Anti-racemixers and SFcels GTFIH

[normie_joe]

I'm copying a comment I made.

Consider these pairings:

Assume the children inherit the parents' genes identically.

If you are against race mixing, are you saying that these pairings

Will yield better looking children, than these?

I'm very curious to hear what you have to say.

 

[Angutoid]

Its almost impossible to predict genetic outcomes but i wouldnt risk my child looking THIS disturbing

An ugly white boy will never be as bad as this

 

[normie_joe]

Its almost impossible to predict genetic outcomes but i wouldnt risk my child looking THIS disturbing

An ugly white boy will never be as bad as this

You are correct in the fact that genetic outcomes are random, but a subhuman father and a subhuman mother are significantly more likely to make subhuman kids.

 

[Angutoid]

You are correct in the fact that genetic outcomes are random, but a subhuman father and a subhuman mother are significantly more likely to make subhuman kids.

Im not anti race mixing all jokes aside in fact im really mixed

 

[normie_joe]

@greycel You seem to spew this rhetoric, answer the question.

 

[Debetro]

Just be deformed bro.

 

[Deleted member 59278]

Just post pictures of subhumans as an argument for racemixing theory. Retarded post.

 

[Debetro]

Health comes first.

 

[Numb The Pain]

We are all one big family.

 

[normie_joe]

Just post pictures of subhumans as an argument for racemixing theory. Retarded post.

That is the argument.

Are you saying that

A subhuman of the same race paired with a subhuman of the same race

And

A subhuman of the same race paired with a mogger of the same race

Will have a greater chance of creating top tier kids than a mogger paired with a mogger?

If you are against interracial kids, that means you believe those statements as true.

 

[normie_joe]

Just be deformed bro.

That is almost all of SFcels, deformed and purified by the bell curve.

 

[Debetro]

If you are against interracial kids, that means you believe those statements as true.

No, being against interracial kids does not make you believe those statements as true. The rest you present is valid

 

[normie_joe]

No, being against interracial kids does not make you believe those statements as true. The rest you present is valid

What makes them false sir?

 

[playxiing]

this is the kind of threads that make me loving .org like how someone be this retarded

 

[Debetro]

What makes them false sir?

I'm not classifying them as false.

 

[looksmaxxed]

regression to the mean means the white kid will on average be better looking than the good looking ethnic admixture.

it's one of the fundamental arguments against "muh talented genius" immigration. a top 1 percent indian isn't going to have top 1 percent offspring forever, or even likely in the 2nd generation. they will be closer to their 76iq mean than their top 1 percent.

 

[normie_joe]

I'm not classifying them as false.

No, being against interracial kids does not make you believe those statements as true.

Your logic not logicing my good man.

 

[Debetro]

Your logic not logicing my good man.

I did not conclude in any moment on whether the statements were true or false. I only affirmed the people against interracial kids would not automatically believe in those statements, as one can exist without the other.

 

[normie_joe]

regression to the mean means the white kid will on average be better looking than the good looking ethnic admixture.

it's one of the fundamental arguments against "muh talented genius" immigration. a top 1 percent indian isn't going to have top 1 percent offspring forever, or even likely in the 2nd generation. they will be closer to their 76iq mean than their top 1 percent.

So you are saying the two pairing will coverge to average, but

One pairing goes from top tier, less top tier, less top tier.....average.

The other pairing goes from subhuman, less subhuman, less subhuman... average.

The outcome of both is average, but the bases were in two opposite ends.

Why choose the shittier base?

 

[normie_joe]

I did not conclude in any moment on whether the statements were true or false. I only affirmed the people against interracial kids would not automatically believe in those statements, as one can exist without the other.

You don't know what you are writing do you my guy?

 

[Debetro]

You don't know what you are writing do you my guy?

What do you not understand. In simpler words. Hypothetically, I'm against interracial people, fine? Well, I can still believe in that the last couples' offspring will become better looking in general than the craniofacially disfigured couple's. What am I saying that is wrong?

 

[greycel]

You don't understand the effects of environment

The white + white will ON AVERAGE breed the most fit for not just compatibility with beauty standards but ideality to nature

Both these are recessed, because of malformed craniofacial complex that is not representative of their genetic potential and especially their genetic consistency

 

[cryptt]

very high iq thread bhai how do y’all niggers even think about it quality thread @lestoa @LTNUser

 

[lestoa]

good day to be mixed

 

[looksmaxxed]

So you are saying the two pairing will coverge to average, but

One pairing goes from top tier, less top tier, less top tier.....average.

The other pairing goes from subhuman, less subhuman, less subhuman... average.

The outcome of both is average, but the bases were in two opposite ends.

Why choose the shittier base?

what determines the overall quality and ratio of high quality people in a population is their baseline or "mean". this is why dysgenic jews and brownards all hate the notion of race, because it accurately places them at the bottom. it doesn't matter if a top 1 percent indian is similarly fit as a top 1 percent white, both are outliers and statistically irrelevant. however the idea that "muh chads are a different race altogether therefore race as a whole doesn't matter, hurr drr" is massive cope by shitskins, because the baseline of the indian is 76iq and deformed. the baseline for the white is 100iq and average/normal. therefore a top 1 percent indian is actually not at all the same as a top 1 percent white in terms of genetic potential. and that is far more important factor to consider in terms of demographics.

the good looking indian is more likely to produce an ugly offspring. the ugly white is more likely to produce a normal offspring. it's just a matter of probability. look at the parents of male models, they're all pretty much ugly. looks doesn't really transfer across generations very well. what does transfer is baseline genetic quality

 

[greycel]

good day to be mixed

He's completely wrong

 

[normie_joe]

What do you not understand. In simpler words. Hypothetically, I'm against interracial people, fine? Well, I can still believe in that the last couples' offspring will become better looking in general than the craniofacially disfigured couple's. What am I saying that is wrong?

Nope, it simply means you don't believe your own theory.

Anti-race mixing means no race mixing under any condition.

If you have a condition, that still means you believe in race mixing...given your condition.

Your condition here was "they both need to look good."

Someone who is truly against race-mixing would have no conditions. I'm looking for those people.

 

[Debetro]

Nope, it simply means you don't believe your own theory.

Anti-race mixing means no race mixing under any condition.

If you have a condition, that still means you believe in race mixing...given your condition.

Your condition here was "they both need to look good."

Someone who is truly against race-mixing would have no conditions. I'm looking for those people.

Holy molly @666PSL

 

[greycel]

t doesn't matter if a top 1 percent indian is similarly fit as a top 1 percent white, both are outliers and statistically irrelevant.

But they are not
The ethnic who is top 1% of his respective race benefitted from genetic recomb that placed him as such, in the eyes of the beauty standards that the society have prioritised wherever he might live. There is hardly any consistency to this, and his children are still slaves to the hundreds of generations before, who all have unideal breeding (genetic exchanges) relative to say a white person

 

[greycel]

Nope, it simply means you don't believe your own theory.

Anti-race mixing means no race mixing under any condition.

If you have a condition, that still means you believe in race mixing...given your condition.

Your condition here was "they both need to look good."

Someone who is truly against race-mixing would have no conditions. I'm looking for those people.

I just told you I am anti racemixing and have explained why

 

[Deleted member 59278]

That is the argument.

Are you saying that

A subhuman of the same race paired with a subhuman of the same race

View attachment 3391804

And

A subhuman of the same race paired with a mogger of the same race

View attachment 3391805

Will have a greater chance of creating top tier kids than a mogger paired with a mogger?

View attachment 3391806

View attachment 3391807

If you are against interracial kids, that means you believe those statements as true.

One dimensional low IQ argument. Obviously an interracial "mogger" pair will procreate better offspring than a homogenous "mogger" pair. But there exist equally many women and men of the same genetic value in general and within each race. So there would statistically never be any benefit for interbreeding across human sub-species.

 

[normie_joe]

what determines the overall quality and ratio of high quality people in a population is their baseline or "mean". this is why dysgenic jews and brownards all hate the notion of race, because it accurately places them at the bottom. it doesn't matter if a top 1 percent indian is similarly fit as a top 1 percent white, both are outliers and statistically irrelevant. however the idea that "muh chads are a different race altogether therefore race as a whole doesn't matter, hurr drr" is massive cope by shitskins, because the baseline of the indian is 76iq and deformed. the baseline for the white is 100iq and average/normal. therefore a top 1 percent indian is actually not at all the same as a top 1 percent white in terms of genetic potential. and that is far more important factor to consider in terms of demographics.

the good looking indian is more likely to produce an ugly offspring. the ugly white is more likely to produce a normal offspring. it's just a matter of probability. look at the parents of male models, they're all pretty much ugly. looks doesn't really transfer across generations very well. what does transfer is baseline genetic quality

OK bucko, you are just making your own theories and claiming your own theories as the source for the point.

 

[Debetro]

Someone who is truly against race-mixing would have no conditions. I'm looking for those people.

You can be anti-racemixing by your definition, and also be anti-sub5mixing. The latter being of a higher force.

 

[greycel]

Obviously an interracial "mogger" pair will procreate better offspring than a homogenous "mogger" pair.

They won't
They honestly won't, well assuming that the homogenous pair is white
There's no consistency to people who lucked out with genetic recomb (under the assumption they have and it isn't surgery/makeup)

The homogenous pair of whites will in the long run always produce better children

 

[normie_joe]

One dimensional low IQ argument. Obviously an interracial "mogger" pair will procreate better offspring than a homogenous "mogger" pair.

That was NOT what my point was.

My point was NOT mixed race > same.

The post was addressed at those who believe that a subhuman with a subhuman, or a subhuman with a mogger (all same race) will make better offspring than two moggers of different races.

I'm testing what SFcels are saying.

But there exist equally many women and men of the same genetic value in general and within each race. So there would statistically never be any benefit for interbreeding across human sub-species.

Not my argument.

 

[Deleted member 59278]

They won't
They honestly won't, well assuming that the homogenous pair is white
There's no consistency to people who lucked out with genetic recomb (under the assumption they have and it isn't surgery/makeup)

The homogenous pair of whites will in the long run always produce better children

Genetic recomb is a thing, yes, but you're overblowing its significance.

 

[Deleted member 59278]

That was NOT what my point was.

My point was NOT mixed race > same.

The post was addressed at those who believe that a subhuman with a subhuman, or a subhuman with a mogger (all same race) will make better offspring than two moggers of different races.

I'm testing what SFcels are saying.



Not my argument.

Okay, were on the same page then. I thought you were advocating for racemixing with the preface that Sub5 and Stacy pairings actually are a thing, which they aren't.

 

[looksmaxxed]

according to the principle of regression to the mean which has been proven to apply to genetics, top percentage selection choices are irrelevant, people select for them out of personal, psychological, and evolutionary ingrained reasons, but they are not practical or functional. you have the same chance of getting a 100iq healthy baby with a 99th percentile white chad as with a white wimp because it's the baseline genetic that matters. look at the parent and child of delon. ugly to average looking people, with a chad delon sandwiched between them. it's pointless to try and purposely select for "good looking" genes, you have to make your selection based on overall racial baseline, and that is what raises the probability of having good looking healthy children.

now take the same situation and apply it to indians whose high iq, good genetic quality specimens look like this precisely because their baseline is 76iq and subhuman:

and you can understand why reproduction with a 99th percentile indian chad is not likely to yield superior results to breeding with a 90 iq normie white guy

 

[greycel]

Genetic recomb is a thing, yes, but you're overblowing its significance.

If by significance you mean leverage it to escape your own genetically inferior race, and limit the effects thousands of years of that specific blood would have for your offspring, then I 100% agree
You can only do such if your partner doesn't place value in the importance of genes/ is ignorant about it, or prioritises society's perspective on looks over the height of the inferior's genetic ceiling

 

[looksmaxxed]

Genetic recomb is a thing, yes, but you're overblowing its significance.

it's trying to say genetics are wildly unpredictable and chaotic therefore you should put zero effort into selecting for traits, but as i've outlined already, that's not so accurate. there are ways to ensure a greater chance of good genetics, and that is to select for peoples/races that have a high genetic baseline.

 

[666PSL]

If by significance you mean leverage it to escape your own genetically inferior race, and limit the effects thousands of years of that specific blood would have for your offspring, then I 100% agree
You can only do such if your partner doesn't place value in the importance of genes/ is ignorant about it, or prioritises society's perspective on looks over the height of the inferior's genetic ceiling

Melanin is a biological and evolutionary trait every human needs.

 

[normie_joe]

according to the principle of regression to the mean which has been proven to apply to genetics, top percentage selection choices are irrelevant, people select for them out of personal, psychological, and evolutionary ingrained reasons, but they are not practical or functional. you have the same chance of getting a 100iq healthy baby with a 99th percentile white chad as with a white wimp because it's the baseline genetic that matters. look at the parent and child of delon. ugly to average looking people, with a chad delon sandwiched between them. it's pointless to try and purposely select for "good looking" genes, you have to make your selection based on overall racial baseline, and that is what raises the probability of having good looking healthy children.

now take the same situation and apply it to indians whose high iq, good genetic quality specimens look like this precisely because their baseline is 76iq and subhuman:

and you can understand why reproduction with a 99th percentile indian chad is not likely to yield superior results to breeding with a 90 iq normie white guy

Rewrite your points as concise easy to read bullets, because I don't have time nor desire to read paragraphs.

 

[Deleted member 59278]

If by significance you mean leverage it to escape your own genetically inferior race, and limit the effects thousands of years of that specific blood would have for your offspring, then I 100% agree
You can only do such if your partner doesn't place value in the importance of genes/ is ignorant about it, or prioritises society's perspective on looks over the height of the inferior's genetic ceiling

Of course there would be pros and cons going both routes. You'd compromise your own race's haplogroups, but you'd get more healthy off-spring.

Ideally eugenics should be implemented in order to eradicate the negatives of both sub5's procreating (mainly women), and racemixing.

 

[looksmaxxed]

race is literally the most important determinant in offspring quality and should be top 3 things you look for in a mate

 

[Deleted member 59278]

it's trying to say genetics are wildly unpredictable and chaotic therefore you should put zero effort into selecting for traits, but as i've outlined already, that's not so accurate. there are ways to ensure a greater chance of good genetics, and that is to select for peoples/races that have a high genetic baseline.

Most definitely. Genetic recomb doesn't play that large of a role. Otherwise siblings wouldn't look anything alike, and that is usually never the case.

 

[klip11]

I'm copying a comment I made.

Consider these pairings:

Assume the children inherit the parents' genes identically.

View attachment 3391740

View attachment 3391741

View attachment 3391745

View attachment 3391744

View attachment 3391743

View attachment 3391742

If you are against race mixing, are you saying that these pairings

View attachment 3391743

View attachment 3391744

Will yield better looking children, than these?

View attachment 3391745

View attachment 3391741

I'm very curious to hear what you have to say.

On the morning of November 11, 2018, twenty-five-year-old Jacob Barefield was in the prison canteen with fellow inmates from the "C Dorm." (Doc. # 74 at 22.) Barefield was wearing a yellow wristband designating him to C Dorm. (Doc. # 74 at 23.) Barefield was standing in the canteen's snack-line when another inmate, Larry Lowe, approached him. (Doc. # 74 at 22.) Lowe was wearing a teal wristband designating him to the "F Dorm" where high-risk of violence inmates are assigned. (Doc. # 74 at 22.) F Dorm residents, like Lowe, should not have been allowed in the canteen with C Dorm residents. (Doc. # 74 at 22.) But Lowe was there.
Lowe approached Barefield in the snack line, showed Barefield a knife that he held at his waist, and forced Barefield to follow him. (Doc. # 74 at 22.) No guards witnessed this abduction because no guards were in the canteen at the time, despite dozens of inmates from various housing units being present. (Doc. # 74 at 23.)
Unsupervised, Lowe forced Barefield out of the canteen and into the prison yard. (Doc. # 74 at 23.) Lowe forced Barefield through the prison yard, past many buildings, and toward the entrance of the F Dorm. (Doc. # 74 at 23.) Despite Ventress policies requiring guards to be stationed between the canteen and F Dorm, Lowe and Barefield did not pass a single guard during the walk. (Doc. # 74 at 23.)
Once at the F Dorm entryway, Lowe opened the door and forced Barefield into the dormitory. (Doc. # 74 at 23.) The door was supposed to be locked, but it was not. (Doc. # 74 at 23.) A guard was supposed to be at the door checking wristband colors and stopping non-F Dorm residents from entering, but the officer did not. (Doc. # 74 at 23.) Instead, Lowe was able to simply open the front door and force Barefield—who was not authorized to enter F Dorm—inside.
The F Dorm houses approximately 100 high-risk inmates in a single open-room environment. (Doc. # 74 at 23.) Once inside the open-bay dorm, Lowe forced Barefield to a lower bunkbed at the back of the unit. (Doc. # 74 at 23.) Sheets and blankets hung from the upper bunk to create a "tent" that covered the lower bunk and prevented anyone from seeing what happened inside. (Doc. # 74 at 23-24.) These makeshift tents are against Ventress policy. (Doc. # 74 at 24.) But Barefield was forced into one at knifepoint.
A nearby TV's volume was turned all the way up. (Doc. # 74 at 24.) Outside the tent, Lowe told another inmate that he was "going to show him how to take control of another inmate." (Doc. # 74 at 24.) Lowe then got into the tent. There, in the middle of the morning, in a violent offender's dorm that Barefield should never have been allowed to enter, in a crowded area that should have been supervised by a guard, in a makeshift tent that should have been immediately taken down, using a knife that should have been confiscated, Larry Lowe raped Jacob Barefield. (Doc. # 74 at 24.)
Lowe pulled down his pants and forced his penis into Barefield's mouth. (Doc. # 74 at 24.) When Barefield did not cooperate to Lowe's liking, Lowe pressed his knife to Barefield's side. (Doc. # 74 at 24.) Lowe forced Barefield to lie down. (Doc. # 74 at 24.) Lowe then pulled Barefield's pants down, put shaving cream in Barefield's rectum, and anally raped him. (Doc. # 74 at 24.) All the while, Lowe kept the knife pressed to Barefield's side. (Doc. # 74 at 24.) The TV drowned out any cries. (Doc. # 74 at 24.) Lowe's gangmate waited outside the tent.

 

[greycel]

Ideally eugenics should be implemented in order to eradicate the negatives of both sub5's procreating (mainly women), and racemixing.

100% agree, but I would say to eradicate the genes of all the women from the bad races
Because this:

has the capability to birth Chadlites+ (if raised in an ideal environment with sufficient tongue posture during formative years, ideal diet and developed jaw muscles).. compared to this:

which will be an incel machine
Lowered genetic ceilings

 

[Deleted member 59278]

100% agree, but I would say to eradicate the genes of all the women from the bad races
Because this:
View attachment 3391929

has the capability to birth Chadlites+ (if raised in an ideal environment with sufficient tongue posture during formative years, ideal diet and developed jaw muscles).. compared to this:
View attachment 3391933

which will be an incel machine

That is definitely possible depending on the cause of her mandibular recession. And yes HAPA factories will almost always create incels.

 

[normie_joe]

You don't understand the effects of environment

First rule of the Blackpill is genetics and your "environment" argument applies to other races as well.

The white + white will ON AVERAGE breed the most fit for not just compatibility with beauty standards but ideality to nature

One, this applies to any given race and not just whites.

Two, I'm not talking about average.

I'm talking about a below average + below average of the same race, or a below average + top tier of the same race

VS two moggers of different races.

You are talking about sampling two random whites vs sampling a random non white and a white, and the first pairing having better offspring (which is another discussion).

I have a specific scenario here.

Both these are recessed, because of malformed craniofacial complex that is not representative of their genetic potential and especially their genetic consistency

There is a significant genetic component to this but it's not just jaws, it can be any trait: height, eye spacing, predisposition to balding etc.

That is representative of their genetic potential.

 

[666PSL]

That is definitely possible depending on the cause of her mandibular recession. And yes HAPA factories will almost always create incels.

Alex Schlab mogs any cumskin