>>13361757I understand how <=120 IQ types will feel like your response contained adequate points -- some would even call your post (for an internet rando post) "enlightening" towards a certain issue.
But if you dissect your points attentively instead of trying to come up with arguments, you will find that your conclusions are the equivalent of empty calories: something that just keeps you going, but doesn't add much. It keeps you from dying -- it fills your post with words so it is a post, not just an unrealized urge or idea in you mind.
Anyway:
>that they had millions of years to adaptThis is not explanatory, that is descriptive. The mammals that died due to not adapting are non-factors anyway, I am not asking about them. I ask about the successful ones, what their secret is.
>most of them didn't live at the equator,More useless word-fat. Come on, you see how they are a non-factor. They are not the object of interest, the lazy Brazilian, Hawaiian shirts-wearing tropical mammals are. You could have equivalently said something about bugs or all mammals.
>part of it is that 35C is the lethal wet bulb temperature for humans and not every single mammal.And the last non-factor. Keep your posting excitement in your pants, your mental cum is all over 4ch. Perhaps your mind is a bit simple, more favorably perhaps isn't Euclidean enough, to discern that my topic has long since left the plane of talking about humans. Indeed, drawing some implication from my initial post about indirectly using humans within a premise of mine (even implicitly i.e. non-statedly) to pose this question is a rather hallucinatory garnishment of my bare intent, which is exactly what it says on the tin. But it is understandable that humans, especially your type, must inject at-most semi-informed narrative (the word has become abused by SJW types, so I rather imagine "micro-narrative", not some parrotment of social dynamics) to simplify your mental processes.
