(OP Banned) Once Afro-Caribbean and Jamaican Think-tanks consolidate their power in former western civilisation

[brimstoneSalad]

Still, I'm not interested in debating with a nigger-lover and race-traitor. Just know I wish death on your illegitimate mixed-race child.

This is a philosophy debate forum, you were warned about this behavior elsewhere. It is unacceptable to make assertions like those you are making and being unwilling to debate them. As such, you are banned for repeated rule 1 violation.

You don't know my genetic lineage, but beyond that you can't be a traitor to an imaginary "race" that you don't believe objectively exists and that you have never pledged any kind of allegiance to. Treachery involves a violation of a duty or loyalty that I do not hold to any made up social groups.

Speciation occurs in isolation (that's elementary Darwinism).

Different arbitrarily defined human "races" are not different species.

Phenotypic characteristics such as blonde/red hair and blue/green eyes mutated in isolation with no outside reproductive competition and were transmitted through Inbreeding.

That's a great example of harmful mutation. Whatever your aesthetic preferences are, these relate to increased risk of skin cancer and macular degeneration.
The world is not lesser for everybody having shades of brown hair and eyes, only cancer loses in that scenario. Regardless, contact lenses and hair dye are always an option if people want any color imaginable in the oddest anime.

Not all genetic mutations are deleterious and occasionally can be advantageous which is a good argument for Inbreeding.

Overwhelmingly these kinds of mutations are deleterious, they outpace the very few advantageous ones.
Also, advantageous mutations are usually only advantageous when ONE copy is present, for example the mutation hypothesized be both responsible for higher intelligence and certain diseases in Ashkenazi populations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/scie ... ed-in.html

There's probably a better article to link on that connection, but I'm not investing any more time in a one sided discussion with somebody banned for refusing to debate.

Not only will miscegenation between Nordic Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans erase these recessive phenotypic traits or make them exceedingly rare but it will eventually lead to an outbreeding depression.

A beneficial gene will not simply disappear if it confers a genuine reproductive advantage. Your perception of recessive and dominant genes also appears to be at at best a middle-school level of oversimplification.

Also true diversity is when there are pure, separate and unique races and not one homogeneous human (or subhuman).

No, that's just a bunch of separate inbred populations that are more than likely to fight with each other because they share no substantial social or familial ties.

I'm not talking about far left SJW style "diversity" which is praised for its own sake (there you may have agreement with nazis and SJWs, because extremist SJWs are just as concerned with racial/cultural purity as far right neo nazis), I'm talking about the kind of genetic diversity which is objectively associated with better health and other objective (not merely aesthetic) metrics.

[FredVegrox]

I understand there are vegans that go to try novel vegan options at establishments using meat and animal products for their business, and I don't judge any for that, with their way they see being supportive where it's needed. But I don't go to those places, and don't plan to, I don't have such interest in entrees there which are with only vegan ingredients. I still support vegan choices and avoid contribution to business made from use of animals with what I choose.