J-just look at the skulls

>j-just look at the skulls

Attached: species.png (1077x1328, 678K)

>
What are you saying?

I want you to use pugs to guard your house

Different breeds you cuck. Pitbulls as a breed are more dangerous than poodles. Niggers as a breed are more dangerous than whites. We can acknowledge differences in behaviour between breeds in dogs but not humans?

Dog breeds were selectively mutated, what you see in humans is genetic distance that occured overtime retard.

Now, now, user, be quiet that doesn't suit OPs agenda.

but those on top are in fact considered different races aka subspecies

Attached: 1500445034849.jpg (640x640, 41K)

Because the difference in physiology is not the same, that's why we call that an ethnic group. And the dogs are we know it are the result of domestication and selective breeding. We created races, we did not create asians nor Aficans nor caucasians.
That's why different ethnic groups are not called races

Actually the Australian Aboriginal is not the same subspecies. Race is the term for the different groups in subspecies.

Attached: PhotoText.jpg (554x415, 130K)

not only that, there are clear visual differences in the shapes of the human skulls

Dog breeds are not subspecies because they were never geographically isolated populations in nature.


Humans were geograpically isolated for a long time and evolved into multiple subpecies.

if you cant see the difference of those skulls you need to kys

Not even remotely comparable. Breeders select for various degrees of retardation and physical defects that they think are "cute"
Pugs are highly retarded dogs with extreme physical defects. Their very existence is an affront to God. Most dogs are just severely retarded wolves.

If you took a small pool of genetically viable down syndrome folks and bred them together, selecting for one trait or another, you could create any type of human you want, but what you can't do is alter the Y-Chromosome haplogroup or mtDNA haplogroup from one race to another.

Geographical area no. Homosapiens are more evolved than jellyfish. By not mating with each other we will evolve away from each other no matter the distance we are separated.

I literally don't understand how bone structure, bone density or skull shape makes a race inferior or superior. The concept of race is very real, even SJWs hate the "we're all one race" shit.

White nationalists and Nazis are shit political ideologies, not just because their views are despicable but also because to achieve them would require a tyrannical government. That's why Nazis and Commies are two sides of the same coin.

Attached: 1497153740310.png (650x1350, 586K)

I don't think geographical isolation is a necessary and/or sufficient condition for subspecies classification, albeit in many cases sufficient. Essentially you just need a consistence in identifying defined subgroups of the same species. Geographical isolation will often be such a source for consistent phenotypical variation but not necessarily the only one.

That said, those are all different dog breeds so by all intents and purposes they would be considered different sub-species. Bad analogy.

Attached: 1520722526756.jpg (794x807, 141K)

>National Socialism is tyranny.
>Lolbertarian meme flag

I bet you jerk off over the prospects of a Hoppean dystopia where you can charge people 5 dollars per slice of bread to feed the privately owned ducks on your privately owned pond while you zapgack meth and fuck your 6 year old daughter.

I'm nitpickin, but this is a short definition from oxford dictionary:

Subspecies

"A taxonomic category that ranks below species, usually a fairly permanent geographically isolated race."

Reddit spacing, meme flag, replies to his own post. You're a faggot

Attached: 1520264646091.jpg (750x470, 37K)

>Privately owned ducks on your privately owned pond
Implying those things don't already exist; will ducks be collectively owned under national socialism?
Private property would still be a thing under Nazism, except that you would have no real means to resist the state if you broke from their agenda and they could invade your property at literally any time. It's pretty much an illusion of freedom only provided at the mercy of the state.

>$5 per slice of bread
No competent business owner would charge that if they expected to make any money, government price fixing has been shown to be ineffective throughout history. The most important function of a free price (a price not fixed or regulated by the state) is its ability to serve as an indication of the relative scarcity of a commodity, and automatically ration that scarce commodity to the highest demander. As long as the price of an article is allowed to fluctuate and match the supply with demand, there will be neither surpluses nor shortages, i.e., the market will be cleared at some equilibrium price. Let supply and demand dictate the price of goods and services.

>zapgack meth
I see no issue, defense is the only legitimate purpose for the state, people harming themselves with narcotics of their own free will don't fall within those parameters and drug wars have been shown to be counter-productive throughout history.

>fucking your 6 year-old daughter
Any sexual advance towards a child is innately predatory, fucking a child is a clear violation of that child's right.

Attached: 1519943149886.png (747x540, 510K)

The preservation of Nature is integral to the fulfillment of our blood pact with the soil upon which the Will manifests. Yes, ducks would be the domain of the commonweal.

It was a fucking joke you dipshit

Freedom is the freedom to do right, the moral justification of degeneracy under the guise of "freedom" is the ultimate form of State tyranny. A state which understands the personal and national damage which drugs and other forms of degeneracy are capable of wrecking upon The People and do nothing to prevent such degeneracy facilitate slavery rather than liberation. The only freedom is the freedom to do the right thing, which must be carefully encouraged. Consequentiality is more beneficial than utilitarianism or disutility.

Muh NAP.

>dogs are the same subspecies

today op learned what subtlety means

Attached: 1507766467551.gif (283x230, 675K)

>Freedom to do right
That's the dumbest shit I've ever read, one individual or state deciding what's moral and what isn't is tyranny. A person doing drugs is harming them self and is not directly harming or violating the rights of somebody else. If there is no direct victim there is no crime, if you think cultural degeneracy is an issue then just don't allow it on your property as per your right. The state have no right to dictate morals and an individual has no right to enforce his morals on others.

>Shit about ducks
But what if somebody wanted a pet duck? He can't have it because those ducks collectively belong to the white race? Seems unfair.

Hey retard, dogs are not all the same subspecies. There are different breeds.

>The state have no right to dictate morals and an individual has no right to enforce his morals on others.

So you deny even Bastiat's vision of the state?

Attached: 1520653253816.jpg (1024x1138, 72K)

Except they are different species you cuck. We just classify all dogs under one banner because new breeds are constantly being created, the old ones altered, and it would be too much work to reclassify.

Children are essentially property of their parents (in a world where the State holds no property and there is no commonweal) until they reach the age of majority. So by your logic, the objection you made to fucking your 6 year old daughter being a "violation of her person-hood" is hypocritical.

Unless all children, even newborns are given the same level of free agency as adults, in which case, does "informed" consent matter? Aren't all exchanges and private contracts (as far as you lolbertarians are concerned) just that? Does an individual have the agency to be uninformed? And is it not on the individual to inform themselves prior to entering into an agreement and if they fail to do so they, not the damaging party, are culpable for their own ignorance?

Of course there needs to be some form of moral order, and the state must enforce it, otherwise twisted lunatics like you or others will find a way to amorally justify degeneracy on a person to person basis.

>shit about ducks
Of course a person can own a duck, but any duck in the wild could not be owned by anyone as long as it remains in the wild. The duck must have the freedom to leave even if it "takes residence" in a pond on private property, the duck is still a wild animal that happens to live on someone's property, the duck can't be owned.

Blah blah blah, it's all semantics. Doesn't matter what words you use, niggers are incompatible with civilization.

Unless an directly harms an individual or violates their rights it's not immoral. Regulating societal trends based on what you consider degeneracy is tyranny. Bastiat asserted that the sole purpose of government is to protect the right of an individual to life, liberty and property and why it is dangerous and morally wrong for government to interfere with an individual's other personal matters. One's race, sexuality or beliefs are irreverent to the state except in the case of immigration as it's preferable to have a population of people who respect the cultural values of life and liberty, no Muslims, no Commies. But the welfare state wouldn't exist so many of those migrants would have no incentive to come here in the first place and would essentially be forced to become productive members of society.

I was referring to morals in the context of social engineering, the reason a state exists on a basic level in the first place is to maintain order for moral reasons as it's simply human nature.

>I literally don't understand how bone structure, bone density or skull shape makes a race inferior or superior.

because one of those skulls has 15% less gray matter and their males, who are 6.5% of the general population commit more then 50% of the felonies

faggot

Parents are obligated to care for their child, harming a child by making sexual advances is an obvious violation of that obligation. A child will not have the same autonomy as an adult but will still have individual rights as literally any state would provide.

A consenting adult is responsible for their own inability to make informed decisions, unless terms of a written agreement were violated or he was directly deceived regarding the nature of the agreement or terms of the agreement were left ambiguous.

But what do you actually consider degeneracy?

A large portion of blacks in the US are reliant on welfare, Libertarianism advocates complete obliteration of the welfare state. So essentially degenerate blacks who rely on the state and the tax dollars appropriated from predominately white tax payers would essentially die out due to social Darwinism.

Libertarians oppose laws that benefit particular races meaning that race quotas won't help the black man in finding work, he'll actually have to prove himself in a level playing field which will probably quell cultural degeneracy as blacks are essentially forced to become productive members of society for survival.

Regarding drug crime, drug distribution would cease to be profitable as the substances are completely legal, which would eliminate the need for gangs and drug trafficking which, decrease drug related gang violence and cull blacks who get addicted to drugs and won't have the welfare state to help them.

So in other words, out of necessity blacks would either reform into productive members of society or die unless private charity intervenes.

Those beta cuck doggo skulls are triggering me

Attached: 557528570_9710b0100d.jpg (500x375, 49K)