Why do most humans believe they are any different than animals and thus are entitled to different rights and privileges...

Except plenty of animal protection and welfare legislation exists.

Non-citizens can and do have plenty of rights.

Some do, some don't.

Because he has flaws. You do realize that there has been philosophy in the last 100 years, right? Read The Embers and the Stars.
Back to /pol/ you fucking moron.
sudoku, please

Kant is a nonentity.

Well I () believe that humans are indeed animals but are very different animals from literally every other animal on Earth. Sounds like there's no argument between us, unless you think that humans are equal to chimpanzees or toucans or beetles or something. A human life is capable of so much more than the life of any other creature on this planet.

This sounds about right, however all the same it's illegal to kill or abuse someone else's animal, so I guess animals can potentially have rights that are similar to property. Destroy/damage someone's car and get caught, you face legal consequences, and same if you destroy/damage someone's animal. As for wild animals, pretty much the only reason there are limitations for most people on killing them is because modern technology makes it so easy to do so that we must be limited to prevent them being killed off in their entirety. I say 'most' people because Native Canadians can hunt/fish as much as they want as far as I know, or at least they can hunt/fish WAY more than any non-Native Canadians. Not really sure why they have such rights; unless they're living in teepees and living off the land like their ancestors did, then they should be limited to the exact same rights as everyone else.

Even if the arguement was made that white people 'took' their land, ok, and? Their people didn't ride horses and hadn't even invented the wheel when Europeans showed up. Our advanced technology made dealing with them pretty easy for the most part, and they were dealt with. War happens, and they couldn't stand up to the might of the white. They lost, we got their land and made our own countries which are part of the west and in the west people live longer and more comfortably than any other nation in the history of the world. Modern Natives should thank their lucky stars that they get to live here. The leftists seek to destroy it sadly, with the help of goat-fucking Muslim extremists, but as long as we can keep our borders secure and deal with the threats as they arise, we can continue to live as comfortably as we do while leaving said goat-fuckers to fester in their shithole third-world middle east. Hopefully Israel can hold out; they're the one bastion of civility in that sea of Islamic shit.

Moron? Hey, if I'm incorrect, then please do point out where. I welcome an opportunity to learn. I suggest you don't read my other post however if you got triggered by that little one.

>improve infant mortality
you mean reduce lad

You don't think that it's an improvement when infant mortality is reduced? If infant mortality increased (meaning more babies died) then I certainly wouldn't call that an improvement.

animals don't have rights. Their protection is made on the interest of people's sensibilities. Thomas Aquinas already argued that the violence against animals could inspire violence against humans. Also, we don't like seeing their pain.
Animals are things. Things sometimes have rules that limit what the owner can do to them. For example, houses that have cultural meaning (declared by the government) can't be reformed without authorization.
Maybe OP would like pic related.

Here is an attempt.

Humans differ fundamentally from animals not necessarily by cognitive ability but by the ability to simulate scenarios in their heads, work out the best choice of path, and communicate this scenario to another person, for their brain to perfectly reconstruct it.

This is important because it means we can use our cognitive abilities to share ideas as a group and contribute equally to group survival. It is why we evolved language.

Advanced aliens will have retained this ability, and they would be able to communicate with us and cooperate with us, even if our cognitive ability is useless to them.

Animals on the other hand do not possess the slightest form of this. No sign of future simulation, no sign of language ability. Monkeys can call out to each other when they see a predator, sure, but this is instinctive behaviour, not a transfer of hypothetical ideas.

It is therefore rigorous to use this as the separator between us and animals, and to justify dominion over them.

An important point canines and felines: Since they have evolved, through domestication, the ability to cooperate with us through means other than language, they deserve a set of rights other animals don't. Other pets, as personal friends to people, can also be an exception.

This justifies disregarding animal life (it's only "life" in the sense that it processes oxygen, not that it can usefully cooperate with us) for our benefits e.g. food, testing, labour.

d e l e u z e

r e a d g e o l o g y o f m o r a l s

d e l e u z e

Might have something to do with all those languages and cities... Heard of those? Apparently they have standing armies and space travel, too.

Fucking nuts.

...

90% of the replies here are moronic. Life only has a value as long as you can create it yourself. We can find meaning in the things we do, therefore the meaning is there. An animal cannot.
Causing pain to animals should be avoided since the animal perception of pain is essentially the same as ours, but animal life in itself has no value of its own and if we farmed ethically, I would have no problem eating animal products for ever and ever.
t. Vegetarian

No, that's idiotic. By all accounts humans are different and worth more than any animal or mineral

pic related isn't a human being first off

humans are bipeds, opposable thumb, neocortex, neotenous growth patterns completely unique from all other creatures. We don't look at all like the other mammals even the naked ones like molerats are just so much more similar to every other kind of beast.

niggers btfoooooo

Wrong. kys

Blacks and Arabs are people too, as are Natives, but it's denying facts and reality to even suggest that all races are equal in terms of technological advancements. Asians have only recently been catching up, I mean look at 19th century Japan. It took a bloody civil war for them to westernize! To abandon swords and bows for rifles, to adopt practical dresses and suits rather than their ornate ceremonial garb, and I'm certain they didn't have expertly preserved canned goods until whites introduced it to them. There were some use of muskets since the 1500s in Japan as I recall but firearms didn't enter mainstream use until intense waves of westernization hit the islands.

Even as recently as WWII they still modernizing. They put bayonets on damn near EVERYTHING, including LMGs and SMGs. Many still retained the ancient custom that, if you fail, then you must commit suicide out of shame. There was their famed bonzai charges, essentially a bayonet charge. It was an essential part of warfare in the 19th century in the time of muskets and single-shot rifles but old generals retained the concept into WWI and experienced how detrimental it was in an age of machine guns and artillery. In WWII bayonet fighting was primarily only used in extremely close-quarters situations, largely in the Battle of Stalingrad, however as more SMGs entered use I'm certain that the rate of bayonet usage declined exponentially. As for Japan, they lied in Japanese papers on the effectiveness of the charges to prevent soldiers from being afraid of doing so. Not only did they face SMGs and LMGs, but American troops were quickly standardizing the semi-auto M1 Rifle. 8 rounds of .30-06 that can be fired off in just a couple seconds then reloaded within potentially 2-3 seconds if the soldier is well practiced.

It is also thoroughly evident that, speaking of war, nobody on the planet can fight like whites. Against Natives, against blacks, against Asians, against Arabs, more often than not it is whites who come out on top. Of course there are cases of losses, such as Brits against the Zulus in some cases, or Custard against the Natives, the Vietnamese war which though it was a Vietcong victory the casualties were VERY one-sided (America/Australia/New Zealand combined suffered less than 10% the Military deaths of the Vietcong), and there's probably some battles that America lost against the Japanese, but such instances are far outweighed by white victories. The Battle of Isandlwana which was a decisive Zulu victory against the Brits still resulted in potentially as much as almost twice as many Zulu deaths as British deaths.

Of course once you get into modern times with the widespread adoption of assault rifles and huge advancements in aircraft/tank/artillery/naval technology, whites have grown ever greater in the art of war. In the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu only about 20 were lost while the victorious Somalis lost somewhere between 200-500 in that single day of fighting.

>paper
>gunpowder
>compass
>making their own written language instead of just copying mid east
how can you be a white supremacist while knowing that your 'ancestors' couldn't even create their own numerical symbols?

Since when is being proud of white accomplishments being a white supremacist? Oh yeah, leftists exist, I forgot. Gunpowder was indeed invented in China, yes, but it was Caucasians who perfected its use, particularly the French did a lot to make it more efficient. Flintlocks around 1600AD, Minie balls made rifled muskets easier to reload and more accurate as well as providing better penetration, but most importantly the French invented SMOKELESS powder in the mid-1880s and were also the first to use "small-bore" FMJ bullets. I put 'small-bore' in quotation marks because while 8mm was quite small for a rifle back then, it's considered somewhat 'large-bore' by today's standards or at least average for full-sized rifle rounds. But hey, if you want to just start making lists of inventions, sure, I'm down.

>Internet
>Computers
>Cellular devices
>Penicillin
>Lightbulb
>Almost everything electronic
>Records/CDs/MP3s/MP4s
>Film/VHS/DVD/Memory cards
>Refrigeration
>Artificial plastics
>Denim (specifically German-American I think)
>Canning for preservation
>Pasteurization
>Optics and microscopes
>All manner of early assault rifles/SMGs/LMGs (I think the Mexicans might have been the first to make an auto-loading rifle though)
>The concept of indirect mortar/artillery fire
>Trebuchet
>Ballista
>Extensive use of uniform armour, uniform weaponry, and implementation of line-formation and intricate war tactics (Romans)

It's also interesting to note that when the French came up with the Lebel Rifle of 1886 with its FMJ ammo using "poudre B" (meaning smokeless powder), it essentially rendered every other rifle on the planet obsolete. It was far flatter shooting, it didn't obscure the targets upon firing, it could fire somewhere around 8-10 rounds before having to reload, and so on and so forth. Of course there are detrimental aspects such as the fact it can ONLY be loaded one round at a time and the fact that the bolt is pretty clunky to operate not to mention the complex method of disassembly for cleaning. It resulted in superior designs coming about quite quickly, including the German 1888 "Commission Rifle", the Russian 1891 "Three Line Rifle" Mosin, and perhaps even the black powder 1888 Lee Metford though that would transition to smokeless with the 1895 Lee Enfield. All the same, it stands that from 1886-1887 France had, far and away, the best rifle on the entire planet. They REALLY wanted to take advantage of that smokeless powder breakthrough though so the project was quite rushed.

You assume that as a human you can and 'should' choose between these alternatives. Hence you put humans above. It's not like the animals are putting us in our place.

Yes, in modern history Europe and the US has dominated technological advancement
You probably consider yourself a real history nut, but there’s a lot more to history than the past 500 years
Why don’t you list the achievements of the great Germanic peoples prior to being conquered by Rome?

Different regions (east Asia, persia) had the potential for greater technological and military advancement, and out paced those of Europe, and then closed themselves off and feel behind - but that’s a social failing not a biological one

Wrong. Bull fighting is the most dignity the bull will ever know. It is true art. The will to live, death.

I'm all for protecting the environment and animals; but to sanitize life even further is a disgrace. It's like you want a world without pain or discomfort for any person or creature.

Completely wrong.

Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. In other words, Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans.

It's the same as comparing a chimpanzee with a gun against a child genius. Who is superior? The conclusion is the same with Amerindian superiority. How is this hard to get?

There's no question that the most advanced city 2000 years ago was Rome, which also had the most advanced technology at the time. To find a period in which Asians were outclassing Europeans, you'd basically have to go back something like 2500+ years. Do ancient Chinese and Indian civilizations 5000+ or 10,000+ years ago outclass those of Europe and Britain? Probably, but in the last 2000 years, particularly the last 1800 years with Christianity expanding through white society leading to various Colleges and Universities being founded to learn how God's Universe works, lead to advances that no other people could even come close to.

You're going to have to be more explanatory than this. When Europeans met Natives (meaning 'Amerindians' as you put them, which I assume means American Indians), they didn't ride horses, they didn't invent the wheel, they CERTAINLY didn't have gunpowder or muskets, their bows likely weren't as big or as strong as the English longbow or the crossbows that had become so popular around Europe, in fact I'm not even sure if they had figured out agriculture yet. To my knowledge, Natives lived a nomadic lifestyle, going from place to place to hunt and forage until there was nothing else to be found at which point they'd pack up and move on. Then there's naval technology; clearly Europeans had developed ships that can not only take people across oceans but also carry enough supplies to sustain them on the way. Natives had canoes, pretty much only good for use on calm rivers or going along the coastline in good weather.

They wore leather at best, Europeans had fancy cloth dyed all sorts of different colours. I'm not even sure if they had a concept of armour but Europeans had not only metal armour for centuries but also metal weapons. Europeans also had alcohol which they hadn't yet figured out in Native America it would seem. The Natives also weren't some sort of 'peace-loving people of the Earth', they has much warfare between differing tribes. Even when it came time for the Natives to come together and try to fight the white man they had that famous moment where one arrow alone was snapped in half with ease but many arrows together could not be broken. It took an effort to get different tribes to come together and fight for the same cause; they were not peaceful, and neither were Europeans, neither were Asians, neither were Arabs. War is unanimous across all histories of all cultures, but as mentioned, nobody can wage war like the white man.

Man, Op totally turned around. We should give all animals equal rights. Pigs and rats and pigeons and shit should be able to vote and marry and start businesses as they see fit. That really is a much smarter system.

Wrong again.
>europeans
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to solutrean:10000 years (30000BC-20000BC)
>from aurignacian-antelian to neolithic: 15000 years(30000BC-15000BC)
>from neolithic proto-agriculture societies to neolithic revolution: 6000 years (15000BC-9000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper and arsenical bronze: 4000 years (9000BC-5000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to bronze age and tin bronze: 5200 years (9000BC-3800BC)

>Amerindians:
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to clovis: 4000 years (15000BC-11000BC)
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to the start of crop development: 7000 years (15000BC-8000BC)
>from neolithic proto-agriculture societies to neolithic revolution: 5000 years (8000BC-3000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper and arsenical bronze independently: 2000 years (3000BC-1000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to bronze age and tin bronze: 4000 years (3000BC-1000 AD)
Amerindians had a higher development rate. Thus, Amerindians have more civilziation potential than europeans.

As history demonstrates, Amerindians are superior to european. How is this even a question?

Natives did have a pretty sophisticated form of agriculture, very much advanced to europeans in fact. Theirs was much less labor intensive, and smart, and they simply set up conditions in their natural environment in order for their desired plants to grow. One big trick of theirs was to set their forests on fire every few years, which would drive animals out of one end that hunters could nab, and also make the forsest floor clear of weeds so that fruit and nut bearing trees would thrive. They'd also build natural farm mounds, not with just one type of crop, but multiple that would maintain the soil balance and they'd also reduce pests by planting vines and lesser desired crops at the bottom as a barrier and a sacrificial crop for pests.

Europeans worked their asses off in a very inefficient, wasteful, and ecologically damaging form of farming that didn't work very well at all in the new world until years worth of landscaping had been done. This is one of the big grudges the Puritans had against the natives, seeing how the puritans worked their balls off for almost nothing, and the natives barely worked at all to feed themselves, and lived in abundance of food most of the time.

Other than that though, you're right as the natives definitely weren't peaceful saints, they were just as, if not more, warlike and greedy as the euros, and gladly co-operated with the euros in wars and genocides against rival tribes and such.

It was two brutal civilizations (and aren't all civilizations brutal when you get right fucking down to it?) meeting and working things out in their own brutal and greedy ways.

Cuz we hold in our piss, wait to eat, and think of things that transcend the physical world

Not sure where you're getting that.

For one, american indians never really left the stone age. A few isolated tribes in south america were said to have started independently fashioning copper weapons by the time of cortez, but that's about it.

All metal products they had were bought from the euros, they never as a people had the capability to produce them on their own.

Italy has a higher average IQ than UK and Germany. I'm fucking crying

>stone age
Wrong. South America already reached the early bronze age, and they even manage to reach mexico to spread bronze tools.
>cortez south america
I see, you know nothing and still deny archeological facts.
>metal
Already refuted. South America had bronze production.

Try again. Amerindians have demonstrated a higher development rate compared to europeans.

If this is all accurate, I'd like to point out the eras. Europeans seem to consistently be several thousand years ahead of Natives in all regards. If that trend continued them who knows, maybe if Europeans didn't find them for another 10,000 years then the Natives would have been as advanced as the Europeans but come on, 9000-3800BC for the same era as Natives in 3000BC-1000AD. So Europeans had been centuries into a new era before Natives even entered the previous era.

This is very interesting stuff, don't get me wrong, I look forward to learning more about this, but it still demonstrates how Europeans were FAR more advanced than Natives and would continue to be for thousands of years if the two races were left to progress on their own. Also, notice that I'm not talking about any one race being superior to another, in fact based on average IQ it would seem that Asians are greatest of all and this is demonstrated in the average income of Asian Americans being higher than that of white Americans. All the same, there's some things that whites do the best, for instance war and electronic technology.

I'm not familiar with any of this, and considering the vast difference in population between Europeans circa 1497AD and Natives circa 1497AD I'm doubtful that Europeans were indeed working their asses off for minimal results. I've got more research to do, but I doubt there were anywhere near as many Natives in North America as there were Europeans in Western Europe. I've heard that long before Europeans showed up, the largest city on the planet was in central America or Mexico or something but they mysteriously disappeared or left the location. That's quite interesting if true, but still, that's just one city. In Europe there were many. London, Paris, Madrid, Vienna, Moscow, and so on and so forth though REAL growth didn't come about until the Industrial Revolution around the 18th century. That's where things REALLY started booming.

Question:

What amerIndian growth very stagnant to begin with? Or did they just start to advance? Why europeans be more advanced than indians even though the Indians were developing at a higher rate?

I'm interested

>Wrong. South America already reached the early bronze age, and they even manage to reach mexico to spread bronze tools

no...that's flat out wrong. Re-check your dumbass sources. Like I said, a few isolated tribes had figured out copper tooling, but it certainly wasn't common usage among the majority.

If what you're saying is true...then why did all encountered tribes pay such high prices, in gold especially in south america, for metal European tools? I mean...that was the entire fucking basis of commerce with the indians for 300 fucking years, braniac.

For the first 50 years or so of colonization in north american, about 90% of colonists would die, starvation and disease among the biggest factors in that.

The european farming practices worked ok in europe, where the lands had been worked for thousands of years, but it took intense work to landscape the american land into a form where their practices worked.

Natives on the other hand just kind of let nature do it's thing. The downside of native farming, is even though it involved minimal labor and high yields, they in no way could compete with the vast amounts of yield european practices could, once their farms were set up and the land properly tilled. That's why native farming started to disappear almost entirely as it became cheaper to just buy food from euros after they got their agriculture set up.

It's good to be the King

>amerindian growth very stagnant
It wasn't. Amerindian ethnic groups didn't reach America till 25000BC, meanwhile there were europeans in 40000BC. Europeans in 40000BC populated tropic near zones near the middle east. Amerindians in 25000BC lived in Alaska and Bering strat, no external influences.
In 15000BC, Amerindians could cross the glacial separation between Alaska-NorthernCanada and USA, then populated the rest of the continent. Europeans already populated all europe in 30000BC.

The earliest Amerindian tools found are described as pre-gravettian, even mousterian like.

es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalurgia_precolombina_en_América
>"There is only evidence that the Incas and other Andean civilizations used metals as tools and weapons in a much more extensive way as European or Asian civilizations. The Incas used bronze in a large number of sharp and impact weapons such as hammers, maces and tomahawks, spears and helmets for the highest-ranking military elements. Besides the utilitarian and military use of metals, it also had a very important value in religious ceremonies, since it was associated with gold with the sun and the moon with silver throughout the continent.9"
>"The value of the objects made of metal became so great that a commercial route between South America and Mesoamerica was initiated by means of the famous League of Merchants that carried out commercial exchanges between western Mexico and the coastal zone of northern South America. In both areas are very similar manufacturing techniques and styles in contemporary historical contexts.10"
Try again.

Incas lived in 1500s. Bronze production started since 1000AD by Tiwanaku-Wari near bolivia. 500 years later there have been proto-swords (Tuccina) made of bronze already.
>ineurocienciaslima.com.pe/publicaciones/Preconquest-Peruvian-Neurosurgeons.pdf
The earliest european bronze is dated from 1600BC, more than 2000 years after the start of the bronze age in the middle-east europe zone.

>race being superior
Amerindians have demonstrated higher civilization potential. The conclusion is evident, Amerindians are superior to europeans.

More work resulting more output, or less work resulting in less output, and according to you the Natives stopped farming altogether because it became cheaper to buy from the Europeans. Sounds like the proof is in the pudding, as it were. So what if it required more work to prepare the land? It meant for far more crops, allowing for cheaper prices, or if it's a barter system then less had to be given to receive more crops.

I fail to see how the Natives could possibly be superior to any other race when they were so far behind Europeans and yet still don't contribute anywhere near as many breakthroughs in science or technology even considering difference in population, but hey, to each their own. You do you.

>fail
It's actually simple. Amerindians had a higher development rate. In other words, Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans.

Conclusion: Amerindians are superior to europeans.

I mean, we won the evolution battle. I'm not being vein about it, we literally won the fucking planet.

Animals would do the same to us if they were more advanced. Highly intelligent animals like dolphins and chimps exhibit unnecessarily cruel behaviors like torture and rape almost as much as we do.

>facts
>reality
Don't exist
>technology
Not a measure, a disgusting thing that must be burnt away.
kys alt-right retard

You have no clue what you're talking about. You're relying on the perception of a bunch of drunk retard racists and sailors. Good job, you're a bigger idiot that a downie sailor just there to be an expendable muscle.
kys alt-right retard

is that robbie lawler?

>I'm not familiar with any of this
Because you're an alt-right retard who doesn't know a thing about agriculture. Western agriculture has just caught up, and still isn't in wide practice.

The subjection of animals to bad treatment and torture is also solely for the interest of humans.
Of course the issue of animal rights is not truly for animals as animals don't really care or understand such a thing to begin with.
The issue is ultimately about raising humans to higher ethical standards which makes it very funny that you would bring up dignity which itself would seem quite predicated on just such a thing.

Oh look, the alt-right retard is ecologically retarded, too.
>science
Retarded
>technology
Retarded
You have no clue what you're talking about. You just keep blabbering on. Do me a favor and go drink some of your lake water

>alt-right retards actually believe this

Jesus, you are full of ignorance.
There were numerous agrarian societies in North America. The diseases spread quickly when the first explorers arrived. Many died and the agrarian settlements became depopulated. The survivors abandoned the sites or just died.

Tenochtitlan (the city) was abandoned because spanish couldn't maintain the hydro-engineered systems.

Many reasons/views on this matter. Here's bit different take:

is probably the most common mind set humans have = Superiority over all other species on the planet because of perceived higher intelligence, which manifests in problems solving capabilities.

I've been reading into Sartre's existentialism and although I'm only early into it, I get another interesting theory on the difference between man/animal, which is every human's underlying and all encompassing wish to become a god. (Keep in mind that 'god' is merely one of many self-invented, artificial human constructs same as 'blue', 'chair', 'up' and 'down' etc.) Meaning that humans are the only lifeforms that are actively seeking absolutes. In Sartre terms, nothing is absolute across the plains of being, except the perceived construct of 'god'. God is forever. God can't be phased. God creates and takes away. It also explains why humans enjoy the rudimentary acts of creating and destroying life in various forms without having the need for it, such as in porn, war etc. while animals only create and destroy life to ensure their survival. But since the wish to become a god is futile, humans are desperate to assign absolutes to their world wherever they can in their panicking state: nationality, religion, man, animal etc. are products of those attempts. Humans are literally unable to compute without imposing a system of absolutes onto a world where absolutes are impossible to exist. All in order to be the closet they can to what they perceive as 'god', while all other species are far less capable of creating these absolutes and abilities. (This is also why humans think they are more 'intelligent' or more 'valuable' than animals) You can observe this in this guy's comment >Humans have rights because they have dignity.
which is trash because 'dignity' is just another one of those purely human constructs. You can not make a distinction between humans and animals upon purely human constructs such as 'moral', 'humanism', 'love' or 'hate'. Those things only hold meaning in the human inherited connectivity of consciousness we describe as 'intelligence', 'language', 'technology' etc., same as for example a bear mother teaches his cub to hunt, just without giving this construct a name.

I personally think there is no difference at all. While humans have far greater mental capabilities, their underlying motives and social dynamics are a lot of times even more primal and brutal than those of animals. In fact we are mostly a lot less stable in our minds, since we created a collective form of living together which obscures nature in so many ways that are near unfathomable for ourselves. We literally created our own hell.

Humans are the only species capable of complex thought (basically a superpower of biology), therefore we have the special ability to make use of other animals for the purpose of gaining even more power and pursuing our collective goals.

I bet ants would think the same about themselves when they milk their lice, or Birds when they fly into another animal's mouth to clean it from inside. 'Complex thought' is relative my friend.

>humans are the only lifeforms that are actively seeking absolutes
this thread is proof of that. nothing but racebait and circlejerking ITT

Wewlad! "alt-right retard", my my. I watch CNN too, user. You should look into the actual ideals of the alt-right, you wouldn't be so quick to paint everyone with that brush, but then again leftists like to call literally anyone right of 'classical liberal' which is basically centrist nowadays, as a racist, so maybe you DO want to pain everyone with that brush. That's ok, I don't care what you call me, but the only talk of racial supremacy going on in here that I've seen is claims of 'Amerindian supremacy'.

I'm open to having a dialogue and as you can see I'm even modest enough to admit when I'm not knowledgeable in something, after all there's not a single person on the planet who is knowledgeable in literally everything. At the same time though, I've demonstrated quite a bit of knowledge in history, and I've made quite a few valid points. I am quite proud of my Caucasian heritage and I see a lot of reasons to be such, and if people of other races wish to have their own pride then good for them. In the end however, I am of the most important minority on the planet; the minority of one. I am an individual, and I hope that you are likewise, because otherwise you may very well have been poisoned with ideology.

>leftism
Now with american politics...
>Amerindian supremacy
>White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist ideology based upon the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore white people should be dominant over other races
If the analogy is valid, nobody is claiming to dominate other "races" though, if races can be even defined, as race is not science.

>last paragraph defensive stance
At least you aren't chimping out like the majority of pols brainlets. lol

>Try again.
I don't know what you're sourcing from because this page doesn't say anything of the like.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy_in_pre-Columbian_America
>Unlike in other metallurgy traditions where metals gain importance due to their widespread use in fields ranging from weaponry to everyday utensils, metals in South America (and later in Central America) were mainly valued as adornments and objects representative of a high status (though some more functional objects might have been produced).

>Solamente hay evidencia de que los incas y otras civilizaciones andinas utilizaran los metales como herramientas y armas de una manera mucho más extensa como las civilizaciones europeas o asiáticas. Los incas utilizaban el bronce en gran cantidad de armas punzo cortantes y de impacto como los martillos, mazas y hachas de guerra, lanzas y así como cascos para los elementos militares de mayor rango. Además del uso utilitario y militar de los metales, también tenía un valor muy importante en las ceremonias religiosas, ya que se asociaba al oro con el sol y a la luna con la plata a lo largo de todo el continente.9

>El valor de los objetos hechos de metal se volvió tan grande que se inició una ruta comercial entre Sudamérica y Mesoamérica por medio de la famosa Liga de Mercantes que realizaban intercambios comerciales entre el oeste de México y la zona costera de el norte de Sudamérica. En ambas zonas se encuentran técnicas de manufactura y estilos muy similares en contextos históricos contemporáneos.10

Can't you find this? It's in the spanish site.
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalurgia_precolombina_en_América#cite_note-ref_duplicada_1-10

He's not 'alt-right' he just only knows western (read: European and US) history

Leftism is a major problem in Europe as well, as seen during the G20 summit when Hamburg burned at the hands of their own brand of Antifa fascists. They are 'Anti-Fascist' in name alone, for there is very little to differ their actions from those of brown-shirts.

"As history demonstrates, Amerindians are superior to european."
"The conclusion is evident, Amerindians are superior to europeans."
"Who is superior? The conclusion is the same with Amerindian superiority."
"Conclusion: Amerindians are superior to europeans."
It's also worth nothing that while 'Amerindian', which is a term I've only just heard today is consistently capitalized, 'European' is consistently left without capitalization, which suggests an underlying inherent disrespect to Europeans.

Now this here I am quite curious about. Facts and reality "Don't exist"? Technology is "Not a measure, a disgusting thing that must be burnt away."? What is meant by this? It is thanks to technology (again, almost entirely white technology) that we're even able to communicate right now. It is thanks to white technology that so many people live more comfortably now than anyone has ever lived before. It is thanks to white technology that people live so long, that people can be on one continent one day and on an entirely different one the next, traveling at hundreds of kilometers per hour through the air, meanwhile on the ground people driving at 100km/h or more on highways in vehicles that are a technology that originates in Europe if I'm not mistaken. Either there or in America where they will have been developed by white Americans.

So in Southern and Central America, Natives utilized metals primarily as representations of status rather than as objects of utility? Well that's interesting, I wonder how the Natives of North America faired in using metals, pretty sure they didn't have metal knives when the Europeans arrived. Tools made of stone or bone was quite common.

While it's not the ONLY history I know, I'd be lying if I said it didn't make up the majority of my knowledge of history. I say again, if I'm factually incorrect in any of my posts then highlight where I was factually incorrect so that I may do my research to see if it's indeed the case. I wouldn't want to spread misinformation. I hate fake news.

>leftism
>europe
Yep. You are american.
>capitalization
Are you a sperg or a newfag?

Jesus, your brainletism is seen from kilometers away.

>"There is only evidence that the Incas and other Andean civilizations used metals as tools and weapons in a much more extensive way as European or Asian civilizations. The Incas used bronze in a large number of sharp and impact weapons such as hammers, maces and tomahawks, spears and helmets for the highest-ranking military elements. Besides the utilitarian and military use of metals, it also had a very important value in religious ceremonies, since it was associated with gold with the sun and the moon with silver throughout the continent.9"
>"The value of the objects made of metal became so great that a commercial route between South America and Mesoamerica was initiated by means of the famous League of Merchants that carried out commercial exchanges between western Mexico and the coastal zone of northern South America. In both areas are very similar manufacturing techniques and styles in contemporary historical contexts.10"

>Unlike in other metallurgy traditions where metals gain importance due to their widespread use in fields ranging from weaponry to everyday utensils, metals in South America (and later in Central America) were mainly valued as adornments and objects representative of a high status (though some more functional objects might have been produced).
So which of them is true?

>Yep. You are american.
Again, strange that 'Amerindian' is capitalized but American is not, but no, I am not an American, however I do hope to move to America someday to support the 1st and 2nd amendments. Having to get used to 'miles' will be annoying as I grew up with kilometers, but I will proudly hold up the stars and stripes, proudly support people's free speech even if they hold views I dislike, and proudly carry every single day not because I think I NEED to, because I want to. I have quite an affinity for firearms and am thoroughly pro-gun. If a criminal breaks into a house and is shot dead, then that is a thoroughly acceptable outcome though not breaking in at all would be ideal. If a person tries to rape another but is shot dead in the process thus unable to try to rape anyone else, then it is a better outcome than them getting away to rape again. I want men to be able to defend themselves, their home, their family, and their property. I want women to be likewise able to defend themselves. It doesn't matter how big or strong a man is, a woman with a gun is more than a match for him.

Well it contradicts the English one, and I'm inclined to trust the veracity of the English page before the Spanish page. It seems kind of silly to claim that Precolombian American had superior metallurgy skills when they hadn't even exited the bronze age.

but they can't think about themselves. they don't even recognise themselves in the mirror.

Failure!
When a past notion has been proven wrong by new data, the new data becomes consensus!
"Amerindian" supremacy is completely stupid, but come on, can you be more of a brainlet?
>capitalization
What an obsession.
>includes politics into the discussion
This is beyond pathetic. lmao

>When a past notion has been proven wrong by new data, the new data becomes consensus!
What are you even on about? His claim is cited from two books from the 80s, mine is cited from more contemporary sources. If you don't know what the conversation is about, don't interject your nonsense, brainlet.

>english
>incas
Bruhns, K.O. (1994). Ancient South America. Cambridge University Press.

>spanish
>incas
Campbell, Joe (1985). A Morphological Dictionary of Classical Nahuatl. Madison: Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies.
Norton, Presley (1986). El señorío de Salangone y la liga de mercaderes. Miscelánia Antropológica Ecuatoriana 6. Ecuador. pp. 131-143.

Bronze age in SouthAmerica and bronze tools and weapons in mesoamerica is a historical fact supported by archeological data. Try again.
Wrong. Already refuted by archeological data.

There have been 5 failed attempts of misinformation, nevertheless the Amerindian higher development rate is supported by history. Time to deal with the facts: Amerindian superiority.

>Wrong
No, you're wrong. Go look at the individual pages if you want to see which one is dated and which one is newer. When a past notion has been proven wrong by new data, the new data becomes consensus!

I've had written a whole text but wew

Really fast, boy.
I can see how the english webpage could be outdated. I've tried to check several info about baroque spanish literature last year, and the english webpage lacked several stuff.

I've never seen this "Amerindian supreior" guy before.
Are you peruvian?

From Lima. It's completely easy find information about Amerindian superiority. Proving Amerindian superiority wrong requires mental gymnastics, because the consensus data already proves right Amerindian higher development rate and consequently, Amerindian superiority.
>book about southamerica vs book about certain cultures
Wrong.
How does this disproves the ammount of bronze tools, weapons and merchant league from SouthAmerica and mesoamerica, and the variety of uses?

Asi que eres un cholo? Jeje, a ver hasta donde llegas con esa "superioridad Amerindia"

I've got Amerindian blood in my veins. Are you white or something? Speak english.

>How does this disproves the ammount of bronze tools, weapons and merchant league from SouthAmerica and mesoamerica, and the variety of uses?
What are you even talking about? I directly said that Pre-Colombian America was for the most part within the bronze age right here However I also pointed out that the fact that they were only in the bronze age is evidence enough that they were not superior to Europe or Asia, both of which were literally thousands of years removed from their individual bronze ages.

Dude, calm down, also they just don't know about precolumbian shit. It's easy to prove wrong them

I'm from Cajamarca, technically mestizo, but you got the idea

Why do must humans believe they are any different than other humans?

>what are you talking about
>No, you're wrong. Go look at the individual pages if you want to see which one is dated and which one is newer. When a past notion has been proven wrong by new data, the new data becomes consensus!
This irrelevant babble who tried to contradict the past post. Which now has been refuted.

Amerindian superiority is based on their higher development rate compared to europeans. In other words, Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans. Conclusion: Amerindians are superior to europeans.

How is this even a question?

I've been compiling information for 2 years, and I got enough for a book, I need more stuff about caral. I've been comparing the progress between non-urban settlements and the earliest ones, from both sides of the Athlantic.

You know Chispajuan?

It's a superior evolutionary strategy. If you don't believe you are superior to your competitor, how could you ever hope to overcome them?

Atlantic*

>This irrelevant babble who tried to contradict the past post. Which now has been refuted.
That was addressing what you said here-
>When a past notion has been proven wrong by new data, the new data becomes consensus!
My source is more contemporary than your source. If you truly believe what you've said here, then you should be agreeing with me.

>Amerindian superiority is based on their higher development rate compared to europeans. In other words, Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans. Conclusion: Amerindians are superior to europeans.
If they had more potential they would not have been in the bronze age while the civilized world was in the age of steel and gunpowder.

>we land people on the moon and I'm sure some day not too far away on other planets

t. brainlet

Shhhh let Voltaire fill you with pessimism.

nasa.gov/content/nasas-journey-to-mars
We could have the capabilities to send someone to Mars by the 2030s, so potentially in as little as a dozen years it's possible that we might be sending someone to Mars. The 2030s is not too far away, it's closer to us than the 1990s are and I lived through almost every year of that decade. Even if it's not until 2050 or 2069 that we land humanity on another planet, that's very likely within my lifetime, and seeing as people here have been discussing literally tens of thousands of years ago, 32-51 years in the future is not too far away either.

>>This irrelevant babble who tried to contradict the past post. Which now has been refuted.
That was addressing what you said here-
>When a past notion has been proven wrong by new data, the new data becomes consensus!
My source is more contemporary than your source. If you truly believe what you've said here, then you should be agreeing with me.
Not me.

>if they had
Already proven by their higher development rate compared to europeans.

Yeah, sending them to die there. Dipshit.

>you know Chispajuan
yep. why?

>last posts discussing OP question
>anything after that derailed into /pol/ bullshit

It's a shame that the left are often incapable of having civil discussions with people who differ from them politically. Do you act this way to all Conservatives? I'm sure you LOVE the fact that if I had been an American in 2016 then I'd have voted for him, and thus far I think he's doing a great job and wouldn't regret having made that hypothetical vote at all. Does that trigger you? Does it trigger you that poles find that black Americans are becoming more supportive of Trump?