King Arts
Well-known member
What is wrong with nationalists? You just support globalism?
"TradWives" Triggering Unhappy Feminists
- Thread starter Jormungandr
- Start date
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Thing is, political ideologies are secular religions.
Unless you are completely apolitical, it is impossible to be irreligious.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
The "of ex-colonies" part is important. And of course, the US is the exception.
Back to topic, reddit is in full throated defense of that asinine Man vs Bear trend. It's really fun to watch the controversial comments to see saner people metaphorically rip their hair out over it. I actually opened the r/WeAreWimps subreddit (ie Men's Rights) and was shocked to see that they're not being as ridiculous about it as I feared. Broken clocks, I suppose.
King Arts
Well-known member
So you want to make people of black or Asian descent to be cuckolds? To think of themselves and their people as inferior. You really are like those liberals. Unlike you I'm a real conservative I support all people to be nationalist and to feel pride and affection for their own people.
Europeans having their own lands and culture, same for Asians, same for Africans.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
The usual response, I suppose. I know you aren't likely to listen, but you're basically just conceding you don't have any 'science' to back your position at all, just dogma.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
We can take this to another thread, if you really wish. Altogether, I've found you to be on the 95th percentile of reason on this site.
You should really watch less pornography. All I said is that I don't argue with said people. I'm not the type to dictate what people do in the safety of their thoughts, as long as I'm not supposed to agree with them.
King Arts
Well-known member
What exactly do you think a nationalist is, and then please explain why you think blacks or Asians, or Latinos should not be nationalists?
Ixian
Well-known member
That is a very common problem among the female demographic in the west. They can't conceive that the majority of men want something different in a long term partner than themselves.
Its why taking dating advice from a woman as a man is typically a bad idea.
Which is what evolution is.
Well, it's a central component of the concept of "evolution by natural selection" - as opposed to some other theory of how "Evolution" was supposed to work.
The thing is, "survival of the fittest" can be regarded as a bit of a tautology - what is the definition, after all, of "the fittest"?
Anyway, I see it's as I guessed - SoliFortissimi is a "The early chapters of Genesis contradict Muh Science, therefore all religion is completely made up!" type of atheist.
Because a Fundamentalist reading of Genesis that takes the first 11 chapters entirely literally is the only sort of "religion" he knows about or can take seriously!
@SoliFortissimi
Since you say you will not dialogue with Creationists, and in your mind everyone who believes in God is of necessity YEC - then you are refusing to discuss at all - you just want to burp your disbelief at us and stick your fingers in your ears.
No, we are not going away. It is your kind who will be going away.
And for the record, I actually am YEC-leaning in my beliefs. But I recognise that one can be a Christian without being YEC.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
Ok. Let's see whose ideals outlives whose.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Technically, evolution is a combination of "survival of the fittest" and just sheer blind luck.
Just look at how much random space rocks playing Pinball affected evolution of life on Earth...
Literally just the ones who survive long enough to have offspring, which survive to have offspring of their own, and so on. Occasionally there are mutations, and while this can be a bad thing, it can also be a good thing if it proves beneficial to the environment this animal happens to be in. Like the bird with the shorter, stouter beak has an easier time cracking seeds open, so its offspring are better able to feed, and eventually the other birds die out because they starve. Or the moth that blends in with the bark of a tree is able to avoid being eaten by birds and thus is able to reproduce and make more like itself, only to then end up getting eaten because the industrial revolution leaves all the trees coated in soot, so it stands out rather than being blended in, and now the dark-colored moths that blend in with the soot are able to survive and reproduce.
Christians look at plants and animals that are adapted to their environment and think that God made them that way, whereas the scientist looks at what evidence there is and is able to deduce that this is but the latest iteration in a long line. I have no idea how many times I've seen some creationist claim that there are no "transitional fossils" and yet they are all over the place. There is also now DNA analysis which helps to point to this as well. This is why it really bothers me when I see the terms "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" tossed around, because to me it just illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is, and how it works on all levels. It's honestly just a cope because anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together can see how viruses and other micro-scale organisms will literally evolve right before your eyes because of how short their generations are, but they don't want to admit to themselves that the same would apply to all other organisms.
Personally, when I was still a Christian, I had no problem with evolution because I saw that as simply part of God's work, and I saw Genesis as allegorical rather than literal. How better to create all living creatures on the same day than to create a common ancestor for all of them, after all. There really need not be any conflict between religion and evolution, since evolution is just about changes over time, but a lot of Christians seem see it as an attack on their religion, and also seem to confuse it as an alternate to creation when it explicitly defines itself as needing an already existing organism to work. Now, there is a secular, scientific theory on the origin of life, but it isn't evolution, it has its own name, abiogenesis (ironic, no?).
In any case, what does any of this have to do with the whole "tradwives" topic anyway?
That.At least twice we have philosophies created by people who do not wonted religion - Budda and Marx.In both cases,it become religions,too.
All people except narcissus need religion.
Seems legit to me
Thing is, when I see people point out the flaws of Creationism, such as "God created the world in seven days," and when you call out how utterly illogical that is, they try to wibble-wobble by goal post-moving that "oh, to God a day could mean an aeon" when it's clear that, ya know, it's meant to be an actual day -- as in twenty-four hours.
God created the world in just 144 hours, according to the Bible, and then chilled out for the last 24 (Sunday). Not aeons as days to God. Twenty-four hours. facepalm
To be blunt, it's the same logic/tactics that Muslims use to try to retroactively claim (via "oh, we analyzed the calendars wrong" or some rot) that Aisha were a teenager or adult when she was wed to Muhammed, and not, you know, 6--9 years old because for obvious reasons, their "epitome of manhood" marrying and basically raping a child is just not cricket.
sigh
Simonbob
Well-known member
Some people consider tradwives to be fossils?
mrttao
Well-known member
Plastic eating bacteria has been evolving right in front of our eyes.
plastics are artificial organic materials that do not exist in nature.
to digest plastics, requires the evolution of new enzymes.
which happened in some bacterial species. resulting in plastic eating bacteria.
those simply did not exist until very very recently. evolving right in front of our eyes.
Also, anyone who denies replication errors, is denying the existance of cancer.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
To be a devil's advocate here, people who deny evolution generally do not deny replication errors. Rather, they deny that random replication errors can result in meaningful evolution.
To use Gerhard Staguhn's words, that would be like perfectly built aircraft appearing as a result of tornado in a garbage yard.
Thing is however, it is not clear that replication errors are necessarily random. To put it simply: our DNA adapts to the environment. Mutations can appear specifically to deal with changes in environment.
So:
Random mutations = cancer
Targeted mutations = evolution
mrttao
Well-known member
Replication errors ARE meaningful evolution.
The ancestors of humans had replication errors in their gene for producing an enzyme called uricase that breaks down uric acid (the primary compound in pee) into an easily dissolved molecule. furthermore 90% of uric acid filtered by the kidneys gets reabsorbed instead of filtering out.
These replications errors first made human uricase less efficient. before finally disabling it entirely.
As a result, humans have very high levels of uric acid in their blood.
con: gout
pro: this increases the conversion rate of fructose (fruit sugar) into fat
pro: uric acid is a powerful anti oxidant. which can partially compensate for a shortage of antioxidants in the diet
Every human alive has a gene for producing uricase. that gene is permanently disabled, but it is there in your DNA.
====
every human alive also has a defective enzyme necessary for forming our jaw muscles. this results in our jaw muscles being 50x weaker. and several times smaller in size.
this size reduction means their skull anchoring is vastly smaller. This results in the skull being far wider and as a result the brain is much bigger.
We can all agree that sacrificing jaw muscles for bigger brain is a big improvement.
====
Also, every human alive has a permanently disabled gene for producing vitamin C. This one has no known pros.
But sometimes good enough passes simply due to being insignificant. Not being able to produce vitamin C is only an issue in long sea voyages (scurvy) which we were not evolved for.
=====
besides all that. I literally already gave the example of the brand new never existed before enzymes that are used to digest plastics. plastics literally did not exist in the past, they are wholly man made compounds. yet bacteria, through replication errors, developed enzymes capable of digesting plastics.
mrttao
Well-known member
So in summary:
1. we can all admit replication errors are real. since cancer is real.
I have talked to people who do not believe in replication errors.
2. we can all admit that selection is real. since this is just statistics, and also blatantly obvious to any farmer who simply tries to do selective breeding.
I have talked to people who do not believe in selection existing.
3. this only leaves the final claim. which is that replication errors, while real, cannot ever form a "new gene".
To which I reply with
A. meaningful evolution is not always forming a brand new gene out of nothing.
it is making slight alterations to an existing gene. sometimes even just breaking it, which can be useful in some scenarios.
As I have discussed in depth in my last post here
B. why not?
what magical force is preventing random letters being typed by unfathomable quantity of creatures from forming an entirely new word?
Serious question here.
Does lightning strike any creature who is about to form a new word?
C. this "replication errors won't form a new gene" argument is hinging on the notion that an entire new gene is formed on the spot from nothing.
where it is infact slight modification to an existing thing to make a new thing.
For example, the spike protein in covid is also used to assemble parts of the human placenta. which is why covid vaccines cause miscarriage.
Humans and covid both have this ancient gene, but have modified and repurposed it. These slight copy errors are not just instantly creating a brand new gene out of nothing. they are slightly modifying an existing gene
1. we can all admit replication errors are real. since cancer is real.
I have talked to people who do not believe in replication errors.
2. we can all admit that selection is real. since this is just statistics, and also blatantly obvious to any farmer who simply tries to do selective breeding.
I have talked to people who do not believe in selection existing.
3. this only leaves the final claim. which is that replication errors, while real, cannot ever form a "new gene".
To which I reply with
A. meaningful evolution is not always forming a brand new gene out of nothing.
it is making slight alterations to an existing gene. sometimes even just breaking it, which can be useful in some scenarios.
As I have discussed in depth in my last post here
B. why not?
what magical force is preventing random letters being typed by unfathomable quantity of creatures from forming an entirely new word?
Serious question here.
Does lightning strike any creature who is about to form a new word?
C. this "replication errors won't form a new gene" argument is hinging on the notion that an entire new gene is formed on the spot from nothing.
where it is infact slight modification to an existing thing to make a new thing.
For example, the spike protein in covid is also used to assemble parts of the human placenta. which is why covid vaccines cause miscarriage.
Humans and covid both have this ancient gene, but have modified and repurposed it. These slight copy errors are not just instantly creating a brand new gene out of nothing. they are slightly modifying an existing gene