Racism row rocks parliament in France

Barros Serrano wrote:

<quoted text>
You're still ignoring that I am condemning ISLAM, not all Muslims. I have stated this repeatedly. You are starting to sound like Attai, prevaricating in order to maintain the leftist fiction that we must "respect Islam" as if it is just another of many diverse cultures...
No, it is an evil social system bent on world domination which will remove all freedom and culture from us.
DEATH to ISLAM! As for Muslims... they can always convert. I advocate that govt funds be allocated to buy every Muslim a copy of the Upanishads.

Barros Serrano wrote:

<quoted text>
Do they all unite to defend women's rights, to defend women from purdah (slavery)? If the Left actually stood up for women's rights in Europe, watch how quickly the Muz would turn on them, lol...
So... the Left feels that it is more important to kiss Muz ass than to defend women's rights, is the only conclusion we can draw... That is pathetic and I will not stand with such hypocrites.

Savant wrote:

<quoted text>
"Respect Islam"? I find too much nonsense in religion, both Islamic and non-Islamic. The human and civil rights of the religious believer, Muslim and non-Muslim, is a different matter. THAT must be respected. Beyond that, my respect for Islam and all other religions has more the character of civility and cordial tolerance. Also, political astuteness.
Exclamations like "Death to Islam!" is at least as counterprodutive as "Death to America!" once shouted in the streets of Tehran. Also, the likelihood that most of the 1.5 billions of Muslims will convert to another religion is slim at best.
But of those who are open to leaving Islam altogether, I'd rather recommend they read Tom Paine's AGE OF REASON. In France, they may be reading Voltaire and Descartes anyway...or Marx.

attai1 wrote:

<quoted text>
You are confusing the 2010 study by the same Dr Lewis' team of Cardiff university which dealt indeed with the attractiveness of mixed-race people in Europe/UK because the panel is made of European male and female students.
We are referring here to the NEW study based on the facial attractiveness. Your calculations are irrelevant : it has nothing to do with mixed marriages in the US or in the UK.
The document itself is not accessible as far as i know : i've tried but failed to find it Once again here is what the SEARCHER Dr Lewis says and the description of the experiment, that is truly dealing with "perception", "attractiveness" and "faces" i.e. not what you are talking about.
"Dr Michael Lewis, from Cardiff University’s School of Psychology and lead of the study, said that existing explanations of interracial marriage based on racial, economic or social factors were unable to explain the asymmetries.
The study, involving 40 undergraduate students, collated ratings of attractiveness of faces of 600 opposite-sex faces categorised by their race – black, white and Asian
The students, aged between 18 and 30, were also of these three ethnicities.
Black male faces, on average, were rated as most attractive, followed by white faces and then Asian, while – for females – Asian faces were seen as the most attractive on average, followed by white and then black faces
“It is no coincidence that groups perceived as being more attractive – black males and Asian females – feature more often in mixed-race marriages than their opposite-sex counterparts,” SAID Dr LEWIS."
a whiteboi

Mack wrote:

<quoted text>
The paper does not present any facial attractiveness data I should know since I've actually read it.

Barros Serrano wrote:

<quoted text>
Can that happen? Why didn't the Muslim world have an Enlightenment? Even the Inquisition-mongering Vaticanazi-dominated Christian West managed to do it... and it was Muslims who brought them the books! Muslims created the environment of open discourse which let it happen! The Renaissnce is by some credited to the open intellectualism of the court of Roger II, King of Sicily, who was himself inspired by the Moors his father had conquered.
Yet Islam clamped shut, and waves of fundamentalism stifled that Moorish environment of intellectual freedom as they had earlier put an end to the mental activity in the Caliphate.
Today there are Christian churches preaching a social gospel. We see Dr. King emerging from a Christian tradition of calling for ever-expanding freedom based on Jesus' teachings, while the Islamic world is convulsed with paroxysms of jihad, imams are teaching that women must be removed from view, crowds are calling for the death of freedom...
The problem of over a billion Muslims is real. The masses aren't the originators of the Islamofascism which threatens us, but Muslim clerics and their political puppets rule many countries which when not threatening their non-Muslim neighbors and the world are viciously repressing their own citizens.
I don't see how Islam can be regarded as any less evil than corporate capitalism. And I see it as more pernicious and insidious, as it is fueled by its own lies about paradise and heavenly rewards for denying the utility of freedom and culture for those living on earth. I cannot see any other religion which has held onto these characteristics, even though Roman Imperial and Medieval Christianity once did.
Is Paine available in Saudi Arabia or Iran? But I checked at Barnes & Noble when I was in L.A. a few months ago, and there was plenty of Islamopropaganda on the shelf. TWO books on Hinduism. Lots of Christian stuff, most of it of the self-help type. Nothing from the Christian right, Christian Identity, etc. And we live in the belly of the beast, so to speak, with regard to corporate power. There is a big difference. I would say one solution is to pursue a policy where no government can be Islamic, by that I mean not even run by Muslims. Porkistan, Sudan, Iran, the PA, all have proven to be viciously repressive and dangerous. They simply cannot be entrusted with political power anywhere.

Mack wrote:

<quoted text>
Do not be ridiculous. That study is about inter racial marriages and why those people picked the partners that they did. All that paper shows is that black males tent to marry/date more so outside of their race then black females do. The paper does not present any facial attractiveness data. It isn't about black men being more popular among European women because if that was the case then black women are the least popular among European men. The study also states that even though mixed marriages are accepted, the norm/most popular trent among people of all races is still to stick to their own race. For example, in the UK 0.24% of white females marry black males, and the corresponding percentage for the US is 0.56%. Since blacks make up roughly 1/10 of the population in the US, then if race was not an issue, we'd expect white females to marry black males about 10%+ of the time; the empirical figure is about ~20 times lower both in the US and in Europe.

Judged:

1

1

1

PTBW Forever wrote:

the natives are taking back Europe, get used and stop being so hypocritical.
They should do everything in their power to make sure Europe is European/white.
La Pen's idea to completely do away with the European Union is just common sense, it should have never been created in the first place.

Barros Serrano wrote:

How could the FN destroy freedom in France, then? Is it not impossible? Our own govt under GW was torturing, and the Patriot Act was an attack on freedom, but how successful will this be? Also, you are speaking of Marine Le Pen's father, not her.
I do not support them, but nor could I tolerate Islamic rule in any way. They are attempting to take over every country in Europe. They are institutionally closer to this goal in the UK than in France, but it is happening everywhere.
Would you like to live under Shari'a? Visit Saudi Arabia and see...
If you think "it can't happen", that may be true for x number of years into the future. But it can happen...
In the USA, creeping Shari'a will also result in victories for the right. I do not like the right, whether in the USA or France; I am warning that THAT is what will happen if the Islamification of Europe is not stopped, and reversed.

Judged:

1

1

1

attai1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Provide the link please to back your statement.
i"ve provided quotations from Dr Lewis, you haven't provided anything except "I've actually read it" which is not enough, i'm sorry.
So i can check why Dr Michael Lewis is saying the contrary, word per word, of your statement ahead, Dr Lewis being the author and responsible of the 2nd study.
Maybe this scientist has become schizophrenic with 2 opposite speeches ?
i guess however that's more an invincible state of denial on your side ... i've seen how some Topix Black women posters (? supposedly) can join hands
with the regular white kkk posters in order to trash Black men (Capree, SBT and some others for example).
i hope you're not one of them, the sis' of SBT.
a whiteboi

Judged:

1

1

attai1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Provide the link please to back your statement.
i"ve provided quotations from Dr Lewis, you haven't provided anything except "I've actually read it" which is not enough, i'm sorry.
So i can check why Dr Michael Lewis is saying the contrary, word per word, of your statement ahead, Dr Lewis being the author and responsible of the 2nd study.
Maybe this scientist has become schizophrenic with 2 opposite speeches ?
i guess however that's more an invincible state of denial on your side ... i've seen how some Topix Black women posters (? supposedly) can join hands with the regular white kkk posters in order to trash Black men (Capree, SBT and some others for example).
i hope you're not one of them, the sis' of SBT.
a whiteboi

Savant wrote:

<quoted text>
A National Front government cannot TOTALLY destroy freedom in France unless they demolish the Republic as fascist did in Germany. However, given the French revolutionary tradition of popular insurgency, Front fascists may not be able to hold and consolidate power. But if they succeeded France would become fascist, and French liberty would die.
Of course, a rebellious French population might prevent the consolidation of a fascist regime.
But a Front government may settle for making serious erosions of French democratic liberties rather than a sudden and unceremonious extirpation of the Republic. Then a lot would depend on how long they remained in power and how much damage they could do while holding power. The erosion of freedom might be fatal even if the Republic (at least in name and form) is not quickly extinguished.
Most likely, they would make extreme inroads against French democratic liberties and the French constitution. If they were able to do that, and revolutionary insurgency didn't end their evil measures, then the Republic would be severely compromised, and France might experience the slow death of democracy.
The Front would have to appeal to racism, Islamophobia--maybe anti-Semitism even though that's not as respectable as it once was.
The 4% of the French population who are Muslims--many only nominally so--hardly constitutes a threat to French democracy.
However, fear of the Muslim or immigrant might give the French Right a scapegoat and a ticket to power.
French democracy cannot be destroyed by militant Islam, at least not in the near future (or with the kinds of Muslims who live there).
But it might be destroyed by the secular Right, using Muslims or other immigrants the way the Nazis used Jews and Communists.

Judged:

1

1

1

Savant wrote:

<quoted text>
From what i've read males (of whatever "race"( date and marry "out" more than do females. I suppose this is the same both in Europe and America.

Mack wrote:

<quoted text>
First and formost I am not a black female. Secondly Its about mixed race marriages. Its right in the title of the paper " ---> Interracial Marriage <---".
 
They used shoddy research material to come to their dubious conclusions that were limited by a number of facts, including the fact they had a "naive" (their word not mine) assistant pick pictures from facebook for their suppose 'study'. You can't scientific test what a person considers attractive or not, such things are based upon personal opinions that often varie from person to person, not science. If we take what they say seriously we are suppose to believe that black women are the least attractive? This paper has no scientific merit behind it and it is mostly garbage.

attai1 wrote:

<quoted text>
oh okay you're the usual whitey kkk hater of Topix.
So you do not have any quotation and any link ...
Speaking of "garbage" ...
a whiteboi

Savant wrote:

<quoted text>
A National Front government cannot TOTALLY destroy freedom in France unless they demolish the Republic as fascist did in Germany. However, given the French revolutionary tradition of popular insurgency, Front fascists may not be able to hold and consolidate power. But if they succeeded France would become fascist, and French liberty would die.
Of course, a rebellious French population might prevent the consolidation of a fascist regime.
But a Front government may settle for making serious erosions of French democratic liberties rather than a sudden and unceremonious extirpation of the Republic. Then a lot would depend on how long they remained in power and how much damage they could do while holding power. The erosion of freedom might be fatal even if the Republic (at least in name and form) is not quickly extinguished.
Most likely, they would make extreme inroads against French democratic liberties and the French constitution. If they were able to do that, and revolutionary insurgency didn't end their evil measures, then the Republic would be severely compromised, and France might experience the slow death of democracy.
The Front would have to appeal to racism, Islamophobia--maybe anti-Semitism even though that's not as respectable as it once was.
The 4% of the French population who are Muslims--many only nominally so--hardly constitutes a threat to French democracy.
However, fear of the Muslim or immigrant might give the French Right a scapegoat and a ticket to power.
French democracy cannot be destroyed by militant Islam, at least not in the near future (or with the kinds of Muslims who live there).
But it might be destroyed by the secular Right, using Muslims or other immigrants the way the Nazis used Jews and Communists.

Mack wrote:

<quoted text>
First and formost I am not a black female. Secondly Its about mixed race marriages. Its right in the title of the paper " ---> Interracial Marriage <---".
 
They used shoddy research material to come to their dubious conclusions that were limited by a number of facts, including the fact they had a "naive" (their word not mine) assistant pick pictures from facebook for their suppose 'study'. You can't scientific test what a person considers attractive or not, such things are based upon personal opinions that often varie from person to person, not science. If we take what they say seriously we are suppose to believe that black women are the least attractive? This paper has no scientific merit behind it and it is mostly garbage.

attai1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Sir,
i agree, Front National is not in fact a major threat even with a 20% Marine Le Pen because she is like Gingrich or Palin, she cannot be elected. See 2002 election of Chirac and Le Pen father.
The chances of F.N. to have a big group in our House of Representatives are very, very low. Naturally radical Muslims are just a pretext, a smoke screen.
The major risk is more Sarkozy if he is reelected with a far-right campaign because he will have then a majority in Parliament and so the far-right policy will be effective and harming real people.
a whiteboi

Savant wrote:

<quoted text>
What paper are you and Attai talking about? Looks like we all got off the theme of racism in France, the the Martiniquan brother blowing the whistle on some jive.

Savant wrote:

<quoted text>
What paper are you and Attai talking about? Looks like we all got off the theme of racism in France, the the Martiniquan brother blowing the whistle on some jive.