Is there a more true Quote

[topology]

Wrong, most North American settlers didn’t mix with the natives, so what if there were masses of mixed peoples, that was due to the natives mixing with a small portion of the settlers. Yes settler success came because the natives bred themselves out and ”worshipped” the enemy which in the context of the quote means defeat. North Americans are not the most mixed populations on earth, white Americans who is whom I’m primarily referring to; 96% have no non white admixture meaning their 100% European and that is primarily northwest European, and the 4% that do have admixture have on average between 2-3% native or African admixture, your made a false claim.

On the Métis and mixing: You're now arguing that because most settlers didn't mix, the ones who did don't count. But the quote says "if YOU breed with your enemy, YOU are destroyed," it makes no exceptions for scale or proportion. By the quote's own absolute logic, any settler who bred with natives "destroyed" themselves. You're applying a selective threshold that the quote itself doesn't contain. That's you editing the quote's logic in real time to save it.

On white American admixture: The study you're likely referencing is the 23andMe 2014 dataset, a self-selected sample, not a representative population study. Peer reviewed population genetics research consistently shows higher admixture rates than consumer DNA testing reflects. But more importantly, this is irrelevant, I said Americans broadly, not exclusively white Americans, and modern America as a whole is one of the most genetically diverse nations on earth by any measure.

The blunder you keep ignoring: You've now said Native Americans failed because they bred with settlers AND worshipped them meaning accepted defeat. But you've already acknowledged settler success came from technology, disease, and infrastructure. You're describing a military and technological conquest and still calling it a validation of the quote. The cause of their defeat was never admixture. You've admitted this indirectly every single reply.

You also completely ignored the core conclusion: You admitted the quote was chosen for being short and concise. For rhetorical impact. That concedes the entire debate. Everything after that is damage control.

You're not defending the quote. You're just refusing to say you lost & are inferior to me.

 

[IAMNOTANINCEL]

And animals rape each other, is it wrong to now say that rape is bad..?

Yes? No such thing as (general) good or bad

 

[EmperorVon]

On the Métis and mixing: You're now arguing that because most settlers didn't mix, the ones who did don't count. But the quote says "if YOU breed with your enemy, YOU are destroyed," it makes no exceptions for scale or proportion. By the quote's own absolute logic, any settler who bred with natives "destroyed" themselves. You're applying a selective threshold that the quote itself doesn't contain. That's you editing the quote's logic in real time to save it.

On white American admixture: The study you're likely referencing is the 23andMe 2014 dataset, a self-selected sample, not a representative population study. Peer reviewed population genetics research consistently shows higher admixture rates than consumer DNA testing reflects. But more importantly, this is irrelevant, I said Americans broadly, not exclusively white Americans, and modern America as a whole is one of the most genetically diverse nations on earth by any measure.

The blunder you keep ignoring: You've now said Native Americans failed because they bred with settlers AND worshipped them meaning accepted defeat. But you've already acknowledged settler success came from technology, disease, and infrastructure. You're describing a military and technological conquest and still calling it a validation of the quote. The cause of their defeat was never admixture. You've admitted this indirectly every single reply.

You also completely ignored the core conclusion: You admitted the quote was chosen for being short and concise. For rhetorical impact. That concedes the entire debate. Everything after that is damage control.

You're not defending the quote. You're just refusing to say you lost & are inferior to me.

JFL at this narcissism. In the context it was obvious we were discussing white Americans for settlers but you want to use the entirety of modern America, when in reality white Americans maintained the integrity of their genome. Part of their defeat was also admixture, theirs various parts. The quote was just a simple summary of the general destruction of a peoples and it holds true, despite everything because it’s accurate as that’s the general timeline and events, that continuously occurs throughout history.

 

[EmperorVon]

Yes? No such thing as (general) good or bad

Exactly he is a psuedo intellectual who wants to deny biological reality but accept cultural subjectivity whether he will admit this or not due to his inferior intelligence. He can never explain why his objective morals are objective.

 

[topology]

JFL at this narcissism. In the context it was obvious we were discussing white Americans for settlers but you want to use the entirety of modern America, when in reality white Americans maintained the integrity of their genome. Part of their defeat was also admixture, theirs various parts. The quote was just a simple summary of the general destruction of a peoples and it holds true, despite everything because it’s accurate as that’s the general timeline and events, that continuously occurs throughout history.

On the context claim: You don't get to retroactively declare the discussion was always about white Americans after citing the Han Chinese, Native Americans, and broad population dynamics for the entire debate. You set the scope, not me. Narrowing it now is yet another goalpost shift.

"Part of their defeat was admixture" -- you've now downgraded from "breeding destroyed them" to "it was part of it, among various parts." That is a direct retreat from the quote's absolute claim. The quote doesn't say "if you breed with your enemy, you are partially disadvantaged among various contributing factors." It says you are destroyed. You've now admitted the quote overstates its own claim.

"A simple summary of general destruction" -- this is the full concession. You've gone from "this is basic evolutionary biology" to "it's a simple summary." A simple summary is rhetoric. That is what I've been arguing from the very first message. You've spent this entire debate defending a quote as biological truth and ended by calling it a rough general summary.

The quote doesn't "hold true" just because conquest happens. Conquest is caused by technology, disease, organization, and resources, none of which the quote addresses. Correlation is not causation and you've demonstrated that you don't understand the difference.

You came in with a quote, called it basic biology, cited no sources, shifted frameworks six times, redefined your own terms repeatedly, and ended by calling it a "simple summary." I came in with a single argument and never moved from it. The record speaks for itself.

 

[EmperorVon]

On the context claim: You don't get to retroactively declare the discussion was always about white Americans after citing the Han Chinese, Native Americans, and broad population dynamics for the entire debate. You set the scope, not me. Narrowing it now is yet another goalpost shift.

"Part of their defeat was admixture" -- you've now downgraded from "breeding destroyed them" to "it was part of it, among various parts." That is a direct retreat from the quote's absolute claim. The quote doesn't say "if you breed with your enemy, you are partially disadvantaged among various contributing factors." It says you are destroyed. You've now admitted the quote overstates its own claim.

"A simple summary of general destruction" -- this is the full concession. You've gone from "this is basic evolutionary biology" to "it's a simple summary." A simple summary is rhetoric. That is what I've been arguing from the very first message. You've spent this entire debate defending a quote as biological truth and ended by calling it a rough general summary.

The quote doesn't "hold true" just because conquest happens. Conquest is caused by technology, disease, organization, and resources, none of which the quote addresses. Correlation is not causation and you've demonstrated that you don't understand the difference.

You came in with a quote, called it basic biology, cited no sources, shifted frameworks six times, redefined your own terms repeatedly, and ended by calling it a "simple summary." I came in with a single argument and never moved from it. The record speaks for itself.

Not just white Americans but when discussing North American settlers in the context it’s obvious if you’re not a pseudo intellectual. Basic Rhetoric with a layer of truth. Yes the quote doesn’t address it all because it’s a short quote thousands of years ago designed to be memorable, its value is in what is says with so little, which was the entire point of this thread. The record speaks in my favour.

 

[topology]

Not just white Americans but when discussing North American settlers in the context it’s obvious if you’re not a pseudo intellectual. Basic Rhetoric with a layer of truth. Yes the quote doesn’t address it all because it’s a short quote thousands of years ago designed to be memorable, its value is in what is says with so little, which was the entire point of this thread. The record speaks in my favour.

"Basic rhetoric with a layer of truth," you've just described my quote too. Word for word. That was the entire point of this thread by your own admission.

You spent this entire debate arguing my quote was baseless rhetoric while defending yours as biological fact. You've now landed on the exact same characterization for both. You've equalized them yourself, which means every attack you made on my quote applies equally to yours.

"Its value is in what it says with so little," that's a compliment you're paying to rhetoric, not science. You came in calling me a pseudo intellectual for posting a rhetorical quote and you're ending by praising the art of rhetorical quotes. Do you not see what's happened here?

"The record speaks in my favour," let's actually look at the record. You claimed the quote was basic evolutionary biology. You cited no sources. You shifted from genetics, to clades, to population dynamics, to colonial history, to natural instinct, to "simple summary," to "basic rhetoric." You redefined worship, destroyed, and evolutionary success multiple times. You applied the quote's logic selectively and invoked nuance the moment it applied to your own examples. You ended by describing the quote in exactly the terms I used from the beginning.

The record doesn't speak in your favour. The record is the argument I've been making the entire time, now written in your own words.

You didn't lose a debate. You eventually made my argument for me.

You're so easily moved and manipulated.. Yikes.

 

[EmperorVon]

"Basic rhetoric with a layer of truth," you've just described my quote too. Word for word. That was the entire point of this thread by your own admission.

You spent this entire debate arguing my quote was baseless rhetoric while defending yours as biological fact. You've now landed on the exact same characterization for both. You've equalized them yourself, which means every attack you made on my quote applies equally to yours.

"Its value is in what it says with so little," that's a compliment you're paying to rhetoric, not science. You came in calling me a pseudo intellectual for posting a rhetorical quote and you're ending by praising the art of rhetorical quotes. Do you not see what's happened here?

"The record speaks in my favour," let's actually look at the record. You claimed the quote was basic evolutionary biology. You cited no sources. You shifted from genetics, to clades, to population dynamics, to colonial history, to natural instinct, to "simple summary," to "basic rhetoric." You redefined worship, destroyed, and evolutionary success multiple times. You applied the quote's logic selectively and invoked nuance the moment it applied to your own examples. You ended by describing the quote in exactly the terms I used from the beginning.

The record doesn't speak in your favour. The record is the argument I've been making the entire time, now written in your own words.

You didn't lose a debate. You eventually made my argument for me.

You're so easily moved and manipulated.. Yikes.

“Yikes”
Your quote was pseudo Intellectual because you claimed that fear of death is cowardice when it’s perfectly reasonable as life wants to continue living and not lose its existence which is rooted in evolutionary biology connected to an instinctive base fear response which cannot be denied. This is not equivalent, you have lost, just accept it I won’t think less of you for it. You can’t win all of them.

 

[topology]

“Yikes”
Your quote was pseudo Intellectual because you claimed that fear of death is cowardice when it’s perfectly reasonable as life wants to continue living and not lose its existence which is rooted in evolutionary biology connected to an instinctive base fear response which cannot be denied. This is not equivalent, you have lost, just accept it I won’t think less of you for it. You can’t win all of them.

Interesting that after everything, you've retreated to attacking the original quote rather than defending your own. That's a concession directed as an offensive.

But let's address it anyway. Fear of death as an instinct and fear of death as cowardice are not the same thing. The quote distinguishes between the biological impulse to survive and the philosophical choice to let that fear govern your actions. Every soldier who ever walked into battle had a fear response, the point is whether you are ruled by it. You've conflated a biological mechanism with a behavioral and moral outcome. Those are categorically different claims.

More importantly, you just made a philosophical and psychological argument about human behavior and called it evolutionary biology. Which is exactly what you accused me of doing for this entire debate. Once again, you've mirrored the very thing you criticized.

And notice the structure of your closing: "you have lost, just accept it, I won't think less of you." That's not the language of someone who won. That's the language of someone trying to manufacture a graceful exit. People who win debates don't need to give the loser permission to lose with dignity.

The summary is simple. You defended a quote as biological fact, cited nothing, shifted frameworks seven times, redefined your own terms repeatedly, and ended by describing your quote in the exact terms I used from the beginning. Then pivoted to attacking my quote using the same type of argument I made -- philosophical and contextual reasoning -- without acknowledging the irony.

The debate ended several replies ago. You're just still rambling.

 

[EmperorVon]

Interesting that after everything, you've retreated to attacking the original quote rather than defending your own. That's a concession directed as an offensive.

But let's address it anyway. Fear of death as an instinct and fear of death as cowardice are not the same thing. The quote distinguishes between the biological impulse to survive and the philosophical choice to let that fear govern your actions. Every soldier who ever walked into battle had a fear response, the point is whether you are ruled by it. You've conflated a biological mechanism with a behavioral and moral outcome. Those are categorically different claims.

More importantly, you just made a philosophical and psychological argument about human behavior and called it evolutionary biology. Which is exactly what you accused me of doing for this entire debate. Once again, you've mirrored the very thing you criticized.

And notice the structure of your closing: "you have lost, just accept it, I won't think less of you." That's not the language of someone who won. That's the language of someone trying to manufacture a graceful exit. People who win debates don't need to give the loser permission to lose with dignity.

The summary is simple. You defended a quote as biological fact, cited nothing, shifted frameworks seven times, redefined your own terms repeatedly, and ended by describing your quote in the exact terms I used from the beginning. Then pivoted to attacking my quote using the same type of argument I made -- philosophical and contextual reasoning -- without acknowledging the irony.

The debate ended several replies ago. You're just still rambling.

I returned to the original quote because you brought it up again you narcissistic fuck. The soldiers who denied their fear of death died, that’s bad on an objective evolutionary basis which is why we fear death in the first place. The notion that it’s cowardice to not deny your instinctual fear of death and overcome it to enter a dangerous situation is a cultural notion and purely subjective. Do you not agree?

 

[topology]

I returned to the original quote because you brought it up again you narcissistic fuck. The soldiers who denied their fear of death died, that’s bad on an objective evolutionary basis which is why we fear death in the first place. The notion that it’s cowardice to not deny your instinctual fear of death and overcome it to enter a dangerous situation is a cultural notion and purely subjective. Do you not agree?

You just asked "do you not agree?" which means you're now seeking my validation after spending this entire debate telling me I've lost. That's not the posture of someone who won.

But to the actual point, you've just proven something critical without realizing it. You're now arguing that overcoming fear of death to enter battle is a cultural notion and purely subjective. Congratulations. You've made the exact argument I made about your quote from the very beginning, that the values embedded in these short rhetorical quotes are cultural and moral frameworks, not biological laws. You've now applied that logic to my quote while still refusing to apply it to your own. The double standard is the entire record of this debate.

On the soldiers point, soldiers who "denied their fear" and fought also died regularly. Soldiers who felt fear, processed it, and acted strategically survived at higher rates. Courage is not the absence of fear, it's the management of it. You've set up a false binary between "deny fear and die" versus "be cowardly and live" while ignoring the entire middle ground where the quote actually operates. Before you argue anything about my quote, think VERY carefully. I crafted it in a way to cause internal contradictions within every nook and cranny.

And yes, I brought up the original quote in my summary of the debate. That's called closing an argument, not opening a new one. The difference between referencing something in a conclusion and retreating to a new line of attack when your position collapsed is obvious to anyone reading this thread.

You've now conceded that cultural notions are valid frameworks for short rhetorical quotes. That's the whole thing. That's all I ever argued.

 

[EmperorVon]

You just asked "do you not agree?" which means you're now seeking my validation after spending this entire debate telling me I've lost. That's not the posture of someone who won.

But to the actual point, you've just proven something critical without realizing it. You're now arguing that overcoming fear of death to enter battle is a cultural notion and purely subjective. Congratulations. You've made the exact argument I made about your quote from the very beginning, that the values embedded in these short rhetorical quotes are cultural and moral frameworks, not biological laws. You've now applied that logic to my quote while still refusing to apply it to your own. The double standard is the entire record of this debate.

On the soldiers point, soldiers who "denied their fear" and fought also died regularly. Soldiers who felt fear, processed it, and acted strategically survived at higher rates. Courage is not the absence of fear, it's the management of it. You've set up a false binary between "deny fear and die" versus "be cowardly and live" while ignoring the entire middle ground where the quote actually operates. Before you argue anything about my quote, think VERY carefully. I crafted it in a way to cause internal contradictions within every nook and cranny.

And yes, I brought up the original quote in my summary of the debate. That's called closing an argument, not opening a new one. The difference between referencing something in a conclusion and retreating to a new line of attack when your position collapsed is obvious to anyone reading this thread.

You've now conceded that cultural notions are valid frameworks for short rhetorical quotes. That's the whole thing. That's all I ever argued.

That was not looking for validation it was to mock you. And the quote I made is not purely subjective as there’s some overlay with objective evolutionary reasoning. But it’s ok, stage 1 is only the beginning. You’ve got 4 more to get through

 

[topology]

That was not looking for validation it was to mock you. And the quote I made is not purely subjective as theirs some overlay with objective evolutionary reasoning. But it’s ok, stage 1 is only the beginning. You’ve got 4 more to get through

"It was to mock you," by asking if you agree with them..? That's not how mockery works. Mockery doesn't require the other person's agreement. Asking "do you not agree?" is requesting affirmation by definition. You can rename it, you can't change what it was.

"Some overlay with objective evolutionary reasoning," we've been through this for the entire debate. "Some overlay" is not the same as "rooted in evolutionary biology" which is how you opened. You've gone from "this is basic biology" to "there's some overlay." That's not a defense, that's the final stage of a retreating argument, finding the smallest ground it can still stand on.

And the stages of grief reference is genuinely the most moronic thing you've said. You've run out of substance so you've moved to a psychological insult, implying I'm in denial about losing. But look at the structure of this conversation. You shifted frameworks seven times. You cited no sources. You ended by describing your own quote in my terms. You asked for my agreement and called it mockery when I pointed it out. You've shifted from "you're a pseudo intellectual" to "there's some overlay" to counting imaginary grief stages.

That progression is the argument. I don't need to say I won. Anyone reading this thread can count the retreats themselves.

Take your time with the remaining stages. This is a healing process.

 

[EmperorVon]

"It was to mock you," by asking if you agree with them..? That's not how mockery works. Mockery doesn't require the other person's agreement. Asking "do you not agree?" is requesting affirmation by definition. You can rename it, you can't change what it was.

"Some overlay with objective evolutionary reasoning," we've been through this for the entire debate. "Some overlay" is not the same as "rooted in evolutionary biology" which is how you opened. You've gone from "this is basic biology" to "there's some overlay." That's not a defense, that's the final stage of a retreating argument, finding the smallest ground it can still stand on.

And the stages of grief reference is genuinely the most moronic thing you've said. You've run out of substance so you've moved to a psychological insult, implying I'm in denial about losing. But look at the structure of this conversation. You shifted frameworks seven times. You cited no sources. You ended by describing your own quote in my terms. You asked for my agreement and called it mockery when I pointed it out. You've shifted from "you're a pseudo intellectual" to "there's some overlay" to counting imaginary grief stages.

That progression is the argument. I don't need to say I won. Anyone reading this thread can count the retreats themselves.

Take your time with the remaining stages. This is a healing process.

I admire what you do, it works on most people but I don’t care. I know it’s all larp and if any of it was true you would show proof for the claims you make about yourself. But no high iq ubermensch genius would waste so much time on this debate that includes me.

 

[topology]

I admire what you do, it works on most people but I don’t care. I know it’s all larp and if any of it was true you would show proof for the claims you make about yourself. But no high iq ubermensch genius would waste so much time on this debate that includes me.

The proof is directly in front of you. You are my proof. You gave it your best shot and still got embarrassed. You are now trying to claim you don't care for damage control. You fool no one. You are a moron with no honesty.

 

[DioshBRS]

And so you think race is some kind of union? You think every white loves other white, or every black lives every black, if a person has hate in him no matter the race or the color he will be hating

It doesn’t matter if all white people are automatically good or if the ones coming in are good ones. All that matters is that their not us, why should we share with them anything.