Reality and some ACTUAL TRUTH

>Human "races" are real. There are very clear genetic markers and visible differences between races. If you are stupid enough to believe that we can be so different outwardly like the shapes of our noses, skin color, hair texture & color, etc, and yet believe there are no differences internally like the way our brains function and the type and amount of hormones our bodies produce, then you have no ability to think critically on the subject and have the mind of an obedient drone. Our countries are all a result of those genetic traits en masse. No, we are not "all the same".

>Taxation is theft. If someone says they are going to forcefully take something from you against your explicit consent, then it is theft. You MUST pay income, property, sales and other taxes. If not, men with guns will show up and arrest you. You cannot legally buy food or obtain shelter or even hold a job in most of the United States without paying a tax. The tax itself is not necessary for the transfer of a product, securing of a property, or negotiations of a job, it is simply the government deciding it wants that money and then takes it by threat of force. Taxes in the United States are spent incredibly wastefully to add insult to injury. There are more efficient ways of paying for the services and goods we need without government.

>The Abrahamic religions are based off of fairy tales and are simply tools of controlling the masses. Inbred ancient men surrounded by savages created the jewish religion, with clear influences from other already established religions at the time to get their general populace under control and moving in a unified manner. The only thing the ancient jews brought to the table was the concept of a singular deity over a plethora unlike most of the world's religions. If you actually believe in magical powers and fairy tales, you are an imbecile.

More to follow.

>There is no such thing as good and evil. The regulations of the universe do not acknowledge “good” & “evil”. These are concepts & constructs that the human race has developed. The reasoning behind good and evil is to try to identify things that are beneficial or harmful, and then either expand or prevent those correlating properties. This is blatantly obvious as the qualifications for good and evil change over time. No one’s politics are “right” or “good“ or “moral” or “evil”. Only those who have the ability to enforce their will on others for an extended period of time are successful. Particularly successful politics continue on longer than the originators of the politics do. Israel is successful because no one has shown the ability to stop their effort of creating and expanding a state. The native Americans could not stop the Europeans. The British could not keep their hold on the Americans and Australians. The ancient Egyptians, Romans, ancient Greeks, ancient Mongolians were immensely successful. They killed, tortured, oppressed, enslaved, secured territory and goods and forced their will on countless people. Their politics should be considered “right” because they led very successful, enduring campaigns.

>Abortion has both positive and negative consequences to human populations. If a population is not in serious decline towards extinction, then there should be no issue with abortions. If a population is in drastic decline and is in danger of extinction, then clearly it’s in the best interests of that particular population to limit abortions until their population numbers improve. There are obvious reasons where an abortion is acceptable. 1. Any reason a woman does not want to keep a child in her womb or raise a child after birth and does not have the ability to provide further accommodations for the child like pawning it off on someone else. 2. The child or mother are in danger from anything from illness, to injury, to mutation, to defect. A fetus is a person at the moment of inception. It’s an underdeveloped human, but still a human none-the-less. Using religion or “morality” as a reason to prevent an abortion is the desire of humans to limit harmful consequences on the population, but ultimately is make-believe reasoning. Human populations are in no danger of extinction, and religion is a farce – there is no soul to extinguish.

Bump. Basic knowledge, but good bite size chunks for normies.

> An attempt by a group, organization, or other entity to disarm a population while retaining weapons themselves is clearly an attempt to control that population. If people are to be free from control/manipulation/tyranny/subjugation, they are to be allowed to defend themselves however they deem fit. Weapons control is often a necessary component of a successful community/state, so reasonable control of weapons falls within conventional reason. But the removal of all guns, for example, because of a small percentage of deaths within a population annually (and this opening the door for widespread tyranny and subjugation) is unreasonable and justification for resistance. Weapons that have the ability to kill thousands or more is unreasonable in the hands of an individual. A gun is arguably less deadly than a vehicle. A gun is a powerful tool, akin to a vehicle. It should be acceptable practice that gun ownership include a licensing program similar to that of a vehicle to ensure that individuals understand the properties of a gun to prevent accidents and encourage proper usage.

...

>>Human "races" are real. There are very clear genetic markers and visible differences between races.

This is not true.

>If you are stupid enough to believe that we can be so different outwardly like the shapes of our noses, skin color, hair texture & color, etc, and yet believe there are no differences internally like the way our brains function and the type and amount of hormones our bodies produce, then you have no ability to think critically on the subject and have the mind of an obedient drone.

NON SEQUITOR.

>Our countries are all a result of those genetic traits en masse.

You are a melting pot. Most countries are melting pots.

> No, we are not "all the same".

Strawman. That was never the claim.


>There are more efficient ways of paying for the services and goods we need without government.

The bigger something is the less efficient it becomes.


>>The Abrahamic religions are based off of fairy tales and are simply tools of controlling the masses. Inbred ancient men surrounded by savages created the jewish religion, with clear influences from other already established religions at the time to get their general populace under control and moving in a unified manner. The only thing the ancient jews brought to the table was the concept of a singular deity over a plethora unlike most of the world's religions. If you actually believe in magical powers and fairy tales, you are an imbecile.

No basis for your claim "that they are fairy tales"


>More to follow.

>Governments exist to do one thing – expand their power. Governments are established for a multitude of reasons, ie. to promote the will of the elites, to promote and fulfill the needs of the common people, to expand the culture and influence of a nation. But ultimately what every government has done, and will continue to do is to protect itself and expand its own powers, typically at the expense of others. Governments will grow by themselves, and it is in the best interest of the people under that government to do what they can to limit the impact that government can have on their society. This is because a government can have large sweeping effects, and detrimental policies can have long lasting negative consequences for the population. The government does not need assistance to grow. It certainly does not need authoritarian power over its people, as that has ALWAYS shown to be a bad thing. Always. To those who suckle at the teat of the government, you do not realize they are really feeding off of you, and you will be discarded as soon as it is more convenient for the government to go in another direction. One of the best proven ways to keep a government organization in check is to have a well-armed population that has the ability to dismantle that government if needed. Some of the best proven ways for a government to subjugate its people is to disarm them and to keep infighting at a high level.

how about you don't make a post then you mong

>>>Human "races" are real. There are very clear genetic markers and visible differences between races.
>This is not true.
where is your proof?

The ability to produce viable offspring is my proof.

Genetics is real, jackass...

No one said we aren't "melting pots"

Plenty of leftist morons say we are all the same. Clearly some genetics and cultures are better than others.

Then it's right, the government is inefficient.

If you don't understand that religions are full of fairy tales like talking snakes and 800 year old men, then you're one of the imbeciles we're talking about.

A horse and a donkey can create offspring, they must be the same breed! You're an absolute moron.

It's not a viable offsring. My proof stands.

Mules and hinnies have 63chromosomes, a mixture of the horse's 64 and the donkey's 62. The different structure and number usually prevents the chromosomes from pairing up properly and creating successful embryos, rendering most mules infertile.

There are no recorded cases of fertile mule stallions. A few mare mules have produced offspring when mated with a purebred horse or donkey.[16][17]Herodotusgives an account of such an event as an ill omen ofXerxes' invasion of Greecein 480 BC: "There happened also a portent of another kind while he was still at Sardis,—a mule brought forth young and gave birth to a mule" (HerodotusThe Histories7:57), and a mule's giving birth was a frequently recorded portent in antiquity, although scientific writers also doubted whether the thing was really possible (see e.g.Aristotle,Historia animalium, 6.24;Varro,De re rustica, 2.1.28).

As of October 2002, there had been only 60 documented cases of mules birthing foals since 1527.[17]InChinain 2001, a mare mule produced a filly.[18]InMoroccoin early 2002 andColoradoin 2007, mare mules produced colts.[17][19][20]Blood and hair samples from the Colorado birth verified that the mother was indeed a mule and the foal was indeed her offspring.[20]

A 1939 article in theJournal of Hereditydescribes two offspring of a fertile mare mule named "Old Bec", which was owned at the time by the A&M College of Texas (nowTexas A&M University) in the late 1920s. One of the foals was a female, sired by a jack. Unlike its mother, it was sterile. The other, sired by a five-gaitedSaddlebredstallion, exhibited no characteristics of any donkey. That horse, a stallion, was bred to several mares, which gave birth to live foals that showed no characteristics of the donkey.[21]

Oh jeez, most breeds of dogs produce viable offspring. And cats. The original breeds can be completely different animals to themselves and their offspring. Everything from the physical to the temperament. Your "proof" is not "proof" It just means you can fuck something that makes something else. That is also non sequitur.

Not a good comparison, because we aren't claiming that the human races don't belong to the same species. We all know that donkeys and horses don't belong to the same species... we are saying that humans are all members of the same species, but that they can be broken down into genetically distinct groups that correspond with self-indentified races.

Ye be right abou' th' theft part! Ahoy, mateys, methinks tax collect'rs afloat'll be me job in th' future.

>Genetics is real, jackass...

Strawman

>No one said we aren't "melting pots"

Read what I replied to.

>Plenty of leftist morons say we are all the same.

Who cares? We should consider scientific, philosophical arguments not emotional ones.

>Clearly some genetics and cultures are better than others.


Not clear at all. Is a spider better than an ant? Is a black person better than a white or vice versa?
Stop being subjective.

>Then it's right, the government is inefficient.

As with all things the bigger it is the less efficiency you can extract. Does this mean you can do better? No. You will be inefficient too since you will be disorganized.

>If you don't understand that religions are full of fairy tales like talking snakes and 800 year old men, then you're one of the imbeciles we're talking about.

No I don't. You can't just call it childish and get away with it. Besides those stories aren't necessary for the religion at all. Attack the core premises instead
Yes, but it would not be biological.
Race is a useful social concept. Its hard to take it seriously when a black man's heart is able to be transplanted into a white man's chest and it works. Apart from certain cases, people's biology are similar enough that it doesn't matter to a biologist. No one is gonna worry about how a kidney functions in a white man vs how it functions in a black man. Hmm perhaps a study is already done on such things. I don't know.

Ah you disagree with something so it must be strawman.

I read what you replied to. The genetics of those melting pots created cultures and countries. You are doing a lot of mental gymnastics here just to be contrarian.

You said "that was never the claim". In response I called out a group who makes that very exact claim, and now you say we should be focused on different arguments. Why can't you stick to something?

Obviously countries with better economies, more contributions to the arts and welfare of their people, advancements in technology and health are clearly better than cultures that don't have as much success in all of those things.

The private sector is much more efficient than government.

I'm attacking the core premise of religion... the fairy tales. If you take the fairy tales away, you no longer have religion, you have things like philosophy, science, etc.

>A fetus is a child from the moment of conception
It's murder then. You can give many different reasons as to why you may want to do it, but it's still killing a person.
>but morality doesn't exist
Then why is taxation theft? If morality doesn't exist, then how is the government taking your property? Private property is a moral sentiment and requires a modicum of morality to exist

Taxonomy is never scientific. You may use criteria based on scientific facts but the acceptance/rejection of them is not based on science. So, if you truly want to go down the path of "social construct", you will enter a swamp from where you'll not leave.

>Ah you disagree with something so it must be strawman.

This is a Strawman. Not even kidding...

>I read what you replied to. The genetics of those melting pots created cultures and countries. You are doing a lot of mental gymnastics here just to be contrarian.

Countries don't create generic difference. Geology and topography do. I would like to be accurate in describing speciation.


>You said "that was never the claim". In response I called out a group who makes that very exact claim, and now you say we should be focused on different arguments. Why can't you stick to something?

The claim has always been "we are all human so we are the same" you ignore the first part and take the conclusion in the second part as argument. Even if you falsify conclusion you still need to tackle the argument.


>Obviously countries with better economies, more contributions to the arts and welfare of their people, advancements in technology and health are clearly better than cultures that don't have as much success in all of those things.

This is subjective. You values determine what you consider better. A barbarian would find technology unsavory.


>The private sector is much more efficient than government.

Every year millions of tons of products are wasted because private sector does not know the needs of the market. What's worse they use advertising to make you BELIEVE you need certain things when you don't need them. How is that efficient?

>I'm attacking the core premise of religion... the fairy tales. If you take the fairy tales away, you no longer have religion, you have things like philosophy, science, etc.

Religion philosophy and science can't be separated

I accept that. Still, I would like to have good reasons to categorize people.

a fox news live coverage inside how a roach acts they way he does.

Gone with the wind leaf.
Gone with the wind...

Everything you don't have an answer for is a strawman argument.

And I know what you are doing, you are intentionally changing words to fit the garbage in your head. I said that the genetics of the people create their countries and culture.

We are all human and we are not all the same. I know this is a tough one for you little buddy. You'll get it one day.

Yeah? There are billions that enjoy the technology from successful cultures and very few who don't.

The argument is that tje private sector is more efficient than the government. As shown by advamcements in technology and their abilities to turn a profit instead of constantly run into debt, the private sector is clearly more efficient and successful. UPS vs USPS is not even close.

If you believe that religion, philosophy and science can't be separated then you are just stupid. There's no other label for you.

You aren't worth debating in the slightest.

Imagine an alien who has started observing humans. He'd see that they tend to be tribalistic. He'd note they form their groups based on shared, easily recognizable and hard to fake traits. For this reason, they tend to self-segregate and have wildly different behaviors. Then, he notices some of these traits are genetic, in such a way that by looking at clusters of genes he can identify who belongs to which group with a high degree of accuracy. Lastly, there is a tendency for conflict whenever people from different groups are forced to live together.

Why wouldn't the alien categorize people?

I read literally nothing you said because you are obviously an anally devastated shitskin. Go perform your mental gymnastics somewhere else