What if Wlad fought Lewis instead of Vitali the night of 2002

Genetic clustering for the Irish is different than the English. End of discussion.

 

I think people forget just how easy Wlad could poleaxe Lewis if Lennox made one fatal error.

 

I don't think people forget that - No more than they forget how easy it could go the same way, in favour of Lewis, if Wlad "made one fatal error". So, it's not a case of forgetting; more a case of what people think is most likely. And, in mid-2003, a Lewis win is more probable.

 

Herol, you are sounding like a confused blind nitwit that is randomly pre judging what genetic change is and isn't,,,,,on a boxing forum, lmao,,,,,,

 

if you are so confident that's the end of the discussion, then explain why genetic clustering is different.

don't hold back, I'm finishing a degree in medicine so nothing will be lost on me.

 

I think anyone who isn't biased recognises the fact Wlad had a punchers chance. But Lewis has to be favoured. For Wlad to get the KO, Lewis would have to have a bad day, for Lewis to KO Wlad he just needs to not have a bad day and overlook his opponent.

 

English relates to the word England. it is derivative of the nation, not of ethnicity.

The word that you are looking for is not nationality - you simply mean ethnicity.

The concession I can allow you is that these definitions are not 100%, because terms are oten used loosely, compounded with a human being's make-up simply being a very complex issue.

Why don't you simply admit that you mean ethnicity, instead of trying to pretend that nationality is superceded by ethnicity. It would save you a lot of trouble.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people

That's why a person belonging to a diaspora of a certain ethnicity is referred to as that ethnicity. That's pretty much why when I ask people here in the States what their ethnicity is I usually get a hodgepodge of miscellaneous European backgrounds thrown into their response. I never got 'American' as an answer.

 

That's ridiculous. That's like saying the Swedes or Norwegians aren't their own ethnicity because they are offshoots of old Germanic tribes.

 

from your Wikipedia website. -


"The English are a

This content is protected

and

This content is protected

native to

This content is protected

, who speak the

This content is protected

"

nation and ethnic group.
so the english are a nation, by your own source (not mine!)

the English are native to (ie BORN IN) England.

and the term is not 100% conclusive like I said - there is room for other definitions to be inclusive to it but not to be higher in meaning. Being english is being about from England, foremost.


Anthony Joshua speaks English as his first language, acts English, cultures English, supports England. He shares anglosaxon derived culture that everyone here does. He was BORN in England. Therefore he is English by birth.


the only thing you shouldda added was "kliturd self destructs once again" since it'd save me the bother of saying it..

 

There is no " Kliturd" self destruction over here re****. The Wikipedia page mentioned the English as an ethnicity that is separate from all others. Native to England as in they have been there for over a millennium. I don't see any blacks or Asians on that list of of prominent English people with their photos. Of course you don't because unlike Lennox Lewis, Tyson Fury, and Anthony Joshua are not genetically English. If an Englishman were born in Nigeria and pick up Nigerian languages and cultural customs, he would still be English while somebody like Joshua would not.

Genetics matters most. No amount of your politically correct squabble will ever change that.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m09oauEWjv1qeablwo1_250.jpg

 

losing your temper wont help you win an argument, kliturd. it makes you more likely to get rope-a-doped.

ethnicity is not limited at all to genes. kliturd self destructs once again.

you seem interested in such millennia-long derivations, yet fail to notice that the word native derives from the word "born in" I origin and current meaning. kliturd self destructs once again.

you aren't looking for them. you self destruct your own attempts to look, as a good kliturd does.

so its ethnic one minute, and then genetic the next. Which do you really mean - are you referring to skin colour? It sounds like it.

how can someone born in England (ie an Englishman) be also born also in Nigeria? LOLOLOLOL self defeating question there, kliturd self destructs again.


.

so it was ethnics that mattered most for you at the start of this post, but genetics at the end. Self destructive post, kliturd, both cant be the most important to you.

 

atsch

What I said from the beginning, you blithering idiot, is that someone's genes predominate everything else when trying to figure out ethnicity. Seriously, WTF is so hard to understand that Brits, Swedes, Irish, Danish, ect. are all different from one another, and the people born into those groups will be that ethnicity no matter where they are born or what cultural customs they pick up. A Frenchman for example born in Japan will never be identified as Japanese and be seen as an outsider.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_American

I wonder why there are no colored folks here.

 

O RLY?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles

 

By that logic there's no such thing as English since we have been invaded and conquered **** knows how often.