What is one of your deeply held opinions and what would it take to change it? -

JuniperFalls

kiwifarms.net
There are more ways to impose measures to prevent birth than the measures you have just described.

The straigth answer to your question is that there is no mandatory abortions on white women who do not want them. There is no mandatory contraception imposed either, but there does seem to be some environmental causes that would be similar in effect to mandatory contraception. We are exposed to plenty of estrogen in drinking water and xeno-estrogens through bpa that might have similar effects on fertility. Perhaps this is also the source of the decades long decline of sperm quality. This is understudied and we don't know for sure. We also don't know if this environmental cause is intentionally caused or intentionally not prevented. I do not consider this proven beyond any doubt. And in any case since this is far from significant enough to call contraception, as women do not have that much difficulty conceiving, I'm willing to concede altogether that (d) is not met completely.
Assuming this is all true -- why do you call it "white" genocide rather than simply "genocide"? Is there any evidence that these measures affect white women more than other ethnic/racial groups? (Or, regarding lower sperm count in men -- any evidence that only WHITE men are affected by this?)
 

Lemmingwise

Judging you internally
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Well, how do you feel about censoring child porn?
This ties into one more thing I'm going to post in this thread:

Everyone should stop equating porn with speech. Speech relates to political and societal ideas and the freedom to do so in a provocative manner.

Porn isn't speech. It's okay to censor porn and it's particularly okay to censor child porn. If you can't broadcast your ideas without getting naked or putting a dildo in your ass, then you should rethink the way you create your message. Free speech should not protect porn the same way that it protects your freedom to use speech.
 

Lemmingwise

Judging you internally
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Assuming this is all true -- why do you call it "white" genocide rather than simply "genocide"? Is there any evidence that these measures affect white women more than other ethnic/racial groups? (Or, regarding lower sperm count in men -- any evidence that only WHITE men are affected by this?)
Good question. Because low fertility alone does not destroy a people, in whole or in part. Only low fertility + mass migration destroys part of a people. A comparison is the native americans, where the final nail in the coffin wasn't any specific murder of native americans (though of course murders were part of the overall picture of their displacement and destruction), the final nail is the intermarriage.

The mass migration of europeans to what we now call america (north and south), without any such significant migration in the opposite direction. Many native americans ended up pairing with europeans and over the centuries you have a lot of people who are 1/8th native american. Their ancestors weren't kiled. They were in some sense absorbed.

But the people itself was unable to continue their traditions, their way of life. The people were destroyed, in part and as a result, it's an example of a genocide.

edit: To clarify the situation a little more; if you have two hypothetical islands and they are each populated exclusively by a different people. If you create a situation on the first island, where fertility becomes low through social norms and environmental causes and then open the borders for the other country to mass migrate to the first low fertility island, then it doesn't matter that they too effected by the lowered fertility, particularly not if the mass migration continues unhindered or if there are various ways how they cling to their old social mores rather than accept the new ones of their new host island. The result will be the same; eventually the people of the first island will be a memory like the neanderthal's are; part of some people's DNA, but ultimately gone.

The mass migration is only going toward white countries and toward EVERY white country. That's why I call it white genocide.


Do you want sources and numbers on mass migration?
 
Last edited:

JuniperFalls

kiwifarms.net
Do you want sources and numbers on mass migration?
Depends on who would provide those sources and numbers -- "White genocide is real and everything scary is the fault of the Jews dotcom?"

FWIW, the United Nation's 2017 report on international migration says this:

International Migration Report 2017: Highlights Key Facts•The number of international migrants worldwide has continued togrow rapidly in recent years, reaching 258 million in 2017, up from 220 million in 2010 and 173 million in 2000.•Over60 per centof all international migrants liveinAsia (80 million) or Europe (78 million). Northern America hosted the third largest number of international migrants (58 million), followed by Africa (25 million), Latin America and the Caribbean (10 million) and Oceania (8 million).1
Link: https://www.un.org/en/development/d...eport/docs/MigrationReport2017_Highlights.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: Senior Lexmechanic

MAPK phosphatase

Cell Death Regulator
kiwifarms.net
Global warming is real, is caused by humans, has already caused billions of dollars in damage due to more extreme weather, and will cause billions more if left unchecked. Nearly everyone in power knows and accepts this. Evidence of a truly massive conspiracy would have to be uncovered to make me change my mind. Unlike things like a round earth I do have to trust the scientists and research, but the number and diversity of scientists that agree with this and the predictive power of the climate models are enough to convince me.

However, many people blindly accept global warming and haven't looked at a single climate science paper in their entire life. That's fine if you're a busy person. Just accepting the scientific consensus is a safe, although not always correct, position. It's fine so long as you don't go on and try to argue that position without having actually looked at the research. However people do that with global warming and what we get as a result is people spouting incorrect lines of reasoning and giving ammunition to the people who deny the science.
This leads into my second point, blind acceptance of global warming in the presence of widespread global warming denial can be just as harmful in delaying solutions as the denial itself, since it does nothing to convince people who believe in changing their minds and oftentimes cements them in their ideas. People get caught up in telling the "truth" when the "truth" they want to speak isn't accurate climate data and predictions, it's just feeling superior and calling climate change deniers stupid. Instead they could be telling truth, without quotes, and be debating on a level field while taking the grievances of deniers seriously. Getting a critical mass of deniers turned over to "ok we do need solutions to this problem" will get the politicians turned over and solutions will start getting more traction. It was people who took climate denial grievances seriously that turned me over to accepting that global warming is actually happening.
What could get me to change my mind is if someone can show that calling other people idiots while not addressing their grievances is an effective way of changing minds.

Basically I'm saying that voting as someone who is pro-gun and believes in global warming is hell.
 

Lemmingwise

Judging you internally
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Depends on who would provide those sources and numbers -- "White genocide is real and everything scary is the fault of the Jews dotcom?"

FWIW, the United Nation's 2017 report on international migration says this:

Link
From your own source:

In 2017, two thirds (67 per cent) of all international migrants were living in just twenty countries. The largest number of international migrants (50 million) resided in the United States of America. Saudi Arabia, Germany and the Russian Federation hosted the second, third and fourth largest numbers of migrants worldwide (around 12 million each), followed by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (nearly 9 million).
It's noteworthy that the only exception to my claim, saudi arabia, does not allow migrants to become citizens.

So your own source states that the majority of migration goes towards white countries, just as I said. It is also noteworth that this is mostly migration from non-white countries.

So besides putting words in my mouth about boogeymans, I don't know what you're trying to say. Please be a little clearer, if you can.
 
Last edited:

Clop

kiwifarms.net
Right and what social-political movement brought forward the social conditions where exactly that happens?
I think - and this is just me - that entitlement came before feminism. Women and children were first to the lifeboats because of obvious reasons and at some point a peaceful populace just grew accustomed to being coddled.

So even though I know what you're getting at, my answer is going to be 'welfare state.' The longer the population has zero real problems and gubmint gibsmedat, the more entitled everyone gets. And no one is ever going to be at a bigger risk of becoming entitled than a girl being held to impossible values by her mom, dad, siblings, teachers, society, government and the justice system. Feminism is just the result of a woman being so bored with the tidy and peaceful lifestyle that she starts breaking shit. If you want to turn a woman into a feminist you just tell her that nothing is her fault and that she is entitled to more than she currently has.

I'll change my mind once Sol goes supernova.
 

SugarSnot

You will not want it after reading the tags.
kiwifarms.net
That anything should be allowed to happen to fictional characters and people should be able to make money off of the fucked up fiction they create. You're probably pretty bonkers if you draw stuff like grotesque gore and child abuse, but so long as you keep harming figments of the imagination instead of real people or animals then it is completely tolerable. It's okay if people tell you you're fucked up for it, but if they go after your money then they're worse than you.
 

Lemmingwise

Judging you internally
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I think - and this is just me - that entitlement came before feminism. Women and children were first to the lifeboats because of obvious reasons and at some point a peaceful populace just grew accustomed to being coddled.

So even though I know what you're getting at, my answer is going to be 'welfare state.' The longer the population has zero real problems and gubmint gibsmedat, the more entitled everyone gets. And no one is ever going to be at a bigger risk of becoming entitled than a girl being held to impossible values by her mom, dad, siblings, teachers, society, government and the justice system. Feminism is just the result of a woman being so bored with the tidy and peaceful lifestyle that she starts breaking shit. If you want to turn a woman into a feminist you just tell her that nothing is her fault and that she is entitled to more than she currently has.

I'll change my mind once Sol goes supernova.
I don't really disagree, but I do think you underestimate both the influence and role of feminism. Entitlement itself is not close to an anti-fertility cult.


and whatever old name Ethiopians went by when they were mentioned in Biblical or ancient Egyptian texts
I don't know what they were called in those texts, but I'm pretty sure back then Ethiopians were known as Abyssinians.

@Lemmingwise, what do you think of the crowd that basically says 'poor people shouldn't have kids'? And with the statement that poor women have a higher fertility rate than richer ones.
I don't think wealth is the best metric for who should and shouldn't have children. If you want me to comment on a specific group that says that you have to mention them, so that I can better investigate their motives, as different groups might say the same thing for very different motives.

In general I consider arguments against fertility to be inherently flawed, especially if they're responsible or reasonable arguments, because the irresponsible and unreasonable segment won't listen anyways. So it ends up being a reduction of fertility of the reasonable and responsible. In the long run, you'll have a higher percentage of irresponsible and unreasonable people.
 
Last edited:

ProgKing of the North

^^^^FUCKTARD^^^^
kiwifarms.net
Individual liberty is more important than societal cohesion. To change that I guess society would have to collapse from too much liberty.

Anyone can be an American. Someone who was naturalized yesterday is now just as American as somebody who can trace their lineage back to the Mayflower.

Regarding fertility vs anti-fertility--it really isn't anyone's business except for the individual woman and her partner if she decides to have kids or not. Society shouldn't be pressuring her either way because it's nobody else's business.
 

DontTellMeHowToPlay

kiwifarms.net
The Punisher (2005) is still my favorite third person shooter. I replayed it recently on PC and it still holds up as a damn solid game. The Saints Row series came really close, but Punisher just barely beats it IMO. The tight combat/movement, realistic M-rated violence, the music, the difficulty balance, Frank's "berzerker akimbo knives" mode, ect. all really came together for this particular game. Most of all, I love how many options the game gives you to take down the enemies.

There'll be a better "hallway shooter" someday.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Syaoran Li

mindlessobserver

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Belief in the supernatural is dangerous and one of the most ancient threats to human flourishing and civilization. It should be actively mocked, discouraged and ideally purged whenever it rears its ugly head in whatever form it takes.

It would take proof of things like magic, supernatural creatures or afterlife realms to make me reconsider.
I believe belief in the supernatural is necessary for our brains and society to function. Without it we fall into pits of nihilism, lose our principled morality and eventually tear each other apart. I will believe otherwise if you can show me a single godless society that functioned for any period longer then 200 years.
 

Fagatron

ArchFedora
kiwifarms.net
I believe belief in the supernatural is necessary for our brains and society to function. Without it we fall into pits of nihilism, lose our principled morality and eventually tear each other apart. I will believe otherwise if you can show me a single godless society that functioned for any period longer then 200 years.
To name but a handful that spring to mind; Iceland, Japan, post revolutionary France and the Czech Republic.

Would you consider Confucianism to be Atheistic? I personally would since it openly poo poos superstition and belief in deities and magic even though it sometimes gets called a religion. We can add China and Korea to that list if that is the case considering Christianity only really began to become accepted after the Korean war in the south.

There are many more things to motivate men than fear of the wrath of the unknown.

As for morality, how many of the ten commandments do our "God fearing" societies today actually follow? When was the last time someone was beheaded for working on the sabbath?
 
Last edited:

Marco Fucko

~~~
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Belief: Cops are mostly good and obviously necessary to keep the peace. You definitely get insecure tough guys sometimes, but if you avoid doing stupid shit then you're not really going to have any issues. Also everyone who is vocally against police are huge losers with infractions, so...

What it would take to change it: lol I dunno, maybe if someone magically made me brown and have a drug problem I'd be more worried about a traffic stop
 

Lemmingwise

Judging you internally
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Original claim was: "belief in the supernatural is necessary for our brains and society to function."

To name but a handful that spring to mind; Iceland, Japan, post revolutionary France and the Czech Republic.

Would you consider Confucianism to be Atheistic? I personally would since it openly poo poos superstition and belief in deities and magic even though it sometimes gets called a religion. We can add China and Korea to that list if that is the case considering Christianity only really began to become accepted after the Korean war in the south.

There are many more things to motivate men than fear of the wrath of the unknown.

As for morality, how many of the ten commandments do our "God fearing" societies today actually follow? When was the last time someone was beheaded for working on the sabbath?
China/ Confucianism

confucianism.PNG


Japan / Shinto

shinto.PNG


Pre confucian, pre christian Korea:

korea.PNG



Post revolutionary france is not exactly a society where people didn't believe in god either. Even today the majority of french identify as christian rather than non religious (or muslim).

Czech republic is less than 3 decades old in its current form.

Iceland had gods before it was christianized, but now the majority are christians.

I believe belief in the supernatural is necessary for our brains and society to function. Without it we fall into pits of nihilism, lose our principled morality and eventually tear each other apart. I will believe otherwise if you can show me a single godless society that functioned for any period longer then 200 years.
I tried and failed to find examples. Although there aren't *that* many societies with gods that had an unbroken functioning either. There aren't many experiments with godless societies either. After all, if your entire sample size has never considered trying it, you wouldn't know if that's the source of failure. For example, there has never been a society that vaccinated that functioned for a period longer than 200 years, but I don't think many would suggest that's a bad idea for society.

Godlessness is a relatively new idea and as such, the requirement of wanting a 200 years functioning society may be somewhat of a red herring.
 
Last edited:

mindlessobserver

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
To name but a handful that spring to mind; Iceland, Japan, post revolutionary France and the Czech Republic.
Post revolutionary France is your example of a successful godless society? Bro. Japan? Do you not see any weeb shit? Japan is one of the most spiritual countries in the world. Every city has it's own God festival ffs. The Czech Republic? I mean, wut? Also it's only a few decades old. I dont know shit about Iceland but it has a nordic cross on its flag so...

Would you consider Confucianism to be Atheistic? I personally would since it openly poo poos superstition and belief in deities and magic even though it sometimes gets called a religion. We can add China and Korea to that list if that is the case considering Christianity only really began to become accepted after the Korean war in the south.
Contrary to what you learned from the civilization games, confucianism was not a religion it was a political philosophy and served that role. Buddhism and traditional Chinese Faith's existed simultaneous to it.

There are many more things to motivate men than fear of the wrath of the unknown.
Not what religion is. If you want to get psychological, it's the brains reality scaffold that anchors it in the now by orienting past and future. You should read some Jung and less fedora lords.

As for morality, how many of the ten commandments do our "God fearing" societies today actually follow? When was the last time someone was beheaded for working on the sabbath?
How many people obey speed limits on the highway? This is a strawman argument.
 

nagant 1895

kiwifarms.net
Individual liberty is more important than societal cohesion. To change that I guess society would have to collapse from too much liberty.

Anyone can be an American. Someone who was naturalized yesterday is now just as American as somebody who can trace their lineage back to the Mayflower.
People who get in under your second belief will destroy your first.

As for me. I think that the future is in space and I don't care what pollution has to be spilled and how many social programs have to be slashed I want human space colonization now. To change my mind you'd have to show me that all the meteors, gamma ray bursts and rouge black holes in the universe will miss Earth.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ZeCommissar
Tags
None