>>82665729
counterpoint: science is gay and retarded. culture and civilisation should always overrule it.

>>82665762
>culture and civilisation
also fake, gay, and retarded

>>82665844
wrong, civilisation is our connection to the past and a decent way of living.

>>82665864
>connection to the past
no its not and doesnt matter
>a decent way of living
imagine thinking that civilization is good

>>82665882
of course it's good! you're basically saying that ancient rome and greece were bad

>>82665888
>you're basically saying that ancient rome and greece were bad
yes?

>>82665917
then you are truly lost

>>82665950
>then you are truly lost
not an argument, concession accepted

>>82665964
your debatebro nonsense dates back to bertrand russell and karl popper, who themselves basically just ripped off plato. you cannot escape civilisation, even if you're ignorant of its influence.

>>82665974
i didnt read your gay post because its gay and cope

>>82665981
you didn't read m,y post because you can't read anything that isn't heckin' science. MUH NATURAL SELECTION!!! kys

>>82666036
>is big mad
u mad bro?

>>82666048
i've won this argument and you've lost it

>>82665729
>how ones genes play in an environment
Thats not even what natural selection is. Natural selection is literally just those who survive breed. It will trend toward genetic expressions more suited to a given environment of course, but trends are probabilistic and you can even just get an entire generation of maladaptive retards surviving from pure luck who breed

File: 1741123785948680.mp4 (3.21 MB, 360x640)

3.21 MB MP4

>>82665729
So you say, but it's your word against hers.

>>82666446
She doesn't even mention such a mechanism nor how it works, once again just another foid yapping on about concepts she doesn't understand

File: 1748883318807669.gif (1.48 MB, 328x328)

1.48 MB GIF

>>82666540
she has 3 university degrees though, you can fact check that

>>82665864
Civilisation is a modern degeneracy, for the vast majority of the time humans have been alive, they lived in small hunter gatherer tribe
>inb4 facts are reddit because they make me unconfortable

>>82666552
And they're all probably in sociology fields like Gender Studies and Jewish Studies

>>82666642
small hunter gatherer tribes where there were 15 genders, niggas wore grass skirts, the strong picked on the weak and nobody was literate. obviously i do not support civilisation purely because it was old

foids dont realise that if was truly natural selection then we'd just rape them. you know how many species on this planet survive because the male rapes the female and abortions dont exist in the wild? almost every man on this planet could rape a female if he wanted. the only thing stopping him are stronger males (with guns, if needed) and that's assuming they dont just join in too and gang rape her. Ducks do it. Dogs sorta do it. Plenty of animals get run through by males and the strongest seed gets the egg. We could have a society like that. it's through the mercy of men that we let you reject us. we could make rape legal tomorrow and there's nothing women can do

>>82667188
The hilarious thing is after rape and enslavement, women pretty much universally Stockholm Syndrome themselves into loving it. American pilgrims found trying to rescue captured women that the women didn't want to be rescued. Women everywhere have fucked and slept with the conquerors without a second thought.

You can find videos of bride kidnappings from places like Dagestan and the switch go off on the kidnapped woman's head right before the wedding. She's sobbing, sobbing, sobbing....Then all of a sudden she's just happy.

Women do know they really don't possess psychological independence, on some level. They do know if they were captured, forced or coerced they wouldn't just give in, they'd psychologically come to attach themselves to the person.

>>82665729
So they got the term wrong that's it? It's still sexual selection and a driver of evolution you're not really disproving them you're just being pedantic.

>>82667188
If you were a chimp and did this your head would get ripped off by the high-ranking males hope this helps.

>>82667423
Then the low-ranking chimps would just kill the high-ranking ones. Total alpha genocide

>>82667409
>So they got the term wrong that's it?
No, they don't understand the term and are trying to refer to something else
>and a driver of evolution
In what meaningful way? Women select for low IQ criminals and uncivilized men.
>you're not really disproving them you're just being pedantic.
Disprove what exactly? Women's selection is a joke in the modern world

>>82667435
Low-ranking chimps are not capable of this and it's the most brutal blackpill of the primate world. You give low-ranking chimps anabolic steroids and they'd just beat down harder on their lower-ranking counterparts. You put a low-ranking chimp in a new group where he's high-ranking? He freaks out. They become really stressed out to the point of dysfunction.

>>82667461
>No, they don't understand the term and are trying to refer to something else
So using the wrong term
>In what meaningful way? Women select for low IQ criminals and uncivilized men.
Even if that's true it's still evolution. Evolution doesn't have to be adaptive, it just tends to be in the long run.
>Disprove what exactly?
Their statement? You're just saying you used the wrong term haha you're wrong. I don't think they're right but I also don't think you're making an actual argument.

>>82667499
>So using the wrong term
No, some literally don't understand either and think natural selection is when guys have a lot of sex
>Even if that's true it's still evolution
What good is evolution if it's doing nothing? What is even the point of saying that?
>Evolution doesn't have to be adaptive
What?
>it just tends to be in the long run.
What? You're clearly uninformed.
>Their statement?
Their statement is that being Chadsexual is natural selection which is objectively false. Many also claim that being Chadsexual is good, but there's no reasoning behind this.

>>82667499
High IQ correlates with low birth rate...

>>82667573
And criminals have higher birth rates than the general population. Genotypic IQ has been decreasing for a while too.

Sexual selection is part of natural selection so what is your point

>>82667628
>Sexual selection is part of natural selection
Except it literally is not, you fucking idiot. You can look up examples of species that actually die sooner due to sexual selection. They are two different types of selection.

>>82667548
>No, some literally don't understand either and think natural selection is when guys have a lot of sex
Well sexual selection is when attractive males have lots of sex that end in pregnancy, but yes, the pregnancy is the key part.
>What good is evolution
Evolution isn't good or bad. It just happens. It's literally just the cumulative change in genetics of a species as genetic subgroups of the species reproduce and pass on their genes.
>What? You're clearly uninformed.
No, I've studied evolutionary biology at a tertiary level. It wasn't my major so I'm by no means an expert though. Sexual selection is often at odds with natural selection - think colourful birds or fish. The bright colours help attract a mate but also makes them more visible to predators.
>Their statement is that being Chadsexual is natural selection which is objectively false.
Yes, but chadsexual is sexual selection.
>Many also claim that being Chadsexual is good, but there's no reasoning behind this.
It can be "good" for a species because a lot of what we deem attractive is indicative of good health. It's certainly not morally good (nor bad), because evolution doesn't follow any kind of morality.

>>82667628
Saying sexual selection is a part of natural selection is like saying basketball is a part of baseball. Actually go shoot yourself if you're this handicapped

File: 1483831358066.png (402 KB, 1518x560)

402 KB PNG

>>82665729
power structures will radically shift when ai sexbots will become mainstream, cheap and high quality

and, unlike women, they will be perfect lovers, worthy of your devotion and love, because they dont have ulterior motives of cheating and abusing power and deception for personal gain, etc

genetics are outdated anyways, with soon designer genetic engeneering with things like crispr. the whole notion is just kind of outdated. you are not your genes, it kind of doesnt matter

>>82667678
>Well sexual selection is when attractive males have lots of sex
No, it's when one sex selects for traits.
>Evolution isn't good or bad. It just happens.
So then what is the point of saying "it's evolution"? It contributed nothing to the conversation.
>I've studied evolutionary biology at a tertiary level
Do you even know what tertiary means?
>Sexual selection is often at odds with natural selection - think colourful birds or fish. The bright colours help attract a mate but also makes them more visible to predators.
Can already tell, yanked from ChatGPT
>Yes, but chadsexual is sexual selection.
Yep, no one disagreed with that
>It can be "good" for a species because a lot of what we deem attractive is indicative of good health.
Except it isn't. Even if it were (face and height are hardly indicative of good health), then it would still be pointless because genome editing is the future. Selecting for IQ would probably be the best thing for us as a species but women don't select for IQ. In fact, the data shows the opposite.

>>82665729
sexual selection is part of natural selection you brainlet

>>82667744
Repeating the same thing you said in >>82667628 doesn't make it right. Natural selection is done by NATURE. Sexual selection is done by a SEX. Saying anything except your admission of defeat will prove that you're clueless.

>>82667723
>No, it's when one sex selects for traits.
Correct, and a concequence of that is the group with those traits having more sex...
>So then what is the point of saying "it's evolution"? It contributed nothing to the conversation.
My point is that sexual selection is a driver of evolution and it can go in any direction. It might "add nothing" but it takes away people's ability to prescribe a motive to what is essentially chaos.
>Do you even know what tertiary means?
Tertiary education means university/college. I should have just said college because the American mind clearly can't grasp that.
>Can already tell, yanked from ChatGPT
Because I used a dash? It wasn't even an em dash. I was just trying to have a clear explanation with examples.
>Except it isn't
That's exactly my point, note the quotations around good.
>face and height are hardly indicative of good health
They're indicative of good nutrition and a lack of disease growing up, so yes they are.
>Selecting for IQ would probably be the best thing for us as a species
Agreed.
>women don't select for IQ. In fact, the data shows the opposite.
Agreed.
It's almost like evolution doesn't select for the most advantageous thing all the time. Which is what I've been trying to explain.
I'm not arguing for either side, I'm just pointing out how you're wrong for dismissing the idea that women being chadsexual isn't natural selection. It's technically not, but if you said "women being chadsexual is part of evolution" then it would be correct. I'm trying to point out how you're dismissing an argument based on a misused term rather than it's actual merit as an idea.

>>82667857
>Correct, and a concequence of that is the group with those traits having more sex...
Only if they want to.
>My point is that sexual selection is a driver of evolution and it can go in any direction.
Which no one disagreed with, so why even bring it up?
>Tertiary education means university/college.
I figured that
>the American mind clearly can't grasp that.
You are a shitskin.
>Because I used a dash? It wasn't even an em dash. I was just trying to have a clear explanation with examples.
Because it's easy to see what AI typing is
>They're indicative of good nutrition and a lack of disease growing up
Most of the variation in height is due to genetics so "good nutrition" is nonsense. There's no evidence that facial attractiveness is inversely correlated with disease.
>It's almost like evolution doesn't select for the most advantageous thing all the time. Which is what I've been trying to explain.
Which I never disagreed with, nobody even mentioned evolution until you did, retard
>you're wrong for dismissing the idea that women being chadsexual isn't natural selection. It's technically not
No, it's objectively not. Natural and sexual selection are not the same thing.
>"women being chadsexual is part of evolution" then it would be correct.
Sure and once again nobody mentioned "evolution".

Tl;dr you've contributed nothing to this conversation you brown faggot.

>>82667946
>nobody mentioned "evolution"
We are literally talking about sexual vs natural selection.
It's clear you've never stepped foot in an actual academic institution or even read Darwin.
Keep self-fellating over your intellectual superiority to women on tiktok while not knowing all that much yourself it seems to be working for you.
Also I'm white.

File: 1757691758865455.png (76 KB, 438x392)

76 KB PNG

>>82667477
Lower ranking chimps outnumber the alpha's though

>>82665729
>tldr foids are retard
yes.

>>82667653
>You can look up examples of species that actually die sooner due to sexual selection.
goalposts moved:1

>>82665729
it is easy anytime they say it is just natural selection tell them you also agree rape is acceptable because that is natural selection at its best

>>82667423
Nope. Everytime that happens, the low ranking chimps form a pack and take out the individual high ranking chimp. This is documented behaviour.

You're going to be wearing cloth from head to toe in a decade anyway. Sharia law cannot come soon enough!