Nomoturtle's Waterfall
Someone will. The tools are now there, and nobody seems to have the moral sense to resist playing with them.
That's easy, you are whichever level of sarcasm the offense archaeologist deems makes you the most racist and offensive, so that you may be most easily disposed of.
I agree actually. I think the only merit to the concept of pursuing equity is to prevent the disenfranchised and the lazy using it as an excuse to take from the wealthy.
But it's a screwed up world where the solution to theft is fattening the thieves. Especially when the thieves are activists co-ordinating their movement with their iphones and marching around in designer clothing.
Black, Indigenous, and People Of Color.
Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic.
The cultural Marxist race alphabets, united against the huwhite oppressors that are terrorizing the oppressed with freedom, capitalism, planning for the future, and showing up for work on time.
Oh, that's fine then, don't worry, the race alphabet is coming to a country near you soon. Cultural Marxist prototype products include BIPOC and BAME.
What is this 'me'. Did you mean those white people? No. The alphabet society is an inclusive space, white people aren't allowed.
The grift is eternal. The alphabet is just the start.
Just kidding, the current letters' meanings will go down the memory hole and be reused for other identity groups.
I didn't care before, but the surprising number of superphobes have shown that it's absolutely necessary.
LBGTQIASS+
Yes, obviously.
What we really need are globalist birth pilgrimages around the world. Take them to a country, birth the child, shove it back in, move on to the next. That way they'll have the cultural inheritance of every race and nation, because that's definitely how that works.
May I refer you to Keri Smith, someone with 20 years of experience on the matter.
I'd like to add that the reasons they're censoring people are ideological and partisan in nature, many many people are celebrating this. A free market is not free under such influences. But then if a free market cannot be free in reality, then the ancap utopia is as unattainable as the communist utopia.
So ultimately I totally agree with you on the necessity of some regulation, even if it requires a state monopoly of force to do it. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
That was very informative, thanks. Crenshaw had a very grounded view here.
A lot of what I've seen and from what I've just heard makes me think that many of the democrats and republicans are working for the same team.
They weren't armed, no guns in DC. You're betraying that you didn't watch any of the videos.
From what I saw it doesn't look like a coup. It's a bunch of Trump supporters protesting what they believe was a stolen election. In some places it turned into a riot and that's not ok, like there was clearly some fist fghts with the cops. But seriously, most of them are walking around with police supervising them and blocking them from certain areas inside the buillding, taking pictures like tourists and gathering content for their streams. It's a bunch of morons. I find it laughable that these are the terrorists that I'm supposed to fear, because I've seen far worse than this. Actually I find it scary that the perspective of the events have been so drastically warped on twitter and in the media.
Look, just go find some unedited footage and watch it through.
Tells us that the real power lies in silicon valley.
It seems like it's not just the president either. Lots of people losing follwers en masse. It seems it's a purge.
I guess it's a good thing we've got the internet nowadays, because in the old days when someone wanted to silence you, you were killed.
I don't even particularly remember writing that post, but I can try and answer what you've got
wouldn't selective mutations obey their genes for survival, reproduction, and dominance?
Mutations don't obey anything. As far as can be reasoned, any specific mutation happens on chance. Generally, mutations will occur from the mixing of genetic information during conception or through the damaging of the DNA via ionising radiation.
Mutations will generally pull the genes and therefore traits of an organism in random directions, sometimes beneficial, but usually neutral or damaging. Our ecosystem is set up such that organisms with traits that happen to give them an advantage over others is more likely to pass on it's genes and thereby 'exist' as a species.
by doing so limit or eliminate exclusively for its own survival and progress?
I don't follow what you mean here
we can't really expect high thought, so we can't apply our thought process to the process, just basic cell reproduction, and there can be that smart gene, that remembers an experience to assist in progress.
As far as is known, you can't expect thought at all out of cells, their DNA or their genes whatsoever. Cells and their internals follow an automated process both using and stimulated by complex proteins, hormones and other compounds I know nothing about. This process supposedly originates from a more simple process in an ancestor that has mutated by chance in a way that has made it eventually what it is over countless generations of mutations.
As far as I know, there are no such collections of DNA that will remember experiences. Generally, experiences have no affect on genes, or at least those that will be passed on to a child organism. Mutations/shuffling involved during conception is typically all the information passed down to the next generation. Mutations from experiences (actually copying errors or from ionising radiating) almost always end up being neutral/harmless, but when they are noticed, it's usually in the form of cancer.
animals don't protect the survival of their prey, they just obey hunger.
If you want to read up on it a little, there's a book called 'the selfish gene' which basically attempts to define a line between the motivations of DNA, genes, cells, organisms (the individual) and species (the group), and tries to determine the existence of altruism.
For your question though...
Animals need to eat something, because they need energy to perform actions to survive. A plant will 'eat' sunlight, a herbivore will eat plants, a carnivore will eat animals that eat plants. Animals that protect their food even from themselves will not be eating food, and will die, so you would not see them today. Perhaps at some point in the past an animal developed in a way that it would not eat its prey. However this animal would have no energy to do anything, and would die, not having reproduced and not passed on its trait of not eating other animals. It would have existed for a tiny portion of time, not even a full generation and so you would not see that particular animal with that trait today as it isn't a 'model' of animal that works.
So in this rapidly multiplying field of evolving life forms, who defined the boundaries so the weaker life forms could survive and progress at an even rate to result in the full appreciation of all of nature, seemingly all at once?
In our world, there aren't really "weaker lifeforms" in an easy sense of the term. Similar organisms will be either specialised to a specific environment or lifestyle which a competitor will either not be or will do differently, and each will be better at survival under different conditions. Organisms also survive by using entirely different methods or sources for food to others that would mean not competing. I guess the only "weaker lifeforms" there are that survive would be those that are eaten, but there are a couple of ways around this too. An example is that every plant is poisonous, and animals have a sort of cold war with plants, trying to combat these poisons, it's why animals can't eat certain things while others can. Others include thick hides, quick evaisive movements, sharp senses, horns on rhinos and elephants, spines on hedgehogs, smells from skunks..
But, even with few of these advantages, an animal lower in the food chain has to be a reproduce a certain number of offspring for a certain amount of predators. If the population of a prey goes down, so does that of the creatures eating that prey as the predators begin to die off from starvation, so there is a sort of natural balance to an extent.
Lastly, all of nature didn't happen all at once, it has occurred over time, and is still occurring. Evidence of the trial and error process of nature is the existence of the sheer number of failures. People have discovered countless fossils recording the life of once existing species. Even the possibilities of animals going extinct today infers extinction in the past.
I won't be reading any more of your stuff.
A silent treatment would be wonderful. Thank you
As I recall, you were talking like you enjoy being sodomized
where?
Link me to that.
Why should you be bothered by anything I say if you are not guilty?
Because as far as I'm concerned you're making things up, which irritates me. If I just showed up out of nowhere and called you something, eg. a zealot nut and then began talking as if that were a truth, I'd imagine you'd feel a similar way.
you support such actions among those who enjoy the abominable acts
I'm mostly passive on the matter, I don't care, nor do I think I should. However were I in the position you place me in, I imagine I would feel pretty shitty because of people like you. I dislike people who intrude to spread hatred via their ideals. Especially ideals based on blind faith, or those in contradiction. So ultimately I take the empathetic view, and see no reason for them to be pointlessly ostracised or to bar them from simple things like being together, or marriage.
You're religion is supposed to have an emphasis on loving one another and doing what is good does it not? you are taking a few passages from the bible and using it to overrule surely many other passages, along with basic principles, just to suit your whims and prejudices.
what you said is baseless, nowhere on this site have i stated or implied any personal relation to pre-marital sex, or sex with animals.
you just brought up these words because you consider them insulting, and are trying to insult me for whatever reason.
I don't care to entertain sodomites. You are an unrepentant fornicator...stop being such an unholy, ungodly, dirty abomination loving reprobate.
really? you're being serious here?
you seem to be insulting me because i don't agree with your beliefs. i'm curious as to how you'd react if the same were said to you by a muslim. or, away from religion, people casually and commonly insulted you for buying food at marks and spencers, or for having dreadlocks, or having 3 children. my personal view of religion is just as trivialising as these (usually petty) choices, i have no idea what you're trying to achieve here.
there are others equally devoted and equally convinced that there is no god, or that allah is the one true god, or that there are a number of gods and there are people other than you that also believe in the very same god you do, yet not all of these people have this desire to be so domineering and antagonistic as you seem to be
