Genetic Freedom

Well, the latest series of castaway posts offers nothing new, but simple attempts at transference, i.e. he says something irrational, we question him about it, then he claims that we’re the ones being irrational. Apparantly, for example, I’m fixated on “whiteness”.

Anyhoo, I’ve done my part to discredit the vaguely-defined concept of “genetic freedom”. I’d just like to point out this one last amusing quote:

Well, according to Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel, the Aboriginal Tasmanians were in complete isolation for ten thousand years, yet they remained homo sapiens (speciation didn’t occur) who can casually interbreed with other sapiens. So, castaway, do you think you can maintain a genetically free community for longer than that? Impressive.

And if your “branching” isn’t about speciation… then what is it about?

Overall in this thread, as far as I can tell, you’ve said exactly one interesting and true fact; the one about humans only really branching when space colonies are established. At that point, humans could be isolated for mega-extended periods of time and exposed to harsh alternate environments (perhaps even requiring genetic engineering to adapt) forcing significant genetic change to the point where they couldn’t interbreed with Earth-bound humans. The idea of far-future interstellar colonies (using slower-than-light “sleeper” ships, so trips takes decades and are not casually repeated) is an intruiging one, and had your entire thread been about that, you could have been respected instead of justly ridiculed.

Oh, well… best of luck.

Well, I’ve heard it so many times, it’s just become background noise.

Actually my ‘one liners’ are meaningful to your premise. If you group by phenotype, you get similar looking descendents and you also smooth the line of variation in non-visible traits. So instead of having very smart or very dumb, or very weak and very strong, you get people somewhere in the middle. If you want to cultivate particular intelligence or strength for instance, you can look past ethnicity for those traits. If you don’t want to of course that’s your perogative.

Let me ask you a question. Why does “whiteness” deserve to be preserved? You seem to believe that Genetics is the LAW. So you must believe that genes that are unable to be passed on, should not be…artificially supported, which is what you’re proposing…some sort of Welfare for White Guys who can’t get White Chicks…Cause all the Brothers are taking 'em with their natural rhythm, tight sportsmen bodies and big dickstm Yes it’s trademarked.

According to you, the average white man is unable to complete against the average black man for a white woman’s charms. The reasons you cite vary from the size of the black penis, to thrill of being around an sports figure, to the Jew controlled media matrix. In any case you have stated several times that white man doesn’t have chance against a black man.

If that’s the case, then clearly nature is telling you, that the white man is inferior breeding stock and should be allowed a dignified passing…like the other hominids before him. I mean, most females in the animal kingdom only allow males worthy of passing on their genetic material to mate with them and they rely only on instinct. God, imagine the message being sent out by white women who actually chose not to be with 2 million white men? That was your number right, including high school?

Wow. Count in the white women who would rather been with another woman, than a white man and I can see why you’re worried.

Is that the message you’re so proud of spreading? Cause honestly… if it was me, I would keep it on the QT. You never know, those White women may decide to try a little Latin Flavor…depending on how dark they are of course.

Umm…spicey!

Careful, holmes. You’re starting to sound obsessed with whiteness.

**

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Once more you display ignorance behind a mask of arrogance.

The bold claim “genetics branch” is not accurate. Rather, the reality is that genetic populations tend to branch only when there is pressure and isolation imposed on the groups that will branch. If “genetics branch” was an absolute statement, then we would see far more diversity in the human population than we do.**

You are really, really stupid. There is no other way to characterize how you strive to prove that “Genetics Branch” is an inaccurate statement. Completely the opposite of reality - but if it makes you happy…
Instead, even with the (limited, in your opinion) amount of genetic material we have studied, we can still see that there is more variation among the lowland gorillas (aged 338,000 to - 436.000 years) than there is among far greater number of individual humans (aged 400,000 years). In other words humans, by the simple act of continuing to move around (and breeding with anyone they meet), have reduced the “branching” that you have claimed as an absolute law of nature.

And this changes the law how? It is still a fundamental law of genetics. Genetics Branch. Whether a branching is reduced or increased is all relative, as with all things. That does not change that “Genetics Branch” is a fundamental law of nature - another words this is the REAL WORLD that we live in. Not your particular “perfect world” of non-branching.
It is true that mutations continue to occur at a (speculated) regular rate, but there is no scientific imperative for branching

“Scientific Imperitive?” What in the world are you talking about. You are delusional. Genetics simply branch - we don’t need any “scientific imperitive” for it.
** The reality seems to be that branching never occurs except when there are external pressures or physical separations (all of which humans have overcome with ease).**

Which means that branching always occurs because there are always external pressures or physical separations - we live in the real world, not tomndebbs fantasy lalaland. My whole point here, that you just conveniently forget about, is summarized in the essay quite well - The human race can now branch peacefully rather than violently, as all genetic life essentially branches in a violent fashion - survival of the fittest and such. Instead of just seeing the human race as “one” we can see it as many. We can enjoy the creativity of pursuing different genetic directions of life - if you’re too narrow minded to be able to enjoy something like that… fine.
consider the impala. Early evolutionary theorists speculated that it might have been an “unsuccessful” species bsed on the realtively few subspecies it has generated. Closer analysis has demonstrated that it is actually more “successful” than many of its cousins with greater speciation. The impala has found a physical form ideally suited to its environment and has continued to propagate without branching into separate species while its cousins have bred a wide variety of species “branches,” most of whch have fallen prey to extinction. (And in the case of the impala, we see not just that branching is not a universal, but that it is not even necessarily desirable.)

Humans are much more than simply “impalas” or “cockroaches.” We make choices… those choices can involve understanding the branching human race. Within the branching human race it is certainly expected that some genetics will find a stabilized form which so perfectly adapts to its environment that those that do mutate, are less successful than the previous - but that’s the LAW OF THE JUNGLE - THE LAW OF NATURE - VIOLENT LAW. Humans are much more than that - at least I am… I can understand if you aspire to be a cockroach - the radiation factoid is real, look it up.

**Well, according to Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel, the Aboriginal Tasmanians were in complete isolation for ten thousand years, yet they remained homo sapiens (speciation didn’t occur) **

So… try a hundred thousand or more years… then come talk with me.
And if your “branching” isn’t about speciation… then what is it about?

Freedom… Genetic Freedom - you know the thing you actually think you successfully argued against. Oh, you are successful from the perspective of morons, sure.
Overall in this thread, as far as I can tell, you’ve said exactly one interesting and true fact; the one about humans only really branching when space colonies are established.

Humans are intelligent enough to branch now. They do not require unavoidable imposed isolation. We are not controlled by our environment in that way, any more. Perhaps you are… whatever.
-clip- you could have been respected instead of justly ridiculed.

No, it wasn’t justly so, it was/is ignorance that causes the ridicule.

Oh, well… best of luck.

Don’t need it. All I need is for you to open your mind a bit more and understand that you are genetics… don’t limit your thoughts to “one human race.” Expand your mind into respecting and understanding the branching human race.

in circles…

Aggregate phenotypes can be pursued for both looks AND intelligence AND whatever other invisible traits…

AND, AND, AND, AND, AND

repeat 10,000 times and get back with me.

My god, you are narrow minded.

There’s just one small problem with your suggestion…

Yes, I actually think Genetic Freedom is complete nonsense and you haven’t proven otherwise.

Humans are also intelligent enough to see that sex is for pleasure, not for duty to the race. They’re far too intelligent to buy into your philosophy.

Well, at least the intelligent ones.

You are absolutely 100% right.

Genetic diversity being what it is, the human race has room for you and me, so there’s no reason for me to embrace nonsense as long as you’re there to pick up the slack.

**

[QUOTE=holmes]
Let me ask you a question. Why does “whiteness” deserve to be preserved?**

Ok, it’s time for me to play your game.

Why would you actively pursue the end of continued existence of white people? (since you love playing "lead the witness, I’m going to give it back to you)

**
You seem to believe that Genetics is the LAW**

There are “Fundamental laws of genetics.” Absolutely - those laws are called physics and chemistry. Genetics created all written laws, upon the planet, because we are genetics. The laws we create for ourselves, are not genetics, and nor are genetics the law (that we write for ourselves.) We write laws to prevent murder and this and that etc… however, to some extent we can discuss life/genetics while discussing laws, sure.
So you must believe that genes that are unable to be passed on, should not be…

No, we are intelligent enough to “play” in that way now. But we need to be careful how we play, obviously.
**artificially supported, which is what you’re proposing…some sort of Welfare for White Guys who can’t get White Chicks…Cause all the Brothers are taking 'em with their natural rhythm, tight sportsmen bodies and big dickstm **

Actually, I’m quite certain those white males who have been affected by the media attack upon their happiness and continued existence could win a lawsuit against the big media companies - but they will never do it, because they are too stupid.
According to you, the average white man is unable to complete against the average black man for a white woman’s charms.

No, I never said that. There are probability trends created… that’s all.

If that’s the case, then clearly nature is telling you, that the white man is inferior breeding stock and should be allowed a dignified passing…like the other hominids before him. I mean, most females in the animal kingdom only allow males worthy of passing on their genetic material to mate with them and they rely only on instinct. God, imagine the message being sent out by white women who actually chose not to be with 2 million white men? That was your number right, including high school?

The number is high, but that number you just quoted is incorrectly used. We no longer live by the law of the jungle, or violent genetic laws of extinction. We can have genetic freedom for the human race - all the human race. You may actually want the above scenario to come to fruition… I don’t know.
Wow. Count in the white women who would rather been with another woman, than a white man and I can see why you’re worried.

You anti-white conditioning is obvious - you are completly fixated upon white people - in a very sick and perverted way. I have to speak about white people, why, because I’m of northern european genetic stock - so for me to speak about it is natural and normal. The way you speak about it is sick and perverted - I expect nothing less from you though.

Your hatred of white people is extremely obvious - even if you yourself are “somewhat” white. You prove my point regarding the Media Matrix conditioning people to “work against white people” with each passing word - not that there’s anybody intelligent enough to get that.

It’s almost laughable how well you prove my point… several of you have said things blatantly anti-white… where if you inserted the world black for white, you’d be attacked and fired from your job immediately, because they are a “protected minority.”

Funny thing is, globally, “white” people are a minority compared to all other major groups accept for Native north and south americans.

So, I just proved the validity of the existence of the “media matrix” as I’ve defined it. The logic is impecable - you all come out with your anti-white slogans and phrases and logic streams and, I just sit back and watch with amusement at you putting your foot in your mouths. If the “media matrix” did not exist in the way of “anti-white” bias, you would not have any of these thoughts running through your mind…

Your bias and prejudice against those people you consider to be “white” is crystal clear. You are an intolerant bigot. Primarily your bigotry is directed at those who are “white” and actually recognize that they have those unique aggregate phenotypes…

You are an intolerant, prejudiced, bigoted human being - you are what’s wrong with the world and eventually, people like you will be put back in the closet where you belong.

Yes, I actually think Genetic Freedom is complete nonsense and you haven’t proven otherwise.

That’s because you’re a moron… nothing I can do about that, sorry.
Humans are also intelligent enough to see that sex is for pleasure -

Proof that you are a moron… Sex is FOR reproduction… it can be used FOR pleasure.
not for duty to the race.

More media matrix conditioning pouring out of your mind… Where did you get that phrase, hitler?
They’re far too intelligent to buy into your philosophy.

They’ll need to be far too stupid to buy into mine… the only reason they buy into yours is because the media matrix promotes it, and so their “choice” is only “zis way and zat is ze only acceptable way to do it”

Genetic Freedom is a far more beautiful way to view the human race, than the narrow minded way you do.

I love you, man…I do. Geez I almost wet my pants…please don’t leave when your guest status is up.

Do you have a tin foil hat?

Agreed, but if you just breed by phenotype and don’t isolate invisible traits, you can end up breeding intelligent white people with dumb white people and strong white people with weak white people. What good is that, other than breeding white people, which is fine if that’s your bag. Otherwise, you lose nothing by breeding particular invisible traits across phenotype if you’re not too worried about combining visible characteristics.

See, I told you that you were getting obsessed with wetness, err, whiteness.

As for our castaway, here, he’s almost certainly going to live up to his name when an Admin sees the direct personal insults he’s heaped on poor little me.

I figured he’d self-destruct sooner or later. Is ten pages a record?

Good one!! Very funny…

[QUOTE=zwaldd]
Agreed, but if you just breed by phenotype and don’t isolate invisible traits,

Didn’t we already cover this? You have the same problem that Bryan Elkers did - he did not know the FULL definition of phenotype. Phenotypes can be visible or invisible traits - and that’s not only how I use it but the way I embrace it. It is the broadest use of the word phenotype, sure, but it is also the ONLY word in existence to simply state what I mean.

There is a more “visually visible only” definition to phenotype, and I can see that I need to add a specific line about phenotype in the essay so it’s crystal clear to people that it fully includes all invisible unique aggregate phenotypes as well as visible - or whatever combination anybody wants to pursue.

When I call people stupid, or morons… it’s because I genuinely mean it per dictionary definition - for the topic being discussed.

I can take it back, but only if the person proves they are worthy of me taking it back.

Ah, yes, the famed “dictionary” exception to the no-insults rule.

Sure, that’ll fly.

The word “moron” was improperly used towards you per dictionary definitions…

My boss at work used to call people “morons” so I meant it in that way - in the slang way. Meaning is everything you know. Essentially I meant Moron to mean the same thing as stupid… so “Moron” becomes the noun of “stupid.” So, if you are stupid - then you are a moron. That’s How I meant the word.

Since people use words in different ways and sometimes in “inside” ways that the mainstream does not get, I should not have used that word towards you… but stupid stands as is and per dictionary meanings.

I don’t self-destruct.

But I’m well aware that discussion boards might take the “moron” seriously, Oh well, on with life beyond this diversion.

Calling somebody stupid is not an insult… Moron could be, yes… but I explained that above.

Stupid is a viable word to use during a discussion, and if that word is censored here… well then this place is really, really stupid.