What's up guys, I am looking to watch a real dialogue between a left and right intellectual.
State your positions clearly and argue in favour of them. As an exercise in logic you should be able to articulate and defend any political position, no matter how ridiculous, if it has been applied in the past or can be reasoned out to maybe work in some technologically advanced future.
Fuck hillary and fuck white people
You're not in Kansas anymore
>I am looking to watch a real dialogue between a left and right intellectual.
ur in the rong hood mothafucker
Abortion is murder.
1: A human's life begins at conception.
>the moment the sperm meets the egg, a new distinct human life begins, this is scientifically undeniable.
>appeals to nebulous jargon like "personhood" only needlessly complicates the issue, when we already have a black and white moment to point to scientifically for when a human's life begins.
2: murder is the intentional unlawful and/or immoral taking of a human life
>some would argue it's not murder if it's not illegal, however, that's absurd.
>for instance: if you take an innocent person out to some anarchic land without laws and kill them, would that not be murder? (it would)
3: it is immoral to intentionally kill an innocent human being
>assumption
4: the child in the womb is innocent
>a person is either guilty or innocent, since the child cannot make moral choices at this stage, it can't choose to do evil.
5: therefore, abortion is murder
come at me, leftist scum
its over Drumpfkins
Oh yeah, you've definitely came to the right place
>this is scientifically undeniable
left a lot of room there for debate with your unsourced claim eh lad
The mental gymnastics that have to be made for people to think abortion isn't murder just sickens me
>but it wouldn't live on its own, so that means killing it early is fine!
that doesn't even support your claim lmao
go google something else to confirm your bias
buckley/vidal segments were the last real professional debates between left & right before everything became arguments and punditry
is the fertilized human egg human?
>yes
are they alive?
>yes
therefore, they are a human life
did this complete human life exist the moment before conception?
>no
therefore, the human life begins the moment of conception
As a white woman, its better for me to adopt, to provide opportunity to a child who has none. why create new life when there are so many in need?
this is the worst attempted application of logic I have seen all week
>didn't support your claim lmao
did you even read skim them?
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
if it's such bad logic, refute it
A right leaning libertarian is the optimal way for a society to develope. Freedome should be the most upheld principle. Authoritarianism just moves you more left.
No. Unless you adopt a newborn then don't waste your time on a small child whose too old.
Pop out your own, trust me it's better in the long run. And don't forget most of the orphans are non-white and we already have way too many of those.
> intellectual
What's that?
Why exactly do we have "way too many" non-whites? Care to explain that rationally sweetie? or anything else in your post?
What is
>Legal abortion
>Trans rights
>Large social nets
>loss of Billions of tax incentives to grow society
>World wide economic policy and military force to insure your currency remains dominant and increases domestic standard of living
You want to be libertarian, accept the good with the bad
are you really going to defend the murder is wrong position?
either all murder is wrong, or murder is sometimes justified.
I don't think anyone claims abortion isn't murder, the arguments in favour of it are simply valuing the life of the mother over the child, since the child cannot survive without the mother's assistance and extra resources. It seems cruel and economically unsound to force the poor into delivering their children, this creates generational poverty.
I feel like you cannot really defend the position of:
>"poor people should be encouraged to have less children and build more resources for themselves first"
So you force it to be a red herring ethical discussion. Are you a total pacifist who rejects self-defense? Understand the argument being made here is one of self-defense, the millions of babies born to these mothers would grow up to be criminals, poor, undereducated and underemployed and ultimately a threat and drain on social resources. Their parents have even less of a chance to escape their debt and poverty cycle because there is another mouth to feed, often fathers in these situations feel trapped and doomed so they abandon their responsibilities or attempt a quick shortcut to wealth through crime, exacerbating all previously mentioned underlying problems.
If your true goal was to reduce abortion, you would raise income levels for the bottom 30% of society, where I would wager the majority of your abortions happen.
notice that the leftist doesn't even bother attempting to offer up a counterargument or refutation, it just scoffs
>are you kidding me?!
Look, I'm willing to grant that it's murder. The real issue is: Who's gonna stop me?
>left intellectual
Are they the same as mexican intellectuals?
Why is all murder wrong? If someone has never had any experiences why should it matter if I kill them?
The state
>are you really going to defend the murder is wrong position?
yes
>either all murder is wrong, or murder is sometimes justified.
there is no such thing as a justified murder in an objective sense, if it's justified, then it's not actually murder.
what i mean is the killing could be legally unjustified, but morally justified
(self defense in a state where you have no right to stand your ground for instance)
>I don't think anyone claims abortion isn't murder
i'd say 95% of pro-choice proponents claim it
>ITS JUST A CLUMP OF CELLS ITS NOT HUMAN REE
>EXITING THE WOMB CONFERS PERSONHOOD!
>Understand the argument being made here is one of self-defense, the millions of babies born to these mothers would grow up to be criminals, poor, undereducated and underemployed and ultimately a threat and drain on social resources.
that's not necessarily true. it's possible they would, it may even be statistically very likely they would, but it's not a certainty.
you granted that it's murder earlier, should all people who contribute to society less than the average person be slaughtered?
Gas the kikes. Race war now.
I think the argument works in reverse, the MORE experience you've had, the less you need to live. You've had the opportunity - old need to die, babies enshrined?
>why is murder wrong?
yeah, this is the only point where i bring my religion into it.
my religion tells me that murder is wrong.
atheists usually hold to this view too though, even though it's irrational in their worldview.
props to you for intellectual consistency
A third way is quite simple, you could eliminate the need for a paid military and simply create a government fatherhood program, or a defence corporation if you feel the government would fuck it up.
Either way, create an organisation bootstrapped by private capital, taxes or initial contracts which:
>adopts unwanted children
>educates and raises them as soldiers
They are enlisted employees until say age 30, trained for 15 years and serving in a full capacity for another 15, after which point they are released from their contracts (or have the option to extend) into the general population as a full citizen. They will get wages, living quarters, the ability to specialise and so on. They will act first as an auxiliary support force to police and military, then later as the program expands as the defence forces of the nation.
You have saved aborted babies and provided a benefit to the country. This idea would not be supported by the public at large or the constitution as it is written, so you will struggle to pass the amendments required. We are also quickly moving towards a robotic replacement for humans in these types of work positions, so this plan would've been a lot more successful if applied about 50 years ago, when the abortion debate really hit the judicial system.
>should all people who contribute to society less than the average person be slaughtered?
no, I have given you an alternative.
There is no distinction between murder and killing, you are parsing semantics.
Aborting a child is killing it, is murder.
Fatally shooting an intruder in self-defence is killing him, is murder.
You cannot use legal inconsistencies between different states to support your moral inconsistencies in this argument. If you feel this strongly about violence, I take it you are an active anti-war and anti-gun protester? It is within your right to protest of course, and not doing so seems like a hypocrisy given your stance on abortion.
>left intellectual
there were a bunch of guys in another thread claiming to be liberals lurking, i am just playing devil's advocate since they didn't want to debate the abortcuck.
these are great solutions you've offered up.
>There is no distinction between murder and killing,
yes there is, just like there's a difference between borrowing and stealing a car
>you are parsing semantics.
yes i am, semantics (the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning) are important
>You cannot use legal inconsistencies between different states to support your moral inconsistencies in this argument.
it's not morally inconsistent, what's legal could be immoral (abortion right now for example)
>I take it you are an active anti-war and anti-gun protester?
no, because again, there is a difference between killing and murder.
>I am looking to watch a real dialogue between a left and right intellectual
>I am looking to watch a real dialogue between a left and right intellectual
>I am looking to watch a real dialogue between a left and right intellectual
>right-wing intellectual
user, I dont think there's such a thing
I am centric, I am always 1 step ahead of you, I just adopt what comes next before it happens.
sorry with first link I meant:
>there is a difference between killing and murder.
please define it.
>just like there's a difference between borrowing and stealing a car
actions are ethically judged by outcome and not intent.
Arguing intent blows up your entire abortion argument. What if the _intent_ of the abortionist is to allow the pregnant mother 5 more years of education so that now she can be gainfully employed and have 4 children instead of 1 or 2 in her teens. He has created 2 more lives through his action, so he argues this is his intent, and you have to sit and swallow it because of your unsound premise that intent matters.
When it comes to the law, intent does play a factor of course. This is not a court of law, it is a discussion about right and wrong, and you already conceded that you find some lawful things wrong or immoral.
My main argument, since I have mostly been attacking you, is this:
The debate pro-abortion vs pro-life is an empty useless discussion, designed to paralyse the population and prevent them from accepting a workable solution to the problem of generational poverty, like my fascist boys military club idea above.
It mobilizes good christian people against well meaning liberal softies and turns them into violent opponents, both as operant (hear the magic word abortion react with pure emotion) conditioning towards an intended social collapse of dialogue and general decency and as a bigger experiment in pushing humans to their coherence limits. Forcing Christians to admit any cultured cell for viable embryo is alive (hello corporate clone slaves) and forcing far-left marxists to claim a living human can be justifiably murdered by the state if they arguably stand in the way of another.
Dangerous extreme precedents on both sides, the discussion devolves into moral extremes, nothing gets solve because no compromise can be made between useless idiots.
Give me one legitmate reason we shouldn't be practicing eugenics right now
Protip, you cant
wouldn't everyone but crossfitters get culled? can the average american even do a single pullup?
>please define it.
it all comes down to justification.
if an axe-wielding serial killer breaks into your home, you are justified in putting him down
if a man is found guilty of a heinous crime beyond a reasonable doubt by a court of his peers, they are justified in putting him down
the people being killed here are guilty, the child is innocent.
>actions are ethically judged by outcome and not intent.
that's one way of looking at things. i think it's wrong though, utilitarianism brings you to all sorts of absurdities when followed to its logical conclusion.
i'm arguing from a deontological position.
>What if the _intent_ of the abortionist is to allow the pregnant mother 5 more years of education so that now she can be gainfully employed and have 4 children instead of 1 or 2 in her teens.
that would not be a justification for the murder of an innocent.
i will never argue that immoral actions cannot benefit people, you shoot some stranger in the face and take $5 from his wallet, you end up with 5 more dollars than you had
How do you define something as human? Are dead skin cells human? Is hair human? Is semen human?
>crossfit
>physically fit
Memes aside I was speaking more about intelligence, but the physically degenerate could be included
>Are dead skin cells human?
>is a feather corvus?
>is a leaf oak?
if it's a human skin cell, then it's human, sure.
but it's not A human. A human is greater than the sum of all its parts.
>Sup Forums
>Any intellectuals
Kek
Would you base it on iq or success?
What metric are you using to decide who can breed and who can't?
is an abortion ever justified? (biological, psychological, economic)
what is and isn't justified? this word means very little to me, it seems like a container word, a empty box to be filled with anything I want.
>declared or made righteous in the sight of God.
Is this your definition? What if your God is Moloch and he demands child sacrifice?
Are you then amending your opening statement to:
>Abortion is murder according to the righteous declaration in the sight of allmighty God.
to which I would reply with:
>Okay? This isn't a theocracy, fuck off with that shit, you're opening the door for the Shariah shitskins.
Please understand you have already walked backwards so far from your starting position and are basically left clutching your Bible. It can ground your beliefs, but it can never win you an argument, unless everyone in the world is Christian and believes in the exact same things you do. Then the only debate we'd have is which historical Jew is cooler, David or Daniel.
IQ is a good start, but better intelligence tests would have to be developed.
>Is this your definition?
no, not in this context, that's theology/soteriology
i'm talking about "the action of showing something to be right or reasonable." (the action here being "being")
>What if your God is Moloch and he demands child sacrifice?
>your
my position is that moral truths are real, that ontologically they actually exists regardless of whether or not anyone knows or can articulate what they are. that they're discovered/revealed rather than constructed.
that if one person says "kicking a puppy is evil"
and that another person says "kicking a puppy is good"
that they both wouldn't be correct (subjectivity/moral relativism)
the rest of your posts all stems from your misunderstanding of my use of justification zzzz
>It can ground your beliefs,
no, it can't, it's a book.
>right
>intellectual
pick one
>is an abortion ever right or reasonable? (biological, psychological, economic)
should mother and child die
should mother die
should child be raised in abusive environment
should child be raised in deprived environment
Life has no inherent value in and of itself.
It's obvious to me that this is just true, it might be uncomfortable for you to consider this, but just being alive is not enough.
It might have been in the past, because you needed people, especially when America was forming as a nation, sparsely populated and underemployed. Visit India, China, Indonesia, all of Central and North Africa. Majority of these people aren't worth a shit, they themselves know it an act accordingly.
You hold an untenable borderline masochistic view of the world if you argue that ALL LIVES MATTER in the 21st century. What happens when we have 15 billion people on the planet? 30 billion? 60? at what point does your objectivity breakdown into reality.
I understand you BELIEVE you are making an ethical argument. It really is the worst possible argument you could make. Why don't we strap women down and force them to give birth on rotation so that we increase the population for the glory of God?
Actions are predicated by the events preceding them, and a substrate of natural laws which cannot be broken. Since murder is possible, to not murder is not a natural immutable unbreakable law, so we must sometimes murder. This you concede. Therefore there must be some subset of murders which are required abortions. Since abortions are a subset of murders and sometimes murders are required.
You cannot have it both ways. A child is not innocent if it's continued growth and existence causes mortal harm to the mother OR vice versa. Since liberals are too nice to say they really want to sterilise all blacks, they push abortion through women's rights and empowerment to make the niggers feel okay about murdering the children they should never have conceived.
>Life has no inherent value in and of itself.
>You hold an untenable borderline masochistic view of the world
wew
>What happens when we have 15 billion people on the planet?
we build more housing and infrastructure
>30 billion?
we begin colonizing other planets
>60?
we begin colonizing other star systems
>Why don't we strap women down and force them to give birth on rotation so that we increase the population for the glory of God?
you're the only one bringing religion into this, unless you're pointing back to my "murder is bad" premise.
>This you concede.
when did this happen?
if this conversation were taking place face to face, and i pointed a gun at you, what would you say to talk me out of shooting you?
>when did this happen?
you called it killing to ease your conscience. then you claimed your definition of justification is built around irreligious absolutism which you cannot articulate, so i have rephrased, for a third time now the question you ignoring:
is an abortion ever right or reasonable? (biological, psychological, economic)
all human endeavours are built around participation, being alive in and of itself does not merit sufficient participation, this is why communism didn't work. we require education, stable home life and values, a job and income with which to engage in commerce and above all freedom of action and subsequent consequence.
>if this conversation were taking place face to face, and i pointed a gun at you, what would you say to talk me out of shooting you?
maybe i'd begin by asking why you would shoot a man before throwing him out of a plane.
>is an abortion ever right or reasonable? (biological, psychological, economic)
i'd see an exception if it's a medical certainty both the mother and the child are going to die as being reasonable.
>all human endeavours are built around participation
what do human endeavours have to do with this?
are there any medical certainties besides eventual clinical death?
is an abortion ever right or reasonable?
this is a yes no question, no qualifiers.
if there are no medical certainties, then no
>no qualifiers.
for what purpose
because it leads to a contradiction obviously, which exposes you as arguing in poor faith. hence why you're not replying. because your affirmation that
>abortion is murder
strictly means
>abortion is not killing
which strictly means
>abortion is never right or reasonable
as to your definitions.
A lot of people face this problem. They care about something, then they look for points which they can use to argue it, pretending that they don't care and are just being rational. A much better strategy, when you care about something go look at what those who oppose you say. Study them closely and let their arguments challenge you. If you are confident in your faith, no words can shake your conviction and no sound argument can be made to which you will not eventually find a refutation.
>what do human endeavours have to do with this?
I'll elaborate if you want. That's all civilisation is user, it's the balance between cooperation and competition.
Early humans would have placed an inordinate amount of sanctity around the life of a developing child and later a newborn, given the high infant mortality rates in human prehistory and the risks associated with pregnancy for the mothers. Only hardy women and strong children survived, and those children had to toughen up quickly to face the challenges of nature.
Modern humans place an alarmingly low sanctity around the life of a developing child and as time progresses the lives of newborns also. With this there are a lot of soft women and soft children, weak and useless. The balance between nature and nurture has been disrupted.
You're fighting a losing war against a majority of the planet's population which considers men superior to women, money superior to human life, and family above culture. A population conditioned for thousands of years into accepting the fate of their birth and cheating it all the same. The same paradox of balance western thought has tried to exorcise and failed for at least 1500 years.
>abortion is murder
>strictly means
>abortion is not killing
no, it doesn't.
murder is the intentional unlawful and/or immoral killing of a human being.
a murder is a type of killing. an unjustified one.
>i was raped
>i don't have enough money to pay for this kid, and don't want to put them up for adoption
are not valid justifications for the murder of an innocent child
>I'll elaborate if you want.
not really, you're starting to bore me.
we're talking past eachother and in circles, and discussing an issue like this with someone who says "life has no inherent value in and of itself" is pointless anyway.
i'm out
i suggest watching Split, good movie. M night has been doing well past two films
Government can't take away coat hangers
The post doesn't say ALL murder is wrong, it claims that murder is the unlawful *and/or* immoral taking of someones life.
An instance where you kill someone while defending your life, for example, doesnt fit those circumstances.
you've been arguing that murder is not killing and now it's a type of killing?
your entire argument hinged on murder being unjustified,
justification is not something you could defend it was a belief you held in moral truths,
>abortion is murder
>murder is unjustified killing
>justified killing is not murder
>unjustified killing is never right or reasonable
>abortion is unjustified killing
>abortion is never right or reasonable
question
>is abortion ever right or reasonable?
answer:
>a tacit yes with unrealistic conditions (medical certainty, ill-defined, does not exist in the real world, we only have medical opinions based on available evidence and past experience)
>abortion is never right or reasonable
became
>abortion is sometimes right or reasonable
>abortion is sometimes not unjustified killing
>abortion is sometimes justified killing
>justified killing is not murder
>abortion is sometimes not murder
so which is it,
abortion is murder or abortion is sometimes not murder?
datder burgerlogic. You can see why Christian apologists had such a hard time right? Jews didn't think their religion out thoroughly in bumblefuck BC.
all murder is wrong.
what's not being said is that "all killing is wrong"
self-defense is not murder, the death penalty for criminals is not murder, a soldier defending his nation against hostile enemies in a just war is not a murderer.
I believe Abortion is murder.
But it is also unintentionally a great tool for the "alt-right" as it kills tens of millions of brown and black babies.
So I'm pro-"choice"
They are in need because they are genetically inferior and shouldn't have been created in the first place.
Also the bond you feel with your true genetic offspring is off the charts incredible. I can't describe in words how powerful this connection is.
t. White woman who hasn't been brainwashed by leftists
>you've been arguing that murder is not killing
nope, that's retarded.
that wouldn't make any sense.
how would you murder someone without killing them?
>abortion is murder or abortion is sometimes not murder?
yes
there is no distinction between murder and killing, it's an invention in your mind.
>murder:
>the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
abortion is legal in america so not murder.
>killing:
>an act of causing death, especially deliberately.
abortion causes deliberate death, so it is killing.
you refuse to accept the definition of the word murder in favour of your own definition, this is exactly what lefties do, they change the definition of words to suit their argument.
I thought I'm supposed to be arguing the left position here, what happened?
you redefined murder as an unjustified killing to defend your "Abortion is murder" statement.
Then you later said killing CAN be justified, so not all killing is murder, but all murder is killing - this is the logical sequence of your statements. Then you said abortion can be justified. This contradicts your opening remark in which you said abortion is murder and therefore unjustified.
People on the right (the real right, not the religious right) are generally smarter than people on the left.
I'm talking about classical liberals, libertarians, etc.
The left is honestly constructed of the stupidest notions and memes possible. Marxism is a joke. Egalitarianism is not only not genetically possible, it doesn't make structural sense for any large society. Leftism is a meme phase for teenagers and women. And I'm a woman.
Would it be better for an unwanted baby to be born to be neglected and abused or not be born?
stop femsplaining.
>Would it be better for an unwanted baby to be born and have the possibility to be neglected and abused or have a great life, or to be slaughtered in utero?
the former, all life is going to have suffering
>there is no distinction between murder and killing
>abortion is legal in america so not murder.
we're done dude, you're just repeating things i already clarified
>reddit spaces everywhere
There's a simple solution to this.
>Mass hand outs of condoms (no age limit)
>Abortion is legal under 3 reasons; 1. Rape baby. 2. Potentially kill the women.
>3rd option is followed by mutual agreement between both parties, tax forms or health forms show disabilities or poverty level income.
>All abortions must be conducted in 30 days maximum.
Whoever doesn't want the abortion get's to keep the child and the mother has to go full term unless it's legitamately proved to be under the first two reasons. Tough shit, should have kept your legs closed whore and you have to pay for child care since a lot of women are having careers and making money, this shouldn't be an issue.
>Since liberals are too nice to say they really want to sterilise all blacks, they push abortion through women's rights and empowerment to make the niggers feel okay about murdering the children they should never have conceived.
If only this were true.
The truth is that all these shareblue shills and meme-college SJWs literally think blacks are as intelligent and attractive as whites.
They have been indoctrinated into this fable and they are too weak or too stupid to admit the truth.
you contradicted yourself and refuse to own up to it, the only thing done here is the lowering the expectation bar for christians to defend themselves in debate.
which is why we try so hard to disassociate our political movement away from you and your jew adventure book.
i'll say a prayer for you don't worry user, the rapture is coming any day now.
>you contradicted yourself
nah
>the only thing done here is the lowering the expectation bar for christians to defend themselves in debate
what does this have to do with christianity?
what if i told you that some blacks were more intelligent and more attractive than whites? that looking at population averages and calibrated statistics is not actually useful because of the post-hoc biased view of fitting trends to historical data and zero predictive power.
what if i told you that they are keeping the black man down not because he is inferior, but because he is superior, that he has a more artistic and creative mind which is harder to control through indoctrination and must either be enslaved or destroyed through a bastardization of originality in culture, subversion and disloyalty.
what if i told you hip hop was counter culture, a cry for help through an expression of self-loathing and the internalization of fear through external aggression?
that drugs that destroyed the black communities of the pre-civil rights days were imported into the country by the government afraid of an enfranchised and mobilized political agency of the black people, historically anti-war, during a time it required to maximise fear in it's population to funnel money into the endless stockpiling of weapons for total war.
what if i told you your world was a meme neon? and that you don't actually know any black people, and if you did, they would probably hate you mistaking you for a libshit who treats them like a subhuman pet rather than an equal.
what if i told you... that winning the American blacks to your side is the answer to getting your freedom back.
>our movement
>dey is keepin us black folk down
so whose movement do you represent, my nigger?
>and that you don't actually know any black people, and if you did, they would probably hate you mistaking you for a libshit who treats them like a subhuman pet rather than an equal.
I live in Brooklyn, so I undoubtedly see and interact with more black people per day than you have seen in your entire life.
>what if i told you that they are keeping the black man down not because he is inferior, but because he is superior, that he has a more artistic and creative mind which is harder to control through indoctrination and must either be enslaved or destroyed through a bastardization of originality in culture, subve
What if I told you that you need to be on a cocktail of anti-depressants and anti-schizophrenia medications?
This is the stupidest thing that I have ever read on Sup Forums, and that's saying something. Black men are not superior to white men. White men are generally taller, smarter, wealthier, harder-working, better fathers, better looking, and far, far more creative. White men gave us the iPhone, NASA moon landing, New York City, and the Sistine chapel.
White men dominate every art form from playwrighting to novels, from painting to illustration, from metal to Mozart, from high cinema to comic books.
Rapping over beats is shit. Literal shit.
Grow the fuck up you child
the thread is to encourage people to argue effectively, because i see a lot of echo chamber bullshit in every other thread, i have been playing devil's advocate to help people break out of their hurrdurr our team mentality and learn better arguments so they stop looking like petty manchildren.
>i'm out
are you back in or? i don't even understand why you're upset at me, you shot yourself in the foot and now ur acting like it's my fault? you held the gun up bro, remember...
but black men gave us prehistoric population expansion, hunting and gathering, the first civilizations which would have contained religion, laws, astronomy, culturally far more significant even if forgotten than petty consumerism as throwaway beads after dumping billions of taxpayer dollars into the military industrial complex, an jewish trading post which became banking cartel funding both sides during the world wars among other unsavoury activities. I don' think the Italians who built and painted the Sistine Chapel would be particularly impressed with you calling them white, they certainly didn't see themselves as anything other than Italian, and specifically would have had regional in group preferences.
British men dominated the western world and the post colonial countries, and while Germans have always had a strong aptitude for music and the sciences and the Frenchmen also contributed greatly to the scientific revolution it was strictly the British colonies (India, Australia, Canada, America) which became the most successful during the post-colonial periods. I don't think the Belgians in the Congo or the Dutch in South Africa or the disastrous shitstorm of the French colonies which dragged America into a 20th century war really speak a lot for "white" people or their capacity to dominate.
It's a great disservice to the British Empire and it's glorious 500 year history to pretend like somehow it was an amalgam of white people, a concept a pre-dominantly German-American people probably invented due to their inadequacies in securing any colonies for themselves and being kicked out of Germany proper for being crazy religious extremists.
I mean you're speaking English right now for a reason, the British people and their Magna Carta and brilliant system of efficient government and carefully planned expansion and trade saw them dominate most of the world for the past half millennium. It had nothing to do with them being white.
(cont'd)
sounds like a lot of what you wrote is:
>we wuz kings
to me, the lady doth protest too much. I take it you are not of British origin or you are unaware of your genetic split? Taking credit for others work is very niggardly of you.
No they didn't. Black men have given real civilization very little. And this is the truth.
You also need medication.
I am of British ancestry. And you need serous help.
>cocktail of anti-depressants and anti-schizophrenia medications
>need medication.
>need serous help
I'm starting to see a pattern in your erratic and overly emotional responses to uncontroversial historical facts.
>And I'm a woman
ahhh, there it is. I think we've reached peak IQ. Maybe America does need to implement a Eugenics program...
so you concede that when you refer to
>thangz white men gibbme dats
it's mostly British explorers and naturists and a handful of American inventors and entrepreneurs right?
Or do you claim because an Iranian from a single mother household who abandoned his daughter and bankrupted the company he started only to return and take credit for his gay British lovers invention constitutes all white men achieving something collectively? A lot of these "white" guys were also super jewish, most of the scientists, bankers, mathematicians. Are they honorary whites? If Jews aren't white, then technically they have been dominating white culture right? Since after their uncontrolled influx into America in the 1910s and 20s you saw a massive jump in productivity. You really went from an economic and cultural backwater into a superpower in less than 20 years, they even built you the bomb and your space program, thought I guess some Nazi's helped also.
Help me out here, are Jews the good guys again? Wait a minute, are you a mouthy self-hating black woman?
>British ancestry
Haiti or the West Indies don't count.
