What is wrong with nationalists? You just support globalism?Not much of one. There are people even I won't argue with, and Creationists are near the top of that list. Right after Maoists, Greens, and nationalists of ex-colonies.
What is wrong with nationalists? You just support globalism?Not much of one. There are people even I won't argue with, and Creationists are near the top of that list. Right after Maoists, Greens, and nationalists of ex-colonies.
Sure, and Chinese nation is 4000 years old. I suppose you're a Jew or a Hindu? In either case, that's only true if you arbitrarily group together several different cultures that would have killed each other as enemy tribes.
Thing is, political ideologies are secular religions.Jewish.
And as for china their civilization is that old or even older, but the modern nation state isn't, and while you have been very dismissive you haven't proven me wrong.
You are litterally surrounded by religions that are hundreds and some times thousands of years old, The religious impulse is some thing seen through out human history and through out the entire world. People being religious is historically speaking the norm.
The "of ex-colonies" part is important. And of course, the US is the exception.What is wrong with nationalists?
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.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.
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.Not much of one. There are people even I won't argue with, and Creationists are near the top of that list. Right after Maoists, Greens, and nationalists of ex-colonies.
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.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.
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.So you want to make people of black or Asian descent to be cuckolds?
What exactly do you think a nationalist is, and then please explain why you think blacks or Asians, or Latinos should not be nationalists?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.
Sounds like they imagine that men are like women. Ignoring a woman will make her want to get attention from you.
Which is what evolution is.No, that isn't evolution 101. That's 'survival of the fittest 101.'
Which is what evolution is.
Ok. Let's see whose ideals outlives whose., we are not going away. It is your kind who will be going away.
Technically, evolution is a combination of "survival of the fittest" and just sheer blind luck.Which is what evolution is.
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.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"?
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.Jewish.
And as for china their civilization is that old or even older, but the modern nation state isn't, and while you have been very dismissive you haven't proven me wrong.
You are litterally surrounded by religions that are hundreds and some times thousands of years old, The religious impulse is some thing seen through out human history and through out the entire world. People being religious is historically speaking the norm.
Seems legit to meHe went on reddit and Youtube back in the day you know. he got the fedora and everything. If god was real he would have smote him on the spot when he challenged sky daddy to fisticuffs back in 09. but he was clearly intimidated by his katana which was folded 10,000 times and talking points from Dawkins.
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.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?
Some people consider tradwives to be fossils?In any case, what does any of this have to do with the whole "tradwives" topic anyway?
Plastic eating bacteria has been evolving right in front of our eyes.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
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.Also, anyone who denies replication errors, is denying the existance of cancer.
Replication errors ARE meaningful evolution.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.
Replication errors ARE meaningful evolution.