>>82121627
>nuh-uh
>kys
Best arguments that a racist is capable of. Racists, ironically, undermine the "superiority" of their race, by being the worst examples of it.
>What if their innate characteristics are objectively better?
No such thing, genuinely.
To claim that a characteristic is objectively better is not understand evolution or human traits at all.
>IQ
Extremely high cultural component. Outstanding individuals rise out of every race, so relying on the existence of outstanding members of 1 race, to prove collective superiority is simply asinine.
>beauty
Lol, do I even have to explain why this is subjective?
>any physical trait
The preference for a physical trait is not objective in the sense that it will always be the same. In nature, evolution is dependent on context, thus the superiority of a trait is always relative to the context, and always changing.
And yes, collectivism does restrain liberty. In fact, the collective retrains the liberty of the members of the collective far more than it does the liberty of other collectives. As collectives, in between them, make pacts with each other, you can't deny this, as this is exactly what you meant by "protecting all races", as the opposite would be erradicating all but one. Meanwhile, it disallows any and all expressions of liberty prohibited by the collective. Thus, it requires vigilance and submission of it's members.
