Like I said earlier in the thread...
You are obviously made very uncomfortable by the fact that you liken yourself as a "master teacher" and I am more educated and knowledgeable than you.
lol..."sparred"?
Again, I cast no aspersions on anyone for taking a stand against racial inequality, nor did I say dude is white.
I said he's an ignorant buffoon just inarticulately ranting about hating crackers and he obvious has a great deal of white DNA himself. I think it's funny because he's shytting on himself to some extent and seems indicative of some of type of self-hate or inferior complex.
I'm not sure why you're so butthurt and what you keep
for over a simple innocuous comment expressing the finding of humor in this for. And these comparisons to Malcolm X are just
I know a little something about genetics, as all the regular posters here dating back years to the sohh days can attest to. Got a B+ in Genetics when I took in college. What about you?
@skin color having nothing to do with race. "Race" is a socially constructed concept used to categorize and classify people who share geographical origin and phenotypical characteristics. Skin color is obviously one of those phenotypical characteristics.
Almost everybody is "mixed" to some extent or another, particularly black Americans, and both Josh Freeman and Seti are obviously both pretty mixed.
Just because Josh Freeman has one white parent and Seti's parents are both black doesn't mean Seti isn't mixed, dummy. Obviously one of both of Seti's parents are mixed to a pretty good extent.
Are you related to Art Barr?
There's links on this very site to podcasts where I debate with other posters here, every single one of them more intellectually formidable than Polight.
The problem with you konsciousness clowns is you view debate as some kinda dikk-measuring ego-fest of performance art where you battle and compete with each other for kudos, when sensible people know debate is about the free flow and sharing of information from the parties involved in order to provide potential insight and usable knowledge to the participants and listeners.
A guy like Polight is not even worthy of debate to anybody with any sort of education because anybody who is educated and learned such as myself knows he is utterly lacking in education and has no clue what the fukk he's talking about.
A "debate" between me and him wouldn't even be that because I'd be shooting at a 10 foot goal and he'd be dunking on a 7 foot goal.
So as far as who would "win" it would depend on what criteria you're basing it on. If you're judging it based on who could put on a more entertaining performance with dynamic delivery of stringing together a bunch of nonsense and random factoids and prepackaged memorized talking points that don't mean anything rapid fire-style, he's your winner.
If it's about actually debating substantively about issues using logic and facts, I win in a 1994 Undertaker vs. Barry Horowitz squash match.