Study: weak men more likely to be socialists

Does anyone actually believe this kind of propaganda outside of the infowars/breitbart crowd?

Trash. I recall a similar study as though.

Also, a bundle of sticks is quite literally called a faggot.

I think there is something wrong with their data.

Even if you ignore it, if you're not a socialist that actively disagrees with it something about it is gonna stay in your brain.

That's why Coke and McDonalds still advertise. Everyone already knows about them, but if you just keep pushing hard enough people will keep falling for it

Worse. People accept it as a natural part of life.

1st pic related is author of this. I'll let you thirsty niggas decide if she's unfuckable or only if you're high tier.

Anyways this should be motivation for more of you to get fit and become the swoletariat.

All of those guys are probably dead.

Everyone dies.

lol

Socialists now. Not then when the left actually existed.

Also, even the "study" were true, you forgot guns. Guns are the great equalizer. Socialists advocate for the possession of guns by all proletariat.
"Political power comes from the barrel of a gun." -Mao Zedong.
Then there are quotes from every great communist philosopher supporting gun ownership.

Why do people do this?

Does anyone have a link to the actual study

Thick eyebrows look good on some, but on others it looks like shit. That bitch is the latter.

its a bad analysis and flies in the face of facts and just fucking looking at a picture of old school fascist's physiognomy. Their military's and paramilitary groups were stacked with Alpha-Chads. Admittedly the early Soviets were actually a bunch of strapping young warriors too but this does not extend to the rest of the Left, most of whom especially in the developed world are skinny fucks who have no martial background.

the girl in the previous picture has fucked up cheek bones and maxillary development that's why it looks bad, it looks good no pic related because she has good strong upper jaw and cheek development to support her nose and orbitals so her face has a proper schema and structure to it. Its just bad genes and diet and discipline versus a healthy human. Its funny how no one can articulate specifically why they're attracted to what they're attracted to. Well they could, but they don't want to because they feel like a fascist for thinking that way

Because it's the fashion, and it's the fashion because women convinced themselves that it's what men want.

Of course no man actually noticed a woman's eyebrows until every other girl started strutting about with inch-thick caterpillars on her forhead.

nope, men notice women's facial features and care about all of them. Especially rich and good-looking men who can afford to be picky about their mates. This is just you pretending something doesn't exists to allow for a more simplistic explanation of a phenomenon

I could, but it's easier to say "that bitch looks like shit" than an autistic rant on bone structure.

...

.. looks like liberal that doesn't get enough D to me..

You are an idiot and yes, we are aesthetically retarded, compaired to women.

Really makes you think

The thing is up until recently eyebrows have been by far and away the least important part of a woman's face and I would go as far to say that men did not care - I might even say that men still do not care.

Lips have always been important, noses important, eyes important, cheeks important, jaws important, forehead important. But eyebrows? Unless they were literally shaved off it's just not something men care about.

In fact, if I'm getting my armchair analysis hat on I would say the only reason women care so much all of a sudden is because it's a facial feature they can literally draw on however they want.

Could it be women care moar about what each other thinks, than what men think about them?

Hmmmmm…

You're very right.

But much of what women think of each other is informed by what they think men think of them.

There's one study that shows that stupid people tend to be conservative and bigoted.
Who the fuck needs muscles in the current year anyway, most shit nowadays requires cognitive skills instead of physical and the things that require physical skills are soon to be replaced by machines.

You don't "need" muscle, but you also don't "need" anything beyond the absolute bare minimum required to be hired for a wage-slave job in the current year.

Muscles are good to have.

Hmmm…
so…
MAYBE!!! We should ban women from publishing women's fashion and so on, magazine and men form men's…
Then force a reverse…

AND CREATE A BETTER SOCIETY!

Fake news

Your sample size needs to be at least 1,000 to be an accurate demographic.

this take is bad i'm sorry, but i agree muscles are useful and we should all get buff>>1703738

But women's fashion is pretty good.

It's where Araki gets ideas for JoJo poses and designs.

that stuff is incredibly gay and often tacky and in bad taste. Men can look elegant without dressing like twinks or fops and you can be vaguely androgynous without literally being booty meat for gay viewers.

There is literally nothing wrong with being gay or tacky.

I'm sorry, but being gay is a maladaptive mutation and being tacky is a sign of a lack of genius and creativity or appreciation of living culture. So i'm gonna have to disagree. Gays are people who got fucked over by genetic mutations, pre-natal hormone imbalances and environmental pressures.

Tell that to Stalin.

I think they confused socialists with liberals who call themselves socialists.

Nothing looks bad if you're buff.

I very strongly disagree. I think of "tacky", the same way I think of "edgy", or "trying too hard", it's a stick people that submitted to society's expectation use to beat people that still haven't given up on trying to genuinely express themselves. If you limit yourself to what is within the confines of what is in society's tastes then that's no good at all.

Not to say tackiness or such is unconditionally good, but that kind of shaming is a mind-killer in any case.

How exactly are they fucked over? Because they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex? What is the problem?

do you have any proof?

I think he's Nazbol or something.

...

society today means the middlebrow jewish and anglo-saxon media populated by mostly gay, beta male and female nit-wits who don't even know how to appreciate trash modern art much less classical art work. I again reject this whole line of thought as nonsensical. Tackiness is not having good taste and its crime to not have good taste, a crime against the soul.
yes you should be ashamed of bad taste
if it weren't for the gigantic pseudo-demonic techno-medical machine that costs billions and requires us to rape the Earth by extracting with strip-mining technology millions of tons of poisonous metals from the ground, if it weren't for that their lifestyle is extremely unsustainable and if the whole society practiced it would literally go extinct in about a decade or be conquered.
mal-adaptive has nothing to do with value judgements about quality of character. Its about fitness. 1/10 people being gay and keeping it to themselves is manageable, especially if they have a family too and reproduce. But if that number goes up or if those people don't also pursue families or join the military (so they can either kill for the sake of new families OR die for the sake of new families, thus being useful; which is what incels used to do too) then you have a population crisis. So no value judgements, i didn't say you're immoral. I said its maladaptive as in its a really bad move for survival and is only vaguely tenable now because of a monstrous and highly double-edged sword called the medical-industrial-technological complex. Without it gays would die in large numbers from hepatitis and aids.

liberals, socialists and leftists became interchangeable terms in the media.
If you picture a liberal the first thing that comes in mind is a hipster.

don't be so mad, JBA is just Araki discovering himself sexually for the past 30 years

Yes.

Population of 100

50 men, 50 women (lets ignore elderly and children because they aren't going to be reproducing)

they all pair up, so we would have 50 couples.

Now they each produce two children, so these 100 people have added 100 people. However, maybe 1/10 of them are gay. So lets say 10 people are gay, and lets say they're all men for whatever reason. So we have 10 gay men, or 5 gay couples. So lets subtract 10 people. Now we have a population increse of 90 people. Now that's not a big deal, because maybe 25 of the families have 3 kids, so 125 kids are produced to compensate. Well we're all looking good here, but wait what would happen if 3/10 of the people were gay? Well that's 15 gay couples, and so we're not missing 30 people (or if these would have been 3 family couples, we're missing 45 people). So now we're back down to 90 (assuming these were 2 offspring couples removed from the pool), so now the only way to compensate this reduction, this lack of total replacement (which the 125 kids, minus 30 missing kids=90 can no longer replace) is for certain people to either be breeders and just have like 6 kids every generation OR for the gays to start reproducing with the heteros and then being in gay relationships for sexual fulfillment. That's the only way. Obviously you can use aritifical insemmination, but as we all know from science ficiton a population that can no longer naturally reproduce is useless and dysgenic and "dying" and is always characterized as endangered or dying. So if the population of gays goes above even 30% it completely fucks the entire replacement rate and you can literally go extinct in 3 generations after that or a few more than that. Its maladaptive as fuck. It literally leads to the species committing gentle suicide.

Just because you are gay does not mean you have to become a bad caricature of a woman.

this is another thing

More reasons to do it my way.

Can you clear this up for me? It feels like a lot of anti-gay arguments have to pull from several ideologies at once.

Of course it's true, isn't it obvious? How they needed a scientific study to work this out is unknown.

Leftists are all pathetic feeble sissies who cannot survive on their own so they must steal from others.

However they are incapable of even such pathetic immoral action as theft, being weak to the point they must subvert entire societies so they can use the government to steal for them.

Whether it's Emmanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders they're all old, pathetic, greying, career-losers.

youtu.be/YuK9pxjBwX8
Prepare to feel dumb for writing all that nonsense out.

:\

The only soul that matters is ones own, and if you do not have the will to express it as you see fit you may as well have none at all.

This is why you shouldn't try to bully other people into your sensibilities. Likewise you should not let yourself be bullied into conforming to other people's sensibilities. If a man wears make-up and crop tops without any fear for haters then he has already won on the (for lack of a better word) spiritual dimension.

Show me what you think is good taste.

I see, that's a flawless line of reasoning. If we ignore the fact that it's fucking retarded!
There is never going to be a society where every single man and woman is an exclusive homo, that is simply impossible. It is an observation that's just not even worth pointing out. Likewise if everyone shot themselves society would go extinct, but that's never going to happen.

And in any case if everyone on the planet chose to be gay and not reproduce why is this bad?

Slave morality, slave morality of the highest order.
I'm not going to forgo my desire to fuck men for the herd's sake. Society is a spook of the mind and I will not let it get in between me and joosy man butts.

And I'm not surprised of you to be so distrustful of advanced medicine. NazBols or whatever you are always looking backwards into the past rather than working to create a new and better future. Right now we have the technology to minimize the impact of diseases like AIDS and that technology is only getting more sophisticated.

Fuck the Earth, it only exists for man's conquest and domination. Next stop: space. This is why the only fascists I somewhat like are futurists, they understood that romanticized agrarian pasts are silly and we ought to be marching boldly into the future.

What about Tsipr… … What about Podem….. … ok …

WHAT ABOUT ROJAVA AND ZAPATISTAS!

HA! I MY STRAWMAN DEFEATED YOUR!

Yeah blocked for me too, I thought it might just be a canada thing, it's a shame because potholer54 is amazing with debunking pseudoscience.

WHITE BABIES

no this was a thought experiment using basic understandings of population growth and biology to illustrate that they are maladaptive because when their numbers increase above even 10% they start to collapse the population.
yes, but also environment and probably to a degree parenting (though mostly the chemical cocktail people are subjected to in early development especially in the food and toys kids play with).
yeah, but probably the more masculine one's who were usually not obviously homosexuals. They would have wives and kids and would fuck men on the side and no one cared. The risk of genetic transmission was lower, only because the enviornmental stressors that would modulate gene expression were lessened. So it stayed dormant and inactive in more people. Your dad could be gay and there is no guarantee you would be. Especially if he didn't act gay and you were raised to be a straight manly man. But you do have the latent genetic potential to be a fag. So its better if you are not exposed to xenoestrogens and other chemical soup that literally makes you a fairy.
just did
i am arguing all the way through why homosexuality is maladaptive, i'm not arguing that gays should be banned or persecuted or even talking about the morality of homosexuality at all right now. That's not the topic. Just whether its maladaptive, and it is.

Additionally in my thought experiment those gay men don't breed, other straights breed extra for them. But, if the gays increase their numbers because of proliferated genetic defects or because they have test-tube babies or because the water is turning kids gay then you destroy the population. Thus they are a threat to the stability of reproduction and population increase and are maladaptive. Traits are measured on a species wide basis, you don't deal with individual organisms. It doesn't matter if there are good looking, smart, mentally stable gays. The very fact that they negate reproduction and if their numbers increase it collapses reproduciton are arguments that its maladaptive. You're looking for a way to combine the morality argument with the biology argument. They aren't compatible. Hadnsome, healthy, smart gay doctors are still maladaptive and this is because their relationship with the species is not productive. Now if they were to for instance invent a technology that made it easier for straights to live or if they died in a war, then they'd be adaptive. They'd be members of the species sacrificing themselves for the rest. But, the fact that they themselves selfishly require huge amounts of resources to reproduce and will collapse the population if they overtake straights or begin to, that's maladaptive. That's it. No morals, no value judgements. Just paying attention to how energy is flowing through a system :0

couple of things:
i don't watch skep-dick videos, I don't watch videos made by liberals or id-pol people. It makes me laugh that yt is monotized but i'm not giving money to brainlets

next, my argument is deductive. Unless you can poke a hole in it yourself I don't actually have to do anything other than state it. I don't need to go watch a video, you need to formulate a counter-argument. But you can't because you're an idiot. Also video is blocked idiot

Why are you citing him an not hegel?

...

But Araki has a wife, Asami, and two kids.

Your numbers are not realistic.

That doesn't mean he doesn't like bulky men.

uncompassionate
what do you think i'm doing with you right now friend?
Boticelli, Bernini, Durer, William Blake, TS Eliot, Wumen, Han-Shan, Japanese carpentry
yes i know, thank god.
its worth pointing out that a society of 100% straights would be a little peculiar but workable, but a society of 100% gays is disgusting and literally impossible
If he wears them while standing alive and unscathed in the face of death, yes he is a true man. The greatest men dress flamboyantly, not like Araki's twinks. There's no courage in ignoring dumb jocks and fratboys bullying you or hicks or christfags. Courage is facing death without fear and maintaining your composure. So people who had cancer, soldiers, surivivors of extreme sports accidents etc, people caught in blizzards or who cap-size in large bodies of water and have to wait for days to be rescued. Those are brave courageous people. I admire that kind of person.
no but its hilariously ironic you bring this up because suicide rates for trans people and for straight white men are extremely high and will become the major cause of death soon
women are beautiful and look better attached to a man, men are beautiful and look better with a woman wrapped around them (think the Tantric Deities, some of my fav art). Children are wonderful when they're not high on ADD meds and Spongebob autism inducing cancer media, they're also the future of our species and watching how they advance our biology with every generation is fascinating and a gift unto itself. I think generational physiognomy is a lost art that someone needs to take up, watching faces transform as genes degenerate or become more robust is one of my fav things.
Slaves aren't any less free than the masters who rely on them to survive. Its nothing to be proud of, being a Master. Nietzsche was himself never a master in his own world. He wasn't the leading intellectual of his time, he was never the most beloved philosopher, he was physically weak and mentally unstable. He didn't even know what it was to be strong. Much less what it was to be strong in contrast to weakness and vice versa. I err away from thinking that scornfully looking down on the herd is a sign of strength, its really a sign of a lack of discipline. Being scornful of common stupidity is like being scornful of common indecency, you're a prude an irritable twit
like pottery
no
yes, i'm an anarchist darling
yes, yes and it will fuck us back when its all said and done

The gene responsible for causing homosexuality in males when in females is actually found to be beneficial which means that the gene propagates itself and is not maladaptive. Sexual orientation is also not a serious issue like sterilization is because in nature sexual organisms breed with whatever is available, the preference for one gender over another is overridden by the need to fuck period. Homosexuality also occurs in nature all the time so to claim it dies out in one generation is pseudoscientific nonsense. The video tackles your argument precisely and does it in an entertaining fashion so I posted it because you obviously won't read scientific articles or even a biology textbook.

Is this a euphemism for sexual abuse?

what about it? its a thought experiment the weasel bug person is just going to continuously push aside the general mechanics of population growth and focus on anomalies and juggling different surges in fertility and population decline. Just like feminists do when they deny the existence of the nuclear family and just like Holla Forumsyp's do when they deny the holocaust. Its all about avoiding the obvious, which is that a society of gays without super taxing and advanced technology is literally impossible and would collapse or get conquered over night.

HRT is comfy af though, why wouldn't you be on it?

technology is already advancing to the point that test tube babies and body modification are becoming a real possibility now. Once that technology becomes widespread and easily available a hypothetical society where everyone is gay could absolutely exist.

...

My dude you don't have to be so defensive. You're obviously implying that being "maladaptive" is a negative. Just own it instead of hiding behind "this logical deduction will just happen to support the world view of me, the innocent victim of my rational mind".

I notice just about everything is blamed on this anxiety these days. Usually people say autism though.

You're so amazingly wrong on this assumption LMAO

we've got a live one folks!

its adaptive for women who carry the gene, when their sons inherit it they then can't breed and are a net-negative for their tribe or ethnic group and are thus maladaptive. A gene can be beneficial as in for instance plenty of parasites and other disgusting things like that make a host more attractive and capable of breeding, but then they also propagate the parasite more effectively. In some cases STD's or parasites will use this as their entire lifecycle strategy. Genes are selfish, they compete they have very vague intentions (to propagate) its not surprising that in female carriers it makes them healthier but in males where the gene expresses itself it makes them less useful and obviously feminizes them and makes them non-viable for mating. I would however like to see the studies regarding the health benefits for the female carriers as that is highly intriguing to me and confirms something i've thought about homosexuality. Gay dads don't produce gay sons, its passed on by the mother. That's something i've always suspected, so this is fascinating if you're not lying or misconstruing some Daily Mail shit.
but there are gays especially in the last 1000 years who don't fuck women and won't fuck women so you're doing a really weird invisible hand style appeal to nature here. You're saying that its not an issue because they'll breed. But my point is that if the trait were proliferated somehow into a new generation and then modulated by environmental factors to suddenly explode the proportion of homosexuals, suddenly you are not replacing offspring at the correct rate. You need to overtax the straight couples and ask them to breed 5-6 kids to keep up. This is with like 30% of the population as homosexuals. The only supplement to this historically is warfare (let them go fight and die for the country, a lot of gays just join the army to fuck guys and die for something worthy historically) OR alternatively forcing gays to have families (which is nature's invisible hand saying homosexuality is maladaptive and has to be mitigated, homosexuals have to have families they don't want just to supplement the consequences of their lifestyles)
That's not what I said, the person was setting up a series of logic traps and I answered using specific reasoning as to why gays with beards have kids who are straight. But gays who are fucking gay and then have "kids" produce lots of gays and trans kids. Why? because of modulating pressures on gene expression, homosexuality is super susceptible to developmental and environmental pressures and probably is largely caused not by genetics but by hormonal imbalances in the womb (again its the mother's fault not the fag dad's).
well that's a shame because my argument is air tight and you've done nothing resembling a formal logical refutation, you didn't even present a counter argument or proof of any kind. You let someone else argue for you who i'm just going to ignore. Of course if you type your response here I will see it and almost certainly respond.
wrong kiddo, I would be more than happy to read a study or article published in a top 3 journal over last 5-8 years that has numerous citations and is not done by someone with any admitted biases and was not funded by creepy organizations that promote certain behaviors. I'd love to read it, I have lots of free time thanks to being productive early in the day.

...

...

...

I'm not, but if I was it would be totally justified considering the insane socio-political climate right now
its anti-social because its mal-adaptive and is thus not compatible with a free or healthy society. But i really don't care what you think it implies. I explicitly mean maladaptive, not bad in the christian or humanist sense.
how about you own the fact that you don't even begin to understand how genetics or formal logic function and most of you are just arguing emotionally because you see maladaptive and you know intuitively that you agree with whatever the science men say and if they say something is maladaptive (like religion, even though there's no evidence religion is maladaptive, that's something you guys would accept im sure) you believe them instinctively. If this were a Buddhist board I'd use a different method, if you were fascists I'd use a different method. Different disease, different cures
Most of my newest world views make me extremely uncomfortable i wish i could go back to believing what I did in 2014. Believe me if you're not horrified by the logical implications of your beliefs and by the direction technology is headed you haven't thought deeply enough yet. I'm not trying to force anything. I realized things about biology in the last year and they are disturbing and make me uneasy every day.
wow you're really observant. your whole worldview is based on nurture and enviornment and education and upbringing and you don't believe that there are clearly things that you might not like happening through this medium. Hmm makes me think you're a pseudointellectual brainlet
no i'm not, masculine gay is more likely to attract women are more likely to be virile and able to have healthy strong children. I never said bi-sexual, you implied that. just like you implied i said other things i didn't say. Weird that's another feminine, distinctly shitlib thing someone defending against "gay hatred" in this thread has said. Weird

thanks for playing, this was argument #1000 w/leftypol/ where it was indistinguishable from arguing with a shitlib at a university.

L I F E S T Y L I S M

Yes, because worker-managed agriculture was shit within Catalonia?

The rest of this is just ad-homs and strawmen, this is just sad.

nope fuck you dip shit

There's your first problem. These are the people who mistake liberals with socialists and SJWs.

rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1809/20150429
Yeah and if you had a population of 1 woman and 100 men you would likely face extintion too, but a 50% probability of being male or female helps prevent it and it doesn't make being female maladaptive. 30% homosexuality rate is so ridiculous I have to take the argument as strawmanning.
Potholer54 is legit, every claim is cited and he demonstrates why science is done with evidence and not speculation which is all you're doing. Fuck off for claiming I posted no evidence when all of your claims have been 100% citation free.

Slave-like.
And as you acknowledge such a society would never exist so it's not worth using it as an argument against homosexuality.
You should really read JoJo then because that's basically the entire point of Vento Aureo. You'd probably like it. Pic related.

But you miss my point. Of course courage is facing mortal danger. But there's another element of resolve that I'm talking about, the resolve to aggressively assert yourself against the grain of what everyone is telling you. This is why I assign a level of aesthetic virtue to "tackiness", it requires a certain strength of spirit to be confident in ones own judgement even when all of society is telling you otherwise.
I agree actually. Both slaves and masters require losing their own independence. This is why perhaps it is only fitting that Nietzsche was not a master, he was better, he was independent. Even though his peers didn't see the value in his words and he was physically weak it was no matter to him, he had the resolve to tell it as he wanted to nonetheless even when virtually the entirety of contemporary academia would tell him that he was wrong. And this is the true value he left behind, we should live life in pursuit of our own aesthetic vision independent of herd sensibilities or anything but our own.

That is what makes him, in a manner of speaking, strong. To the best of his ability he was able to overcome his limitations and make way for a better future.

And why is that?
The herd, for the most part, are a shit. They do many things that deserve to be looked down upon. Not least of all the way in which they try and drag down greater people.

Not necessarily more appealing. They're both appealing in a way. But it's silly to not be able to appreciate the beauty in men, not just in an aesthetic way, but also in a sensual way. Also pic related

You don't need to tell me. It's already obvious you're a brainlet.
We won't need to worry about that if we're already deep into colonizing space.

Read Marx.

bisexuality is a thing. if he can't get a 3d husbando, he can at least get his 2d ones.

Man I was right on the money.
Sounds like psuedo-science. What if I said a masculine gay was more likely to have ZERO attraction to woman and unable to even force a boner? I also thought women were completely tasteless? So if they're biologically driven to shag on "masculine" men then I'd need something that corroborates this unless you're going completely by anecdotal evidence in which case I've got way more 'evidence' that ladies go for guys who are funny/popular within their social group
I'm so hurt that you'd imply things I didn't directly say! This is really intellectually dishonest of you…

lol you're pretty funny do you have a blog I can follow?

qt~

irrelevant we're talking about anomoalous sexual behavior among one or both of the sexes. Not mismatching numbers of men and women. don't change the argument. That's a bad counter-example.
irrelevant the ratio of men and women is around 60:40 historically (Women majority) so just move one to something more sensible and stop grasping at straws.
its never happened but it must not happen either. It hasn't happened because it would be catastrophic if it did. hence it hasn't happened yet, there is no reason for it to ever go above 10% because homosexuals like retarded people are mal-adaptive and do not propagate themselves easily or well. Therefore they self contain, in small numbers and when not given concessions and are ignored. When given rights and concessions their numbers explode and they propagandize their lifestyle and it spreads like a plague
I now realize you're a fucking idiot
no, i decide who is legitimate
cat poster cites sources in every intelligence debate and his sources cite sources but they themselves never prove anything and show no first hand arguments or evidences that are convincing. Why should I care if he cites cherry picked studies and irrelevant "science explainer" articles from pozzed institutes? Why would I care? All that matters are the top tier journals and the articles and studies published there along with the leading experts discussion of current research at conferences. That's it. So unless his sources are all journal articles and studies from the top publishers I just don't care even a little bit. Cat poster has brought me i think 2 studies and some dumb Nazi ripped them apart in like an hour. This fetishization of "oh he cited sources he wins" is nonsense. If its not good citations its worthless. I don't care what the NIH primer on homosexuality is, its for normie faggots and its political and not for intellectual consumption. Its literally a candy to make the kids stop asking about where the sun and sky come from. That's what most articles cited are
a logical thought experiment with well formulated forms as its basis and a sound step-by-step elaboration along with not violating principles of known science is actually a form of evidence. Its not empirical evidence it is a rational evidence, and in many places like for instance a court of law or even in astro-physics it can outweigh or be more valuable than empirical evidence. In addition to that nothing I said is incorrect. Any trait that if prevalent among a population would cause it to die off or get steam rolled by competition is maladaptive. Its just a coincidence that homosexuality is a self-contained maladaptive adaptive trait. Its adaptive in that women who carry the genes get some mysterious health benefits (so I've heard, which supports my argument even more) but then of course the men who express the gene fully are fucked by it and become homosexuals who are then more likely to be insane, suicidal, drug addicts, STD carriers etc and won't breed. Again you're a brainlet, not an interesting one. Cat poster is more intelligent I think and wittier than you.

I'll read your link because I said I would but I'm done with you

Is that the new translation? It's so much better than I remember. I haven't read JJBA since duwang was the only option.

also post more butt

I argued with the nazi, he got BTFO and failed to read the evidence provided to him, including the evidence which stated that racial explanations for intelligence were debunked, but he CONVENIENTLY didn't read them because they were too long.. He, like you was dumb.

It's the JoJo's Coloured Adventure translation. It's really good but it's not entirely finished yet.

its not dozens of studies prove women select for masculinity during sexual selection, so a strong tall handsome gay manly man would do better than a weak jawed, short scawny twink
you're just making random generalizations and proving that you're a projecting idiot, again like pottery
they're inferior in taste and genius, they have better sense for textures and fabrics and they're better performers. I would prefer a women singing or playing the piano or dancing or a woman picking the colors in my house. But, i want a male architect and a male carpenter and even with floral arrangements I think its a draw between the sexes. Definitely male architect. But yeah women are fucking pigs when it comes to aesthetics
they are
you need to go read a study and go to a party and watch the handsome, strong tall guys with thick hair slay with women and scrawny fuckers do alright with women. or just stop being stupid, which you can't because its biological and genetic
wow
blogs are vain, and so are people who think homosexuality is fabulous

Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And no, saying "it just makes sense and is logical just think about it" is not evidence no matter how much you wish it were true.

And yet here you are, acting like a faggot

Oh and I forgot something

if it was hard evidence he would have some links and sources from my desired level of rigorous experts. instead he has a blocked video of some fag who monetized his video that I have to watch. lol sorry nope
i am reading his study, it not only doesn't say what he thinks it does but the fact that overdominance AND sexual antagonism are why SSB proliferates is both hilarious and just proves my point. Its a maladaptive adaptive parastical gene. It makes women healthier and stronger and paralyzes men and stops them from breeding and competing with other men, so it has to survive through females. Hilarious that its comparable to sickle-cell patients who are resistant to malaria, fucking hilarious. Just doing my job for me.

Thanks for showing up btw I missed arguing with you buddy

he rekked you and you weren't able to reason out of his arguments about epigenetics being already accounted for. You just leave lots of things on the table and me and him will pick them up and ask you, "hey but what about this, we accounted for that but what about this?" and you go, "no that's irrelevant, this has already been explained" but then we go back and read your sources and we still find the things sitting on the table that you set aside. like the fact that smart people assortatively mate, they seek each other out at a higher rate than other traits cause people to seek each other out. I mean come on. You really failed hard

no that's not how it works. A rational claim must be dismissed with either overwhelming empirical evidence or a counter-argument. You've provided neither. And now I have even more information to support my understanding of this issue thanks to my discussion with all of you. Thanks guys :), now I have more knowledge.

Except for the fact that those epigenetics weren't accounted for, and he kept misreading the evidence, along with continued sources that explained the demographics, which, again, he ignored.

Yeah, I'm sure a Nazi rejecting evidence, and getting BTFO when he can't even understand demographic concentration and how as a whole black people are more likely to suffer as a demographic from epigenetic factors is really """""Counting it in""""""".

He got rekt, just like you ITT.

Whatever helps you sleep at night kiddo.

At least the Nazi poster had citations. You on the other hand are acting like a colossal faggot and circle jerking over a thread which you didn't stick around for the entireity of.

cat poster will have to save you guys from looking worse, maybe he'll post some left-field primary sources from Nature that will blow my socks off. Probably not tho, geneticist user already failed me

jokes on you i'm a cute trap

uh I'm no though? This is how every masculine gay I've met is. On the other hand most scrawny gay guys I knew when I was younger turned out to just be in a "phase" and are now normal dudes with wives and kids.

Notice how I'm going full-bore into anecdotes now? It's because they're so rational and obvious that it's fine.

No no I see something different. The women are half split between your masculine fantasy and scrawny losers who make up for it by being funny/popular.
I can't even right now.
I agree but I'd follow yours. ;)

again with putting words in my mouth…

Sure thing buddy. Considering you also defeneded you Nazi buddy who got BTFO, and the fact that you also got BTFO, the only person who's tarnishing Holla Forums's reputation is you.

-u

clothed butt is lame for guys imo butt otherwise very good taste

you're really tanking hard today fam. You're the best poster on the board now that Hoochie has left for the Great Beyond on Bunkerchan or in Med School. Please try harder

wow sounds like an anecdote
hmm sounds like you can influence people to act or be gay, hm either way still an anecdote (its not a CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
A thought experiment that obeys scientific principles isn't the same as what-about'ism anecdotes my friend. You're saying things I can't verify. But you can do the math from my thought experiment with me. You can literally sit down and do the math with me and we can see how a problem occurs when over 2/10 of the population are gay and don't have kids (unless we grant that they need massive huge technological infrastructure, which proves my point again). Please don't get deterred by the words formal logic or rational evidence (they are merely referring to well formulated arguments and using them as proofs).
I don't think that in the dating scene especially on Tindr that this is true. I think its plainly obvious the top tier males dominate the middle and top tier females overwhelmingly. And that its completely skewed towards female sexual selection and they select a small number of males regularly who are invariably tall, handsome, strong, manly

the article just doesn't refute what I said, its not enough information or evidence to even establish itself as reliable and on top of that it actually supports supsicions that I had which I had no evidence to support. Which are that its a parastic trait that provides limited survival advantages to women but ulitmately is maladaptive when it expresses itself, specifically in men because it often goes with a handful of other traits and behaviors that render them totally useless to society. They're bad warriors, not invested in the community, not producing kids etc etc etc.
he's not my buddy, I admired his gumption and restraint in arguing with you and thought that it was funny how retarded Holla Forumsyps AND angry Holla Forums users were bombing the thread while only 4 of us (geneticist user, you, me, nazi) were actually having a normal though obviously contentious discussion/debate. Its amusing to me
no idiot, the only person who posted citations was geneticist user, i am literally reading the study now. Its fascinating and even supports ideas I already had but did not express because I lacked strong evidence to prove them. On top of all of that my entire argument is as follows:

Homosexuality is maladaptive because it renders people with the trait infertile and DOES discourage breeding, nature corrects for this by pressuring them to have families which is done through the mediation of social norms (which are conveniences for promoting adaptive behavior or hopefully doing so) otherwise the genetic lineage dies out. oh well so much for those genes, too bad for all those ancestors. Anyways the next problem is that if their population were ever to be the majority or even a minority-majority they would collapse the replacement rate and would render the country or people impotent and unable to defend themselves or reproduce. Therefore ultimately they are maladaptive. In small numbers they are fine, even charming in their own way. But as a sprawling expaning movement they are not and on top of that they are literally maladaptive and wouldn't survive without huge technological apparatus' and constant chemical/medical intervention into their sexcapades which spread disease extremely fast.

As opposed to you refuses to post no citations. Really makes ya think.

Are you implying that women/ unmasculine men ruin civilisations?

Because that's been debunked as well.
youtube.com/watch?v=5rUFX7YhjQ4&t=430s

Unless you are arguing in the case that they can't pull up their bootstraps and contribute, which suprisingly, they are capable of.

mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/angels-death-isis-savages-fear-6275913

huckmagazine.com/perspectives/reportage-2/kurdish-female-fighters/

With a gun and some viagra maybe. Is this what the gay mafia does? Pump straights full of viagra and force them to gay it up at gun point? Are you wanting the opposite?

You might as well be arguing that it's both actually. You need to be clearer on this.

No no no. You have to convince my logical self that this is even remotely within the realm of possibility. Which you never did. Otherwise I can just sit back and say "live and let live!" and carry on with my day. After all, the actual population is in such astronomical numbers at this point (was it 7trillion?) that I can't even begin to fathom caring what sub 5% of the population does with their asshole.

Now that's the creme de la creme of anecdotal evidence right there. I am floored and rethinking my world view to be sure.

People who think Socialists are SJWs and Liberals are retarted.

sci-hub.cc/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.11.002

I think it's been misinterpreted by the journalist. but then again, the sky is also blue.

thats your own biased subjective logic
history shows you're more likely to become a fascist if you're an ex-military serviceman

wew

pretty much
though I doubt thats the defining factor
being in the military and serving in a war conditions them to respect strength and be prone to enforcing and conforming to strict discipline routines, uniforms and such

actual fake news tbqh

tbh there are no fascist governments anymore
all fascist governments had to seize power from the state originally
the entire world gangs up on them
thought you'd be softer on them than decadent western liberal democracies

gee I wonder why
I didn't know the USSR was a decadent western liberal democracy

yeah why?
can you explain why

kek

This. I remember reading a study that said strong men were more likely to defend their material interests, which translates to strong working class men tending to be more left wing.
Which I am inclined to believe given that my communist convictions aren't any weaker since I started lifting, if anything I feel much more confident in my political opinions.

Really, fires up the 'ol neurons.

that's why fascism should be called faggotism in English

No.

Remember to keep lifting to become /leftyswole/

...

smdh

What was the thread about anyway?

TFW if it wasn't for bait threads there wouldn't be any at all.