Apparently, diversity is white genocide.
Discussion
Vaud said:
s2art said:
Nope. Thats wrong. The body plan of Eskimos is quite different to the African body plan. Much stubbier arms and legs to minimise surface area and thus heat loss. No amount of 'adaptation' can overcome this. And it works the other way too, an Ethiopian has long limbs and a high surface area to volume ratio, ideal for shedding heat not so good for conserving it. There are other differences too, dark skin is good for resisting UV but lousy for generating vitamin D in low sun environments.
I always like to learn from PH. Are you saying they could not survive if they were, say, born into that region rather than the region of their parents? The body is remarkably adaptable. Can you cite some medical papers on your points around differing body plans and differing DNA being a barrier to adaptation into non-"native" climates?
Try http://adc.bmj.com/content/86/3/147.full
mattnunn said:
s2art said:
Vaud said:
s2art said:
The DNA difference between us and a banana isnt huge. Small differences in DNA can result in significant differences in the organism. Like to see an Ethiopian survive in the frozen north, or an Eskimo go walkabout in the outback. Both would do very poorly and would be unlikely to breed.
Given the same clothes and time to adapt (as in months/years) they would be able to, but that isn't DNA adaptation, thats a function of environment.Much as you would struggle in the outback or polar landscapes, assuming you aren't subjected to that environment as a learned set of behaviours from early life.
Man has been interbreeding for far, far too long for DNA to be significantly different in the way you allude to.
You think this unimportant?
s2art said:
Cant be arsed looking very hard for this, its pretty standard stuff.
Try http://adc.bmj.com/content/86/3/147.full
Living in a very multicultural area, the local doctors will tell it is true that the babies and mothers have that deficiency, but it is more due to a combination of over covering of the mother, baby and also - mothers staying inside a lot - often at their parents pressure, rather than a fundamental issue.Try http://adc.bmj.com/content/86/3/147.full
Let me see; low sunlight levels, high levels of skin covering due to religious / societal reasons combined with a case of mothers doing what their mothers did in the parents birth country rather than adapting behaviour for a UK environment. That article points out deficiency and remedy in key communities and lots of maybes. But hey, if you read structural DNA differences into that article, go for it, but it doesn't say that, in fact DNA isn't even in the article.
Anyhow, I didn't say there were no differences, I said people could adapt.
supersingle said:
White people only have themselves to blame. The only white people breeding at anywhere near replacement levels are the underclass, that will only last as long as the welfare state.
Why does it matter if there are more or less white people over time?TX.
Edited by Terminator X on Monday 20th January 23:49
Vaud said:
s2art said:
Cant be arsed looking very hard for this, its pretty standard stuff.
Try http://adc.bmj.com/content/86/3/147.full
Living in a very multicultural area, the local doctors will tell it is true that the babies and mothers have that deficiency, but it is more due to a combination of over covering of the mother, baby and also - mothers staying inside a lot - often at their parents pressure, rather than a fundamental issue.Try http://adc.bmj.com/content/86/3/147.full
Let me see; low sunlight levels, high levels of skin covering due to religious / societal reasons combined with a case of mothers doing what their mothers did in the parents birth country rather than adapting behaviour for a UK environment. That article points out deficiency and remedy in key communities and lots of maybes. But hey, if you read structural DNA differences into that article, go for it, but it doesn't say that, in fact DNA isn't even in the article.
Anyhow, I didn't say there were no differences, I said people could adapt.
Terminator X said:
supersingle said:
White people only have themselves to blame. The only white people breeding at anywhere near replacement levels are the underclass, that will only last as long as the welfare state.
Why does it matter if there are more or less white people over time?TX.
Edited by Terminator X on Monday 20th January 23:49
Colonial said:
I personally like this story about the white supremacist who was 14% black
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/w...
He has since had a freak out and is in prison.
This is what happens if you concentrate on such meaningless nonsense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf17W212Ps0http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/w...
He has since had a freak out and is in prison.
This is what happens if you concentrate on such meaningless nonsense.
s2art said:
Might be important to a Nepalese though. They are at high risk of blood clots when at sea level. Equally my lifespan would be severely truncated if I tried to live at altitudes a Nepalese person have no problem with.
You think this unimportant?
I think it's an entire irrelevance, although interesting medical and biological fact. I don't think you're seriously suggesting people have their freedom of movement dictated by their biological adaptations but it does seem to be where you're going.You think this unimportant?
thehawk said:
supersingle said:
Nothing really matters in the end. I'm making the point that European people have had their day. They're in decline like many people before them. Someone will come along and fill the void.
Which is a shame in many ways because we just gave it all up.What, I wonder (well, I don't really wonder; I am pretty sure that I know), is the agenda behind the argument that "Humans are naturally divided on racial lines"?
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 21st January 09:07
irocfan said:
I've seen that clip before, quite funny in places and disturbing in others.Clearly the guys got a few bulbs out and I take issue with him picking on the couple who didnt fit his ideas of who should marry who, not only that his use of names to debase the guy Bobby, referring to him as a "pet", I didnt like that at all, not on.
But, bringing me back to the subject of enforced segregation vs enforced integration and why one is considered abhorrent but not the other.
If cobb the nob wanted a whites only enclave, why shouldnt he be allowed to have one?
Freedom of expression, religion and thought etc should still apply even if it goes against the majority view, "minorities" apparently have to be catered for, after all we have "muslim only" areas in britain and no one bats an eyelid over it, I cant help feeling that double standards are being applied.
There are no muslim only areas in Great Britain. Where do people get this stuff?
(Discount private homes, and some mosques, although many mosques are open to anyone, and there are other religious groups that have places of worship and schools reserved for those who follow the religion in question. I would, BTW, ban State-funded religious schools of all kinds, but that is another debate).
(Discount private homes, and some mosques, although many mosques are open to anyone, and there are other religious groups that have places of worship and schools reserved for those who follow the religion in question. I would, BTW, ban State-funded religious schools of all kinds, but that is another debate).
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 21st January 09:26
There is nothing to stop Ron the Racist or Rashid the Racist from buying a private compound and operating it as his only little haven of purity, but if we are looking at the public sphere, arbitrary distinctions between people based on ethnicity are insupportable.
Imagine a chunk of land, not in private ownership, where no person who is not a member of Group A can go (leave aside gender segregated changing rooms at public pools, for obvious reasons). What if a member of Group B wants to pass through the A zone to get somewhere else, or to look at the pretty butterflies that are found there? What if a member of Group B is injured and the nearest medical centre is in the A zone?
Imagine a chunk of land, not in private ownership, where no person who is not a member of Group A can go (leave aside gender segregated changing rooms at public pools, for obvious reasons). What if a member of Group B wants to pass through the A zone to get somewhere else, or to look at the pretty butterflies that are found there? What if a member of Group B is injured and the nearest medical centre is in the A zone?
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 21st January 09:28
Breadvan72 said:
There are no muslim only areas in Great Britain. Where do people get this stuff?
Seek and ye shall find, a cursory search with google turns up.....http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2367/european-mu...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2263905/Mu...
http://technorati.com/politics/article/no-go-zones...
I am not sure if you are being serious, but fear that you are. Have you (a) read any of that and (b) applied any sort of critical reasoning to it?
I mean, really: The Daily Mail? A Telegraph article about a plan? Two whackjob blogs that appear to have agendas as big as Mount Rushmore?
Can you identify a public space in Great Britain that is muslim only? Er, no, you can't.
I mean, really: The Daily Mail? A Telegraph article about a plan? Two whackjob blogs that appear to have agendas as big as Mount Rushmore?
Can you identify a public space in Great Britain that is muslim only? Er, no, you can't.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 21st January 09:37
Breadvan72 said:
There is nothing to stop Ron the Racist or Rashid the Racist from buying a private compound and operating it as his only little haven of purity, but if we are looking at the public sphere, arbitrary distinctions between people based on ethnicity are insupportable.
Imagine a chunk of land, not in private ownership, where no person who is not a member of Group A can go (leave aside gender segregated changing rooms at public pools, for obvious reasons). What if a member of Group B wants to pass through the A zone to get somewhere else, or to look at the pretty butterflies that are found there? What if a member of Group B is injured and the nearest medical centre is in the A zone?
Non of which answers the question of why enforced segregation is considered bad and enforced integration is apparently good.Imagine a chunk of land, not in private ownership, where no person who is not a member of Group A can go (leave aside gender segregated changing rooms at public pools, for obvious reasons). What if a member of Group B wants to pass through the A zone to get somewhere else, or to look at the pretty butterflies that are found there? What if a member of Group B is injured and the nearest medical centre is in the A zone?
Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 21st January 09:28
No one is forced to integrate. How many muslims have you been forced to have living in your house? How often each day are you forced to pray towards Mecca?
Also, I thought that the usual complaint about "them" was that "they" don't integrate with "us", which seems to imply that integration is what people should do when they migrate.
Enforced segregation bad? Apart from what I said above, have you ever heard of pre Civil Rights America, or Apartheid South Africa?
Also, I thought that the usual complaint about "them" was that "they" don't integrate with "us", which seems to imply that integration is what people should do when they migrate.
Enforced segregation bad? Apart from what I said above, have you ever heard of pre Civil Rights America, or Apartheid South Africa?
supersingle said:
Nothing really matters in the end. I'm making the point that European people have had their day. They're in decline like many people before them. Someone will come along and fill the void.
Well no.European people will remain but will become slightly browner over time with a much higher likely hood of shouting "Alans Snack Bar" regularly.
.
That too I doubt. Muslim numbers are not rising at nearly the rate that the panic-mongers suggest, and over time the attractions of Alan's Snack Bar may pale, as tends to happen with all loony cults. Bear in mind that around these parts we used to believe in some dead bloke who walks about and whose mum was a virgin. Can you imagine such tosh? Most of us have got over it these days.
Breadvan72 said:
I am not sure if you are being serious, but fear that you are. Have you (a) read any of that and (b) applied any sort of critical reasoning to it?
Can you identify a public space in Great Britain that is muslim only? Er, no, you can't.
Well youd be wrong then, wouldnt you?Can you identify a public space in Great Britain that is muslim only? Er, no, you can't.
I can relate a story from a relative some years ago where the street they lived in was inhabited by white folks from top to bottom.
Sometime around 1959 an asian family moved into a vacant house on the terrace and all appeared well.
Until they started to apply pressure to the neighbour on one side of the terrace, an elderly fellow whos property they had offered to buy from him for their relatives coming in from wherever.
When the gent wouldnt sell they began to ramp up the pressure further, engaging in a campaign to make his life harder, making noise, damaging his property, shouting at him in the street and generally being ars*holes to try and force him out.
He eventually karked it and they immediately bought up the house and moved their relatives into it who started to do the same thing to the ones on the other side, who surprise surprise decided to sell up and move out and so it continued.
Today theres not one single white family in that street, its entirely asian owned, its an asian only area.
I could tell you where it is but you can probably guess.
Pull your head out of your posterior, all is not sweetness and light in the multicultural utopia.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff