Quote Originally Posted by Thatperson View Post
well im not sure where you draw the line of human/non-human but some of our recent ancestors were lacking pigmentation (not needed due to the fur, i assume), as we lost our fur, then humans became black, and as the proto-eurasians moved out of africa, the pigmentation was lost. Not that it is relevent, My ancestors may have had black skin, and their ancestors had white skin, I am white now.
Good to hear. You also acknowledge that special cultural traits aren't passed down through parents, so I'm not sure what your conception of racial identity is.

I don't really get your response, I said would you mind if in 50 years the UK resembled those areas, you haven't given an answer yet. As to the riots, yes they were disproportionately non-white. I suppose in Manchester it was more white than not, but pretty much everywhere else it was majority non-white. It was started by blacks in tottenham anyway.
How on Earth don't you get it? It wasn't complicated. In 50 years, if the UK was a poverty-stricken dump, obviously I wouldn't like it.

I suppose you have some kind of evidence that the riots were disproportionately black?

Even if you do it doesn't matter. Fact is white people and black people were acting in exactly the same uncultured manner, so your notion of racial identity is bunk.

Quote Originally Posted by Ne-yo View Post
I can't believe people still cling to the age old idea of human thermo-regulation as a possible result of humans losing fur.
wat