If shitskins are unevolved and shitskins have more children,

File: 4L_ywY3SYOi.jpg (78KB, 750x653px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 750x653px

We're really reclaiming the individual in this post folks

>>132299706
Reclaiming the individual? What do you mean? Is that something Alex Jones says?

What I'm saying is that /pol/ will agree that certain people/races are unevolved. Those races have more children. Yet /pol/ does not think having more children goes hand in hand with being unevolved.

>>132299308
Why do you post this every day multiple times, take your medication please.

>>132300158
they have more kids because they are fucking stupid and have no concept of overpopulation or responsibility. also, here in burger world, having more kids for shitskins equals more gibs. Pretty easy to figure out, don't the dindus in your country pretty much live off welfare too? It's the same thing, we just have more of them.

>>132301014
He's saying white people shouldn't have children you idiot.

>>132301674
No, I'm not saying that. "Shouldn't" is normative, I'm talking in descriptive terms, not normative. In other words, I'm talking about what is and isn't, not what should and shouldn't be.

>>132299308
Natural selection no longer favor individuals with the best traits. At least not in mankind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unoMMru4-c0

File: 1440115626033.jpg (24KB, 350x465px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 350x465px

>>132300158
Generally speaking, the number of children people have is inversely proportional to their social class or standard of living.

If you live in a developed nation and are middle to upper class, well-educated, and financially stable or wealthy, you have fewer children and invest heavily in raising them so that they can function and be successful in that world.

If you live in a shit country, are dumb as fuck, are on welfare, etc. then you have more children for a couple of reasons. The first is that all those conditions tend to mean that a lot of children die of shit like famine, diseases, or drive-by shootings. The second is that in rural or underdeveloped places, you put your kids to help running your farm or scavenging through trash heaps or selling weed and they contribute to the survival of the family as a whole.

This is all just an instinct that humans have evolved to possess.

>>132305735
And truly enlightened people have 0 children.

>>132307883
Shut up, swedicuck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hxX5IlCjrs

>>132299308
What's the name of this fallacy again?

>>132299308
>>132300158
The whyte man has removed the enviornmental factors that would have kept this from happening.

>>132299308
>>132300158
by the way the proliferation of a "specific genome" in a fabricated niche that they don't control means nothing more than they are good at something within that fabrication.

>>132308061
Lil Wayne is a fucking bro, as degenerate as his music is, I'm glad there are people like him around that can speak truth, even if it is anecdotal.

>>132308377
I don't know. I'm studying logic. But I think I know what you mean, and I think that's a formal fallacy, as opposed to all the various types of informal fallacies that are commonly mentioned. But what I mean is slightly different from how it looks. I don't think there is necessarily a fallacy. I mean that I think there is a correlation. Pol will always say yeah but there shouldn't be or it doesn't have to be etc. It remains a fact that there is a correlation.

>>132309467
>It remains a fact that there is a correlation. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

You're premise that evolution is solely beneficial is your problem.

>>132308061
I don't know much about him, I just used that picture because he looks like the lowest type of human.

>>132309736
what are you talking about

>>132299308

If niggers drop out of school, how come Mark Twain isn't black?

>>132308377
False equivalence?

>>132301674
braaap

>>132299308
If X = Y and A = B then why doesn't A=Y?

>>132299308
Fertility has nothing to do with evolution but low feetility = biologically inferior

>>132310267
The difference is one is systemic, a correlation, the other is an isolated case. Most correlations have outliers.

>>132299308
You know that needing lots of children is because most of them die
Using that logic ant queens are clearly 10000x more evolved than humans

>>132310705
Explain how having more children = more or less evolved.

>>132310803
More kids = more dna gets passes on
Sterility is a disease for a reaaon and high fertility a blessing.

oh wew

>>132310206
>I mean that I think there is a correlation. Pol will always say yeah but there shouldn't be or it doesn't have to be etc. It remains a fact that there is a correlation.

That "shitskins" are having more babies, that it implies that /pol/ thinks that people having babies=unevolved. Should I continue? The word "evolved" is misdirect.

>>132310887
Not necesserily. See r vs K selection. One has lots of kids in the expectatoin that lots will die. The other has less kids but raises them more actively in the expectation that with more time spend on them individually they will overcome the things that will kill them.

>>132308377
I forget which one but it goes:

If A then B, then all B is A.

It's a mutual exclusive thing.

>>132310887
Low fertility genetically is a disease, high fertility is a healthy being, the anility of reproduction determines a beings value.

Inb4 some retards r9k strategy.

>>132311062
R vs K doesnt apply to humans you retard.

>>132311184
r/K selection.

r selection is like a rabbit. Churning out babies, but most will die.

K selection is like a wolf. Far fewer offspring, but with several intensive years spent on them by the parent.

>>132299308

Having children and breeding =/= being evolved.

Firstly, I'll point to life forms that choose extremely long lives over effective reproduction.

However, in the case of humans, the difference is in the need for children. Blacks come from an area where their intelligence was not beneficial, but being able to replace the last kid that got eaten is.

Meanwhile, in the far north, where it's hard to make children and feed yourself, intelligence to preserve and maximize food in an otherwise inhospitable environment was rewarded, in exchange for slower breeding, but more investment in a child.

This is why blacks rarely take care of their swarms of children, and why they have swarms, while whites are more willing to buy in to the idea of not having children, especially when the (((news))) tells them it's too expensive.

>>132311306
>Go from saying more kids means more DNA means more evolved to saying breeding strategies don't apply to humans

Fuck fucking one dickface.

>>132311418
Pick fucking one, dickface*

>>132299308
Ahmed lägg dig ner på vägen och bli överkörd av en lastbil.

>>132299308
Nig nogs grow hair
Nig nogs are less evolved...

Everyone with hair is less evolved!

because of course

>>132311309
It soesnt apply to humans, those are the biological constraints of the species.

>>132311608
see
>>132311418

>>132310803
I don't know, I'm asking.

>>132307883
The dude gave you a detailed explanation of r/K selection and you basically said " so intelligence vs number of kids is a linear equation?"

Come on dude, find some neurons to rub together

>>132311714
No, you are stating it as your hypothesis. I'm not here to make your argument for you.

>>132299308
Rabbits are less evolved

File: IMG_3600.png (312KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 640x1136px

>>132311680
This is the biological constraints of wolves obviously wolves goal = more wolves = survival and sominance of wolves

Low fertility is either a choice or a disease.

File: Blackfacesmilie.png (40KB, 736x736px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 736x736px

ongo bongo fug nigga caps poppin kfc watermelon

>>132311883
We have the choice too of fucking a load of women and leaving the kids, exemplified by blacks, or sticking around and raising them, exemplified by whites.

Why does this obvious pattern not fit somhow?

>>132312020
More resources = able to feed your young and raisr them

>>132312448
That's irrelevant to the point.

Given practically unlimited resources, the r selected creature will keep going until they hit the saturation point of the environment (see starving black babies in Africa after being subsidised by the West right now). Whites, despite having themselves produced this abundance themselves, are declining.

>>132311779
I guess the idea is that the evolution of humans that made them go from large families to small families might continue in the same direction to where people aren't having children at all.

>>132312888
That is making the massive assumption that "humanity" is some monolithic block with no variation. In the case of whites you might be correct, in the case of blacks they may well make up half the humans on earth pretty soon (assuming we continue to subsidise them).

>>132310887
>More kids = more dna gets passes on
Nope. Firstly, you have as many genes in common with your children as with your siblings, so you could just as well invest in either. Many species specialises in that (social insects for instance)

Secondly, a too high reproduction rate in a species, kan make it go extinct. Lemmings have periodic and large variations in their population sizes, because their reproduction rate is too high. Tune it up a bit more and you get chaos.

This topic is too big for a thread here.

Anyway, OP's logical fallacy is called "non sequitur".

File: Säpochef.jpg (74KB, 463x540px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 463x540px

(You)

>>132313002
What the fuvk are you talking about retard.

>>132313890
Other than one or two 3+ sylable words, that was not in any way complex or obscure.