applejack @applejack@gameliberty.club

@middy
Sex exists for procreation. It's not for "pleasure" or "expression" or any other wacky shit. If you think otherwise, yes, you need to explain why and how it exists.

>You need to clarify what you mean by 'need'.
Kikeish hairsplitting. Take your pilpul elsewhere. You know what I mean

>Which people? Why? How do you measure that? Evidence? Why are they better off with a natural order, but you're not better off not ever speaking online again, which should be a very unnatural thing in your axioms?
I did explain it, if you'd read it
>To say otherwise means to say we're not designed for what we evolved for, which is just retarded.

>I'm going to just assume you meant that our function is defined by our evolution, because 'we are designed for what we evolved for' is word salad, like saying 'cars travel on what cars drive on'.
No, it's called a tautology. Which is exactly why it's retarded to deny it.

>you didn't inform anyone as to what we evolved for
Do I need to? There's only ever one goal of evolution.

>Careful, if you say producing offspring, I and every evolutionary biologist will laugh at you.
If you want to go deeper, then yeah, it's about increasing the frequency of your replicating units, your genes. Which happens #1 from having children (ideally with people that already largely share your genes), and #2 from aiding other kin besides children that also share your genes, your family and race. That is it. There's no other unit that replicates and there is no other mechanism.

Idk what the ramble after that is about, but if you have a theory that can explain any of these things you're very welcome to give it, like I asked.

>This is your Achille's heel here, you have an incredibly surface level understanding of biology to the point of it being flat out incorrect for any practical use, but you have attempted to use it as a basis for your positions.
Not a single thing you said wasn't known to me, but none of it had anything to do with anything. You rambled about "it being more complicated" but don't give any example of how that ties into anything. Do you have an explanation for how the core goal of evolution could be somehow co-opted by some other force because it only cares about "good enough"?

>"many businesses are run by Jews" and "there is a worldwide, ancient Jewish cabal serving Jewish interests" are separate ideas
Cool and good, because I never said there was an "ancient Jewish cabal". It's really very simple, like I explained, Jew's have an extremely disproportionate amount of power and actively use that power to the detriment of my group for the good of theirs. I want to stop this.

>But that doesn't give power to Jews-it gives power to big businesses.
Jews are big business, and they're EXTREMELY proactive in showing their own in group preference. It is very actively for the sake of Jews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh8rpFTVBuM
If you had a Russian or a German or anything doing this there would be outrage and people calling for treason charges, but it's okay when every single political figure (who all strangely either receive massive amounts of donations from Jews or just straight up are Jews themselves) talks not much differently from Schumer here at AIPAC conventions

>As is typical for your kind, you may hate something, totally with good reason, but you are mislead into going completely the opposite direction with blame. Capitalism is what you have a problem with, not Jews. Capitalism enables this form of power distribution. Not a Spooky Jew Coven. Just rich bastards hoarding wealth. Open your eyes.
Oh, on the contrary. This happens exactly the same way with the lefties. See the attached articles from Jewish sources

>Why WOULD it only involve relatedness? You realize animals of all kinds-including humans---including other animals doing it for humans---raise animals of differing species? Your idea falls apart with one second of thought. Humans have literally been raised by animals.
Bro, those are stories. They don't actually happen. They're myths. They're either completely fake or just feral kids found around animals. And we obviously raise animals to use them or eat them. Even modern pets (still serve utility to us) were originally just utilitarian. Dogs were guards, handled sheep, did a lot of stuff, while cats caught mice. And you're still not giving a mechanism for how this could exist selflessly.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/q-and-a/a6055/children-raised-by-animals-0809/
fun one involving a "holocaust survivor" btw: https://www.thedailybeast.com/she-fled-the-nazis-and-was-raised-by-wolves-it-was-all-a-lie

>Humans save dying animals for no expected personal benefit
Because they're cute, which is a function we developed for our own children (for our own genetic benefit), because animal raising was important for the survival of certain peoples and we have an instinct for it (especially dogs. Evolution goes both ways, as dogs were artificially selected by us they "artificially" selected on us since people that worked better with dogs had an advantage, and so we evolved to love them like they did us), and because people want to signal socially. For every animal we save we eat 1000 more.
You didn't answer my question. If these are actually evolutionarily selfless, then explain the mechanism. You can't because there is none.

>No, your family gets value because of proximity and bonds that are formed with time, not blood. Which is why you can be adopted and not ever know it.
First, give evidence, or at least explain how, or at least give me anyone anywhere who actually fucking thinks this. And you said biologists would laugh at me, ha! Because races share genetics. Historically it was also mostly families that adopted related children, and still today that's pretty common (and the rest still serve as selfish social signalling for example). The rest of this is basically just a "it doesn't always exist in the extreme so it's not real" memery.
Fun fact btw, even outside of your family you tend to pick friends that are genetically more like you
> In fact, the genetic similarity between a pair of friends was similar to fourth cousins! Because the researchers controlled for ancestry, the genetic similarity is unlikely due to shared ancestry (also most participants were white).
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/neuroscience-in-everyday-life/202011/you-are-genetically-similar-your-friend
And people invest most into children when their partner is the most like them, aka, their children are even more like them
>Third Cousins Have Greatest Number Of Offspring, Data From Iceland Shows
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207140855.htm

>This is defeated by pretty basic modern genetics. Your definition of 'race' is completely arbitrary
Wrong:
Self identified race corresponds with genetic clusters
>Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
The differences are substantial enough to classify us into subspecies not "races"
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/woodley-2009-is-homo-sapiens-polytypic-human-taxonomic-diversity-and-its-implications.pdf
And Lewontin was a fraud. There is more variation between races than within (obviously)
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Human-genetic-diversity%3A-Lewontin's-fallacy.-Edwards/2f6295c900dd40377e60b6ca07ed1dc155c71504

Then you follow that up with more Jewish hairsplitting. "THE EXISTENCE OF PURPLE COMPLETELY DESTROYS THE CONCEPT OF COLOURS THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RED OR BLUE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG"
Go ahead, tell me species don't exist and are just a useless "social construct" (every taxon is a social construct)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly%E2%80%93polar_bear_hybrid

>Ever heard of the European Union?
A self admitted Jewish ploy to destroy White society, yes.
https://archive.vn/6piTP
>The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. [...]
>Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when Europe's feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation.

I know White people aren't a single block, I never said they were. I don't want them to be, that doesn't make sense. Africa for the Africans, Asian for the Asians, and Europe for the Europeans. Every culture has it's place, an ethnic home for every race. None of them are some single magic block.