George Galloway

[M.Dancer]

ROFL.... sheer nonsense!

"Nature has selected for people with darker skin in tropical latitudes, especially in nonforested regions,

skin tone is certainly not a RANDOM mutation, but a trait developed through rigorous natural selection to cope with specific environments.

Anyone who denies this is simply playing dunderhead.

Once again, you are misunderstanding the point. The mutations are indeed random. There is no guiding hand. If a mutation gives an advantage and is passed on it survives. How much of an advantage darker skin gives to africans, most of whom live in forested regions is anyones guess. What's more, since it as the article says evolved, I assume they eveloved from lighter skinned people....highly speculative.

[M.Dancer]

Walk away from this one. If you knew anything abotu genetics you would know black skin and kinky hair are not racial markers and in fact people with white skin and narrow noses and straight hair share the exact same corelation in dna connection to other simeons as blacks.

There is a lot more to genetics then your subjective assumptions as to hair texture or the amount of melanin one may have in their skin.

Exactly

[M.Dancer]

and I suggest that you take a look at the 36-tone chromatic scale devised by Austrian anthropologist Felix von Luschan to assess the unexposed skin of human populations.

Is this discarded science week?

Though the von Luschan scale was used extensively throughout the first half of the twentieth century in the study of race and anthropometry, it was considered problematic, even by its practitioners, because it was very inconsistent. In many instances, different investigators would give different readings of the same person. It was largely abandoned by the early 1950s, replaced instead by methods utilizing reflectance spectrophotometry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Luschan%27s_chromatic_scale

[lictor616]

Once again, you are misunderstanding the point. The mutations are indeed random. There is no guiding hand. If a mutation gives an advantage and is passed on it survives. How much of an advantage darker skin gives to africans, most of whom live in forested regions is anyones guess. What's more, since it as the article says evolved, I assume they eveloved from lighter skinned people....highly speculative.

this is perhaps the biggest tautological argument i've ever heard in my life.

There is no guiding hand... but if a mutation gives an advantage in survival the chances are that taht gene or mutation will persist ...

Hence- the iron law of survival of the fittest which ordains the survival of humans with genetic properties best suitable for life in a specific environment.

The guiding hand is survival.

How much of an advantage black skin gives to africans? I've already shown you that in cancer rates and other ills of the skin so common to "white" people.

[lictor616]

Walk away from this one. If you knew anything abotu genetics you would know black skin and kinky hair are not racial markers and in fact people with white skin and narrow noses and straight hair share the exact same corelation in dna connection to other simeons as blacks.

There is a lot more to genetics then your subjective assumptions as to hair texture or the amount of melanin one may have in their skin.

Correlation in DNA!?!??! What in the world does that empty sophistry mean? Of course any geneticist will also tell you that we share 99.87% of our genome with chimpanzees... does this mean that we're pretty much identical and share all genetic and mitochondrial markers as monkeys?

If a human develops an innate natural physical characteristic: Kinky Hair or blond hair it IS genetic.

What makes white people have blonde hair? The hair color gene MC1R with at least seven variants in Europe. Based on recent genetic information carried out at three Japanese universities, the date of the genetic mutation that resulted in blonde hair in Europe has been isolated to about 11,000 years ago during the last ice age.

The MC1R gene is found in no black people... Its true that some polynesian tribes and pacific islanders have blond kinky hair... but of course a different gene produces it. The MC1R gene is unique to european as is the gene or genes for black kinky hair in sub saharan congoid type blacks.

talk about subjective...

anyways the point again is that there is no such thing under the sun as equality, racial, individual, ethnic or otherwise. And nothing you do or say will change that fact.

[M.Dancer]

anyways the point again is that there is no such thing under the sun as equality, racial, individual, ethnic or otherwise. And nothing you do or say will change that fact.

And you think that blacks are less equal because they are...umm...black?

Is that what you are on about?

[lictor616]

And you think that blacks are less equal because they are...umm...black?

Is that what you are on about?

more equal or less equal ... that doesn't exist does .. EQUAL IS EQUAL: i.e.: of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2): identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent b: like in quality, nature, or status...

no blacks are not at all EQUAL - and neither are individual blacks INSIDE the ethnicity.

is there anything incorrect about my proposition?

[M.Dancer]

more equal or less equal ... that doesn't exist does .. EQUAL IS EQUAL: i.e.: of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2): identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent b: like in quality, nature, or status...

no blacks are not at all EQUAL - and neither are individual blacks INSIDE the ethnicity.

is there anything incorrect about my proposition?

Is one black equal to one white, and if not, why?

[madmax]

I heard that George Galloway isn't being allowed into Canada.

Talk about thread drift.

[lictor616]

Is one black equal to one white, and if not, why?

LOL no, not at all.

THE idea of "Natural Equality" is one of the most per­

nicious delusions that has ever affected mankind. It is

a figment of the human imagination. Nature knows no

equality. The most cursory examination of natural

phenomena reveals the presence of a Law of Inequality

as universal and inflexible as the Law of Gravitation.

The evolution of life is the most striking instance of this

fundamental truth. Evolution is a process of differentia­

tion--of increasing differentiation--from the simple one­

celled bit of protoplasm to the infinitely differentiated,

complex life forms of the present day.

And the evolutionary process is not merely quantita­

tive; it is qualitative as well. These successive differen­

tiations imply increasing inequalities. Nobody but a

madman could seriously contend that the microscopic

speck of protoplasmic jelly floating in the tepid waters

of the Palæozoic Sea was "equal" to a human being.

But this is only the beginning of the story. Not only

are the various life types profoundly unequal in quali­

ties and capacities; the individual members of each type

are similarly differentiated among themselves. No two

individuals are ever precisely alike. We have already

seen how greatly this dual process of differentiation both

of type and individual has affected the human species,

and how basic a factor it has been in human progress.

Furthermore, individual inequalities steadily increaseas

we ascend the biological scale. The amœba differs

very little from his fellows; the dog much more so; man

most of all. And inequalities between men likewise be­

come ever more pronounced.

Thus, we see that evolution means a process of ever-

growing inequality. There is, in fact, no such word as

"equality" in nature's lexicon. With an increasingly

uneven hand she distributes health, beauty, vigor, in­

telligence, genius--all the qualities which confer on their.

possessors superiority over their fellows.

[M.Dancer]

LOL no, not at all.

THE idea of "Natural Equality" is one of the most per­

nicious delusions that has ever affected mankind. It is

a figment of the human imagination. Nature knows no

equality. The most cursory examination of natural

phenomena reveals the presence of a Law of Inequality

as universal and inflexible as the Law of Gravitation.

The evolution of life is the most striking instance of this

fundamental truth. Evolution is a process of differentia­

tion--of increasing differentiation--from the simple one­

celled bit of protoplasm to the infinitely differentiated,

complex life forms of the present day.

And the evolutionary process is not merely quantita­

tive; it is qualitative as well. These successive differen­

tiations imply increasing inequalities. Nobody but a

madman could seriously contend that the microscopic

speck of protoplasmic jelly floating in the tepid waters

of the Palæozoic Sea was "equal" to a human being.

But this is only the beginning of the story. Not only

are the various life types profoundly unequal in quali­

ties and capacities; the individual members of each type

are similarly differentiated among themselves. No two

individuals are ever precisely alike. We have already

seen how greatly this dual process of differentiation both

of type and individual has affected the human species,

and how basic a factor it has been in human progress.

Furthermore, individual inequalities steadily increaseas

we ascend the biological scale. The amœba differs

very little from his fellows; the dog much more so; man

most of all. And inequalities between men likewise be­

come ever more pronounced.

Thus, we see that evolution means a process of ever-

growing inequality. There is, in fact, no such word as

"equality" in nature's lexicon. With an increasingly

uneven hand she distributes health, beauty, vigor, in­

telligence, genius--all the qualities which confer on their.

possessors superiority over their fellows.

Do you often plagiarize your answers from dead racists?

[lictor616]

Do you often plagiarize your answers from dead racists?

I could no better then to quote such a learned and indisputably correct scholar.

Of course you could could always focus on the topic proposed rather then on ad hominem irrelevancies. This fairly states the general truism of the "iron law of inequality".

[M.Dancer]

I could no better then to quote such a learned and indisputably correct scholar.

I think if you are going to pass off someone's work as your own, you should aim higher than the dustbin of discarded academia...

I mean, of course he has his fans with the raciust nutbars and assirted fruitcakes....

Seriously....You way out in right field goose stepping all by yourself.

[lictor616]

I think if you are going to pass off someone's work as your own, you should aim higher than the dustbin of discarded academia...

I mean, of course he has his fans with the raciust nutbars and assirted fruitcakes....

Seriously....You way out in right field goose stepping all by yourself.

that's right keep focusing on the man, not the arguments... a favorite in the tactic of shysters and shirkers.

[madmax]

that's right keep focusing on the man, not the arguments... a favorite in the tactic of shysters and shirkers.

Look at the thread title !!!

Should Galloway be allowed into Canada or NOT?

Is your tactic is to hijack threads?.

[waldo]

Free Speech - no thanks... we're Canadians!

Harper's Minister of Censorship & Deportation

[M.Dancer]

that's right keep focusing on the man, not the arguments... a favorite in the tactic of shysters and shirkers.

As opposed to focusing on race instead of the man? No thanks mate, I already have your number...

[madmax]

Free Speech - no thanks... we're Canadians!

Harper's Minister of Censorship & Deportation

I would have preferred the cartoon had him in a play pen.

[Alta4ever]

Galloway is a hypocrite

Controversial MP a hypocrite

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

Would you not think that in all of the media hysteria over Canada's barring of British MP George Galloway, a relevant fact is that Galloway led a campaign to bar uber-right-wing French politician Jean-Marie Le Pen from the U.K. in 2004?

Galloway argued, without success, that for the British government to allow in Le Pen would be "siding with the neo-Nazi far-right against multicultural Britain."

He added: "Le Pen should not be allowed to set foot onto British soil at any time."

That's relevant, indeed it's crucial information, because it tells us George Galloway, far from being a defender of free speech, is a defender of free speech for George Galloway, which is entirely different.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnis...887011-sun.html

[DogOnPorch]

Galloway is a hypocrite

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnis...887011-sun.html

Excellent point, Alta4ever.

[guyser]

Galloway is a hypocrite

Agreed

[capricorn]

Galloway is a hypocrite

He was also in support of the British parliament banning Geert Wilders from entering the UK.

As well, there’s no sign Galloway objected last month when Britain denied entry to Geert Wilders, a Dutch member of Parliament who has compared the Koran to Mein Kampf and blamed Islamic texts for inciting the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Banned...4784/story.html

It will be laughable if part of his defense in a possible Federal Court action invokes the right to free speech.

[tango]

(Alta4ever @ Mar 26 2009, 04:55 PM) *

Galloway is a hypocrite

Agreed

so what?

I thought the point was every asshole gets to speak?

Edited March 27, 2009 by tango

[Alta4ever]

so what?

I thought the point was every asshole gets to speak?

IS HE SILENCED? I HAVEN"T STOPPED HEARING ABOUT HIM FOR DAYS.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Alta4ever

[lictor616]

Excellent point, Alta4ever.

this does indeed change a lot...

I'm not so sure I would allow him his free speech anymore....