Recent Comments

You have no understanding of government. But then, anarchists don't.

In 1789, Congress had no intention of laying capitation taxes.

Thanks for sharing your story . The best way to have the future you want is to create it yourself.

Oh boy, you pissed on the third rail. (standing or squatting) LOL

I don’t believe you’re wrong, in fact I believe the same. We all have strengths and weaknesses which are traits passed down to us through our DNS from our ancestors. Our ancestors developed in specific conditions and as such, natural selection was made to favor one trait above another. I’m from Scotch-Irish ancestry, I must accept the cards I have. I have traits that make be better or worse in specific areas. I must accept that I might have to work harder in some areas to overcome a weakness.

If I said that, generally, black people are better at basketball then white people, would I be wrong? Are there good white basketball players (Larry Bird) and shitty black basketball players (Gary Coleman), sure. But generally black people are better at sports (besides hocket, they don’t like hockey, I think it has something to do with ice.)

I think the term racist is overused just like nazi as of late. Black people, generally, are the worst racist. I’ve had many encounters with highly racists black people because they have been told its justified. Here is the thing I find odd, generally speaking, I find that all other races are justified in expressing their racism against the white race, but it's not allowed the other way. Why is that? News flash, white people were not the only races involved in slavery. It was a way of life in antiquity among all races.

Personally, I think this overblown race issue is by design, its design to cause strife and contention. It’s part of the Marxist revolution we are in the middle of.

No, I don’t think you’re wrong, I think you should celebrate your heritage just like anyone else of another color. I also think you should draw upon your experience when making initial assumptions about others, if you say you don’t do this, you’re worse than a racist, you’re a liar. I find it completely acceptable to enter new relationships with people, assuming traits from your experiences and making assumptions until proven invalid. This is pattern recognition and humans are very good at it.

I don't think that's a valid argument.

This looks like an ad hominem argument fallacy to me.

Let's see, is my reasoning child like...? Shit, if it was, how would I know it, right? This sounds like an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Talk about stunted reasoning...

Well, alright, let me try to understand your argument here. But.. why read a book when you have chatgpt, assuming it is not going to make stuff up on me this time.

'Piaget observed that children, especially in the preoperational stage (roughly ages 2-7), often display this kind of thinking. They may attribute life or intentions to inanimate objects (animism), create fantastical explanations for real-world events, or engage in magical thinking. For example, a child might believe that the sun "goes to bed" at night or that the trees are sad when it rains.'

Okey... I have no idea how this is relevant... There is nothing in my comment that appears to use this type of reasoning. I simply stated well established scientific principles and corrected you on the widely accepted meaning of the world 'evolution'.

But I actually did.

Well, you did differentiate between two groups:

"a race of people that have yet to develop (or evolve) the extended sense of foresight that anatomically modern humans long ago, evolved"

As I understand it, you are implying that "anatomically modern humans" do have the "self-restraint and self-control" that is required for someone in positions of power. I mean, it is pretty clear to me from what you are saying.

My argument is that nobody has. It is the "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" argument. It is not even my own invention. Also, the second part of my argument is that you just think "anatomically modern humans" have the required level of "self-restraint and self-control" because they have convinced you (manipulatively) that they do when in reality they probably don't. The way they may do this may be, for example, by them creating a pretext and using it as an excuse for why they didn't restrain themselves that one time. This requires intelligence. My thesis would be that, assuming black people have on average lower level of intelligence (which I believe is true), they wouldn't be capable of creating a convincing enough pretext for it to work on groups more intelligent then themselves. So, my argument is that you are not seeing that "anatomically modern humans" also abuse power because they do it in a way that leaves you asking for more. I'm not saying that because "anatomically modern humans" do it, it is ok for black people to do it. I am saying NOBODY should be allowed to do it.

I will admit to something shameless, I tried to pivot the discussion from your topic to my target topic, which is abolition of government.

US Constitution:

1. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts"

2. "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States"

Logically speaking, if an entity borrows money to pay for what they want but makes another entity pay back the loan by threat of and with violence (without their agreement) then these two have a master/slave relationship. Clearly. Also, freedom is clearly the opposite of slavery.

The upshot is I will not respond to any of your comments.

Again, you make very little sense. Your confusion is difficult to counter.

Your reasoning capabilities seem stunted.

In fact, you seem to be using what Piaget observed in young children, and stated in his book from 1923 "The Language and Thought of The Child". I have posted comments and topics on Piaget. At any rate, he calls this type of thinking: interpretational mania, or imaginary reasoning. I suggest you download his book online, and read it.

The journalist responsible for the essay "Project 1619" uses this same type of reasoning.

You didn't have an argument. But I took pity and showed where you mistakenly THOUGHT you were arguing.

What taxes?

If you want to respond to one of my topics, argumentatively, please stick to the relevant points of the topic.

My topic concerned the inadvisability of those who descend from black Sub-Saharan Africans, both New World and Old World, in positions of power or authority, because of less ability for self-restraint and self-control and government, itself. I used findings from several disciplines, including psychology and evolutionary science, and also my own experiences. I stated that this holds for those countries in Sub-Sahara Africa and possibly other regions of the world as well.

I did NOT state anything about any other people or culture, insofar as self-restraint and self-control are concerned.

Your 'argument', as many arguments of black Americans do, attempted to include a 'universe', a generalization to all peoples. In the same way, I have black folk tell me something like, "But white folks do this too". That is not relevant.

In fact, when a child is caught doing something wrong, and he says, "Well, Billy (or so-and-so) does it", a wise mother would chastise him for believing that it absolves him of any wrong doing.

This is a very frustrating trait of these people.

I assume that means you don't agree with my argument. If so, I would appreciate rebuttal.

Taxes. Any society that has compulsory fees is not 100% free.

You have shown your true colors.

"The rest of your comment made very little sense."

You think that black people are not capable of handling power, right?

My argument is that NOBODY is capable of handling "power", nor should they have any. The only reason why you don't see self-restraint/etc in black people is because they are not intelligent enough to trick you into it. Others are. You are just tricked.

"evolution is a term we use to describe a physiological or biological response to an environmental stimulus"

That's not how I use the term. Evolution (via natural selection) is when certain genetic information mutations, recombinations and whatever else we may not know about still, happen to cause the individuals possessing them to reproduce (them) more successfully than others in the population, probably due to some environmental factors (which usually differ in different geographical areas). It has nothing to do with any 'response' to 'stimulus'. I guess there are epigenetic changes which may do what you say but that is not evolution via natural selection.

"The selection of a dominant trait or attribute IS the response to the environment."

Yes, but not on an individual level. This is happening on a long time scale and the effect is on the entire gene pool.

Must have been them rotten ol' slave drivers.

And her family with seven siblings and two parents, all played an instrument, and music was their entertainment in the evening. The culture she grew up in was very much like the mountain folk.

Thanks, D, for the appreciative comment.

Speaking about the Great Depression, I wrote something about The Whiny Kids Hypothesis a few days ago. My mom's folks were from Oklahoma, lived there during the depression trying to farm. (Originally, some of her forebears were from Mississippi, some from Kentucky, Virginia, Georgia, Arkansas, you get the picture. But our nuclear family, my parents, brother and I, lived in Denver and surrounds from mid-fifties onwards. Where I'm going with this is, whenever I would complain that something was too hard, or I needed something else, she would say "Well, why don't you do something about it, Carol?" or "Isn't there something you can do about it?"

And when I was fifteen, and we got out of school for the summer, when I walked in our door, I whined: "Mom, what am I gonna do this summer?" And she pointedly said: "Get a job, Carol!"

So I did. My first job, at 15, apart from babysitting, was in the library.

The point is, my mother, the Okie, from the mountains, made us into self-reliant AMERICANS, not whiny socialists.

I doubt that you truly understand how evolution, in natural selection, actually works.

Simply put, and this is where the Left, in particular the Leftist Jews, turn the concept of evolution inside out, simply put, evolution is a term we use to describe a physiological or biological response to an environmental stimulus. How that happens, that is, we know mutations must be random, but the selection of a particular mutation, is not random. The selection of a dominant trait or attribute IS the response to the environment.

The rest of your comment made very little sense.

Various far-apart bloodlines obviously have evolved genetic differences which cause them to have different characteristics. Some of these characteristics include those of the brain. It may not be wrong to conclude that certain related populations may exists that have such a low intelligence level that they may find it difficult to handle complexity of life in advanced societies. I don't think that's racist, it seems to be the reality. However, I believe the accepted scientific view on this is that both, genetics and environment, play a role in person's characteristics. So, maybe not all is lost. Maybe the problem can be resolved with additional education and training.

I believe the problem is not with racial characteristics. The problem is with the idea of government. There shouldn't be any. There is your problem. Government is slavery. If you put less intelligent people in positions of authority, they have less capacity to trick you into thinking you are free (while they are enslaving you). You use your superior intellect to see through their lies. However, when you put more intelligent people in positions of authority, they have more success, so, you don't even notice you are their slave.

Unfortunately, freedom was broken in America since the beginning. I guess people in America are more free than some other places, but they are not 100% free, never have been.

Where did you go?