Historically speaking, what is the origin of the heart symbol?
>>17513170I only fap on Saturdays and Sundays.I'll be 27 this year.Thank you for listening to my TedTalk.
>>17513170Huge dump truck asses, I assume.
>>17513170Some autists say it's from a now-extinct plant, the silphium, used for birth control, or from the shape of a woman's ass (lol)
>>17513170An artist named Mogudan is obsessed with the one on the right.
So we have a consensus that the Tajik people (mainly similar to the Shugnan) are direct descendants of the Scythians, Sogdians, Parthians, etc. etc. were basically Tajiks? If so, then the Tajiks are Indo-Europeans.
>>17513325Sure
>>17513325Another we wuzin debunked
>>17513373Arrian was asiatic bvll btw
>>17513325Shugnan Tajiks have the highest North European admixture in ALL of South Asia, and genetically drift towards the Sintashta cluster, who are genetically closest to modern Swedes. So you're basically saying that the closest people to Yamnaya are highly Northern European populations and South Asians with the highest North European admixture. And thats just using the Yamnaya closest to the Caucasus mountains who are 50% CHG, and not the 60% EHG 30% CHG who were the majority. Congratulations pal, you played yourself.
>>17513960I think you misunderstood. no one said anything about CaucasusThe point is that the people mentioned above have genetic continuity with the Tajiks, that is, they were never just steppe
They could've just held a plebiscite and kept their other won territories...
>>17512976>hurr durr prominent ministers have no power or influence, history is a static bubble, only world leaders actually did anything, everyone else just stayed at home, not talking to anyoneHow much power does Mike Pence have on the current Republican administration?If you're not in government, you're not in government, and you have close to zero fucking influence on decisions being made.Why are you guys circlejerking so hard around Churchill all the time, it's really fucking weird. You're literally trying to make him into some sort of larger-than-life type of person with powers that exceeds any living being in politics.
>>17512976>they then wanted a war to annex Danzig and East Prussia.lmaoPoles spend years building up Gdynia so they can stop relying on Danzing and they were almost finishedthey were ready to handle danzing to germs but it was under League of nations jurisdiction
>>17506992Netanyahu did something like this too. These right wing dictators (Trump included) all feel an affinity with Hitler.
>>17513453Bibi trying to blame the holocaust on Palestinians is pretty hilarious
>hurr it's everyone else's fault Germany had to go to war with them!>but nobody else had any right to defend themselves!
What are the plans for when a Pope goes rogue in the Roman Catholic Church? Does the Magisterium have any backup plans in case a Pope runs amok with heterodox ideas, even blatantly committing heresies while occupying the Holy See of Saint Peter? Does the Catholic Church even believe such a thing could happen, or do they believe the Holy Spirit protects the Church from being infiltrated like that, not even entertaining the possibility that a heretic Pope could happen?
>>17511056They basically have to follow the Pope no matter what, unless they are driven to a so-called heresy out of their own accord.
>MUH SCISMthe reason there will not be a schism is because most of the ass-blasted "catholics" seething about him are either>american protestants who think they're catholicor>internet tradcathsneither of whom have the discipline, drive, nor intelligence to actually try create a schism.
>>17511063redditors really do make the worst flags
>>17511056Off topic, but was Francis' socialist/liberation theology tendencies well known to the more traditional side of the Church before his election? Or were they just so concerned with maintaining Catholicism in LATAM that they wanted a pope from the region no matter what? BTW I think picking a Mexican, Colombian or non-white latino would have been better
>>17513380It doesn't seem like anyone here is angry at the prospect of a black pope, maybe don't invent enemies
What is the philosophical argument against giving children voting rights?> Kids are dumb as bricks. Can't even wipe their own asses, let alone understand tax policy.Adults are just as retarded. Most boomers barely know what's going on.> Kids easily led by whoever tells them to. Imagine the indoctrination!Teach 'em to freethink and they'll be fine.> Kids haven't lived, man! They think everything's a fucking video game.Most adults are just as clueless, living in their little bubbles.> Parents would just rig the vote. Mommy and daddy's little puppets.Is that supposed to be bad? Whole family voting as a single block?> Kids would treat it like a game. Shitpost about their ballots.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>17513750>That can't be an answer, if voting rights are to be given then a specific age needs to be set.You don't need to set a specific age. The ideal behind giving children the vote would be to not discriminate on the basis of morally irrelevant features like age. You could just require a competency test as part of voter registration. Most children would probably still be excluded by that, but the precocious ones who can understand politics would be allowed to vote.If you think that has too many drawbacks, then probably the most politically feasible option that enfranchises the most children is to put it at 14, which is the minimum age of employment in the US. So, children can vote as soon as they can work and owe taxes.>Correct, but its easy to argue that the factors that make adults bad voters are overwhelmingly more prevalent in children so on the aggregate the average child would be a bad voter while the average adult would be a neutral or good voterThat doesn't follow. All this means is that the average adult would be a better voter than the average child, but that doesn't mean that the average adult won't also be a bad voter. They might just be a bad voter who's less bad than the average child.>adults are overwhelmingly capable of being good voters with exceptions.Are they? You'd think if that was the case, people would consistently vote for similar candidates and policies every time, since the voters would be good at identifying which candidates and policies are the best. But of course, that's not what happens, and almost all elections are toss-ups that you may as well flip a coin to decide. That's a pretty good indicator that voters in general aren't behaving rationally.
>>17513789>You don't need to set a specific age. The ideal behind giving children the vote would be to not discriminate on the basis of morally irrelevant features like age. You could just require a competency test as part of voter registration. Most children would probably still be excluded by that, but the precocious ones who can understand politics would be allowed to vote.>If you think that has too many drawbacks, then probably the most politically feasible option that enfranchises the most children is to put it at 14, which is the minimum age of employment in the US. So, children can vote as soon as they can work and owe taxes.I'm not principally opposed to something like a competency test but then I think it becomes a separate argument, now we're going from "voting rights are based on age and that age should be lowered" to "voting rights should purely be based on competence". We might not even completely disagree on that issue but there are unresolved problems with getting the driver's license equivalent of a voting pass and that's agreeing on who should design the test, because it is so easy to see how that could be used by dishonest political actors to deny voting rights to political opponents.>That doesn't follow. All this means is that the average adult would be a better voter than the average child, but that doesn't mean that the average adult won't also be a bad voter. They might just be a bad voter who's less bad than the average child.Sure, but I think we have to assume that the average adult is it at least a somewhat decent voter because if the average voter is a retard then there's little point in using a democratic system, or if you subscribe to the idea that democracy is the least bad system then you can argue that we should at least then also use the least bad voters.>That's a pretty good indicator that voters in general aren't behaving rationally.If that is a problem (and I don't deny that it is) then introducing more bad voters won't help
>>17513788>If you think a child should be able to vote then I want to know why a 5 year old can vote but not a 4 year old, or wherever you decide to draw this limit. Most current systems are set based on an age, not political acumen, and you're arguing for reducing this age so I want a clear answer: instead of 18, what should the voting age be and why? 10? 8? 4? 5 months?I already gave you my answer, which is that age is a retarded metric. If you want my opinion within that box, just set it to 0 and let them vote as soon as they're physically capable of it.>People eligible to vote have a right to vote poorly, thieves don't have a right to steal so they government shouldn't be either proactive or reactive in the first case because no wrong has been committed.But the entire point of your argument is that this group of people shouldn't have the right to vote poorly. If we're asserting that voting poorly is enough of a problem to take steps to prevent it, how is that different from deciding the same about thievery?>Advocating for giving children (and possibly toddlers) voting rights is not playing devil's advocate though?Principles are important, and voting is a skill like any other. Practically speaking, there's not a lot of reason to give toddlers the right to vote, but there's not a lot of reason to deny them either. It also builds awareness of the institution in question, and has implications for status in general. It's easier to dismiss someone who has fewer rights, which can produce feedback loops.By the time we get to teenagers, there's quite a lot of reason to let them have a say in governance. They've certainly got political opinions, as they should. Even if they're bad, better to start building them sooner rather than later. The drawbacks are almost universally overstated and narrowly applied.
>>17513602That is utterly fucking retarded but this is coming from the same people that immediately cut their kids private parts off and pump them full of hormones because they simply and stupidly said some shit like "I like the color pink" Fucking insanity
>>17513847>I already gave you my answer, which is that age is a retarded metric. If you want my opinion within that box, just set it to 0 and let them vote as soon as they're physically capable of it.At that point there's no reason not to let animals vote, if we assume that a newborn baby has the capacity to and should have the responsibility to have a serious say in how to govern the country. Just let cattle into the polling booths and cast their vote for whatever party or picture they go to first.>But the entire point of your argument is that this group of people shouldn't have the right to vote poorly. If we're asserting that voting poorly is enough of a problem to take steps to prevent it, how is that different from deciding the same about thievery?My point is that I don't think this group of people have the capacity to be good voters. Adults do, even if not all of them are. You might be able to teach an orangutan to drive a vehicle, but the vast majority of them would be terrible drivers. Even if some adults are terrible drivers the vast majority of them are capable of driving in an acceptable way.>Principles are important, and voting is a skill like any other.>By the time we get to teenagers, there's quite a lot of reason to let them have a say in governance. They've certainly got political opinions, as they should.They're allowed to have political opinions, in my experience they're even encouraged to because schools to things like mock elections, but that doesn't mean they should have a say in how to run the real world that they have limited to no experience with. They don't need to participate in actual elections in order to train themselves, the maturing process should hopefully be a byproduct of getting older and more experienced. An apprentice or a new hire also need more experience, but you don't give them a seat at the board.
Why did architecture seemingly peak in the 1920s-1930s and then just rapidly decline to absolute dogshit borderline cardboard box tier today?Shouldn't architecture have become more ornate, beautiful with the development of automated routing technology, power tools etc? What was the historical reason the West seemingly gave up completely on actually having beauty in architecture?
>>17512118>PoundsburyLooks like shit.
>>17511587Automation and other industrial advancements made skilled labor and craftmanship redundant, thus you get standardized factory made pieces ready to assemble on sitehttps://youtu.be/UOaTQiGMr8o?t=241https://youtu.be/DBOXF-FION4https://youtu.be/llZ4Rj5ajpk?t=22
>>17511670zoomers value beauty more than millennials
>>17511635Modern art stinks. Modern architecture stinks as well. If you need a soijak academic or artist in a black turtleneck sweater and thick rimmed glasses having to explain to laymen why something is akshually beautiful, it definitely isn't, because true beauty speaks for itself and doesn't need jargonized explanations at all. Modernity produces art that is completely disconnected from any meaning whatsoever. It's basically intellectual diarrhea that a bunch of autistic faggots that call themselves artists and architects masturbate over.
>Build absolute shit tier box housing and buildings meanwhile Stalin built GOAT architecutre>Can't even match the rate of housing growth as the USSR with modern technology, end up in the worst housing crisis since immediately post-WW2 out of essentially self-sabotaging FIRE ponzi choice.This was pretty much the big red pill for me that society has gone completely to the shitter. The Housing Crisis is entirely self-inflicted and due literally to the fact the Economy is entirely built around artificially infalting property values to boost GDP with fake numbers (imputations, aroung 15% of US GDP is just a "what if homeowners paid rent" scenario)
>2 Samuel 7:12-16Hey, thanks God! That sounds awesome.>2 Kings 25:7Well, it was fun while it lasted I guess.What did God mean by this?
>Pliant religious leadership in Judah asserts a perpetual Davidic line>Babylon ends this>Messianic cope is developed>Incorporates Zoroastrian elements under Persian rule>Semi-popular preacher in Galilee gets killed>There is now a spammer on 4chan telling you to "enjoy hell"
>Burton theorized about the existence of a Sotadic Zone in the closing essay of his English translation of The Arabian Nights (1885–1886). He asserted that there exists a geographic-climatic zone in which sodomy and pederasty (sexual intimacy between older men and young pubescent/adolescent boys) are endemic, prevalent, and celebrated among the indigenous inhabitants and within their cultures. The name derives from Sotades, a 3rd-century BC Ancient Greek poet who was the chief representative of a group of Ancient Greek writers of obscene, and sometimes pederastic, satirical poetry>The "Sotadic Zone" of Burton encompassed the Mediterranean coastlines of Southern Europe and North Africa, the entire region of the Levant, and larger areas of the Middle East and AsiaHistorically speaking, is this correct?
>>17512492There's absolutely no chance Tate *didn't* dump a load down this little fags throat.
4chan lies within the sodatic zone
>>17512441>OP posts this in reference to a mulatto of mixed West African and Bongoid heritage.Implying the mediterannid can be modeled off that mix?
>>17513361the med is the one on the right about to get his bussy plowed (or recovering from just having his bussy plowed)
>>17513366then the OP quote makes no sense>jeet is hard of readingaaahh I see
The more I read about it the more baffled I become. How did European men go from conquering the entire world to letting Pakistani men systematically rape and torture their daughters without consequence? I've read articles that said white police officers would step over the naked Pakistani men and arrest the little naked white girls who were drinking vodka instead of the Pakistanis. How is this even possible? I can't wrap my head around it. It's like Europeans were replaced by an alien race.There is simply no way that the mighty Vikings who would savage the skulls of their enemies into mead glasses would have descendents who WILLINGLY, VOLUNTARILY, send their daughters to "Muslim acceptance camps" and have no reaction, no, not even indifference, they CELEBRATE when said Muslims post images of themselves and their little girls naked. I refuse to believe it. It defies all logic.
With the new evidence of the existence of this language I think we should start making some obvious connections with them. Some Finnoid linguists thought they spoke Uralic before but it's because Uralic has a connection to PIE, and the language Sumerians spoke is what connects everything together.
What evidence? I like the indouralic theory, but lumping sumerian in there seems pretty far out.
Thoughts?
Which ancestral component gave mediterraneans and west asians (arabs etc) this? Is it natufian, anf or CHG/ZNF?
>>17513565Europoid eyes? Basal admixture from ANF/CHG
Do Nordnegroes look like Dinka due to their lack of Basal?
>>17513565Beady eyes on medjeet races are 100% anf
>>17513582>>17513626>>17513689True
I wonder if it has something to do with sunlight
and Hitler should be praised for it. All of his generals cried that it could not be done. So Hitler drew up his own plans, all his generals had to do was follow the orders. They did, and were astounded as France just melted away. They destroyed France completely, like no nation had ever done before. People deny that Hitler was a military genius, but the Battle of France proves that Hitler was the greatest general of WW2, not Eisenhower or Patton or Montgomery. Not even Rommel. It was Hitler, a true genius of military might. The opening stages of Barbarossa were his second masterstroke.
>>17512922But he didn't draw up the plans? You could, if you'd like, give him credit for adopting the plan that was presented to him by Manstein, but Hitler didn't come up with it himself. The credit for the plan belongs to Manstein and Halder primarily, with additional credit to Guderian and Rommel for just ignoring orders during the invasion to halt when ordered to.Also Barborossa was plainly and obviously retarded I don't know why you would want to give anyone credit for it.
>>17512947Shut up, communist scum. Trump won btw
>>17513054And you lost
>>17512965>Also Barborossa was plainly and obviously retarded I don't know why you would want to give anyone credit for it.Because Germans still had massive successes like taking over Belarus and Ukraine, as well as slaughtering millions of Soviet soldiers which ruin East Slavic birthrates.
>>17512947Pretty standard for Roman generals to do
The Dirlewanger of the Russian Civil War
>>17512829ftfy
>>17513627>Stalin didn't do anti Partisan actions, he still was a rather terrible general though
Did Mary sin against God by cheating on Joseph with God?So much for immaculate conception. Also, Biologically clearly explain that If Mary had a virgin birth without absorbing the XY Sex Chromosome from a male Sperm, then Jesus would've been a female clone of Mary's with XX sex chromosome, not a male woth XY sex chromosome.But Jesus is a male and has an XY chromosome from God, not Joseph.I conclude that God put his holy semen inside Mary's womb before Joseph consummated his marriage with her and Mary gave birth to Jesus' 4 brothers, Matthew 13:55: James, Joses, Simon, and JudeSo Is Jesus Joseph's bio child or is Joseph a cuck for raising a bastard who doesnt have his DNA , but Mary's and God's DNA? Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>17511679Do you have retrograde amnesia or something? You make this thread every day and get the same answers every day.>Did Mary sin against God by cheating on Joseph with God?No, because there was no sex>Also, Biologically clearly explain that If Mary had a virgin birth without absorbing the XY Sex Chromosome from a male Sperm, then Jesus would've been a female clone of Mary's with XX sex chromosome, not a male woth XY sex chromosome.>But Jesus is a male and has an XY chromosome from God, not Joseph.We don't know Jesus's genetics, but God could have based it off another person or created it whole cloth.>I conclude that God put his holy semen inside Mary's womb before Joseph consummated his marriage with her and Mary gave birth to Jesus' 4 brothers,The fact there was no sex is part of what made it a miracle. Not only does God lack a biological body, but it says it was the Holy Spirit, which by definition lacks a body and thus sperm. If anything, it was closer to divine bio-engineering.>So Is Jesus Joseph's bio childMaybe>or is Joseph a cuck for raising a bastard who doesn't have his DNA , but Mary's and God's DNA?No more than a stepfather is if Jesus doesn't have his DNA. It's almost like asking if he would be a cuck if Mary just had a genetic condition that granted her the power of parthenogenesis.>Do all Christians glorify cheating?Jesus said adultery is the one thing you can divorce for, so no.
>>17511679i can see her l*b** through her p*nt**s
Why did my post get deleted, while the faggot op spam doesn't? Is the OP a janny fag?
>>17511679it looks like she shaved her b*shit doesn't look like she waxed it
>>17512815Many such cases, sad!
