no

I would say

also rule 3

fucking technology did

https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409

don't try too hard @Doctor Anon

@Ovarix https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409

"Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups"

Fuck off shill

LOL

that does not

imply race

at all

or ethnic groups

If you are going to resort to overusing caps and clearly not reading server rules, stop trying to argue logically

Or from a perceived higher position

You took a legit sentence

from an abstract

I cant

Dunning Kruger Effect at it's finest

you are giving me cancer

How about we read the study

together

@Ovarix https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1409.pdf

go ahead

Mountains and lakes are an important part of the boundaries between sharply defined linguistic areas. Political canton and circle (sub-canton) boundaries often separate religious groups. Where such boundaries do not appear to be sufficient, we find that specific aspects of the population distribution either guarantee sufficient separation or sufficient mixing to inhibit intergroup violence according to the quantitative theory of conflict.

"Without boundaries, the maximum calculated propensity to violence is
very high (0.57), and with political borders it is only 0.20. "

I never made an argument saying borders arent important

they are

its part of the *comfort* factor

Borders reduce violence

Which is why i want them

Sure, but race

and ethnicity

certainly not definative on this

Ethnic boundries, natural or political, reduce violence

and if anyone or anything ultimately comes through your country - which has been the case with every fucking country

Who said ethnic

find me ANYWHERE this is about ethnicity

Does that mean racism? No, it means respect for boundries

Where does it say ethnic