an organism to something as useful as the human body is today without some divine intervention or inevitability of the laws of the universe? And yet, the same proponents of evolution theory also hold the universe is deterministic but human existence is not inevitable.
Checks out.
Samuel Stewart
t. Slav that thinks he's teh tr00 Aryan masterrace :^)
Jason Ortiz
>Because there is literally no evidence past or present that they were capable of constructing naval transport that was sturdy enough to travel long distances
Only the distances weren't that far when sealevels were much lower... Not only that, but there were organisms in the genus Homo that already colonized Southeast Asia a long time ago, they shrunk. Current suggestions argue that there were only a few waves of people that cross what would be now Indonesia to Australia. Likely by being in boats that were subsequently pulled astray by currents.
It's complex, which is why It can be very disingenuous to oversimplify the situation.
Who cares that much. I don't understand why people are so offended by the Out of Africa theory. I mean, we came from pond scum and fish too. This theory doesn't say anything positive about niggers.
Neanderthals were the good ones. Sapiens were the niggers, and the niggers won unfortunately.
Christopher Bell
>So you're saying a one member in a tribe needs to randomly develop a beneficial mutation which the people of his tribe then select for its usefulness (assuming its usefulness is discovered within this one member's lifetime and that this one member isn't shunned for 'looking different'). >We are then expected to believe that random mutations can compound to such a degree that it changes the entire biological structure of an organism to something as useful as the human body is today without some divine intervention or inevitability of the laws of the universe? And yet, the same proponents of evolution theory also hold the universe is deterministic but human existence is not inevitable.
You're assuming
1. Any mutation will have a detrimental component alongside its positive component 2. Any unnoticed mutation will not be spread even though there is no reason the person bearing it wouldn't have the same reproductive odds as anyone else
William Perez
Umm... how the fuck do you think people got to Hawaii and Easter Island?
Carter Brown
comments like these remind me how retarded Sup Forums is
Easton Reed
Quit being stormfront level retarded. It's from the out of Africa theory that we know that humans from Africa are different from humans outside of africa
David Bennett
Improbable events on a long enough time scale are inevitable.
Aaron Cox
>I don't understand why people are so offended by the Out of Africa theory
because it's faulty science being promoted to encourage race mixing
it's a hypothesis taught as fact, multiregional origin hypothesis isn't normally taught until 3rd year anthropology
Juan Rogers
wtf I thought it was a shame being neanderthal bc people has usually 2-4% neanderthal DNA
Matthew Young
No. Niggers literally have 0 neanderthal genes, and that's why they're retardo savages who can't even think correctly, wear pants around their waist, and aim a weapon.
Adam Reyes
I'm not assuming either of these things.
>1. Any mutation will have a detrimental component alongside its positive component Never insinuated or claimed this. However, many features that have developed would arguable have had a negative component in terms of the 'differences' associated with it and their people at the time.
>2. Any unnoticed mutation will not be spread even though there is no reason the person bearing it wouldn't have the same reproductive odds as anyone else Never claimed this. They wouldn't have better reproductive and may, in some circumstances, have worse odds. That adds to the improbabilistic nature of useful mutations becoming pervasive.
Anthony Wood
>What influences a tribe to become nomadic?
It seems like the answer both then and now is "food." But I would guess they were all at least semi-nomadic until certain groups found more or less plentiful food supplies, in local produce (let's say berries or fruit falling from trees) and local animals that were easy to kill with improvised tools.
Other people did not have those areas and were "nomadic" either to invade those plentiful areas or find their own. Some would have followed the megafauna.
The Apache migrated from modern-day Canada to the American Southwest very recently -- probably within 50 years of before or after the Spanish Conquest. That is basically half of the North American Continent, a huge amount of territory to cover, and in doing so they crossed plenty of decent lands (and judging by how the Spanish found them, were perfectly capable of fighting to take it). Unlike some other post-Columbian migrations, this one seems to have had no connection at all to the "pressures" of Europeans.
It's not really clear why they did it or why they left or why they stopped where they did but I suspect things like this were happening all the time, for 10,000 years and longer than that before in Asia.
Adam Hall
How does it promote race mixing at all?
And my anthro class taught both of them simultaneously and said the truth is actually a combo of both.
Wave 1 out of africa: Spread out from Africa and evolved into various shit like neanderthals.
Wave 2 out of africa: Spread out from Africa and bred with the shit that had evolved from wave 1
No, it's a good thing. More the better.
Benjamin Cook
His assumption that anyone is 'offended' is all you need to know about his partisanship. Too much 'science' has a hidden political agenda nowadays
Carter Collins
There is no speculation of it happening, the only 'speculation' there would be is the matter of why.
>checks out Indeed. You have a very poor comprehension of how evolution works. The trait you see Easterners have? That couldn't have happened without a genetic mutation occuring altering that individual. It either happened to be a beneficial gene in one way or another that it became ubiquitous in that region. There does exist something called convergent evolution, that being different species, that are unrelated, happen to look similar based on the advantages in their environment. For example, the dolphin and shark. One's a mammal, the other a fish, significanty unrelated species, however look quite similar. Well, it just so happens that that anatomy is quite beneficial for a marine predator to have, appropriately that body figure is found across multiple species. This could assist in explaining why two different polulations both obtained the extra fat under their eyelids. In both cases, there needs to be that mutation. You treat natural selection as if it were voodoo with your inclusion of unecessary descriptions. Research the checkered moths. There doesn't need to be any intervention for evolution to work.
Tyler Gutierrez
Maybe... the environment is different. Plains and iceburgs VS forests. Hm. I suppose yurt construction doesn't explain it.
>where's your evidence? because no one from an advanced civilization would survive such a cataclysm, only the primitive people who are already living off the land will survive. I'm not sure it's a sufficient explanation, but the glaciers destroyed absolutely everything they passed over. Not a spec of man-made object would survive. It's already difficult to find evidence beyond a certain time because the preservation of objects often requires very rare circumstances. It's possible that no man-made object could survive however many tens of thousands of years. ... Göbekli Tepe did, though, and that's a bit of an enigma. A lot of this is from what I've heard from Graham Hancock. That's his theory.
>What are some others leaf? I already gave you an example of an alternative. One origin, branched out, a few of those branches rejoined. I guess it's a variation on your first one though. I believe the current theory is that humans interbred with different [species that were genetic cousins to humans] that were local to those areas. So it's not like they were completely separate, it's just they had a common ancestor farther back.
Human life somehow independently evolving in different locations. I'm under the impression that the odds for that are nearly impossible.
Jason Parker
>Improbable events on a long enough time scale are inevitable. That's actually not true. If something is improbable, there's nothing to say that it will eventually happen because it is, as it is titled, improbable of ever occurring.
Jack Parker
Fuck off. People clearly are offended by it.
And I'm racist as shit anyway.
Jose Campbell
What would be negative about being a guy that knows how to make fire? A guy that figures out how to sharpen a spear? A guy that figures out how to create paintings with primitive dyes?
It's estimated that 20% of men end up impregnating women, assuming a positive trait does not improve ones fitness. 1 in 5 odds are not that bad.
Tyler Parker
it's promoted for the belief of >we're all only 60,000 years separated
Anthony James
No. If something is improbable it has low probability of occurring in any given instance, but given sufficient time (sufficient instances), the probability of an improbable event becomes 1. As in, as the number of instances approaches larger and larger numbers the improbable event becomes inevitable.
Nathan Richardson
You think species spontaneously spawn at the same time all through out the globe?
Come now, you can do better.
Nathaniel Hall
>There is no speculation of it happening, the only 'speculation' there would be is the matter of why. That you would even insinuate that it's an 'indisputable fact' tells me enough about your dishonest assertions.
Sure, but now we're running on probabilities again. To claim that mutations are random, firstly, and then become pervasive, secondly, through beneficial selection is fine
>he trait you see Easterners have? That couldn't have happened without a genetic mutation occuring altering that individual. It either happened to be a beneficial gene in one way or another that it became ubiquitous in that region. Yes and this statement operates on the premise I'm challenging. Namely, that it fails to account for the challenges of probability. Namely, it is improbable for a beneficial mutation to occur, firstly, considering that it is 'random' (if you don't assert it is random, then we may get somewhere. This is my primary objection). Secondly, that a mutation (no matter how beneficial it may be) is not automatically accepted within a species for the reasons I've stated above. This adds to the improbabilistic nature of beneficial mutations developing and spreading.
>Well, it just so happens that that anatomy is quite beneficial for a marine predator to have, appropriately that body figure is found across multiple species. This could assist in explaining why two different polulations both obtained the extra fat under their eyelids. This only adds to my argument that mutations cannot be random.
>In both cases, there needs to be that mutation And it seems you agree with me.
Nonetheless, you can continue assuming superior knowledge by denigrating my "poor comprehension" with every post. You have a weak mind.
Adrian Jenkins
Oh. Well. I guess your point isn't completely nonsensical.
But I have never seen any argument along the lines of >we're all only 60,000 years separated >so therefore racemixing is fine
I mean, the current argument we actually see is >There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO difference at all between races, and races don't exist at all.
Jeremiah Moore
Anyone who denies Out of Africa is an idiot. Like there is no reason to deny something that has tons of evidence pointing to a recent African origin. The problem with these threads is that everyone in them, has never took the time to actually look at the research regarding human migration, so you get strange and wrong things being said here.
Juan Torres
Nobody (or barely anyone) is even discussing the racial ramifications you fuckwit. Fuck off
Andrew Stewart
the part i have problems is with the fact that the continents, geography and coastlines would remain in the same place for so long for anybody to apply some sort of modern patterns to them
Sebastian Martin
>What would be negative about being a guy that knows how to make fire? A guy that figures out how to sharpen a spear? A guy that figures out how to create paintings with primitive dyes?
These are pretty dishonest examples because they reside in intellect (or arguably knowledge) and aren't as easily identifiable.
How about this
>A guy waking up with thin eye slits >A guy waking up with a big nose >A guy waking up with a differently shaped face >A guy waking up with five fingers >A guy waking up with a hand, a foot, ears anything
Dominic Hall
Evolution irl isn't like pokemon evolution
Jason Martinez
Because there is no political agenda behind out of Africa, you are offended by it because for some reason, leftists like to use the theory as some weird "we are all Africans" propaganda. And of course you are offended by it, that's why you say strange shit like
>because it's faulty science being promoted to encourage race mixing
Yeah right. If lefties wanted to promote race mixing, they would be talking about how whites people don't exist because white people are actually all racially mixed descendants from 3 ancestral populations.
Camden Lewis
>If something is improbable it has low probability of occurring in any given instance, but given sufficient time (sufficient instances), the probability of an improbable event becomes 1.
>given enough time an improbability becomes certainty
This makes no logical sense to me, especially if we take your first sentence
>If something is improbable it has low probability of occurring in any given instance
Yet, these instances compounded over a long time somehow results in an inevitability? That seems to assume that one instance affects the others, which is contradictory to your first sentence. Whether an event occurs in day 1 or day 1 million doesn't change the chance of it occurring.
Christopher Murphy
Or, you know, it could just be non-experts shooting the shit, talking and learning.
I sincerely hope you choke on a bag of monkey cum, though.
