| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 40:56:38 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 174,720 |
I get really annoyed with that whole "settler" mindset. As far as
science has been able to determine, the Western Hemisphere in its
entirety did not have a single human being on it until roughly 16,000
years ago, whereas humans have been around for roughly 2 million years.
That means that all these "natives"/"aboriginals"/"indigenous people"
are all settlers too: they just came a little earlier. And if the ball
had bounced a little differently, we might have been settled by
Europeans or Africans first. For instance, if the Bering land bridge
hadn't formed, Europeans crossing the North Atlantic might have gotten
here before the Asians did.
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 21:54:13 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
I get really annoyed with that whole "settler" mindset. As far as
science has been able to determine, the Western Hemisphere in its
entirety did not have a single human being on it until roughly 16,000
years ago, whereas humans have been around for roughly 2 million years.
That means that all these "natives"/"aboriginals"/"indigenous people"
are all settlers too: they just came a little earlier. And if the ball
had bounced a little differently, we might have been settled by
Europeans or Africans first. For instance, if the Bering land bridge
hadn't formed, Europeans crossing the North Atlantic might have gotten
here before the Asians did.
Don't even get me going on "land acknowledgements"! (Guess how I know
what the native groups are in Hamilton, ON even though I live 2500
miles away - but then I'm pretty sure I've mentioned my alma mater
here previously...can you spell "fingernails scraping on a
blackboard"?) I get especially annoyed when Metis groups are also
listed.
Bottom line is I'm a mongrel as was my late wife - each of us from 4
separate European nationalities all within the last 5 generations with
only one in common so our kids have 7. This is not of course anything
she or I had anything personally to do with and frankly inbreeding is
a problem in all kinds of communities both aboriginal and not (Google 'inbreeding in UK Pakistanis" - where something like 30+% of marriages involve 1st cousins)
On 2025-10-06 1:48 p.m., The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 21:54:13 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
I get really annoyed with that whole "settler" mindset. As far as
science has been able to determine, the Western Hemisphere in its
entirety did not have a single human being on it until roughly 16,000
years ago, whereas humans have been around for roughly 2 million years.
That means that all these "natives"/"aboriginals"/"indigenous people"
are all settlers too: they just came a little earlier. And if the ball
had bounced a little differently, we might have been settled by
Europeans or Africans first. For instance, if the Bering land bridge
hadn't formed, Europeans crossing the North Atlantic might have gotten
here before the Asians did.
Don't even get me going on "land acknowledgements"! (Guess how I know
what the native groups are in Hamilton, ON even though I live 2500
miles away - but then I'm pretty sure I've mentioned my alma mater
here previously...can you spell "fingernails scraping on a
blackboard"?) I get especially annoyed when Metis groups are also
listed.
Bottom line is I'm a mongrel as was my late wife - each of us from 4
separate European nationalities all within the last 5 generations with
only one in common so our kids have 7. This is not of course anything
she or I had anything personally to do with and frankly inbreeding is
a problem in all kinds of communities both aboriginal and not (Google
'inbreeding in UK Pakistanis" - where something like 30+% of marriages
involve 1st cousins)
Have you heard that the NHS in Britain actually put out a paper recently talking about the *advantages* of cousin marriage - chiefly, the ability
of those marriages to keep more wealth within the extended family -
without (as far as I can tell) warning of the immense medical
consequences of cousin marriage.
I saw a video the other day where someone interviewed residents of
Bradford - which has a lot of Pakistanis - about cousin marriage and
there seemed to be no reservations there about the practice. Mind you,
most of the interviewees looked like they might be Pakistanis
themselves. They nearly all came out with some version of the idea that people should be free to marry who they liked. And why not: that would
let them marry freely, either to someone they cared about or to a close relative, and the NHS would always be there to deal with the birth
defects so that they wouldn't be out of pocket for the consequences of a cousin marriage.
On 2025-10-06 1:48 p.m., The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 21:54:13 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
I get really annoyed with that whole "settler" mindset. As far as
science has been able to determine, the Western Hemisphere in its
entirety did not have a single human being on it until roughly 16,000
years ago, whereas humans have been around for roughly 2 million years. >>> That means that all these "natives"/"aboriginals"/"indigenous people"
are all settlers too: they just came a little earlier. And if the ball
had bounced a little differently, we might have been settled by
Europeans or Africans first. For instance, if the Bering land bridge
hadn't formed, Europeans crossing the North Atlantic might have gotten
here before the Asians did.
Don't even get me going on "land acknowledgements"! (Guess how I know
what the native groups are in Hamilton, ON even though I live 2500
miles away - but then I'm pretty sure I've mentioned my alma mater
here previously...can you spell "fingernails scraping on a
blackboard"?) I get especially annoyed when Metis groups are also
listed.
Bottom line is I'm a mongrel as was my late wife - each of us from 4
separate European nationalities all within the last 5 generations with
only one in common so our kids have 7. This is not of course anything
she or I had anything personally to do with and frankly inbreeding is
a problem in all kinds of communities both aboriginal and not (Google
'inbreeding in UK Pakistanis" - where something like 30+% of marriages
involve 1st cousins)
Have you heard that the NHS in Britain actually put out a paper recently talking about the *advantages* of cousin marriage - chiefly, the ability
of those marriages to keep more wealth within the extended family -
without (as far as I can tell) warning of the immense medical
consequences of cousin marriage.
I saw a video the other day where someone interviewed residents of
Bradford - which has a lot of Pakistanis - about cousin marriage and
there seemed to be no reservations there about the practice. Mind you,
most of the interviewees looked like they might be Pakistanis
themselves. They nearly all came out with some version of the idea that people should be free to marry who they liked. And why not: that would
let them marry freely, either to someone they cared about or to a close relative, and the NHS would always be there to deal with the birth
defects so that they wouldn't be out of pocket for the consequences of a cousin marriage.
On 10/6/2025 2:11 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2025-10-06 1:48 p.m., The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 21:54:13 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
I get really annoyed with that whole "settler" mindset. As far as
science has been able to determine, the Western Hemisphere in its
entirety did not have a single human being on it until roughly 16,000
years ago, whereas humans have been around for roughly 2 million years. >>>> That means that all these "natives"/"aboriginals"/"indigenous people"
are all settlers too: they just came a little earlier. And if the ball >>>> had bounced a little differently, we might have been settled by
Europeans or Africans first. For instance, if the Bering land bridge
hadn't formed, Europeans crossing the North Atlantic might have gotten >>>> here before the Asians did.
Don't even get me going on "land acknowledgements"! (Guess how I know
what the native groups are in Hamilton, ON even though I live 2500
miles away - but then I'm pretty sure I've mentioned my alma mater
here previously...can you spell "fingernails scraping on a
blackboard"?) I get especially annoyed when Metis groups are also
listed.
Bottom line is I'm a mongrel as was my late wife - each of us from 4
separate European nationalities all within the last 5 generations with
only one in common so our kids have 7. This is not of course anything
she or I had anything personally to do with and frankly inbreeding is
a problem in all kinds of communities both aboriginal and not (Google
'inbreeding in UK Pakistanis" - where something like 30+% of marriages
involve 1st cousins)
Have you heard that the NHS in Britain actually put out a paper
recently talking about the *advantages* of cousin marriage - chiefly,
the ability of those marriages to keep more wealth within the extended
family - without (as far as I can tell) warning of the immense medical
consequences of cousin marriage.
I saw a video the other day where someone interviewed residents of
Bradford - which has a lot of Pakistanis - about cousin marriage and
there seemed to be no reservations there about the practice. Mind you,
most of the interviewees looked like they might be Pakistanis
themselves. They nearly all came out with some version of the idea
that people should be free to marry who they liked. And why not: that
would let them marry freely, either to someone they cared about or to
a close relative, and the NHS would always be there to deal with the
birth defects so that they wouldn't be out of pocket for the
consequences of a cousin marriage.
Otoh, one can be provoked at this interesting claim:
-a-a "However, increased homozygosity increases the probability of fixing beneficial alleles and also slightly decreases the probability of fixing deleterious alleles in a population. Inbreeding can result in purging of deleterious alleles from a population through purifying selection."
-a - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
On Oct 6, 2025 at 11:11:28 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-10-06 1:48 p.m., The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 21:54:13 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
I get really annoyed with that whole "settler" mindset. As far as
science has been able to determine, the Western Hemisphere in its
entirety did not have a single human being on it until roughly 16,000 >>>> years ago, whereas humans have been around for roughly 2 million years. >>>> That means that all these "natives"/"aboriginals"/"indigenous people" >>>> are all settlers too: they just came a little earlier. And if the ball >>>> had bounced a little differently, we might have been settled by
Europeans or Africans first. For instance, if the Bering land bridge >>>> hadn't formed, Europeans crossing the North Atlantic might have gotten >>>> here before the Asians did.
Don't even get me going on "land acknowledgements"! (Guess how I know
what the native groups are in Hamilton, ON even though I live 2500
miles away - but then I'm pretty sure I've mentioned my alma mater
here previously...can you spell "fingernails scraping on a
blackboard"?) I get especially annoyed when Metis groups are also
listed.
Bottom line is I'm a mongrel as was my late wife - each of us from 4
separate European nationalities all within the last 5 generations with >>> only one in common so our kids have 7. This is not of course anything
she or I had anything personally to do with and frankly inbreeding is
a problem in all kinds of communities both aboriginal and not (Google
'inbreeding in UK Pakistanis" - where something like 30+% of marriages >>> involve 1st cousins)
Have you heard that the NHS in Britain actually put out a paper recently
talking about the *advantages* of cousin marriage - chiefly, the ability
of those marriages to keep more wealth within the extended family -
without (as far as I can tell) warning of the immense medical
consequences of cousin marriage.
Matt Walsh did a great commentary on this absurdity a few days ago:
https://youtu.be/7g2l3lneIUU?t=138
This is what you get when you allow another culture to invade your country and
take over. Your government has to start pretending that barbarity is actually a benefit to society.
...
On 2025-10-06 3:13 p.m., moviePig wrote:
On 10/6/2025 2:11 PM, Rhino wrote:<sarc> I'm sure that will more than compensate for the severe birth
On 2025-10-06 1:48 p.m., The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 21:54:13 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
I get really annoyed with that whole "settler" mindset. As far as
science has been able to determine, the Western Hemisphere in its
entirety did not have a single human being on it until roughly 16,000 >>>>> years ago, whereas humans have been around for roughly 2 million
years.
That means that all these "natives"/"aboriginals"/"indigenous people" >>>>> are all settlers too: they just came a little earlier. And if the ball >>>>> had bounced a little differently, we might have been settled by
Europeans or Africans first. For instance, if the Bering land bridge >>>>> hadn't formed, Europeans crossing the North Atlantic might have gotten >>>>> here before the Asians did.
Don't even get me going on "land acknowledgements"! (Guess how I know
what the native groups are in Hamilton, ON even though I live 2500
miles away - but then I'm pretty sure I've mentioned my alma mater
here previously...can you spell "fingernails scraping on a
blackboard"?) I get especially annoyed when Metis groups are also
listed.
Bottom line is I'm a mongrel as was my late wife - each of us from 4
separate European nationalities all within the last 5 generations with >>>> only one in common so our kids have 7. This is not of course anything
she or I had anything personally to do with and frankly inbreeding is
a problem in all kinds of communities both aboriginal and not (Google
'inbreeding in UK Pakistanis" - where something like 30+% of marriages >>>> involve 1st cousins)
Have you heard that the NHS in Britain actually put out a paper
recently talking about the *advantages* of cousin marriage - chiefly,
the ability of those marriages to keep more wealth within the
extended family - without (as far as I can tell) warning of the
immense medical consequences of cousin marriage.
I saw a video the other day where someone interviewed residents of
Bradford - which has a lot of Pakistanis - about cousin marriage and
there seemed to be no reservations there about the practice. Mind
you, most of the interviewees looked like they might be Pakistanis
themselves. They nearly all came out with some version of the idea
that people should be free to marry who they liked. And why not: that
would let them marry freely, either to someone they cared about or to
a close relative, and the NHS would always be there to deal with the
birth defects so that they wouldn't be out of pocket for the
consequences of a cousin marriage.
Otoh, one can be provoked at this interesting claim:
-a-a-a "However, increased homozygosity increases the probability of
fixing beneficial alleles and also slightly decreases the probability
of fixing deleterious alleles in a population. Inbreeding can result
in purging of deleterious alleles from a population through purifying
selection."
-a-a - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
defects that are observed in significant numbers of the children of
cousin marriages.</sarc>
It's amazing how you always come along and defend the reprehensible....
Have you heard that the NHS in Britain actually put out a paper recently >talking about the *advantages* of cousin marriage - chiefly, the ability
of those marriages to keep more wealth within the extended family -
without (as far as I can tell) warning of the immense medical
consequences of cousin marriage.
"However, increased homozygosity increases the probability of fixing
beneficial alleles and also slightly decreases the probability of fixing >deleterious alleles in a population. Inbreeding can result in purging of >deleterious alleles from a population through purifying selection."
Well, *someone* has to look east, west, and south, if only to fortify
your faith in True North.
Meanwhile, your use of 'defend' and 'reprehensible' is 'creative'...
Matt Walsh did a great commentary on this absurdity a few days ago:
https://youtu.be/7g2l3lneIUU?t=138
This is what you get when you allow another culture to invade your country and >take over. Your government has to start pretending that barbarity is actually >a benefit to society.