>>4275930>My post stands regardless of your stance on non-EU immigration Your post posits that immigration would actually be beneficial to whites, I state that it would not, this is not my opinion on the matter but rather a fact I back up with my own line of logic, you reducing everything I've brought up to this point as "just my opinion" is not only gay but also completely wrong.
>More smug hand waving without giving an actual answerThen mention what factors you moron, if you really said anything that answers my question then it takes two seconds to copy and paste it into your response, stop being lazy - I'm not the one expected to find your arguments for you.
>No one is having them do anythingPlausible deniability, but ultimately you are still guilty, the introduction of immigrants is a choice, one you know very well the result of, you're essentially waving booze to a guy who's depressed and then claim it's not your fault that he's an alcoholic now.
>Also race mixing for dysgenic whites is le good but I won't go into detail because I can't back it upThis is the bulk of your argument and you can't take a few minutes to reinforce it? And no, mutts are oftentimes WORSE than their dysgenic parents, this is because the differences between the two parents lead to pretty conflicting genetics.
>>Makes the same mistakeHoly shit dude are you this fucking retarded? Am I gonna have to draw it for you? Actually, fuck it, I'm gonna do it just for you.
>Status cuesTreating aesthetic as status cues IS a good way to treat, the aesthetic differences of man and woman for example, however these are hardly set in stone as something like how athletic someone is, sexual selection, albeit important, will always take backseat to natural.selection, survival fitness >>> sexual fitness
>Survival is meaningless unless it leads to reproductionReproduction is meaningless if you can hardly survive, your genes will be unfavored and your offspring will die.
>You defined a non-abstract evolutionary functionAdmittedly, yes, abstract was not the correct word, moreso it's simply relative, a heart is obviously more important than having blue eyes as one has an objective, near universal necessity for survival while the other is a cosmetic for reproductive success, the two are not to be compared as equals, once again survival >>>> reproduction, or more specifically sexually selected trait are less important than naturally selected traits.
>If society arbitrarily assigns prestige to it, it is now a practical survival assetNo, not arbitrarily at least, if we all collectively decided women should be soldiers does not mean they would be good soldiers, it must be grounded on survival fitness and really what would help that society prosper, that said, negligent traits such as blue eyes can be assigned anything so long as it's not too exclusive, a majority dark eyed population that makes only blue eyed people be allowed to fight would obviously die out.
Ultimately, it can be inferred that aesthetic traits are NOT darwinistic in nature, rather they are oftentimes existing structures that are exaggerated for the sake of mate attraction (big feathers of a peacock, big claw of a crab, big antlers of an elk) each of these are existing, positive traits that are exaggerated and sometimes even become negative to the organism all for the sake of mate attention, this isn't a "good" thing, simply natural.
>I have a girlfriendIf true, good for you nigger, this post just got my pattern recognition firing up.
