Police to Black Suburban Residents: Your Not Welcome

[Kubumba Tribe]

Considering that the universe is an inanimate object, this is true.
Inequality is morally wrong and morals are needed to keep a society intact and - surprise surprise - HUMAN

Human = Homo sapien. Human societies are human by definition.

You know exactly what I meant

[Katzenstaat]

You'd think racists would by now know better than to unironically defend the Nazis, but nooooooooooo, they've just got to show how awful their worldview truly is unprompted.

You didn't catch what he was throwing

I'll put it in plain view: He's basically suggesting he doesn't really care about a discussion, that from his point of view he's right and we're wrong, and nothing we say will change his mind. Why waste my time with someone who isn't here for an argument, but rather is here to be preachy?

I'm a busy person, I don't have the time to waste on someone who won't listen.

Nope. Convince me that my views are factually inaccurate if you can.

[Katzenstaat]

Ignoring amoral people does not make amorality go away.

Educating people not to be a pompous, self-centered, narcissistic btch will.

You mean...brainwashing? LOL. There is no such thing as "moral education".

[Kubumba Tribe]

Educating people not to be a pompous, self-centered, narcissistic btch will.

You mean...brainwashing? LOL.

Wow, education is brainwashing now?

[Katzenstaat]

Human = Homo sapien. Human societies are human by definition.

You know exactly what I meant

Let me steel man your argument for you. I assume that you meant humane.

[Katzenstaat]

You mean...brainwashing? LOL.

Wow, education is brainwashing now?

Education informs people while "moral education" imposes values on them. Hence I classify it as brainwashing, not education.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Nope. Convince me that my views are factually inaccurate if you can.

First of all, I am not reading your posts wrong, if you want to have a discussion you shouldn't be coming here saying you "don't care/have time to listen to Liberals and Conservatives "cry" about their values". That's just a sign you're not going to listen to anything I have to say and you'll try to rationalize anything I say and give excuses as to why I'm wrong. Even if I happen to be right, I'll still be wrong from your point of view so why bother.

Secondly, I don't have to "convince" you of anything. In the end, you can just close the tab, I can close mine, and we'll go our ways. I'll let life teach you instead

[Katzenstaat]

Nope. Convince me that my views are factually inaccurate if you can.

First of all, I am not reading your posts wrong, if you want to have a discussion you shouldn't be coming here saying you "don't care/have time to listen to Liberals and Conservatives "cry" about their values". That's just a sign you're not going to listen to anything I have to say and you'll try to rationalize anything I say and give excuses as to why I'm wrong.

Secondly, I don't have to "convince" you of anything. In the end, you can just close the tab, I can close mine, and we'll go our ways. I'll let life teach you instead

I think you misunderstood me. My ideology is that of self-reliance and distrust towards all social structures because all of them can fail.

[Katzenstaat]

It's a good thing you're honest.

At least it saves me the time to actually reply to you any further.

You'd think racists would by now know better than to unironically defend the Nazis, but nooooooooooo, they've just got to show how awful their worldview truly is unprompted.

My views are in fact more nuanced.

I like Ashkenazi Jews due to their high IQ. Hence I completely disagree with Nazi antisemitism. On the other hand Nazism did get the moral question right.

There is no morality. However it doesn't mean that we should start murdering people. The norm of not murdering humans works very well and breaking is very costly. Similarly the norm of not exterminating an ethnic group not at war with you is generally historically upheld and it works very well. Nazism is an exception and it was punished by humanity for norm-breaking.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

First of all, I am not reading your posts wrong, if you want to have a discussion you shouldn't be coming here saying you "don't care/have time to listen to Liberals and Conservatives "cry" about their values". That's just a sign you're not going to listen to anything I have to say and you'll try to rationalize anything I say and give excuses as to why I'm wrong.

Secondly, I don't have to "convince" you of anything. In the end, you can just close the tab, I can close mine, and we'll go our ways. I'll let life teach you instead

I think you misunderstood me. My ideology is that of self-reliance and distrust towards all social structures because all of them can fail.

I mean, adaptation breeds distrust in social structures and self-reliance, because you want to make sure you can adapt to the changing circumstances anyways.

I don't see how does this link to your views of race and morality in so far as morality not existing and race being linked to crime.

[Thermodolia]

You'd think racists would by now know better than to unironically defend the Nazis, but nooooooooooo, they've just got to show how awful their worldview truly is unprompted.

My views are in fact more nuanced.

I like Ashkenazi Jews due to their high IQ. Hence I completely disagree with Nazi antisemitism. On the other hand Nazism did get the moral question right.

There is no morality. However it doesn't mean that we should start murdering people. The norm of not murdering humans works very well and breaking is very costly.

IQ is a horribly shity metric to measure intelligence

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You'd think racists would by now know better than to unironically defend the Nazis, but nooooooooooo, they've just got to show how awful their worldview truly is unprompted.

My views are in fact more nuanced.

I like Ashkenazi Jews due to their high IQ. Hence I completely disagree with Nazi antisemitism. On the other hand Nazism did get the moral question right.

There is no morality. However it doesn't mean that we should start murdering people. The norm of not murdering humans works very well and breaking is very costly.

I'll take the question "what is a system where we solve politics with force?" for 500 Alex.

[Katzenstaat]

My views are in fact more nuanced.

I like Ashkenazi Jews due to their high IQ. Hence I completely disagree with Nazi antisemitism. On the other hand Nazism did get the moral question right.

There is no morality. However it doesn't mean that we should start murdering people. The norm of not murdering humans works very well and breaking is very costly.

IQ is a horribly shity metric to measure intelligence

LOL no.

Ashkenazis rule. Why are there so many Ashkenazi Nobel Prize Laureates? "Muh Zionist konspiracy"? LOL nope.

[Katzenstaat]

My views are in fact more nuanced.

I like Ashkenazi Jews due to their high IQ. Hence I completely disagree with Nazi antisemitism. On the other hand Nazism did get the moral question right.

There is no morality. However it doesn't mean that we should start murdering people. The norm of not murdering humans works very well and breaking is very costly.

I'll take the question "what is a system where we solve politics with force?" for 500 Alex.

Authoritarianism?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'll take the question "what is a system where we solve politics with force?" for 500 Alex.

Authoritarianism?

No. War.

We kill people in wars. Your statement implies war is unprofitable, but in fact it is very profitable from a political and an economic angle.

"Murdering" people is just a legal way to say we don't sanction the killing of a person outside of legally justified reasoning, but there are plenty of reasons why killing a person is not only the right thing to do, but also the more profitable one.

[Thermodolia]

IQ is a horribly shity metric to measure intelligence

LOL no.

Ashkenazis rule. Why are there so many Ashkenazi Nobel Prize Laureates? "Muh Zionist konspiracy"? LOL nope.

I'm Jewish.

Still doesn't mean that IQ isn't a horrible way to measure intelligence

[Katzenstaat]

Authoritarianism?

No. War.

We kill people in wars. Your statement implies war is unprofitable, but in fact it is very profitable from a political and an economic angle.

"Murdering" people is just a legal way to say we don't sanction the killing of a person outside of legally justified reasoning, but there are plenty of reasons why killing a person is not only the right thing to do, but also the more profitable one.

Sure. This is why fighting in a war is never considered a war crime.

I can argue that genocide is also very profitable because you get resources after killing all the inhabitants of a country. However in terms of multilevel selection we can argue that genocide harms perpetrators.

[Katzenstaat]

LOL no.

Ashkenazis rule. Why are there so many Ashkenazi Nobel Prize Laureates? "Muh Zionist konspiracy"? LOL nope.

I'm Jewish.

Still doesn't mean that IQ isn't a horrible way to measure intelligence

Awesome!

IQ is not a horrible way to measure intelligence because it predicts racial differences well. Ashkenazis are at the top and blacks and Australian Aborigines are at the bottom.

I'm an HBDer.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No. War.

We kill people in wars. Your statement implies war is unprofitable, but in fact it is very profitable from a political and an economic angle.

"Murdering" people is just a legal way to say we don't sanction the killing of a person outside of legally justified reasoning, but there are plenty of reasons why killing a person is not only the right thing to do, but also the more profitable one.

Sure. This is why fighting in a war is never considered a war crime.

I can argue that genocide is also very profitable because you get resources after killing all the inhabitants of a country.

And it would be right, depending on which region we're talking about.

Some areas are more profitable than others in the globe. For instance, a genocide of Europeans is highly profitable for outsiders as opposed to a genocide of, say, Ghanans.

[Stojam]

Who believes Buzzfeed anyways? They're clearly not a credible source.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

in terms of multilevel selection we can argue that genocide harms perpetrators.

There's little to no harm done in genocide towards the perpetrator materially.

Sure, we just wiped out the globe from everyone in that region, but how does that harm the perpetrators?

[Katzenstaat]

Sure. This is why fighting in a war is never considered a war crime.

I can argue that genocide is also very profitable because you get resources after killing all the inhabitants of a country.

And it would be right, depending on which region we're talking about.

Some areas are more profitable than others in the globe. For instance, a genocide of Europeans is highly profitable for outsiders as opposed to a genocide of, say, Ghanans.

Europeans have nukes which deter genocides.

A genocide of Ghanaians is actually very profitable. Ghana wasn't called Gold Coast for no reasons. Its farmlands are also good. However genociding Ghanaians is still a bad idea.

[Katzenstaat]

in terms of multilevel selection we can argue that genocide harms perpetrators.

There's little to no harm done in genocide towards the perpetrator materially.

Sure, we just wiped out the globe from everyone in that region, but how does that harm the perpetrators?

They are harmed for three reasons.

First of all such behaviors can easily result in global hatred towards the perpetrators. Nobody knows whether they are the next to be genocided so everybody is better off if they simply join forces and get rid of the unpredictable genocide perpetrators.

Secondly even if you manage to kill off all but your ingroup genocide may become a norm and you will settle your minor differences through more genocides. Once the spiral of death starts it will probably continue until at most one human is left or genocide is banned again.

At last genocide weakens humanity which makes an alien invasion or AI takeover more likely.

[Liriena]

My views are in fact more nuanced.

I like Ashkenazi Jews due to their high IQ. Hence I completely disagree with Nazi antisemitism. On the other hand Nazism did get the moral question right.

There is no morality. However it doesn't mean that we should start murdering people. The norm of not murdering humans works very well and breaking is very costly.

IQ is a horribly shity metric to measure intelligence

Welp, there go 99% of the "arguments" for "race realism" and its apologists. Fare thee well, pseudo-science.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And it would be right, depending on which region we're talking about.

Some areas are more profitable than others in the globe. For instance, a genocide of Europeans is highly profitable for outsiders as opposed to a genocide of, say, Ghanans.

Europeans have nukes which deter genocides.

A genocide of Ghanaians is actually very profitable. Ghana wasn't called Gold Coast for no reasons. Its farmlands are also good. However genociding Ghanaians is still a bad idea.

It'd still be profitable, which is the point. Also, I never said killing Ghanans for resourced is not profitable, it's just not as profitable as wiping out Europe from its population.

Also, why would genociding Ghanans be a bad idea? You're arguing profitability matters, so why can't we go take the land from Ghanans and wipe them out of the planet if it is profitable for us?