49ersfootball
Well-known member
Following this very closely.
United States Why are "squatter's rights" a thing?
- Thread starter Captain X
- Start date
Following this very closely.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
Then why do we hate germany then?
Poe
Well-known member
Then you are seriously misinformed
As if it my personal philosophy... It's just the nature of states, the entity that holds a monopoly on violence is the legitimate government of a given areaHow wonderfully civilized...
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Not in the Homo Sapiens history. All areas that Homo Sapiens had expanded to (except Arctic circle, perhaps) there used to be other hominids before us.
So... Inuits, perhaps. Other than them, answer to your question is a clear NO.
King Arts
Well-known member
The only things that have rights are humans. Other species aren’t Homo sapiens.
Poe
Well-known member
Even in regards to homo sapiens the answer is no
Poe
Well-known member
Why are you dead set on there being this mythical "native?" People have been moving across the world for hundreds of thousands of years and even in north America there were multiple waves of settlement each one wiping out the last. Maybe New Zealand counts, but your striving to find a single example is moot because the point is that this is the way the world works. Land is owned by those who can hold it, it isn't stolen when a previous people loses a monopoly on violence and I'm not "uncivilized" for pointing out this objective truth.
This whole thread was sparked by talk of the Nazis taking land from the east, but all of those people in the east are relatively recent having settled after the Roman empire collapsed and displacing (or outright murdering) previously existing people. Why is it accepted that they "owned" the land and any future conquest is theft? Who decides what the cut off date is for theft vs ownership?
Protip, anything with 'homo' in the species name is human, we were just so amazingly good at outbreeding everything that we're the only ones left.
Fun fact: those other species are considered human, too.
That's a scientific definition.
bintananth
behind a desk
Another fun fact: If you aren't 100% sub-Saharan African you are part Homo neanderthalensis. Typically 1-4%.
Only someone 100% sub-Saharan African is 100% Homo sapiens sapiens.
That's not true at all, even the most pureblooded African today is like 20%+ of some other species.
Loading…
www.reuters.com
It's unlikely there's been a 100% pure Homo Sapiens for a LONG time.
bintananth
behind a desk
West Africa != Sub-Saharan Africa and Neanderthals went extinct around when that article says the interbreeding occured.
Show me a confirmed 100% genetically pure Sub Saharan.
Poe
Well-known member
I'm certain this is backwards, africans tend to have a higher percentage of other hominids (although not neanderthal)
What does Homo mean in Latin?
King Arts
Well-known member
Man.
But scientists have mischaracterized some things like erectus in the homo family.
If you brought back a Neanderthal it could interbreed with us. Not so with hablis or erectus they are unfuckable monkeys.
Genetics are really complicated and are more like guidelines than rules sometimes. Yeah we could fuck a Neanderthal and make viable offspring which could then breed other stuff.
But then you get mules who cannot, and so on.
Earlier hominids were probably incompatible with us, but that's why they're not named Sapiens, they're still Homos though.