Reply With Quote
some of these are pretty good, a lot are meh
some of these are pretty good, a lot are meh
The 2nd is totally bizzare and again illustrates the total misunderstanding of evolution.
So I just stopped.
Liberals no longer believe in evolution when it comes to the different races. It's doublethink.
Different races are not different species.
Are you referring to geographic variation? That even occurs within people of the SAME skin color?
WTF are you saying? Conservatives, as a big fat generalization, are the ones trying to keep evolution out of textbooks.
Liberals claim to believe in evolution but yet somehow don't believe in the evolutionary difference between races. A chihuahua and a pit bull are the same species too you know.
Put that in the textbooks.
What evolutionary traits are you clinging to here?
white supremacy
Most of those items apply to most the liberals here!
There are evolutionary differences between different white people you stupid Nazi. You think the people of Irish ancestory are the same size as the Scandinavian whites? You think African Pygmies are the same size as West African tribes? You think Indians (from India) have the same characteristics as East Africans? We call them geographic variations.
And yet they all interbreed. All are sapiens. Get it? Just like white tail deer vary greatly across the US.
What the do they teach you during these Hitler youth meetings besides you came from white trash and your parents beat you so the skinheads will accept you into their gang of misfits. Same thing you find in black crime ridden ghettos, unite with them for Christ sakes, you have much more in common.
And the dogs, that's through human selective breeding. You want pit bulls, big strong people? Kill yourself, and then breed selected people from West African Ancestry with Nordic whites.
that's pretty good... lol'ed at Black republicans...
And just about all those "doublethink" contradictions are really stretches.
Real question: How can you claim to be a nazi (or whatever your thing is) and hate liberals? You both want the same fascist state.
Not even close. Both are authoritarian but their methods and end goals are polar opposite.
I actually never understood the rationale for that argument... Nazis were extreme far-right, IMO. Nationalism taken to the extreme, the "superior" traditional values of the Volk... the whole hate towards the jews and others started with the notion they had extra-national loyalties...
I think the case could be closer for Mussolini's Italy, which pretty much arrived to the same spot under a heavy-handed national syndicalism.
Eventually, the power trip grew into a monstrosity, with the typical "you're with us or against us" anti-intellectual construct. But when you get to that point, I don't really think there's room for politics or debate, or "left" and "right".
The only thing that truly depressed me is to see the slow death of all of the great peoples of Europe. The unbearable thought of this not turning around in my lifetime seriously pains me. Once we can move past multiculturalism and ethnic clashes and embrace our differences maybe we can even learn to work with eachother and blast off of this planet to the stars.
Liberals don't breed at replacement levels so there's always that.
You Lie
Repugs with their imperial/corporate war-making, and tea baggers with their bogus nationalism, and both of them with their white superiority/racism, fit the definition of fascism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
When I think of the term 'doublethink,' the immediate example that comes to mind is not a spoiled Westerner bereft of any form of ethics or morals, as demonstrated in the OP, but of the classic 1984 traitor who willingly makes false accusations and admissions of guilt despite his knowledge to the contrary. In my opinion the OP's use is far too liberal - in that, doublethink is related directly to the prospect of torture and pain.
The problem with that is that you simply don't understand the theory of evolution and how it applies to human beings.
Most people really don't understand evolution that well, and people in right-wing information bubbles, tend to even less.
Actually, there is a case for classifying those two particular breeds as different species.
But then, one has to understand what a species is, to know that.
Again, your concept of evolution, and how it applies to human beings is flawed.
Explain why you say that in a bit more detail, and I can show you why.
*the* conclusive definition?
As you noted before, biologists themselves have some difficulty with it. A good working definition of a species is a geographically isolated group of organisms, sharing a very large set of genes that is capable of breeding with others.
While one could, in theory, mate a chihuahua with a great dane or larger breed, the practical aspects of that would be somewhat precluded by sheer size differential. I would call them close enough to different species to be so.
Does that work for you?
The definition though, of a species is not what the bull that m>s is alluding to. He is probably going to go on the very common schtick about "more evolved", but I will let him outline that, if he isn't too lazy to do so. A lot of that going around.
the list is silly. There are different types of liberals, part of being liberal by definition is accepting other peoples view points. I dont see why evolution matters AT ALL where the government is concerned- its perfectly logical to believe in evolution and understand that we're all different but at the same time believe you should all be seen equally in the eyes of the government. How would it be better, ye lovers of small government, for the government to cater its services and the law to some measurement of higher evolution? (which Im assuming you've fleshed out beyond "white"). And thats supposed to be a jab at liberal hipocrisy?
An awesome shortcut to critical thinking is convincing yourself that all people you group in a particular way think and act monolitically.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
