@ETBrooD

```SUBJECTIVITY

1: the influence of personal beliefs or feelings, rather than facts:

There's always an element of subjectivity in decision-making.

Accountants hate the subjectivity involved in long term forecasting.
To avoid bias, the agency eliminated subjectivity from performance evaluations.

They take a lot of the emotion and subjectivity out of the investment process.

Hilton is a commentator who delights in his subjectivity ```

I told you I don't care about the subjective/objective distinction, I wanna leave it out of the debate entirely.

If it's not possible for us to debate without using those terms then I'm not interested

As to what you said about coming to a solution (ir)rationally. You can in fact some to solutions irrationally, it's just that you're more likely to mess up. The likelihood to mess up increases with increasing irrationality, and decreases with increasing rationality.
So I agree partially with you on that, but not entirely.
To your second point, I didn't talk about resolving racial discrimination because that's not the question I was asking to have my mind changed about. My argument is that racial discrimination is natural and evolutionarily beneficial. The specific wording is important. I didn't say it's ideal, I think there are better ways, but for the evolution of man it has a purpose. The fear of the foreign protects societies, e.g. from foreign diseases, conquest, etc. It is not entirely rational, and that's because it's an evolved (inherited) trait, not a learned system of thought (e.g. math).

No but I am objectifying my argument and being irrational, is not going to work.

You cannot have these "fears" override the possibilities of cultures being able to control their own environment.

And by the way - if someone- intermarrys: 2 nd cousin, 3rd cousins, or even 1st cousin . That's a sign of them, trying to control their environment. Its just their way of dealing with their own fears because their culture means , they aren't able to be anything but DISCRIMINATE towards others.
```INTERMARRIAGE:
1: marriage between people who are from different social groups, races, orreligions:

Have ethnic tensions in the area been reduced by intermarriage?

2: marriage between people who are from the same family:

Intermarriage between close relatives is
 prohibited in most societies.```

So, don't get this mixed up because, I am taking it from the Cambridge dictionary, which , I grew up on. And if they are irrational about it, then, they will attack you!!! That's overt discrimination. They are covert by excluding you. That's the way the rationale spectrum goes . You got a stone ... And you want to throw it in a pool and count the ripples - is objectivity. Which is a rational way of saying; they still don't belong, because their gene pool is diluted.

So you think culture is not under evolutionary pressure?

I just prefer people to be a little more -truthfull about - the fact that behaviour can be extensively known to make sure ; you the outsider of that group , whom doesn't belong ; gets punished. They may punish you in a number of wshd but , they do it covertly and overtly. Believe me, they have been very clear , about their environmental decisions. Even though , they have genetic defects from pursuing their ideology.

@ETBrooD yes! As we westerner's know it!

I don't think we know that at all.

You're making a very bold claim saying evolution doesn't cause culture.

No, it's not able to evolve . It can be created , but , it can't evolve if you have the same gene pool and genetic mutations and defects , that harm the population. It means you won't be able to evolve. @ETBrooD

I don't say culture evolvs, I say evolution causes culture.

That culture evolves is out of question I think

No, because if you can't advance past a certain point then , it's going to regress. This is the point - every so often - there has been a culture change in Europe . Especially, when the Berlin wall came down. All those Eastern Europeans , have been able to get married to a different set of gene pools. Now, they are able to make - genetic disorders or defects a thing of their past.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1389431

I'm not sure what your argument is

I will show you the effects in say for example Czech republic.

Evolution doesn't always progress, that's understood

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20437834/

And I am saying during the iron curtain that these birth defects were studied and now after one generation , it's disappeared.

You're arguing something that isn't part of my question

I know that there are non-evolutionary pressures that are beneficial, that's not revolutionary and it's not what I'm interested in

These people in Hungary went through abnormalities and still borns for 80% of their birth rate defects . That's like a whole generation of people not being born . So, if you're born into a world where nothing is revolutionised , genetic mutations, disorders , will set you back 20 odd years. And we are talking about countries that are post communism.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cga.12025

There is only one way for them to evolve and that's through mixing the gene pool or getting rid of the defects - so they did just that and had a bloke called slobadan milosovich do , the deed.

@ETBrooD I know it's not what you're interested in hearing - but, it's what is objective and I am being scientific.

I don't get it, if you like talking past me then why are you addressing me?

You can present your argument about a different subject matter, but that's just you then. Maybe people will respond to your ideas, but it's a different matter.

The way they wanted to do it was overt discriminating against the bad gene pool which created the mass genocide. Then, Europe's answer to that is by giving them the pick of some other bad gene pool. They are bound to be pissed off with, Europe.

@ETBrooD I am now addressing you because you don't seem to get what the revolution is and evolution is to do with genes. Revolution is the technological advancements. I am talking about evolution. Its science.

You can't get to the revolution without the evolution and the gene pool, being exposed to different things. Unless you're talking about a company . A company is able to adapt at a different speed and has different variables, in which it has to adjust then if it doesn't do that it liquidates. That's a totally different thing to the way people are about their territory.

It happens to every country or set of cultures where they need to stop the genetic defects because they won't evolve.

I'm not interested in revolution

I'm interested in the question if racial discrimination is 1) natural, and 2) evolutionarily beneficial.

It's not that I don't care about follow-up questions, it's that if you want to delve into that, it'd be an entirely separate discussion

You can start such a discussion, but then please don't address me, because it doesn't concern me

Basically you do you, I don't wanna stop you

I just gave it to you but you aren't being pragmatic. 1) the natural selection process ain't natural in the intermarriage category of Pakistans way of putting it. Which causes discrimination. 2) the only way to be an evolutionary benefit is to have high IQ'S and less genetic disorders, mutations, or defects because it takes too long to improve and change.

Call us back when North Korea is more open and then we will discuss the fact that they probably need to prevent their own, death of their population because they can't cope.

I have a really hard time processing your argument, what you're saying doesn't seems to make sense.
You're saying natural selection pertaining to Pakistani intermarriage is not natural -> But if it's not natural, then it can't be natural selection, or can it?
You're saying this process (Pakistani intermarriage) *causes* discrimination -> I have absolutely no idea how that would work. I can't wrap my head around this argument. You should put in a logical progression of steps leading to your conclusion.
You're saying evolutionary benefits require 1) high IQ's, 2) less genetic disorders, mutations or defects -> 1) is categorically false, 2) is correct but I don't see the connection to my argument

@ETBrooD it's called Ghag and you really need to read about it to understand. You're not wanted , you won't be allowed to be apart of that group.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-8-2017-006609_EN.html

I think you're completely off the grid when it comes to my question and you don't seem to recognize this.

The cases of extreme consanguinity are the only populations which benefit from the “”intermixing their gene pools”” you’re putting a huge emphasis on, and those populations don’t represent most racial or even ethnic boundaries

Like if the world never globalized, small populations like even the separate ethnic groups of (white) UK, living on a tiny rock, would’ve been fine indefinitely