Bonversations | Ep #70 | Boq Precision (26-Apr-2025)
Who was really behind the recent 4chan hack and temporary closure?
Is there more evidence for the existence of Muhammad than that of George Washington?
Why are we taught from a young age that marriage between cousins is a bad thing?
Bonversations
Episode #70 – Boq Precision
Recorded: 26-Apr-2025
Published: 1-May-2025
Public
Members
Members can find all Full shows / aftershows / second hours HERE.
The Member version of this interview runs another 45 minutes and includes discussion about:
* Skepticism and what this term seems to mean to different people
* Do humans need a foundational belief system to make sense of this world and / or lead a good life?
* The idea that English and Arabic are vastly different languages: is this a ‘psyop’?
* How common is mental illness among people who discuss topics like media fakery?
* Why aren’t there more Arabs and Muslims speaking out about the lies in the news?
And much, much more.
If you have any interest in these kinds of topics, I think you’ll enjoy the discussion.
Get instant access to the Member version of this call (and dozens of other Bonversations) by joining now.
Treat yourself to the best interview-based content available in this corner of the internet ?
Boq Precision
Youtube – here | Substack – here | Website – here
Interview with Tim Ozman – here
Show Notes / Links
Reddit post regarding 4ch hack – here.
Article: ‘The Practice of Skepticism’ – here.
Podcast regarding health outcome for children – here.
Study cited – here.
Wiki page regarding consanguinity statistics – here.
Forbes article regarding Canadian immigration – here.
Regarding People
More Great Quotes (which have all been verified) can be found HERE.
Production notes. Bonversations Ep #70. Recorded 26-Apr-2025, published 1-May-2025.
The post call analysis/addendums are arguably the best component to many of these ‘sations. Including the juvenile sounding jeering jabs toward elementary observations and inferences – that to date have yet to been refuted beyond mere rhetoric. humming and hawing…is an intellectual form of shadow boxing imnsho. Contrast this with how refreshing it was to hear Jeran admit – that while crazy to think people are standing upside down on a sphere – that is what one must accept if we live on a ball. likewise – oceans and other bodies of water must adhere to the terrain in similar fashion. no amount of pedestrian prattle, equivocation or models schmodel chauvinism will ever escape this.
wAtEr CaNt StIcK tO a BaLl wHy DoNt ThE pLaNeS dIp ThEiR nOsEs
I’ve never said planes can’t dip their noses to get to their destinations …but you could very well be referring to me wrt the snide water comment – simplistic as it sounds
But I don’t parrot FEers – just like I don’t think you don’t parrot Dave J when you say NDNGH / DBFWTD et al – deeply flawed as those edicts are (and spiritually risky imo if one accepts an inverse)
Bottom line, if we live on a ball, than water / oceans adhere to the sphere (not a problem to me if this property turns out to be true) … and if one were to dig / excavate downward and / or across to the other side of the earth …. where those flights you love to use as proof – are in fact hovering up above – simultaneously to one another …. and directly below where those bodies of water are located opposite to one another
by believing in that model as an accurate representation of our home here – one must eventually come out the other side (and hopefully theyll preorder an escape pod to get to the surface along with some scuba gear!)
are you denying this feature? or are you going to continue to tip toe around these necessary inferences with evermore evasive language …’ living on a ball isn’t actually living on a ball…and I don’t care to talk about the terrain – with all it’s natural wonderment including oceans and skies – because we can’t really know where we live – so let’s pretend we live somewhere else …and that somewhere else is better explained by the model
YaDa yAdA yadA
bUt pEoPlE iN aUsTrAlIa ArE nOt UpSiDe DoWn
nO tHeY aRe DOWN under
wHiLe SaNta is waTER AbUVe
its (can’t edit comments)
The difference between a Poodle and a Labrador and a Pitt Bull and a Chihuahua is certainly not just in their coat colors, it’s in every aspect of behavior and yet they’re all dogs. If you mixed all of them together very soon you would have none of these breeds to choose from. And just because you like having lots of distinct breeds or are the true multi-breedist or multi-culturalist certainly doesn’t mean that you hate mutts and will treat them mean. Preference is just preference and does not imply hatred or even dislike. If even more choices appeared in the future, you might change today’s preferences further. What’s so hard to understand about that? Apply the same to humans.
If you like and prefer your people and the culture they created, you have to preserve as many of them intact as possible and for this you will, at the very least, need their unique blend of genes and the extension of that, their uniquely distinctive native lands, to be free of invaders from other lands. Invaders are forced on you, immigrants (granted status only if they behave unlike invaders who just invade your space and refuse to leave) or visitors or tourists are not. Anything more than 10% immigrants already constitutes an invasion (since no sane nation would voluntarily accept its own overhauling and replacement and therefore destruction) and the more different they are than you, the more of an invasion it is. People are “kind” to those of their own kind or kin-folk first and only when they have secured that can they ever extend it to the rest of “man-kind.”
It’s not a matter of technology at all, but a matter of race or ethnicity, since race is not a cultural creation but the exact opposite. Wherever you look: culture is a racial creation. This is why, regardless of technology and so-called civilizational advancement in the modern world, no ten million Chinese or Japanese will ever create a Caucasian or European culture and vice versa. And yet what the Chinese and Japanese and the other Asians create will be far more similar to each other than what the Bulgarians, the Hungarians, the Polish and the Germans and the Italians create. The latter will be far more similar to each other. This is because the former are subgroups of the Asian race and the latter that of the Caucasian race. What’s so friggin’ hard to understand about that? So if you like your culture and want to preserve it, you have to also preserve the race or breed of people that created it, to the extent that you can. Simple as that. And beyond that ethnic differences within the same race. The Irish and the English might be of the same race but they are different ethnicities and if they value those specific differences, they might want to preserve those as well.
https://iili.io/3kwPKs2.png
Similarly, just like dogs can only be said to be “equal” in basic dogness or the specific features which make them dogs and unequal in everything else, so humans are only “equal” in basic humanity and unequal in everything else. Not even identical twins are equal, so it’s absolutely absurd to say that any other two people can be, never mind groups comprised of unequal individuals or entirely different races from other lands. This applies individually and within the groups they belong to, regardless of how much these differences, when considered not desirable traits, might hurt their feelings and collective egos. It’s very easy to observe that nothing is equal in nature or can ever be made to be. There is no getting around this most basic fact of nature. “Equality” only exists in human abstraction. Therefore the biggest and most damaging hoax of all, the one underlying everything else is the “equality hoax” and it should come as no surprise that this is pushed by precisely those group of people who consider themselves the most supremely “unequal,” chosen and superior.
Aristotle is supposed to have said that the greatest “inequality” is to try and make unequal things equal. That quote in itself equates inequality with injustice and is therefore part of the equality hoax. Inequality just is (just is = justice phonetically is not an accident, to have justice you have to accept that which Just Is) and certainly does not automatically imply injustice or unfair treatment on the part of “god” or anyone else. In fact, it is becuase of inequality that any more-or-less able-bodied person you meet can do something far better than you can and is also willing to do some thing which you are not either at that time in your life or ever. It is because of inequality that division of labor economies and win-win dialectics can even exist.