Did not God make the world like this?
or
Did he not allow the Devil to make the world the way it is?
or
Was this world not something both had contributed to, but with God in his proper role as the ultimate supreme authority?
I'm talking about the natural world here, not the world of men, as men had made changes to it.
To change the form of one material thing to another, that is the best we can do to remove it from the world, second law of thermodynamics, destruction and creation are both different words for the same thing: change. It's a matter of perspective whether a log is destroyed, or a bench and wood flakes are created.
I respect evil itself, the things I hate, they give me cause to fight for that which I love, and consider to be good.
They are worthy opponents specifically because they are loathsome to us. I will call them human, as at the time of this writing what little I think I know compels me to, but their acts make me question what it truly means to be human.
Malice and Misery, this too is human, I guess. What they are not is White, they show their deeper differences that set us apart, some may think we appear similar, and that may be true in some cases, but in terms of their character and behavioral traits, they are very different, you can easily see it if you pay attention, even if you cannot identify them by appearances, you can by their words and conduct, the way they speak, they way they act, it gives them away, even when nothing else does.
Blonde hair, blue eyes, fair skin, a tall and straight posture, none of these can conceal the jewish spirit that is starkly contrasted to the nobler spirit of the White men. A shame that to beat them, it seems that we must adopt some of the properties their "souls" possess, even if only temporarily, it feels wrong, but I am willing to make the sacrifice to protect that which I love and feel is most important to me.
put two of your fingers on two adjacent points on the grid at the equator.
move both your fingers up or down at the same rate and the same time.
on the flat map, the fingers don't come closer to each other, they stay the same distance apart.
on the round globe, the fingers come closer to each other as they travel northward together.
now for real world practice, if you start out a certain distance from someone else longitudinally, then both move straight northwards or southwards laterally, you should expect one of two things to happen.
if your longitudinal distance changes, growing closer as you move toward the poles, and more distant as you move towards the equator, you live on a round earth, if the distance remains constant, you live on a flat surface.
now you could say that the poles and equator are arbitrary, and that's true, on a round surface, anytime two travelers standing next to each other move towards a specific point between them, their distance will close, so if you are standing next to each other on a curve, and both walk in the same direction, you will come closer.
On a flat surface, both of you moving in the same direction will not bring you closer together, because you aren't moving towards the same point, so the distance between you will stay the same.
it's not going to be exactly what you'd see on a round globe because we don't live on a perfect sphere, we live on an oblated spheroid, as the turning of the earth and gravitational forces have distorted the shape somewhat, but the similarity is enough to make this experiment work.
This is also true of anyone claiming to be aligned with any cause that is not our own, the further "left" you go on the political axis, the more likely they are to be these egoistic machiavellian psychopaths.
Sexual degeneracy seems inevitable, it's reared its ugly head many times in history, not just in modern days, and it ad surfaced in all manner of societies, it was widespread among nobility during the middle ages, back when the church was a higher authority than even the kings.
Christianity may have jewish origins, but that doesn't mean its jewish, it's been gentile property for a long time now, and it's changed in gentile hands to suit gentiles and their society, we made it our own, the jews hate it, but aren't above subverting it and using their influence over it to subvert us as well, this is the same modus operandi for everything, even "antisemitic" things like "nazism" has been targeted for jewish subversion and once controlled had been used against us.
Nothing is jewish except the jews themselves and those things which are particular to them, christianity is not one of those things, even if it had its origins in them.
Someone threw something away, perhaps with the intention that others would find it and use it against those who did them wrong.
Someone finds it and intends to use it for that very purpose.
Despite it being abandoned, picking it up of the ground suddenly counts as stealing if it can be used against someone powerful.
Also, if you rent or own a property, then move out, and leave stuff behind there, it then belongs to the landlord or to the next resident who moves in, the new resident can claim it as a part of what they had purchased, and before that the landlord can claim it as a part of the property that returned to their exclusive use after the last tenant moved out.
The big bang wasn't an explosion, but an expansion of space and time.
Destruction and Creation aren't real distinct things, they are subjective valuations of the same thing: change. Things change from one form to another, does an explosion in a grain silo destroy the silo, or create many shards of shrapnel? does it destroy the grain, or create ashdust?
If it's ridiculous to say that something came from nothing, then belief in God is doubly ridiculous, we suppose that a universe came from nothing, you suppose that not only did a universe come from nothing, but that your God did too, the universe coming from God who came from nothing is just the universe coming from nothing with an unnecessarily added complication, and an arbitrary, self-serving one at that.
That, or you assume that a God had always existed, in which case we can say that the universe had always existed, before the big bang there was a singularity, and before the singularity there was another universe that was collapsing into a singularity.
- and what do you know about nothing? you've never experienced noting, not even vicariously has any human experienced pure nothingness, there is always something filling every space we see around us, even out in space, even in the most pure void we could create, there are at the very least virtual particles and all manner of subatomic particles, perhaps waves and photons, etc.
So we know nothing about the properties of nothing, for all we know, nothing is very unstable and prone to spontaneously producing things out of itself.
Not even 30 seconds into your video and it already sucks, it demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the concept it criticizes, a lack of awareness about the true meaning of the words it uses, and a sense of a smug "you cant tell me anything" kind of hubris that is intrinsically intolerable for me.
>"Evolution is a theory not a fact. There is evolution in life, but when you come here to tell me that we come from fish then, from monkeys I will simply ask you to show me the proof of two beings of the same kind bringing up a new kind of being."
Evolution tells us that all children are genetically compatible with their parents, but are slightly different, they and their parents can bring forth fruit.
However, they are incompatible with the ancestors who've existed enough generations back that their genetics are too different with the descendant for the two of them to produce offspring with one another, this is because the genetic differences have accumulated to the point where their sex cells cannot conceive together.
Now, the other species that exist all originate from the same ancestor, and thus all living things on the planet are related to some degree, this is why you share 99% of your genes with a chimpanzee, and 50% of your genes with a banana tree.
Everything of a different kind that exists today is a very distant relation to you, all life on earth is a part of a large family in that they all share a common origin.
So using interfertility as the basis of determining kinds, two of one kind cannot produce one of a different kind to themselves, but they can produce a child who is of a different kind to their distant ancestor.
You're allowed to question it, you are doing it right now.
But I think it would be best if you understood what it is before criticizing it, much of your criticisms show that you don't know what it is you are criticizing.
It's like someone who condemns "capitalism" without knowing what it is, there's only a vague impression of what they criticize, and it seems to be the same for you, as well.
You seem to think there's a sense of something being "chosen" in the evolutionary process based on how "good" of an idea it is to adopt some trait.
All natural selection means is that those genes that can best increase the number of organisms carrying them will be more likely to do so. It's tautological in it's simplicity.
Also, we didn't randomly ditch a chromosome, two of the chromosomes that our ancestors had possessed merged together.
Species are more or less an arbitrary category, they aren't actually real things, they are like colors in a rainbow, but with DNA instead of changes in hue.
Species are traditionally defined by being so genetically dissimilar that the opposite sex cells of their members are incompatible for conceiving children, they are so different on the DNA level that they cannot initiate the conception process, or that the process of development into an offspring cannot complete properly once initiated.
But this is more of less an arbitrary categorization, as all organisms on the earth have one common ancestor, and almost all have different DNA with different sets of genes, the offspring vary slightly from each of their parents while inheriting most of their DNA from them, and at some point two organisms are so distantly related, so different from one another on the genetic level, that they get lumped into different taxonomic categories from one another.
You can argue that therefore these categories have no realness to them, but you'd be wrong, because in a practical sense, the traits expressed have importance to them.
For example, race is real in the sense that it describes a set of traits that differentiate members of one race from another, and these traits have the effect of producing different levels of compatibility with other humans.
Humans of the same race will not be able to form attitudes of hostility towards each other on suspicion that the differences in their appearance is used as a basis to give unequal treatment to the members of one group who looks different vs those of another group who look similar, and this is just taking into account the differences in traits which affect appearance.
Different races are also defined by having different traits in terms of their psychology as well, with different political preferences producing different societies with different levels of potential for producing achievements, different levels of ability, be it physical (such as attractiveness or fitness) or mental (such as intelligence or personality), which results in some races being more successful and earning a higher status (in terms of wealth, influence, mating, notability, or reputation) and some races being more likely to fail in some way (such as in terms of criminality and social rejection).
Mistaking this disparity as coming from a conspiracy of discrimination rather than from a gap in merit between the groups results in hostility and eventual conflict, furthermore, if one group is more prone to criminality, especially in the capacity of being more likely to engage in violence or violations of property ownership, then it goes without saying that these two groupings are incompatible, and their very presence is a threat to other groups, it's no surprise that they are less trusted because they are less trustworthy, and as pattern recognizing creatures, we will learn that their physical appearance is a good predictor for them being a potential treat to ourselves and our property, if they put this down to a conspiracy of discrimination rater than people learning patterns and using them to defend themselves, then this could produce hostility and conflict between the groups differentiated by these traits.
Race, like all taxonomies, are based on utility, they are useful at describing the relationships that those who fall into different groupings will be most likely to develop to one another, the kinds of interactions that will be most common, or universal, and the kind that will be least common, or nonexistent.
Two organisms having children together is merely one such example.
When you say you don't like someone, you are saying you don't like some traits they possess, be it what they are like physically or mentally, such as the kind of behavior they exhibit, or have a history of exhibiting, if a group of people have these things in common, it's not much of a stretch to say that this attitude is just as justified, if your experience of everyone who looks a certain way has been correlated with a certain behavior to the point where its expected, or if your experience of a certain behavior as been correlated with with a certain appearance to the point of it being expected, then there's little shame to be had in holding your expectations and operating upon them, even with the acknowledgement that not everyone who looks a certain way acts the same, and not everyone who acts a certain way looks the same, you can make a case that operating under statistical likelihoods to reduce the chances of unpleasant experiences and increase the chances of pleasant ones is not only a justified move, but also wise.
Not every bear will maul you, but bears are likely enough to maul you that it would be wise to avoid them if you don't want to be mauled, not al blacks will steal from your store, but enough of them will do so that banning blacks from your store is a wise move if you don't want your store to be stolen from.
Ultimately it's your life and your store, so you should have the ultimate overruling say in what you do with what you own, you are making your decisions based upon your judgment of your past experiences and the information available to you, other people should realize that they aren't qualified to judge you for your actions without any consideration for your reasons for making the choices you had.
I think making moral judgments about the behavior of others based on some abstract principles, without concern for the specifics of the situation in which these actions were taken, shows the kind of mentality that produces so many of the problems in our world.
We need to realize that we are generally unqualified to make the decisions of others for them, and that is why there should only be consideration for things like ownership, consent, and aggression, especially when it comes to making or enforcing laws.
Evolution is change over time, neither "positive" nor "negative", there is no sense of "improvement" or "worsening". Thus there is no such thing as "devolution" in the biological sense. Becoming smaller and dumber is still evolution.
They've already gone too far, whites will fight only when they are ready.
Some will never be willing, others will need to lose faith in peace law and order, other will need to be broken out of apathy to actually care about political matters even though it hurts then to do so, others will need to experience the horrors they've wreaked upon others for themselves before they will admit that they were wrong, there might be other cases too that are needed to rouse white people to at the very least openly expressing their support for a pushback, everyone has their own story, after all, but the important thing to worry about is the time frame, I hope the rebellion doesn't come too late.
I think a lot of people need to completely shift their moral philosophies in order to be open to the possibility of true resistance.
Evolution has multiple examples to it, but by far the simplest argument for it comes from one simple fact.
You accept that we'd get half our DNA from that of each of our parents if our mother was only ever sexually active with our father, and that this produces the traits of our parents in us.
You accept that some of that inherited DNA is not an exact copy of that of our parents, and that this could possibly produce variations which set us apart from either of our parents.
You accept that this effect is cumulative, that it stacks upon itself over successive generations.
It's also a guarantee that some get to reproduce and continue this process with their descendants, while others do not, and see their bloodlines end with themselves.
You may also see it as being natural that some people are better at surviving in certain environmental conditions than others, and that thus is due to their genetic traits.
It follows that if they are more likely to survive, they are more likely to reproduce, and thereby more likely to pass on their traits.
And if the pattern of traits accumulates over enough generations, we see larger changes to the DNA occur as the result of many smaller changes adding up to major ones.
Imagine a statue made of wood, every day you cut off a small piece, and replace it with one made of metal.
The pieces being replaced could be very small indeed, miniscule, in fact, but it doesn't matter, as you'd have to accept that continually removing wood and replacing it with metal will eventually cause the wooden statue to become one composed entirely of metal.
Imagine an empty jar, every week one grain of sand is added to the jar, would you not accept that eventually you'd have a jar filled to the brim with sand if thos process were to continue long enough?
Knowing the mechanisms and the number of iterations, we can not come to any conclusion but the idea that complex things can result from many simple things interacting together, and that large changes can result from many small ones building up upon one another.
You are like someone who sees the metal statue, or the filled jar, and claims that the statue cannot have been wood at one time, or that the jar cannot have been empty, because you've never seen the wooden statue become entirely composed of metal all at once, and you've never seen the empty jar become filled to the brim all at once.
Thus there is no evidence that the statue could've changed its composition, nor that the jar could have been filled with sand.
We could show you the statue and jar at different points in time, and show the small changes that were made at each point, but you'd then make some solid categorization that groups statues and jars at various stages together into clean types, you'd also stamp your foot and say that evidence of small changes are not evidence for larger ones, even though the large changes are the result of the accumulation of small ones.
You'd need to see all the changes occur at once, an empty jar one day, a full one the next, but this goes directly against the hypothesis of how an originally empty jar got tp be full of sand, because that theory is based on it being filled one grain of sand at a time over successive instances of the grains being put in.
This is why we reject you when you reject evolution, and this is why you use vague terms to hide the simple process which you deny, and you accept all the parts of that process, merely drawing the lines at the inescapable conclusions that could could drawn from them.
Catch and release policies producing smaller fish.
Ivory poaching causing elephants to shrink their tusks.
The existence of ring species.
Fungi that eat radiation at chernobyl.
Bacteria that eat plastic.
The domestication and diversification of various species of animal and plant under human observation.
Pesticides needing to be rotated regularly by exterminators to deal with infestations.
The mapping of genetic similarities between all the species of earth showing the progression we'd predicted from the evolutionary model.
The existence of different species with a common ancestor who've developed distinctive traits to adapt to their diversified environments.
The fossil record showing the progression of species leading to diversification as new species emerge from a common ancestor by adopting to their environments over generations.
The various mechanisms of evolution each being observed and verified, the accumulation of which produces instances of speciation.
How the hell does macroevolution not follow from the cumulative effect of multiple instances of microevolution?
Everything you love is cancerous, and if it isn't yet, it soon will be.
They will seek out everything that isn't yet pozzed, and make it so.
They cannot tolerate the mere existence of anything that they do not have absolute control over.
You cannot ever convince these people, there is nothing that can be gained by talking to them, chances are they already are aware of everything you could possibly say to them, they are just committed to the agenda above all else.
The public already knows everything you could tell them, and if they don't they'd likely accept that you know what you are talking about rather easily, the fact is that everyone is just trying their best to keep to themselves, they don't want to deal with politics any more than they have to while living as comfortable a life as they could, you need to convince them that it is in their interest to take an interest in politics, that the risks and trouble of doing so is somehow worth it, disinterest in being at all involved with political matters is the curse you have to break for the masses, not ignorance.
Anything that's perceived to be of value can be used as money. You don't need gold.
If you are so hooked on gold in particular, then realize that once the economy is reformed and running properly again, we can get gold back and make it the standard again.
We will be taking down the normieweb internet right now, not the government.
It's just going to be an all out raid against the whole internet, by us.
Your comment has no bearing on any of this, we're just going to strike out at everything normieweb as best we can, any success at all in this quest is a great success.
Paradoxical003 0 points 2.8 years ago
We were christian when the muslims came pouring in during the dark ages, we were christians when we forced them back out.
We weren't christians when we pushed back the nubians from egypt, were weren't christians when they came pouring in.
Commonality was that we were both infested with the jewish influence.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6308cf7b2fa19
Paradoxical003 0 points 2.8 years ago
Did not God make the world like this?
or
Did he not allow the Devil to make the world the way it is?
or
Was this world not something both had contributed to, but with God in his proper role as the ultimate supreme authority?
I'm talking about the natural world here, not the world of men, as men had made changes to it.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630911fa848cc
Paradoxical003 -1 points 2.8 years ago
If God had not given the world over to the Devil, then how could he have his reign over it?
If the world is directly ruled by God, then that removes one possible objection to the point being made in this post.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630911fa848cc
Paradoxical003 0 points 2.8 years ago*
To change the form of one material thing to another, that is the best we can do to remove it from the world, second law of thermodynamics, destruction and creation are both different words for the same thing: change. It's a matter of perspective whether a log is destroyed, or a bench and wood flakes are created.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63090e6fc2d7e
Paradoxical003 1 point 2.8 years ago
I respect evil itself, the things I hate, they give me cause to fight for that which I love, and consider to be good.
They are worthy opponents specifically because they are loathsome to us. I will call them human, as at the time of this writing what little I think I know compels me to, but their acts make me question what it truly means to be human.
Malice and Misery, this too is human, I guess. What they are not is White, they show their deeper differences that set us apart, some may think we appear similar, and that may be true in some cases, but in terms of their character and behavioral traits, they are very different, you can easily see it if you pay attention, even if you cannot identify them by appearances, you can by their words and conduct, the way they speak, they way they act, it gives them away, even when nothing else does.
Blonde hair, blue eyes, fair skin, a tall and straight posture, none of these can conceal the jewish spirit that is starkly contrasted to the nobler spirit of the White men. A shame that to beat them, it seems that we must adopt some of the properties their "souls" possess, even if only temporarily, it feels wrong, but I am willing to make the sacrifice to protect that which I love and feel is most important to me.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63090e6fc2d7e
Paradoxical003 2 points 2.8 years ago*
Take a flat map and a round globe.
put two of your fingers on two adjacent points on the grid at the equator.
move both your fingers up or down at the same rate and the same time.
on the flat map, the fingers don't come closer to each other, they stay the same distance apart.
on the round globe, the fingers come closer to each other as they travel northward together.
now for real world practice, if you start out a certain distance from someone else longitudinally, then both move straight northwards or southwards laterally, you should expect one of two things to happen.
if your longitudinal distance changes, growing closer as you move toward the poles, and more distant as you move towards the equator, you live on a round earth, if the distance remains constant, you live on a flat surface.
now you could say that the poles and equator are arbitrary, and that's true, on a round surface, anytime two travelers standing next to each other move towards a specific point between them, their distance will close, so if you are standing next to each other on a curve, and both walk in the same direction, you will come closer.
On a flat surface, both of you moving in the same direction will not bring you closer together, because you aren't moving towards the same point, so the distance between you will stay the same.
it's not going to be exactly what you'd see on a round globe because we don't live on a perfect sphere, we live on an oblated spheroid, as the turning of the earth and gravitational forces have distorted the shape somewhat, but the similarity is enough to make this experiment work.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6308cf7b2fa19
Paradoxical003 0 points 2.8 years ago
Truth.
This is also true of anyone claiming to be aligned with any cause that is not our own, the further "left" you go on the political axis, the more likely they are to be these egoistic machiavellian psychopaths.
/v/TellTalk viewpost?postid=6308cfd7f0474
Paradoxical003 0 points 2.8 years ago
The best he will get is an end to his aging, he can still die if e gets sick, or injured.
We will always be able to kill him.
/v/Technocracy viewpost?postid=6308f0512efca
Paradoxical003 6 points 2.8 years ago
Sexual degeneracy seems inevitable, it's reared its ugly head many times in history, not just in modern days, and it ad surfaced in all manner of societies, it was widespread among nobility during the middle ages, back when the church was a higher authority than even the kings.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6308cf7b2fa19
Paradoxical003 1 point 2.8 years ago
Christianity may have jewish origins, but that doesn't mean its jewish, it's been gentile property for a long time now, and it's changed in gentile hands to suit gentiles and their society, we made it our own, the jews hate it, but aren't above subverting it and using their influence over it to subvert us as well, this is the same modus operandi for everything, even "antisemitic" things like "nazism" has been targeted for jewish subversion and once controlled had been used against us.
Nothing is jewish except the jews themselves and those things which are particular to them, christianity is not one of those things, even if it had its origins in them.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6308cf7b2fa19
Paradoxical003 1 point 2.8 years ago
Someone threw something away, perhaps with the intention that others would find it and use it against those who did them wrong.
Someone finds it and intends to use it for that very purpose.
Despite it being abandoned, picking it up of the ground suddenly counts as stealing if it can be used against someone powerful.
Also, if you rent or own a property, then move out, and leave stuff behind there, it then belongs to the landlord or to the next resident who moves in, the new resident can claim it as a part of what they had purchased, and before that the landlord can claim it as a part of the property that returned to their exclusive use after the last tenant moved out.
/v/news viewpost?postid=630819fa846b5
Paradoxical003 5 points 2.8 years ago
Full agreement, here's an upvote.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6308cf7b2fa19
Paradoxical003 1 point 2.8 years ago
Your video is retarded.
The big bang wasn't an explosion, but an expansion of space and time.
Destruction and Creation aren't real distinct things, they are subjective valuations of the same thing: change. Things change from one form to another, does an explosion in a grain silo destroy the silo, or create many shards of shrapnel? does it destroy the grain, or create ashdust?
If it's ridiculous to say that something came from nothing, then belief in God is doubly ridiculous, we suppose that a universe came from nothing, you suppose that not only did a universe come from nothing, but that your God did too, the universe coming from God who came from nothing is just the universe coming from nothing with an unnecessarily added complication, and an arbitrary, self-serving one at that.
That, or you assume that a God had always existed, in which case we can say that the universe had always existed, before the big bang there was a singularity, and before the singularity there was another universe that was collapsing into a singularity.
- and what do you know about nothing? you've never experienced noting, not even vicariously has any human experienced pure nothingness, there is always something filling every space we see around us, even out in space, even in the most pure void we could create, there are at the very least virtual particles and all manner of subatomic particles, perhaps waves and photons, etc.
So we know nothing about the properties of nothing, for all we know, nothing is very unstable and prone to spontaneously producing things out of itself.
Not even 30 seconds into your video and it already sucks, it demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the concept it criticizes, a lack of awareness about the true meaning of the words it uses, and a sense of a smug "you cant tell me anything" kind of hubris that is intrinsically intolerable for me.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6308cf7b2fa19
Paradoxical003 -2 points 2.8 years ago*
>"Evolution is a theory not a fact. There is evolution in life, but when you come here to tell me that we come from fish then, from monkeys I will simply ask you to show me the proof of two beings of the same kind bringing up a new kind of being."
Evolution tells us that all children are genetically compatible with their parents, but are slightly different, they and their parents can bring forth fruit.
However, they are incompatible with the ancestors who've existed enough generations back that their genetics are too different with the descendant for the two of them to produce offspring with one another, this is because the genetic differences have accumulated to the point where their sex cells cannot conceive together.
Now, the other species that exist all originate from the same ancestor, and thus all living things on the planet are related to some degree, this is why you share 99% of your genes with a chimpanzee, and 50% of your genes with a banana tree.
Everything of a different kind that exists today is a very distant relation to you, all life on earth is a part of a large family in that they all share a common origin.
So using interfertility as the basis of determining kinds, two of one kind cannot produce one of a different kind to themselves, but they can produce a child who is of a different kind to their distant ancestor.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6308cf7b2fa19
Paradoxical003 -1 points 2.8 years ago
You're allowed to question it, you are doing it right now.
But I think it would be best if you understood what it is before criticizing it, much of your criticisms show that you don't know what it is you are criticizing.
It's like someone who condemns "capitalism" without knowing what it is, there's only a vague impression of what they criticize, and it seems to be the same for you, as well.
You seem to think there's a sense of something being "chosen" in the evolutionary process based on how "good" of an idea it is to adopt some trait.
All natural selection means is that those genes that can best increase the number of organisms carrying them will be more likely to do so. It's tautological in it's simplicity.
Also, we didn't randomly ditch a chromosome, two of the chromosomes that our ancestors had possessed merged together.
Species are more or less an arbitrary category, they aren't actually real things, they are like colors in a rainbow, but with DNA instead of changes in hue.
Species are traditionally defined by being so genetically dissimilar that the opposite sex cells of their members are incompatible for conceiving children, they are so different on the DNA level that they cannot initiate the conception process, or that the process of development into an offspring cannot complete properly once initiated.
But this is more of less an arbitrary categorization, as all organisms on the earth have one common ancestor, and almost all have different DNA with different sets of genes, the offspring vary slightly from each of their parents while inheriting most of their DNA from them, and at some point two organisms are so distantly related, so different from one another on the genetic level, that they get lumped into different taxonomic categories from one another.
You can argue that therefore these categories have no realness to them, but you'd be wrong, because in a practical sense, the traits expressed have importance to them.
For example, race is real in the sense that it describes a set of traits that differentiate members of one race from another, and these traits have the effect of producing different levels of compatibility with other humans.
Humans of the same race will not be able to form attitudes of hostility towards each other on suspicion that the differences in their appearance is used as a basis to give unequal treatment to the members of one group who looks different vs those of another group who look similar, and this is just taking into account the differences in traits which affect appearance.
Different races are also defined by having different traits in terms of their psychology as well, with different political preferences producing different societies with different levels of potential for producing achievements, different levels of ability, be it physical (such as attractiveness or fitness) or mental (such as intelligence or personality), which results in some races being more successful and earning a higher status (in terms of wealth, influence, mating, notability, or reputation) and some races being more likely to fail in some way (such as in terms of criminality and social rejection).
Mistaking this disparity as coming from a conspiracy of discrimination rather than from a gap in merit between the groups results in hostility and eventual conflict, furthermore, if one group is more prone to criminality, especially in the capacity of being more likely to engage in violence or violations of property ownership, then it goes without saying that these two groupings are incompatible, and their very presence is a threat to other groups, it's no surprise that they are less trusted because they are less trustworthy, and as pattern recognizing creatures, we will learn that their physical appearance is a good predictor for them being a potential treat to ourselves and our property, if they put this down to a conspiracy of discrimination rater than people learning patterns and using them to defend themselves, then this could produce hostility and conflict between the groups differentiated by these traits.
Race, like all taxonomies, are based on utility, they are useful at describing the relationships that those who fall into different groupings will be most likely to develop to one another, the kinds of interactions that will be most common, or universal, and the kind that will be least common, or nonexistent.
Two organisms having children together is merely one such example.
When you say you don't like someone, you are saying you don't like some traits they possess, be it what they are like physically or mentally, such as the kind of behavior they exhibit, or have a history of exhibiting, if a group of people have these things in common, it's not much of a stretch to say that this attitude is just as justified, if your experience of everyone who looks a certain way has been correlated with a certain behavior to the point where its expected, or if your experience of a certain behavior as been correlated with with a certain appearance to the point of it being expected, then there's little shame to be had in holding your expectations and operating upon them, even with the acknowledgement that not everyone who looks a certain way acts the same, and not everyone who acts a certain way looks the same, you can make a case that operating under statistical likelihoods to reduce the chances of unpleasant experiences and increase the chances of pleasant ones is not only a justified move, but also wise.
Not every bear will maul you, but bears are likely enough to maul you that it would be wise to avoid them if you don't want to be mauled, not al blacks will steal from your store, but enough of them will do so that banning blacks from your store is a wise move if you don't want your store to be stolen from.
Ultimately it's your life and your store, so you should have the ultimate overruling say in what you do with what you own, you are making your decisions based upon your judgment of your past experiences and the information available to you, other people should realize that they aren't qualified to judge you for your actions without any consideration for your reasons for making the choices you had.
I think making moral judgments about the behavior of others based on some abstract principles, without concern for the specifics of the situation in which these actions were taken, shows the kind of mentality that produces so many of the problems in our world.
We need to realize that we are generally unqualified to make the decisions of others for them, and that is why there should only be consideration for things like ownership, consent, and aggression, especially when it comes to making or enforcing laws.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6308cf7b2fa19
Paradoxical003 1 point 2.8 years ago
Evolution is change over time, neither "positive" nor "negative", there is no sense of "improvement" or "worsening". Thus there is no such thing as "devolution" in the biological sense. Becoming smaller and dumber is still evolution.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6308cf7b2fa19
Paradoxical003 3 points 2.8 years ago
They've already gone too far, whites will fight only when they are ready.
Some will never be willing, others will need to lose faith in peace law and order, other will need to be broken out of apathy to actually care about political matters even though it hurts then to do so, others will need to experience the horrors they've wreaked upon others for themselves before they will admit that they were wrong, there might be other cases too that are needed to rouse white people to at the very least openly expressing their support for a pushback, everyone has their own story, after all, but the important thing to worry about is the time frame, I hope the rebellion doesn't come too late.
I think a lot of people need to completely shift their moral philosophies in order to be open to the possibility of true resistance.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63089fdec5b30
Paradoxical003 1 point 2.8 years ago
Evolution has multiple examples to it, but by far the simplest argument for it comes from one simple fact.
You accept that we'd get half our DNA from that of each of our parents if our mother was only ever sexually active with our father, and that this produces the traits of our parents in us.
You accept that some of that inherited DNA is not an exact copy of that of our parents, and that this could possibly produce variations which set us apart from either of our parents.
You accept that this effect is cumulative, that it stacks upon itself over successive generations.
It's also a guarantee that some get to reproduce and continue this process with their descendants, while others do not, and see their bloodlines end with themselves.
You may also see it as being natural that some people are better at surviving in certain environmental conditions than others, and that thus is due to their genetic traits.
It follows that if they are more likely to survive, they are more likely to reproduce, and thereby more likely to pass on their traits.
And if the pattern of traits accumulates over enough generations, we see larger changes to the DNA occur as the result of many smaller changes adding up to major ones.
Imagine a statue made of wood, every day you cut off a small piece, and replace it with one made of metal.
The pieces being replaced could be very small indeed, miniscule, in fact, but it doesn't matter, as you'd have to accept that continually removing wood and replacing it with metal will eventually cause the wooden statue to become one composed entirely of metal.
Imagine an empty jar, every week one grain of sand is added to the jar, would you not accept that eventually you'd have a jar filled to the brim with sand if thos process were to continue long enough?
Knowing the mechanisms and the number of iterations, we can not come to any conclusion but the idea that complex things can result from many simple things interacting together, and that large changes can result from many small ones building up upon one another.
You are like someone who sees the metal statue, or the filled jar, and claims that the statue cannot have been wood at one time, or that the jar cannot have been empty, because you've never seen the wooden statue become entirely composed of metal all at once, and you've never seen the empty jar become filled to the brim all at once.
Thus there is no evidence that the statue could've changed its composition, nor that the jar could have been filled with sand.
We could show you the statue and jar at different points in time, and show the small changes that were made at each point, but you'd then make some solid categorization that groups statues and jars at various stages together into clean types, you'd also stamp your foot and say that evidence of small changes are not evidence for larger ones, even though the large changes are the result of the accumulation of small ones.
You'd need to see all the changes occur at once, an empty jar one day, a full one the next, but this goes directly against the hypothesis of how an originally empty jar got tp be full of sand, because that theory is based on it being filled one grain of sand at a time over successive instances of the grains being put in.
This is why we reject you when you reject evolution, and this is why you use vague terms to hide the simple process which you deny, and you accept all the parts of that process, merely drawing the lines at the inescapable conclusions that could could drawn from them.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63088c5e9d439
Paradoxical003 2 points 2.8 years ago
Russian silver fox experiment.
Catch and release policies producing smaller fish.
Ivory poaching causing elephants to shrink their tusks.
The existence of ring species.
Fungi that eat radiation at chernobyl.
Bacteria that eat plastic.
The domestication and diversification of various species of animal and plant under human observation.
Pesticides needing to be rotated regularly by exterminators to deal with infestations.
The mapping of genetic similarities between all the species of earth showing the progression we'd predicted from the evolutionary model.
The existence of different species with a common ancestor who've developed distinctive traits to adapt to their diversified environments.
The fossil record showing the progression of species leading to diversification as new species emerge from a common ancestor by adopting to their environments over generations.
The various mechanisms of evolution each being observed and verified, the accumulation of which produces instances of speciation.
How the hell does macroevolution not follow from the cumulative effect of multiple instances of microevolution?
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630867af7ca5b
Paradoxical003 0 points 2.8 years ago
First define what you mean by darwinian evolution and science, because the way you use these terms makes me think you don't understand either of them.
What is the theory of evolution? What is the scientific method?
BTW, I know this is a shill post filled with shills, but I'll respond as if they weren't for a time.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=630867af7ca5b
Paradoxical003 5 points 2.8 years ago
Everything you love is cancerous, and if it isn't yet, it soon will be.
They will seek out everything that isn't yet pozzed, and make it so.
They cannot tolerate the mere existence of anything that they do not have absolute control over.
You cannot ever convince these people, there is nothing that can be gained by talking to them, chances are they already are aware of everything you could possibly say to them, they are just committed to the agenda above all else.
The public already knows everything you could tell them, and if they don't they'd likely accept that you know what you are talking about rather easily, the fact is that everyone is just trying their best to keep to themselves, they don't want to deal with politics any more than they have to while living as comfortable a life as they could, you need to convince them that it is in their interest to take an interest in politics, that the risks and trouble of doing so is somehow worth it, disinterest in being at all involved with political matters is the curse you have to break for the masses, not ignorance.
/v/oneangrygamer viewpost?postid=63083f7740703
Paradoxical003 3 points 2.8 years ago
Instead of selling it, they should just leak the whole thing on the internet.
Trying to profit off of it was a dumb move.
/v/news viewpost?postid=630819fa846b5
Paradoxical003 0 points 2.8 years ago*
Anything that's perceived to be of value can be used as money. You don't need gold.
If you are so hooked on gold in particular, then realize that once the economy is reformed and running properly again, we can get gold back and make it the standard again.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63081aab3e47c
Paradoxical003 0 points 2.8 years ago
We will be taking down the normieweb internet right now, not the government.
It's just going to be an all out raid against the whole internet, by us.
Your comment has no bearing on any of this, we're just going to strike out at everything normieweb as best we can, any success at all in this quest is a great success.
/v/LyingNewsMedia viewpost?postid=630777680e472
Paradoxical003 0 points 2.8 years ago
All these things eventually hurt everyone.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=63081aab3e47c