Partial credit?

Sure, just go ahead and blast those returns; I'm sure they'll be more than happy to take them.

feralranger said:The solution doesn't lie in nurturing some regressive, narrow-minded Stalinist mindset or practically begging for purges; rather, it lies in mounting a defense against specific instances of sheer stupidity, much like this (through counterarguments, accompanying context, or relevant links...).

Your capacity for repeating yourself is honestly infinite. 🤦

I really hope the admin isn't just some weekend warrior and actually quotes the thread. Just so they can see what YOUb> do to discussions. This constant self-congratulation you drop into every single thread—including this one—about your own "contributions" is just laughable. 🙄

Boris is against the mods because he knows if anyone with an IQ north of 80 showed up, he'd be out the door. He can't engage in a single topic without trying to drag it all down to Stalinism, primate politics, or some made-up nonsense about music and photography. And don't even get me started on how he treats anyone with a different opinion like they're nothing more than pests or vermin... ☕

Backward? Narrow-minded? Stalinist?

feralranger said:If someone used prenatal testing and medical procedures to terminate an abortion, yeah, I'd call that wrong because like I said, I think her life is just as valuable—how else would you put it?

feralranger said:de facto, there’s basically no difference between that act (if the killing actually works, since some people survive abortions) and infanticide (meaning, in both cases, someone ends up dead because life was cut short).

It's about ethics. Just because they aren't killing you or me doesn't mean it doesn't affect you or me.

feralranger said:I wouldn't even punish infanticides (since the act is fundamentally the same—you're literally just as dead either way), but I'd definitely push for education and civilization so these barbaric acts eventually become obsolete.

feralranger said:Between abortion and infanticide (though it depends on which country or legal system you're looking at), there might be a de jure difference. But what's the de facto (actual) difference between the two?

For example, this stuff happening in "advanced" countries like the United Kingdom (typical mindless people, like ostriches sticking their heads in the sand, really bugs me that link)... If a doctor is a monster and, after a failed attempt to kill via abortion, kills the baby outside—they'll be charged with infanticide (even though they're supposed to save lives), but if they killed it just a minute earlier (while it was still inside)—they'd get paid for that. Examples like this perfectly expose the sheer depth of quasi-progressive Western hypocrisy. In Iceland, things are even worse than in the United Kingdom; they actually brag about being almost 100% abortive.targeting kids with Down syndrome.

Just part of your savage streak. Anyone who wants to see the rest can find it since it’s just sitting there unpunished on the Wiki.

feralranger said:Honestly, I pretty much had them backed into a corner with my logic and some well-earned clapbacks.
I've always loved that saying: "to give someone a taste of their own medicine". : D

But baby Sisyphus😂

wanderingheron9 said:But baby Sisyphus😂

What happened with the babies? I somehow missed that part and honestly, I really don't feel like digging through all the backlog. 😁

feralranger said:was basically cornering him with logic

😂 🤣

While those who refuse to buckle up laugh at themselves and invite nothing but sheer embarrassment—yes, truly, they do it with such convincing...

Because, as I have previously posited...

The defining traits of our species are heightened emotionality and intelligence, which necessitates the application of both reason and intuition.

A person remains fundamentally human even if they were stripped of certain attributes (or, heaven forbid, lost a bone in some tragic accident). Even primates possess jaws. Literally. Therefore, to suggest that someone is "Subhuman" based solely on the dimensions of some arbitrary bone is, quite frankly, just plain stupid.

feralranger said:While those who refuse to buckle up laugh at themselves and invite nothing but sheer embarrassment—yes, truly, they do it with such convincing...

Because, as I have previously posited...

The defining traits of our species are heightened emotionality and intelligence, which necessitates the application of both reason and intuition.

A person remains fundamentally human even if they were stripped of certain attributes (or, heaven forbid, lost a bone in some tragic accident). Even primates possess jaws. Literally. Therefore, to suggest that someone is "Subhuman" based solely on the dimensions of some arbitrary bone is, quite frankly, just plain stupid.

Aren't you falling right into Singer's trap here?

mistyhound94 said:So, is work actually being done properly in the US now? After all this time spent begging for even a shred of progress? Even the lonely latica is stunned by what’s been done to certain people—even those favorites who were treated like untouchable icons in the US.

Good grief, I'm speechless. 🤣

Maybe there’s still some hope left for the US. 🎉

Hey there, Michael! Man, I can totally see why you feel like today just hit you like a ton of bricks.
Believe it or not, I'm actually really happy for you. We jawbone types have already paved the way here in the States and got everything running smooth. The red carpet is rolled out, so just dive right in, my friend.👍

Benjamin Taylor90 said:What happened with the babies? I somehow missed that part and honestly, I really don't feel like digging through all the backlog. 😁

I think the original post got wiped.
From what I recall, feralranger used to argue that "objective" beauty is really just a moving target driven by whatever trends happen to be popular at the time. Then his buddy Brahma brought up this study where they showed babies pictures of attractive versus unattractive people, and every single infant gravitated toward the more attractive faces. It’s wild because we’re talking about babies who aren't even conscious enough to know what's going on yet, but their instincts are already hardwired to gravitate toward those healthy, symmetrical features in adults. It definitely left Sisyphus Brahma scratching his head, wondering if infants are actually following trends too, or if it's just pure biology.
Sisyphus ignored those babies so many times that it actually turned into a whole new meme. 🤣

What on earth is happening in my thread? Honestly, let's just call it a total meltdown. 🙂

(@wanderingheron9, you don't say 'subhuman,' it's 'Untermensch.')

wanderingheron9 said:Hey there, Michael! Man, I can totally see why you feel like today just hit you like a ton of bricks.
Believe it or not, I'm actually really happy for you. We jawbone types have already paved the way here in the States and got everything running smooth. The red carpet is rolled out, so just dive right in, my friend.👍

I think the original post got wiped.
From what I recall, feralranger used to argue that "objective" beauty is really just a moving target driven by whatever trends happen to be popular at the time. Then his buddy Brahma brought up this study where they showed babies pictures of attractive versus unattractive people, and every single infant gravitated toward the more attractive faces. It’s wild because we’re talking about babies who aren't even conscious enough to know what's going on yet, but their instincts are already hardwired to gravitate toward those healthy, symmetrical features in adults. It definitely left Sisyphus Brahma scratching his head, wondering if infants are actually following trends too, or if it's just pure biology.
Sisyphus ignored those babies so many times that it actually turned into a whole new meme. 🤣

I haven't bothered verifying that specific study because it is entirely irrelevant to the current context... I mean, even if we grant that it holds some weight, so what? It remains an undeniable fact that the experience of beauty has fluctuated across the centuries. Culture and environment undoubtedly shape perception.

But honestly, it's beside the point... because how does any of that relate to the absurdly clumsy use of the term "subhuman" when discussing bone parameters?

Anyone who doesn't possess—if I may borrow the phrase "to give someone a taste of their own medicine"—a "subhuman brain" can easily see that this particular point of mine, which is the crux of the matter, remains entirely unrefuted.

It’s honestly quite something when Sisyphus just decides to kneel right in the middle of a thread and refuse to budge. 🤦

Maybe you should just crawl back into the primordial soup you crawled out of and call it a day.

Nah, you basically just hijacked my thread. Seriously, just beat it already.

Charles Wood73 said:It’s honestly quite something when Sisyphus just decides to kneel right in the middle of a thread and refuse to budge. 🤦

Maybe you should just crawl back into the primordial soup you crawled out of and call it a day.

Charles Wood73 said:Nah, you basically just hijacked my thread. Seriously, just beat it already.

Employing such primitive language—especially since I haven't even provoked you—serves only to highlight your own character flaws and the obvious turbulence within your own mind.

Charles Wood73 said:What on earth is happening in my thread? Honestly, let's just call it a total meltdown. 🙂

(@wanderingheron9, you don't say 'subhuman,' it's 'Untermensch.')

Anyway, did you get your results back over in the US?
Just a heads-up, me and the rest of the elite crew have been kicked out, so the air is finally clear for you over there. You’re free to come back whenever. I'm sure you and the latica will hit it off—if you don't find common ground, at least you'll reach a compromise, or maybe even get a solid recommendation for a good snuff film.😉

feralranger said:I haven't bothered verifying that specific study because it is entirely irrelevant to the current context... I mean, even if we grant that it holds some weight, so what? It remains an undeniable fact that the experience of beauty has fluctuated across the centuries. Culture and environment undoubtedly shape perception.

But honestly, it's beside the point... because how does any of that relate to the absurdly clumsy use of the term "subhuman" when discussing bone parameters?

Anyone who doesn't possess—if I may borrow the phrase "to give someone a taste of their own medicine"—a "subhuman brain" can easily see that this particular point of mine, which is the crux of the matter, remains entirely unrefuted.

Fashion changes way more often than the concept of objective beauty ever could.
The term Subhuman actually covers a lot of ground. Someone with total mouthbreather bone structure might be physically or sexually subhuman, but they could still be incredibly smart, even a genius.
On the flip side, someone genetically blessed could be a complete idiot and absolutely wreck their own life. In that case, we're talking about a mental subhuman.
As a personal example, my height is basically subhuman back in the States. And yeah...☕

No bone of a man makes him a man. To suggest otherwise is not only foolish, but fundamentally dehumanizing.

Inhumanity implies an emotional numbness, whereas true emotional maturity—paired with intellectual depth—is quite literally the prerequisite for reason and the very concept of being "human."

(And just so we’re perfectly clear and avoid any tiresome misunderstandings: I am by no means some regressive, wannabe Stalinist, nor have I ever advocated for purges. In composing my posts, I was simply standing against your unsightly rhetoric, and frankly, I have absolutely no grievance regarding your [partial] banning of me.)

wanderingheron9 said:Anyway, did you get your results back over in the US?
Just a heads-up, me and the rest of the elite crew have been kicked out, so the air is finally clear for you over there. You’re free to come back whenever. I'm sure you and the latica will hit it off—if you don't find common ground, at least you'll reach a compromise, or maybe even get a solid recommendation for a good snuff film.😉

Fashion changes way more often than the concept of objective beauty ever could.
The term Subhuman actually covers a lot of ground. Someone with total mouthbreather bone structure might be physically or sexually subhuman, but they could still be incredibly smart, even a genius.
On the flip side, someone genetically blessed could be a complete idiot and absolutely wreck their own life. In that case, we're talking about a mental subhuman.
As a personal example, my height is basically subhuman back in the States. And yeah...☕

Nope. 🤷

wanderingheron9 said:Anyway, did you get your results back over in the US?
Just a heads-up, me and the rest of the elite crew have been kicked out, so the air is finally clear for you over there. You’re free to come back whenever. I'm sure you and the latica will hit it off—if you don't find common ground, at least you'll reach a compromise, or maybe even get a solid recommendation for a good snuff film.😉

Fashion changes way more often than the concept of objective beauty ever could.
The term Subhuman actually covers a lot of ground. Someone with total mouthbreather bone structure might be physically or sexually subhuman, but they could still be incredibly smart, even a genius.
On the flip side, someone genetically blessed could be a complete idiot and absolutely wreck their own life. In that case, we're talking about a mental subhuman.
As a personal example, my height is basically subhuman back in the States. And yeah...☕

Honestly, it’s perfectly fine for a minority.

Let’s call it quits. ☕

It honestly gets under my skin a little bit "I'm so unique, I'm so special"—that whole arrogant vibe if we're being totally real—but you guys aren't actually bad 😁, man.

People are definitely more terrified of the US than they are of some couch, for sure 🕺.
And honestly? I think they have every right to be.

wanderingheron9 said:Hey there, Michael! Man, I can totally see why you feel like today just hit you like a ton of bricks.
Believe it or not, I'm actually really happy for you. We jawbone types have already paved the way here in the States and got everything running smooth. The red carpet is rolled out, so just dive right in, my friend.👍

I think the original post got wiped.
From what I recall, feralranger used to argue that "objective" beauty is really just a moving target driven by whatever trends happen to be popular at the time. Then his buddy Brahma brought up this study where they showed babies pictures of attractive versus unattractive people, and every single infant gravitated toward the more attractive faces. It’s wild because we’re talking about babies who aren't even conscious enough to know what's going on yet, but their instincts are already hardwired to gravitate toward those healthy, symmetrical features in adults. It definitely left Sisyphus Brahma scratching his head, wondering if infants are actually following trends too, or if it's just pure biology.
Sisyphus ignored those babies so many times that it actually turned into a whole new meme. 🤣

Look, I won't ignore it. But before I dive into this debate, I’d like to ask you to clarify a few things, since you clearly have a deep understanding of evolutionary psychology. For instance, we know babies instinctively suck when they feel touch near their mouths, and they cry when they're hungry—both instincts obviously increase their chances of survival. So, here’s the question: what practical benefit does an infant, who hasn't even developed sexual or romantic instincts, gain from focusing on the proportional mandible and maxilla of an adult? I’m sure you have a rational explanation for that. Furthermore, on what basis do you assign value to where a child directs their attention? If we put an orange piece of paper and a yellow piece of paper in front of a child, and the child focuses on the yellow one—what does an intellectual of your caliber conclude from that? Once you provide a satisfying answer to that, I promise I have one final question. Truly, the last one. In this clip, a child instinctively reaches for a stick, claiming it's longer, even though they just saw both sticks were identical in length. Do you agree with the child's intuition?

I look forward to your reasoning; I know you're well-prepared for this discussion.