>>15299
I see you often digress on discourse about god but I have no interest in this when it comes to prosaic questions, notably that of race which is very real and material.
When asked how to deal with the children left after their parents would be killed, you say to let them fight, at least. Why? It's a waste of time, it's useless. Finish them off and move on. You keep saying or strongly implying that it's evil and immoral to murder children. But if it serves your people, it is not immoral. It may be hard, granted, but that's all. Don't think too much about it and eventually let those who are willing to do the dirty work do it, you will just have to look away.
I argued that the children would survive, they may be adopted by the non-White survivors and all of them would be taken out of our nation, forced to walk. Is that too callous to you?
When you're dealing with invasive parasites, do you spare their innocent eggs?
On abortion the context was not specified, sorry. So there it is: we have taken the political power but we have no yet achieved the racial segregation. There still is racial mixing going on and it needs to be curbed. Would you make non-White abortion mandatory, regardless of the mother's skin? You partially already replied to that by saying that you are not opposed to blacks aborting their fetuses. But a growing baby is only a fetus for a limited amount of time. Hence why I framed my question around the eight months date.
>That was my original point which we must settle before moving onto your point that killing children is "based". I reject this.
I wouldn't say it's based, but it can quickly become a perhaps ugly necessity.
>I find your desire to murder children repulsive.
>you seem to take pleasure on the thought of killing children