Disagree.
I wondered about this as well, did some research and apparently, people with blue eyes do not see better in the dark than people with brown ones.
Jbw is a cope in non Asian countries. Latinas love bbc
Not Puerto Rico. We are too high t and our women are in love with the bbcDisagree.
Whites can go to Thailand or Jamaica,
and get laid in less than a day.
Even if ugly.
Not sure whether one is supposed to be proud of that though, still can't get laid by women of your own race.Disagree.
Whites can go to Thailand or of that though, still can't get laid by women of your own race.
Disagree.
Whites can go to Thailand or Jamaica,
and get laid in less than a day.
Even if ugly.
Every Spanish / Asian country love Caucasians.
Keep crying bro. Women here would bully white incel cucks who come here thinking they will finally get laid.
. Only to get bullied by the women AND the high t menTheir women are leaving them for blacks so they come here spreading jbw bullshit to cope with their inferiority complex
There's some truth,Keep crying bro. Women here would bully white incel cucks who come here thinking they will finally get laid.
Their women are leaving them for blacks so they come here spreading jbw bullshit to cope with their inferiority complex
judaism/christianity is influenced by Zoroastrianism i think.
" Beyond a shadow of a doubt, he had an easier time getting nooky in Thailand than he ever did in fucking Alberta Canada. "https://looksmax.org/threads/ripped...nt-get-laid-jbw-is-100-myth.25376/post-483759
www.persepolis.nu
Listen to this post
 |
evolution-institute.org
In this context, light-skinned slaves were separated from dark-skinned slaves and were able to work indoors away from the glaring sun. If you had lighter skin you were closer to the opportunities that were only afforded to white people, such as increased privileges, higher social standing, and better employment and marital prospects.>>
wellcomecollection.org
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Do you think I'm reading all of that?First things first i appreciate you actually making an argument.
>>1. That's simply you escaping what you first cited, you literally said all western ideas come from the persians which is bullshit, especially when you take into consideration the basic human rights thing is something that still developed through the ages of time regardless of persian influence. <<
Fair point and i did make a dishonest error and i will admit i made an error.
This more clarifies what i believe believe.
View attachment 196101
Know add that into context what i said does make sense in light of history the very first conception of human rights was from king cyrus
Charter of Cyrus the Great: The first Declaration of Human Rights
The Declaration of Human Rights written by the Cyrus the Great of Persia has been hailed as the first charter of human rights. It is also known as the Cyrus cylinder.
I never once claimed human rights don't evolve with culture this though was a response to the other guy claiming it's cause of whites i am writing this response. Wrong it's cause of Persians and while human rights evolve over time the specific western type religious plurality and shit that is from the Persians they were the first ones to establish it.
>>I also never said Persians didn't have a great influence on the modern world due to their beliefs on human rights etc but just lol @ you trying to escape what you first said.<<
I even said i made a mistake i should have double checked when i wrote that being said this 2nd response closely resembles what i stand by
View attachment 196106
This isn't back peddling either I admit I made a mistake when typing i should have literally all concepts of human rights started in persia as the citation shows above this is not to say the west didn't do great things either but lets not lie and say it's cause of whites i have the internet and can type this most likely had islam not been around persia would be at the top.
<<2. Taller stature is more down to genetics compared to epigenetics, the reason ethnics in the modern west end up taller is because they were underfed in the first place, were they not they'd still be shorter than the average dutchman per say. The reason dutch people are so tall isn't just due to diet, it's because of natural selection. Short people simply didn't breed as much, probably cause they weren't desirable.<<
But epigenetics is very important no seeing height gains from the last century alone.
<<are so tall isn't just due to diet, it's because of natural selection. Short people simply didn't breed as much, probably cause they weren't desirable.<<
It was solely though natural selection though it played a part i never once claimed natural selection didn't play a hand can you site me where i said that i just said height is mainly down to epigenetics as well https://dutchreview.com/culture/living-in-the-netherlands/why-are-the-dutch-so-tall/ While natural selection played a hand 3 other interpretations have a hand and if we are being honest we will use all the factors.
Factor 1
<<“Height is very heritable – taller parents tend to have somewhat taller children than shorter parents. Because taller individuals would have more offspring in the next generation who would be taller, the average height in that generation would a bit taller on average than the preceding generation, if all else is equal.”>>
While natural selection played a role according to this height is very heritable taller parents will have more kids overall.
this is important because like you yourself admitted most curries have not reached their full potential and wealth is also correlated with height doesn't mean it causes it but it is a correlate. Know add this into context and you can see why these danish countries are so damn tall the taller individuals produce more kids and they reach their genetic potential,
The exact same thing would be true for curries had we reached our genetic potential. I am living proof i am 6 foot 1.5 for a curry who's lived in the west and that's within 1 generation my dad was only 5 foot 9 and my mom 5 foot 2. Imagine what 2 generations could do.
Also i don't see how this is intrinsically connected with the white race are you saying whites have always been this tall ?
cause the height increase only occurred in the last few decades and if you wanna push it last century.
<<Why Are The Dutch So Tall?
Hussain Kanchwala 1 Jan 2019 (Updated: 2 Dec 2019)
Do you know that humans have seen an increase in our average height in recent times? Interestingly, we are roughly 10 cm (4 inches) taller than the average humans who lived in the 1850s. Industrialized countries like the USA, the UK, Japan etc. have witnessed even more improvement in the average height of their citizens. However, in terms of average human height gains over the last 150 years, one nation stands out—the Netherlands. Today, the average height of adult Dutch men is around 185 cm and 170 cm for adult Dutch women. They are a whopping 19 cm taller than their counterparts in the mid-nineteenth century.
Listen to this post
Dutch fans during football world cup final 2010. (Image Credit: Flickr)
Ask any of your European friends and they won’t be able to deny that Netherlands is fast becoming a land of giants. What’s more surprising is that the Dutch have gone from being among the smallest people in Europe to the largest in the world in the span of a century. Standing at over six feet (on average!), Dutch men are the tallest citizens on the planet. From Rotterdam to Eindhoven, ceilings have had to be lifted, sofas had to be redesigned, and lintels needed to be raised to protect foreheads from bumping into them. Moreover, many hotels now offer bed extensions, and ambulances occasionally need to keep their back doors open to allow for their patients’ legs!
So, the question arises, why have the Dutch become so tall and how did they ascend to that height in such a short span of time? How is this traditionally seafaring nation now breeding such extraordinarily tall people? Improvement in income/lifestyle and natural selection are touted to be the two most popular reasons for their sharp increase in height, but let’s explore these one at a time.<<
Rising Income and Improved Lifestyle
A team of researchers at Michigan State University studied the historical charts of median height between 1820 and 2010. They used the country’s military height records as a basis for their study of historical median height of people across the nation.
Their studies came up with a surprising revelation—the Dutch became the tallest Europeans only in the last few decades. Shockingly, they were around 165 cm (5’5”) in the early nineteenth century.
https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/why-the-dutch-are-so-tall.html again check it out for yourself. It's only recently we can see environment, plus women actively going for taller men creates genetic giants.
However nothing you have said though is intrinsic to the white race for 2 reasons.
Number 1 it's in select area's they tend to eat cheese which we will get into and their women tend to actively choose very tall men put these 2 together and your looking for giants.
Also the average height of a European is 5 foot 9 so again height is not intrinsic to the white race it's a lot of epigenetics that your not giving credit for.
2nd factor were onto know
Taller men tended to have more kids which meant overall more men got taller but this is expected to happen if a country become hypergamous. This isn't per say cause of natural selection but rather womens increase in options leading to more selection choices leading to select eugenics or artificial selection.
It is not per-say what nature intrinsically wanted though i mean for natural selection to occur it have this in it's criterion ''from differences in survival, in fertility, in rate of development, in mating success, or in any other aspect of the life cycle'' How does per say height help in survival I mean a shorter man can beat up a tall man their isn't difference in strength per say.
Know 1 could argue it can help scare of animals but natural selection needs an environment which has variations that aid in survival and this transformation occurred only recently.Meaning not in our cave men times so this variation doesn't help today cause we don't live in the wild so how does it aid in survival ?.
How does height add in with mating success it has nothing to indicate it will spawn good genes unlike symmetry and facial harmony.
How does height aid in fertility what benefit does it give off ? especially in our modern context.
So what does this help out with ? this seems to be artificial selection not natural selection.
3RD MAIN FACTOR SLEEP.
Sleep is very important it increases growth hormones in kids and can be very useful in height increases. Danes tend to get more sleep cause their affluence allows it allows them to do it know countries can only become rich through ecanomic freedoms so danes got incredibly lucky with the governmental system in place.
Also a lot of things lead to short strature gh deficiency their is a lot https://gmch.gov.in/e-study/e lectures/Pediatrics/Approach to short stature.pdf
that link has a fuck tone again nothing linked with the white genetics per say but rather just reiterates what i have been saying and that is mainly epigenetics mixed in with genetics this is important cause if most people haven't even achieved their full genetic potential then how on gods green earth can we say whites tend to intrinsically have a taller stature that was your claim when we first begin.
Also love how your equivocating danes most whites that is a equivocation fallacy.
Also here are 2 counter criticisms to to the natural selection and the tall kids have more babies theory.
Natural Selection On Human Height Doesn’t Measure Up To Much
A recent study in the Netherlands found that natural selection favors taller men — but under closer examination, the effect doesn't stand so tall.
1 women who were on average height were reported to have the most children while those on the higher end and lower end had less had less does that mean height increased solely cause of the selection on mens part ?
2 While they found a correlation betweens mens height and more kids being produced over all they couldn't translate that relationship into evolutionary change over time.
View attachment 196192
2 valid criticisms.
>>3. No, no and no. Light skin is literally worshipped in pretty much every culture except of the West (even though it was associated with high class here historically speaking), have you not heard of blacks bleaching their skin? Lmao. Or the fact all wealthy indians in boolywood have light skin which isn't common among 90% of indians? <<
<<he importance of being pale could be dangerous and addictive, so how did this phenomenon develop in Africa and Asia? The simple answer is colonialisation and slavery. An American Sociological Society paper explains that: “To justify racial slavery, slave-holding interests espoused a white supremacist ideology which held that persons of African descent were innately inferior to whites. Whiteness became identified with all that is civilised, virtuous and beautiful.”
In this context, light-skinned slaves were separated from dark-skinned slaves and were able to work indoors away from the glaring sun. If you had lighter skin you were closer to the opportunities that were only afforded to white people, such as increased privileges, higher social standing, and better employment and marital prospects.>>
Colonialism and the origins of skin bleaching
The widespread practice of skin bleaching was heavily influenced by the Western colonisation and slavery of African and South Asian countries. Ngunan Adamu explores this toxic history.
So yes all through out history white skin was seen as a privileged thing.Mainly cause since the wealthier land lords didn't have to work as much they tended to have lighter features.
Their is a huge huge huge fucking difference between this and what colonialists did quite literally became so that being non white was penalized this doesn't imply even cultural superiorty and 2 compare this with the Chinese is a blatant equivocation fallacy.Their is a difference between a trait being seen as a status point and a trait being seen as you being an superior or inferior suck my fucking dick your or your ancestors are not superior.
>>4. Blue/light eyes is still the most common among whites, this isn't rocket science. It's a positive mutation if we're speaking about lookswise and you know it.<<
Never said they weren't actually read what the fuck i said. Blue eyes is not intrinsically connected to whiteness in fact a tribe in the Solomon islands have very close to blue eyes and while the genetic mutation found is not the same thing as the original mutation assumed in Caucasian population. scientists at first thought it was through European mixture quite the opposite though their was no european admixture
The Origin of Mysterious, Dark-Skinned Blonds Discovered
A single gene mutation that arose in the Pacific explains why some dark-skinned islanders have fair hair.www.livescience.com
View attachment 196224
SO you can't claim this is intrinsic in whites either.
<<Now if we're speaking about environmental pros and cons you could hypothesize that blue eyes are better in colder climates and brown eyes are less sensitive to the sun but I've only heard Thulean Perspective talk about that once, irrelevant anyways.>>
It serves no advantage either way from what i sited before know it was most likely seen as a rearity within the white population so it spread finite things have value all value is finite.
Also it's not irrelvant it's very important for the topic of discussion which was about beauty not being subjective this matters a lot.
The only way it could be objective is if it helps a in some variation within the human context why the green eyes got chosen however was not cause of any benefits but rarity so again a subjective thing.
so it wasn't a positive mutation genetically so it's not objective it is an aesthetic mutation so subjective their is a difference. 1 can perfer something from their own free will that is subjective. However if it's what nature physically wants you to reproduce with if it's a variation that will actually help that part of beauty is an objective thing this is not 1 of those traits.
>>Next to that, wtf did the nature shuffling thingy have to do with anything I ever said? This sounds like an epic cope considering you have brown eyes instead of just accepting lighter eyes are seen as more attractive. <<
It was to say it wasn't a good or a bad mutation it was just a luck of the draw that's it. Are you claiming that had nothing to do with your claim that lighter eyes being more attractive is an innate thing in whites cause if so fuck me your dumb.
As for me with blue eyes it would most likely make me subjectively more attractive cause rearity is attractive i heavily buy into the theory genetic unqiueness is key to beauty that doesn't always have to be useful either it can be aesthetic.
And for defense of free will
A proposed mechanism for mind-brain interaction using extended Bohmian quantum mechanics in Avicenna's monotheistic perspective - PubMed
In quantum approaches to consciousness, the authors try to propose a model and mechanism for the mind-brain interaction using modern physics and some quantum concepts which do not exist in the classical physics. The independent effect of mind on the brain has been one of the challenging issues...
I invoke a muslim Averroes mixed in with david bohm for the free will and in-corporeality of the mind.
So here is another bunch of counter arguments feel free to argue back
No their very different faiths i'm not a christain but i will give them credit where credit is due
Mate the amount of text you type doesn't make your point more valid. You wrote a shitton of text. Do you think that's how you argue? And about the eye thing I never said it was just whites who have it but it's most common among whites.
Bro go outside the west and a 3/10 white guy average height becomes a 9/10 gigachad dolph lundgren
