sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
No bio...
User ID: 2725
I am in favor of limiting immigration to the level sustainable by assimilation in my country and I believe it would be sensible for USA.
What I'm pushing back on are the kind of people who go on redefining what "assimilated" means because they did a DNA test or dug up the family tree and found dead old things to be proud of instead of actual substance.
National character is not merely the past. National character is not merely ethnicity. National character is not merely the line "nationality of father" in the birth certificate.
National character can be directly and plainly observed.
I don't see you building national character, for now I only see you advocating for no immigration. I'm afraid a certain Scottish Deutchman has you beat there.
Why does that mean I have to allow millions of Indians and Mexicans and Chinamen to live in it?
It's not up to just your decision. The question I'd suggest you ask instead would sound more like "how do I get people who don't want to bother proving the purity of their blood to vote/fight for me?".
their posterity inherits from them their mannerisms, attitudes, proclivities, and ways of life.
If true, a birth certificate would not be required to see it. In the best scenario (a person with completely unmixed 1776 heritage), they carry the potential for those qualities that might have blossomed in similar circumstances. You might notice that circumstances are not the same. And what I think of potential men can be summarized like so.
That it is in your, as you put it earlier today, ethnic interest to claim the suffrage in USA as solely yours is not cohering with the arguments you put up. If America must belong to the descendants of the founding fathers because of the heritage rights, make your point so. When you bring vibes about pioneerhood and the American spirit into it, it exposes that there are a great many Indians with more American spirit than you.
I want America to be for the Americans, that is, the pioneers and settlers whose labor tamed this continent and brought civilization to its farthest reaches.
These people died. Their grandsons pioneer no longer, the land has been settled and the continent tamed. Whoever today carries the qualities that make them most like the Americans of three hundred years ago, is not likely to carry them because they have inherited them through an unbroken patrilineal chain of heritage extending to Mayflower.
The sentiment is that the future is going to be, at best, pointless and at worst, bad anyway. So anything that causes an upheaval and bloodies the nose of the groups they dislike is good.
Maybe in the land of the brave and the free the hospitals allow patients to smuggle in McDonalds by the trolley, smoke right in the ward until you can't see the opposite wall or shoot up heroin with the conveniently-available syringes, but I'm used to the kind of hospital that, actually, doesn't allow patients to ignore such medical suggestions during their stay.
Requiring patients to be vaccinated from the virus which is currently being fought against, regardless of how misguided such a fight you believe was in the end, is a perfectly consistent mandate on behalf of a hospital. Why would I want to increase the likelihood of all my staff and patients catching covid on top of whatever illnesses they're already here for?
How often do you think new admissions should come in order to fill the empty beds of a hospital to capacity?
I remember all the nurses so bored they made tiktoks all day.
Having periods of inactivity while otherwise having to be available is not the rebuttal that you think it is.
Modern society will absolutely turn people away, as long as they get to feel ideologically justified when they do so.
Who was turned away from treatment based on facts that weren't related to their refusal to accept medical procedures?
"If you want to get treated, do what the doctors say" was true long before covid in pretty much any place that had hospitals, to my knowledge.
That's good advice for making Elon fans look worse.
I do agree that the capitalist theory of labor is more true to reality than the labor theory of value.
I agree that he doesn't look as bad as the story of his looks does. (Unlike the typical lip-fillered, liposuctioned, spray-tanned stereotype of a heavily-plastic-surgeried woman, who does not look good IMHO).
I find that the poorness of the risk is directly related to the likelihood of suffering reputational damage.
I don't know about God, but I could think of a whole bunch of men who would want to smite this town, for pricing them out of happy whores they could have otherwise dated organically.
You could have a lottery to move in, then a whole range of premuim passes to stuff into lootboxes for those who want to purchase extra chances. If you're exploiting primal drives, might as well exploit them to the max.
Wait - so that the community would have lots of free sex, or so that all the social-norms-violating women would be reverse psychologized into becoming tradwives?
Yes. Hence me noting that the non-labor theory of value recognizes risk as valuable, but that within the labor theory of value, risk isn't labor.
Do you think most Onlyfans women are recognized in real life for the sacrifices to their worth and reputation to apply?
I'd assume that for most of history, most men did orient their entire lives around their sexual preference. Regardless of how "disordered" it is to want to fuck your wife and marry her for that purpose.
That logic would apply to Russia if Russia did not inherit the vast majority of USSR's momentum, position and ambition.
Enemy country changes name, slightly shrinks, wants same things = effectively same enemy.
New country spawns from fringes of enemy country, has fraction of its power, different concerns = not the same enemy.
Ukraine could not have been the enemy of USA before 1989 because there was no such thing as a diplomatically and geopolitically separate state of Ukraine. USSR was the enemy of USA. The territory of the modern day Ukraine was territory, it could not have been the enemy of anyone. It's land. Maybe you could argue that the politicians of the Soviet Republic of Ukraine remained enemies of USA after they became independent, if you could actually trace the same politicians and the same attitudes.
I don't see where you're going with this. A lot of products have a chance of failure, but few products have none, so we prefer to work on those that have the least chance to fail.
Two products are more valuable than one.
If we have two products and we know one of them has 50% chance to break, then the other one is more valuable.
If we have two products, where one could be destroyed but wasn't, and the other was never in danger, I'd say they're the same.
baseball-sized breast implants
One would struggle to call baseball-sized implants going too far, except perhaps going too far in the other direction.
Why would they give up land? What's rational about it?
No one likes the sleazy rich guy in the movies who's like "there's no such thing as 'not for sale'!". The more insistent he is, the more pleasant the refusal.
- Prev
- Next

I know that groups of people have different traits and they can be partially attributed to descent. I do not observe, and refuse to nakedly believe, that specific romanticized expressions of those traits magically pass through dozens of generations, intact, despite since then intermixing dozens of times and being subjected to environments that are unlike the one that brought out those expressions in the first place.
In other words, no one is actually just like their father.
If someone wants to instantiate a breeding program to make more people with as high percentage of 1776 American blood as possible, that's the motte to the "national character of pioneers and settlers" bailey.
More options
Context Copy link