Are blacks better athletes than EVERY OTHER RACE [Archive] - Page 2

balli

10-04-2009, 02:03 PM

Then weigh in assfuck. Do you think blacks are better athletes? I don't. I think America is racist especially in sports. Starts at a young age. The coaches,leagues and schools have a color chart in their head to which position these kids can play. I certainly don't think whites are smarter and better leaders then blacks thus is why we have MUCH more white qbs in the league as some would say. It's all part of the color chart.

Look at basketball. White players are growing in the NBA. It's not white Americans though. In America "whites can't jump" How fair is that? The NFL has to interveiw a black man for the head coach. It's the league rules. Why doesn't the league mandate a white running back on every team?

You say I am encouraging bullshit sterotypes. That is BULLSHIT. I should be able to ask this question. It does not make me a racist. The numbers are crazy in American sports.

You're fucking retarded. After having spent some time in this thread not saying that, I just wanted to make sure I'm on the record. Fucking idiot.

jack sommerset

10-04-2009, 02:09 PM

So blacks are racist for being the majority in regards to certain skill positions... but there is no racism the other way in regards to whites holding the majority of leadership positions? (QB's, coaches)

That is your conclusion. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I think some of you are under the impression I am a racist. I am not. I know I am not popular with some of you because I don't like the gays (I don't hate them, i don't like their life style), I don't like Obama (not because he is black) think ILLEGALS should be arrested (don't care what color you are)and I don't believe in "God" from any of the folk stories.

I say jman there is racism both ways. But it's obvious by the pure number of blacks in the NFL something is going on. Could it black people are better athletes? I don't think so. What is your opinion jman?

ChumpDumper

10-04-2009, 02:21 PM

Which athletes do you think have been kept out of the NFL because they are white?

MiamiHeat

10-04-2009, 02:25 PM

There are many white tight ends and full backs, but barely any running backs.

Running backs are black because they got good slave running feet.

jack sommerset

10-04-2009, 02:39 PM

There are many white tight ends and full backs, but barely any running backs.

Running backs are black because they got good slave running feet.

Just for the record, I have been in this thread for some time now but I want to go on the record and say I disagree with above statement 100 percent.

I think whites are not in the NFL/NBA as much as blacks because the whites are not giving a equal chance. It starts in Pop Warner. By the time college hits the black kids are better because they had more chances growing up in regards to major sports in America.

MiamiHeat

10-04-2009, 02:43 PM

If a coach had a fast, great white player, he would play him.

Coaches don't give a shit if you are black or white or yellow. They care if you can play football and win them games.

The proof is when most american sports were segregated. Then you had coaches risking their careers and their LIFE to play black athletes because they were physically faster and stronger than the white ones.

They didn't care if they were black, and they withstood the criticism of playing these black kids over the white ones.

They only cared about winning.

Winehole23

10-04-2009, 02:47 PM

I think whites are not in the NFL/NBA as much as blacks because the whites are not giving a equal chance. It starts in Pop Warner. By the time college hits the black kids are better because they had more chances growing up in regards to major sports in America.Good night kisses from:

Can someone please explain to me why their are so few whites playing In the nba/nfl. I feel affirmative action is necessary to even the playing field,

Whites make up 78 percent of the population but make up 9% of the nba and 30% nfl. To me if we are to have affirmative action, lets not pick and chose where.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...#ixzz0StSjcJPR (http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/42193-affirmative-action-nba-white.html#ixzz0StSjcJPR)

ChumpDumper

10-04-2009, 02:47 PM

Just for the record, I have been in this thread for some time now but I want to go on the record and say I disagree with above statement 100 percent.

I think whites are not in the NFL/NBA as much as blacks because the whites are not giving a equal chance. It starts in Pop Warner. By the time college hits the black kids are better because they had more chances growing up in regards to major sports in America.Are there no white Pop Warner running backs?

jack sommerset

10-04-2009, 02:48 PM

The proof is when most american sports were segregated. Then you had coaches risking their careers and their LIFE to play black athletes because they were physically faster and stronger than the white ones.

That's bullshit. The shitty teams wanted to compete. They had a whole other group of good athelets to choose from to compete with so to risk there career and their LIFE they went after them. It was the shitty teams that started this crazy trend.

MiamiHeat

10-04-2009, 02:49 PM

You realize that the shitty teams with black players were consistently beating the white teams?

jack sommerset

10-04-2009, 02:50 PM

You realize that the shitty teams with black players were consistently beating the white teams?

no

MiamiHeat

10-04-2009, 02:52 PM

jack sommerset

10-04-2009, 02:52 PM

You realize that the shitty teams with black players were consistently beating the white teams?

I can only think of a couple and they made MOVIES about it.

MiamiHeat

10-04-2009, 02:52 PM

no

Well, now you know. The shitty teams that recruited black players were not shitty anymore, and they started beating all the white teams.

jack sommerset

10-04-2009, 02:54 PM

MiamiHeat

10-04-2009, 02:58 PM

Extra Stout

10-04-2009, 03:02 PM

So would it be safe to say that jack sommerset is a big fan of Brent Barry?

Winehole23

10-04-2009, 03:02 PM

I don't understand what sommerset is trying to imply here.

Is jack sommerset trying to imply that the United States athletics programs, from high school to professional level, were involved in a conspiracy to recruit black players over the white players solely because of their skin color, even though the country was inherently racist and would rather watch their sports teams have white players?Haven't you heard?

Racism doesn't exist anymore, except for the unjust persecution of whites by race hustlers.

The victimological totem pole has been inverted. Whites are the most persecuted now, and black superiority has been institutionalized. Society owes whites a handout for the disparity in the opportunities, the equities and for the ongoing prejudice.

An equal shot, that's all jack is asking for.

Please give whitey a fair shot.

jack sommerset

10-04-2009, 03:03 PM

USA was inherently racist when blacks began to dominate sports. That has changed now in 2009, but in 1959 it was different.

So, basically, you are saying all athletics programs in USA were involved in a conspiracy to recruit black people to prove we aren't racist.

That has so many flaws, I won't even bother.

Get out of of 1959. It shouldn't be hard. It's a trend that lasted to long and is unfair to our white,hispanic,asian youths. Back then you could have the pick of the lot from black athletes. Soon everyone wanted to do it. Now everyone is doing it. Take the wild cat formation. Dolphins started it. Became a success now a year later the whole league is doing it.

jack sommerset

10-04-2009, 03:03 PM

Haven't you heard?

Racism doesn't exist anymore, except for the unjust persecution of whites by race hustlers.

The victimological totem pole has been inverted. Whites are the most persecuted now, and black superiority has been institutionalized. Society owes whites a handout for the disparity in the equities, and the ongoing prejudice.

An equal shot, that's all jack is asking for.

Please give whitey a fair shot.

Pretty much. "Race hustlers." Very nice winehole.

jack sommerset

10-04-2009, 03:05 PM

So would it be safe to say that jack sommerset is a big fan of Brent Barry?

He was a Spew. I fucking hate him.

ChumpDumper

10-04-2009, 03:06 PM

Which athletes do you think have been kept out of the NFL because they are white?

Winehole23

10-04-2009, 03:09 PM

Pretty much. "Race hustlers." Very nice winehole.I threw it out there as a caricature of you.

Little did I think you would accept it as a description. :lol

MiamiHeat

10-04-2009, 03:12 PM

So jack, which athlete has been kept out of sports because he was white?

jack sommerset

10-04-2009, 03:13 PM

I threw it out there as a caricature of you.

Little did I think you would accept it as a description. :lol

:lmao I fucking love it.

jack sommerset

10-04-2009, 03:18 PM

So jack, which athlete has been kept out of sports because he was white?

Well Miami, that is a excellent question. I am assuming we are talking about NFL and NBA, not sports in general. If that is the case I did answer it. TONS. As I said the chance at stardom was killed long before these kids hit puberty because of racial sterotypes..

ChumpDumper

10-04-2009, 03:22 PM

Well Miami, that is a excellent question. I am assuming we are talking about NFL and NBA, not sports in general. If that is the case I did answer it. TONS. As I said the chance at stardom was killed long before these kids hit puberty because of racial sterotypes..Could you be more specific?

Give us some names.

Winehole23

10-04-2009, 03:34 PM

i should tell you guys I have no idea who lamarckian is.Um, we could tell.

Charles Darwin with a bad press.Eh, he was a great botanist and he's still foundational for taxonomy. His theory of heredity was eventually superseded, but the kernel, that heredity proceeds according to natural laws, surely influenced Darwin.

I don't remember my biology teacher slagging Lamarck. On the contrary, she pointed out his important contributions to science.

MiamiHeat

10-04-2009, 03:45 PM

If Lamarckian said that lifestyle can cause gene alteration which can potentially become hereditary, then the man was correct and modern science owes him an apology

Winehole23

10-04-2009, 04:04 PM

You're too much, MH. You should post more in here.

nuclearfm

10-04-2009, 04:12 PM

Then weigh in assfuck. Do you think blacks are better athletes? I don't. I think America is racist especially in sports. Starts at a young age. The coaches,leagues and schools have a color chart in their head to which position these kids can play. I certainly don't think whites are smarter and better leaders then blacks thus is why we have MUCH more white qbs in the league as some would say. It's all part of the color chart.

Look at basketball. White players are growing in the NBA. It's not white Americans though. In America "whites can't jump" How fair is that? The NFL has to interveiw a black man for the head coach. It's the league rules. Why doesn't the league mandate a white running back on every team?

You say I am encouraging bullshit sterotypes. That is BULLSHIT. I should be able to ask this question. It does not make me a racist. The numbers are crazy in American sports.

The Indiana Pacers and hickey throw off your numbers...

MiamiHeat

10-04-2009, 04:17 PM

What about the Utah Jazz?

jack sommerset

10-04-2009, 04:18 PM

The Indiana Pacers and hickey throw off your numbers...

Wrong again.

jack sommerset

10-04-2009, 04:18 PM

What about the Utah Jazz?

Nope

MiamiHeat

10-04-2009, 04:22 PM

Can you name specific players that wanted to be in the NBA or NFL but were racially discriminated against for being white?

Is this about you, jack? Did you want to be a running back for the Cowboys?

MiamiHeat

10-04-2009, 04:28 PM

You're too much, MH. You should post more in here.

Humans/scientists tend to love to give rules to everything.

"The speed of light is a constant, and nothing can go faster!"

Obviously, it's wrong. The speed of light is not a constant, it has changed over time, and there is no speed limit on the universe that says you cannot go faster. Universe is chaos. What we see today is where the marbles fell, but it's not rigid and static.

Evolution is not just a product of ONLY natural selection. I believe evolution is a mix of many different methods. Natural selection might be the majority, but not the rule. There are other factors involved, as well, even if they occur a smaller percentage of the time. They still contribute.

jack sommerset

10-04-2009, 04:29 PM

Can you name specific players that wanted to be in the NBA or NFL but were racially discriminated against for being white?

Is this about you, jack? Did you want to be a running back for the Cowboys?

I think I made my self perfectly clear on this question. The white kids are not giving the chance. They have already been sterotyped and are not giving the same oppurtunity as black kids.

You mention Utah Jazz. They have more white people on their team but most are not from America.

Winehole23

10-04-2009, 04:29 PM

Can you name specific players that wanted to be in the NBA or NFL but were racially discriminated against for being white?Faith-based, I suspect. I'm unaware of any actual cases.

The Reckoning

10-04-2009, 04:31 PM

ive heard several takes on why blacks are "better athletes." i heard one interesting prospective that it has alot to do with evolution. the theory was that europeans and africans developed different styles of athleticism because of the geography of the continents. europeans were generally shorter and stouter because of the rugged terrain, ie lots of mountains, while africans were taller and leaner due to the flatness of the savannah.

if football fields and olympic tracks were on the side of mountains, there might be a different outcome.

personally i feel like its more of an economic matter. the irish were generally considered the best athletes in the early 20th century. most of them were fresh off the boat and were in the lower class. nowadays african americans are considered the best athletes in the nation - they arent doing so well in the economy. since poor people generally cant afford a playstation or tv, outside recreation is their best form of entertainment.

ChumpDumper

10-04-2009, 04:37 PM

I think I made my self perfectly clear on this question. The white kids are not giving the chance. They have already been sterotyped and are not giving the same oppurtunity as black kids.So there must be no white running backs in high school either, right?

The ratio of white Pop Warner and high school football players must be the same as that of the NFL, right?

MiamiHeat

10-04-2009, 04:38 PM

Ok, so now I know some about Lamarckiasm (read last night and today)

How does this even make sense?
---------------------------------------
George Cuvier 1769-1832

Because of the weakness of Lamarck’s theory, it was relatively easy for the French scientist, Georges Cuvier, and other critics to discredit the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics.

Critics were quick to point out that if Lamarckianism was correct, the children of cowboys who have developed bowed legs as a result of a lifetime of riding horses would be born with bowed legs as well and the children of professional weight lifters would be born with enlarged muscles. It is obvious that these things do not occur.
--------------------------------------------

What the F?

That doesn't even make any sense. That is one of the stupidest methods/reasoning of disproving an idea I have ever read.

The shape your legs rides on a horse has no effect on this.

The changes would be in muscle use and predisposition to muscle strength in certain areas of your legs. For instance, instead of looking for bow legged children, how about we look for stronger than "normal" muscles around the thigh areas (no, not at birth), you know, muscles that horse riders would develop and strengthen a lot more than your non-horse riding human being.

Then test the ability for the children to develop muscle mass there more quickly than other 'normal' children, etc..

Do you get what I am saying?

How the hell did this pass off as a method of disproving lamarck? What a load of horse shit.

As for the body builder thing, so they seriously believe the only way to prove it is if babies are born with enlarged muscles? oh my brain hurts from the stupidity.

Winehole23

10-04-2009, 04:39 PM

Let em have it, MH!

MiamiHeat

10-04-2009, 04:48 PM

Winehole23

10-04-2009, 04:49 PM

Cuvier was a major figure in natural sciences research in the early 19th century, and was instrumental in establishing the fields of comparative anatomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomy) and paleontology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology) by comparing living animals with fossils. He is well known for establishing extinction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction) as a fact, being the most influential proponent of catastrophism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism) in geology in the early 19th century, and opposing the gradualistic evolutionary theories of Lamarck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarck) and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tienne_Geoffroy_Saint-Hilaire).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Cuvier

He repeatedly emphasized that his extensive experience with fossil material indicated that one fossil form does not, as a rule, gradually change into a succeeding, distinct fossil form. Instead, he said, the typical form makes an abrupt appearance in the fossil record, and persists unchanged to the time of its extinction (this is the well-documented paleontological phenomenon now referred to as "punctuated equilibrium").[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Cuvier#cite_note-14) In other words, Cuvier was a saltationist. While, like other saltationists, he offered no explanation of how saltational evolution might occur, he was skeptical of the gradual mechanisms of change that Lamarck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarck) and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tienne_Geoffroy_Saint-Hilaire) proposed. Moreover, his commitment to the principle of correlation of parts caused him to doubt that any mechanism could ever gradually modify any part of an animal in isolation from all the other parts (in the way Lamarck proposed), without rendering the animal unable to survive.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Cuvier#cite_note-15)

MiamiHeat

10-04-2009, 04:53 PM

I don't agree with Lamarck's theory by the way. He uses it as a way to explain evolution, phenotype variation and such

His theory has to be tweaked, to the micro level. Genetic alterations which help the organism survive in it's environment.

The organism won't grow a new tail, but instead, will have a stronger tail. The tail will be the same, a product of natural selection.

However, once a mutation occurs, through lifestyle of the organism, such as using the tail extensively in certain things, the muscles grow stronger in certain areas of the tail in DIRECT RELATION to the activities required for it's survival. This affects the genes and modifies/alters the expression and is thus passed onto off-spring

Winehole23

10-04-2009, 04:54 PM

Seriously, it's scientific fact in 2009 that your lifestyle causes genetic alterations, from expression to modification, you may even force certain genes to become completely dormant.

and we also know for a fact that certain kinds of genetic alterations can be passed onto off-spring.

The question is, what are all the different types? Modern science doesn't know yet

Lamarck's theory has to be polished and tweaked, fixed, but he was correct.Tell us more O Sensei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morihei_Ueshiba)!

Will this development lead to a race of super-athletes, led forth by Chuck Norris to conquer evil?

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/Fiana_Fail/ChuckNorris.png

MiamiHeat

10-04-2009, 04:57 PM

ok, read what I wrote please and tell me where I am wrong or doesn't make sense.

I don't agree with Lamarck's theory by the way. He uses it as a way to explain evolution, phenotype variation and such

His theory has to be tweaked, to the micro level. Genetic alterations which help the organism survive in it's environment.

The organism won't grow a new tail, but instead, will have a stronger tail. The tail will be the same, the tail is a product of natural selection, not lamarck's theory.

However, once a mutation occurs (natural selection), and that organism becomes successful with it's mutation, through lifestyle of the organism, such as using the tail extensively in certain things, the muscles grow stronger in certain areas of the tail in DIRECT RELATION to the activities required for it's survival. This affects the genes and modifies/alters the expression and is thus passed onto off-spring, enabling the off-spring to use the tail much better, until gradually, the tail's strength reaches it's optimal level of muscle mass and strength required for successful survival.

Thus, lamarck's theory was only incorrect when trying to explain the driving force behind evolution. Modern evolutionary synthesis is the main cause of evolution, with lamarck's theory as the support system for the mutations.

MiamiHeat

10-04-2009, 05:00 PM

holy shit. i am a genius.

NOBEL PRIZE PLZ

mouse

10-04-2009, 05:34 PM

holy shit. i am a genius.

NOBEL PRIZE PLZ

Wouldn't you rather have a banana and a Darwin key chain?

A buddy of mine who has been in the racing business all his life told me Blacks make very bad race car drivers in todays NASCAR races he says they lack concentration, just one distraction and you can hit the wall or another driver that is why you don't see many black NASACR drivers, so there is a trade off.

MiamiHeat

10-04-2009, 05:41 PM

remember, you read it here first.

you can show your gratitude, pictures of naked chicks accepted.

Winehole23

10-04-2009, 05:55 PM

And offered, apparently.

MiamiHeat

10-04-2009, 06:14 PM

I just merged modern evolutionary theory with lamarckian theory into a 100% working model, and it explains a lot that science currently did not understand

and that's all you have to say? hah.

mouse

10-04-2009, 07:28 PM

Ask Kori for a http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/icons/blackaward.gif

Extra Stout

10-04-2009, 07:33 PM

I don't know whether Lamarck's ideas about evolution are correct, but I'll say this for him, he heated up his pizza promptly.

Winehole23

10-04-2009, 07:41 PM

I prayed to God publicly for an end to the self-styled maestros and who does He send me?

Miami Heat and Mouse.

Winehole23

10-04-2009, 07:41 PM

I deserved it.

jack sommerset

10-04-2009, 07:45 PM

I wonder if NASA is racist. The clearly have more white astronauts than black astronauts. That's a combination of physical prowess,skill and brains.

Winehole23

10-04-2009, 07:46 PM

(Yawn)

jack sommerset

10-04-2009, 07:55 PM

(Yawn)

Go get some sleep son.

Winehole23

10-04-2009, 08:01 PM

Good idea.

2centsworth

10-05-2009, 04:10 AM

You think that the actions of slave owners had no effects? Let me see, they bread them like race horses so now we're seeing a more athletic population? I'm amazed.

:rolleyes.

summary of thread:

Manny goes Jimmy the Greek

Then Manny tries to divert attention from his faux pas by calling Cosmic Cowboy a racist.

Winehole tries to call people out, but he's too nice or liquored to such a thing correctly.

Chump trolls

Jack starts sounding crazy and irrational.

/thread

rascal

10-05-2009, 05:58 AM

FACT

a white won the 100 meter gold at the 1980 Olympics.

Jeff Query and Bob Beebe are faster than hell.

But can they catch a football?

LnGrrrR

10-05-2009, 09:31 AM

I would propose that Afghanistan is very similar to Africa as far as tribal loyalty taking precedence over state or nation loyalty. The tribes go with the flow and side with whoever happens to be "winning" at any given place and time. We will never get a positive outcome there no matter how many troops/resources we throw at it. It is what it is.

Yeah... those damn Afghanistans. We wouldn't have tribes in America where we accused the other tribe of hating America or anything. :lol

LnGrrrR

10-05-2009, 09:33 AM

Congrats? There are about 150 WR's in the NFL today. You found the one white dude and you think what? You think whites,asians,mexicans,etc have no soapbox to stand on? You really think blacks are the only ones that can play WR's? Come on son. Give me us a opinion. Do you really think Blacks are the only ones that can play that position or is the NFL,College,High School, Pop Warner racist? Are blacks better athletes than white or any other race? The numbers clearly say they are better? But are they?

There's also something to be said for opportunity, or lack thereof. Many of the WR's in the NFL came from poor to middle class families, and so saw atheleticism as a way to springboard to more money. White children probably have more opportunities to make money in other ways.

rjv

10-05-2009, 09:34 AM

dumbest thread of all time.

LnGrrrR

10-05-2009, 09:35 AM

You want a good question? How come the QB position has a much wider range of representation by caucasions than other positions? Are whites still seen as more intelligent, and therefore, better able to handle that position? Is it a statistical anomaly that will balance out? Does social class/upbringing affect how well one plays the QB position?

LnGrrrR

10-05-2009, 09:36 AM

Oh please. The difference is that after we kicked their ass in the war and they surrendered we went back in and "forgave and forgot" and rebuilt their governments and their economies. We didn't slit the guys throats and rape their women. There IS a difference.

I'm sure all those dead Japanese people really appreciated that.

DarkReign

10-05-2009, 09:56 AM

Well, I didnt read the entire thread and have no idea how it got to 13 pages, but...

Dont ask me why, I have no idea, but yes, it would seem Africans are ridiculously athletic per capita.

How else can you explain a minority population in this country (around 15% of total population) just completely dominate football and basketball in a country of 400+ million?

I cant. I dont know why, I couldnt even fancy a guess, but the results speak for themselves. NFL and NBA teams havent drafted anyone in the past 30 years based on race. They draft on talent and need alone, period. It just so happens the most talented seem to be black by and large (judging by the number of people taken every draft in both sports, more than half are black and I might bet 75%+)...I have no idea why and honestly, Ive never cared.

Sports is the one area in life where all are treated equally, regardless of any creed or color. Simply because if youre the best point guard, outside linebacker, center, halfback, QB, power forward, youre going to play, end of discussion.

balli

10-05-2009, 10:04 AM

he's too nice or liquored to such a thing correctly.
Ah irony...

hater

10-05-2009, 10:13 AM

IMO black ppl are the muscle car version of a human being.

they are bigger,faster, stronger and better looking. But they don't last as long as the older cars on the road.

LnGrrrR

10-05-2009, 10:14 AM

Just for fun, let's say the hereditary differences between races for certain measurable "cognitive" traits are perhaps reflected truely in questionnaires, the results of which may suggest that certain races are not as mentally robust as others.

Doing this sort of test would seem nigh impossible though. I don't know how you could control for all the factors that might affect intelligence.

Winehole23

10-05-2009, 10:16 AM

You just keep pointing to the IQ gap and say: what could possibly explain it?

Your intended audience will fill in the blanks.

LnGrrrR

10-05-2009, 10:39 AM

Not really. I'd be more comfortable if you called them witch doctors. I don't think of psychology as really being a science, though no doubt it dabbles in science.

Actually WH23, I just read an article (I believe it was on slate.com) about psychologists who use scientifically-proven methods to counsel, and those who rely on what they've personally seen to work. Interesting article, and it shows that some psychology is based on results-oriented research/science.

Winehole23

10-05-2009, 10:44 AM

Sure. Like economics and sociology, two other so-called sciences.

LnGrrrR

10-05-2009, 10:44 AM

That's bullshit. The shitty teams wanted to compete. They had a whole other group of good athelets to choose from to compete with so to risk there career and their LIFE they went after them. It was the shitty teams that started this crazy trend.

The Boston Celtics would disagree with you.

http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php?title=All-African_American_NBA_Starting_Five

rjv

10-05-2009, 10:49 AM

so when i watch manu, i am really watching a black man ?

LnGrrrR

10-05-2009, 10:49 AM

Sure. Like economics and sociology, two other so-called sciences.

Eh, I see a slight difference between psychology and economics/sociology. The difference? Patients can speak for themselves on the efficacy of the treatment.

Sure, there's things like selection bias and placebos, etc etc, but that happens with regular medicine as well.

If psychologists do X procedure, and it works 75% of the time, as opposed to Y procedure which works 30% of the time, then go with procedure X based off scientific research.

With economics and sociology, you can spin the data any which way you want... it's not like money and dead people can speak for themselves.

Winehole23

10-05-2009, 11:23 AM

Eh, I see a slight difference between psychology and economics/sociology. The difference? Patients can speak for themselves on the efficacy of the treatment.The satisfied customer. Ok.

That's different from economics for sure, but lots of things have satisfied customers.

Advertising and marketing have empirical analysis and satisfied customers; does that make it science?

DarkReign

10-05-2009, 11:58 AM

so when i watch manu, i am really watching a black man ?

Latinos dont count. Different thread.

rjv

10-05-2009, 12:03 PM

Latinos dont count. Different thread.

sorry. my mistake.

jack sommerset

10-05-2009, 12:07 PM

so when i watch manu, i am really watching a black man ?

No, you are watching a athlete from another country that did not have to go through the shitty sterotypes our country put race in. If he had to go through our sports system he would be playing soccer or baseball.

LnGrrrR

10-05-2009, 01:19 PM

The satisfied customer. Ok.

That's different from economics for sure, but lots of things have satisfied customers.

Advertising and marketing have empirical analysis and satisfied customers; does that make it science?

Eh, in a sense. For instance, if X tactic when advertising helps sell 50% more product, in the majority of campaigns it's used in, then that's using empirical research to back up a claim. (ie science)

Of course, that says nothing about the PRODUCT, or whether the ad was tasteful/truthful/arty etc etc. But I would think that if I were to make a claim, say that bandwagon commercials cause consumers to buy more product, then did the relevant research and laid out my findings, I don't see how it wouldn't be science.

ChumpDumper

10-05-2009, 01:38 PM

I'm sorry the blacks kept you from going pro, jack.

Winehole23

10-05-2009, 01:41 PM

But I would think that if I were to make a claim, say that bandwagon commercials cause consumers to buy more product, then did the relevant research and laid out my findings, I don't see how it wouldn't be science.I can see what you mean, but at the end of the day economics, sociology, psychology and things like mass marketing are essentially liberal arts straining to be sciences. They follow scientific procedures and review, but at their core human gooeyness dictates the limit of quantifiability and resists theory.

jack sommerset

10-05-2009, 01:51 PM

I'm sorry the blacks kept you from going pro, jack.

You should't blame blacks. It's not there fault. Fucking racist.

ChumpDumper

10-05-2009, 01:54 PM

You could have been a contender, jack.

I'm sorry the blacks and every Pop Warner coach in America ruined it for you.

David Bowie

10-05-2009, 01:55 PM

Tennis, Swimming, and some other soprts that nobody has ever heard of are mostly white.

DarkReign

10-05-2009, 02:15 PM

Tennis, Swimming, and some other soprts that nobody has ever heard of are mostly white.

The Williams sisters say "Hi".

hater

10-05-2009, 02:20 PM

You should't blame blacks. It's not there fault. Fucking racist.

of course it was the black's fault. they ran faster and jumped higher than you.

don't worry. eventhough you will not be making $$$ in sports endorsments at least you will have a decent life after 50s. give some take some

jack sommerset

10-05-2009, 02:32 PM

of course it was the black's fault. they ran faster and jumped higher than you.

That is racist.

at least you will have a decent life after 50s. give some take some

I eat red meat, I live next to a cigarette smoker, I have a cell phone, I drink soda, I ony go to the doctor once every two years (I pay for my own healthcare), I own a gun, I fuck without rubbers, and I drink water from the tap. I should be dead already!

hater

10-05-2009, 02:39 PM

That is racist.

nature is racist. just accept it and move on

I eat red meat, I live next to a cigarette smoker, I have a cell phone, I drink soda, I ony go to the doctor once every two years (I pay for my own healthcare), I own a gun, I fuck without rubbers, and I drink water from the tap. I should be dead already!

and yet, you will probably outlive most black men in your generation.

David Bowie

10-05-2009, 03:40 PM

The Williams sisters say "Hi".

I said mostly. And Serena is not the greatest of all time. Margaret Court, Steffi Graff and MArtina Navoratilova have all won a lot more grand slams then she has. The Williams sisters are great athletes. But if you look at the history of tennis (both men and women) , it is mostly a white sport.

jack sommerset

10-05-2009, 03:57 PM

I said mostly. And Serena is not the greatest of all time. Margaret Court, Steffi Graff and MArtina Navoratilova have all won a lot more grand slams then she has. The Williams sisters are great athletes. But if you look at the history of tennis (both men and women) , it is mostly a white sport.

All white and not American.

mogrovejo

10-05-2009, 03:58 PM

I can see what you mean, but at the end of the day economics, sociology, psychology and things like mass marketing are essentially liberal arts straining to be sciences. They follow scientific procedures and review, but at their core human gooeyness dictates the limit of quantifiability and resists theory.

Why? Agreed about sociology, most of the psychology, mass marketing and, of course, normative economics, but I think it's difficult to argue that economics isn't a science (and I don't particularly like the hard/soft science dichotomy). What are the criteria that make a field a science or not? Is meteorology a science?

LnGrrrR

10-05-2009, 04:13 PM

I can see what you mean, but at the end of the day economics, sociology, psychology and things like mass marketing are essentially liberal arts straining to be sciences. They follow scientific procedures and review, but at their core human gooeyness dictates the limit of quantifiability and resists theory.

True, but then you're REALLY limiting the definition of the word "science", in my eyes. Also, as 'gooey' as humans are, I think that many facts about the world can be just as gooey, or at least, human interpretation of those facts.

MiamiHeat

10-05-2009, 04:19 PM

and I drink water from the tap. I should be dead already!

Actually, in the United States, municipal water supplies are quite safe to drink. Bottled water is no safer to drink than city water.

mogrovejo

10-05-2009, 04:31 PM

Frankly, I'd be shocked if heritable traits for intelligence -- whatever those are -- were distributed in an equalitarian way. And I have little problem with the idea science could someday produce credible generalizations showing this.

I'm skeptical of the people who are so keen to know in the results right now,and a bit mystified about why the research is so important.

After all, differences of intelligence within racial groups is going to be much greater then the mean differences between them.

Isn't that suggestion of ulterior motives a way of conditioning the interest of people by using a bogey man? "Oh, this guy is researching the relationship between race, genes and intelligence, I wonder if he likes to burn crosses...".

The obvious problem with this kind of pressures - that are very intense and widespread in the academic/political world - is the precedent they open. I find the analogy with the creationism/evolutionism debate quite apt. It's a form of obscurantism to use scaremongering, even if with the best intentions and for good political reasons, to obstruct the discovery of the truth.

Maybe we're better without knowing some things. I admit that. All the preliminary evidence that points to an existence of a relationship between ethnic groups, certain genes, big head sizes and psychometric tests results will eventually lead to some racist groups claiming a scientific support for their political thesis. I don't see the big deal. It doesn't make them right in any way. But in the end we can't really know what things we're better without knowing, because we don't know what we don't know and it will prove to be futile: the impetus to search the truth is too strong.

What if there are some guys with a couple of alleles selected and their common in some populations but not others (and, because of that, have some sort of cognitive advantage)? Dr. Lahn research has pretty much settled that there are differences in brain function between groups. Yeah, probably asians are smarter than whites and whites are smarter than blacks because of their different evolutionary process. But as you say the differences withing groups are much, much larger, and, in the end, the difference in genetics is microscopic when compared with the similitudes.

The danger is that, as it's already happening, genetics research when it comes to the brain is abandoned because of the fear of repercurssions if "politically incorrect" results are find:

"You have to follow the data wherever it leads, but speculating in this field is dangerous," says Spencer Wells, head of the National Geographic Society's Genographic Project, a five-year, $40 million effort to collect DNA samples from 100,000 indigenous people. Dr. Wells says the project team might try to find evolutionary reasons for physical differences such as why Danes are taller than pygmies. But Dr. Wells says National Geographic won't study the brain.

This is grothesc because it has to do with pressure motivaded by political views and not sound scientif reasons. We know there are genetic differences between races that give advtanges or disavantges. Adult whites can digest milk much better than asians or blakcs. Some blacks have a gene that protects them from malaria that whites miss. Etc. etc. The brain is a potentially more dangerous territory, but that's not a good reason to not make science.

What has been happening to scientists like James Walton, Charles Murray, Arthur Jensen and many others is an absolute disgrace for a free and civilized society.

Winehole23

10-05-2009, 04:44 PM

Why? Agreed about sociology, most of the psychology, mass marketing and, of course, normative economics, but I think it's difficult to argue that economics isn't a science (and I don't particularly like the hard/soft science dichotomy). What are the criteria that make a field a science or not? Is meteorology a science?I would put it this way: what science seems more germane to questions relating to human heredity, sociology, psychology or biology?

mogrovejo

10-05-2009, 04:47 PM

I would put it this way: what science seems more germane to questions relating to human heredity, sociology, psychology or biology?

That question is difficult to answer that way. What do you do of a paper co-authored by a psychologist, a biologist and a geneticist? It's 2/3 science and 1/3 liberal art?

Winehole23

10-05-2009, 05:06 PM

The danger is that, as it's already happening, genetics research when it comes to the brain is abandoned because of the fear of repercurssions if "politically incorrect" results are find: Maybe. I doubt racial differences in heredity are really as important as you are suggesting.

This is grothesc because it has to do with pressure motivaded by political views and not sound scientif reasons. We know there are genetic differences between races that give advtanges or disavantges. Adult whites can digest milk much better than asians or blakcs. Some blacks have a gene that protects them from malaria that whites miss. Etc. etc. The brain is a potentially more dangerous territory, but that's not a good reason to not make science. The only reason you know this is that scientists are free to do science. Right?

What has been happening to scientists like James [Watson?], Charles Murray, Arthur Jensen and many others is an absolute disgrace for a free and civilized society.I can see what you mean with Arthur Jensen, but he is still a professor emeritus at UCal-Berkeley and he still publishes.

Charles Murray does whatever it is potted plants at the AEI do, and James Watson retired at the age of 79. Watson is free to pop off without fear of repercussions, and the AEI pays Charles Murray to do it. I see nothing disgraceful there.

Winehole23

10-05-2009, 05:14 PM

That question is difficult to answer that way.No it's not. It's easy to answer. That's why you had to tweak the example

What do you do of a paper co-authored by a psychologist, a biologist and a geneticist? It's 2/3 science and 1/3 liberal art?Maybe. I don't really know.

mogrovejo

10-05-2009, 05:34 PM

No it's not. It's easy to answer. That's why you had to tweak the example

It may be easy, I said difficult in the sense of irrelevant.

Maybe. I don't really know.

It's the product that matter, not the producer, when evaluating what science is. If not, if a geneticist writes a poem one would call it science.

Maybe. I doubt racial differences in heredity are really as important as you are suggesting.

What's the degree of importance I'm suggesting? What I said was that "research when it comes to the brain is abandoned because of the fear of repercurssions if "politically incorrect" results are find". I even provided an example. Are you saying that the genetics of the brain isn't important?

The only reason you know this is that scientists are free to do science. Right?Are they? Are you sure that some scientific works aren't being done because researches just don't want to bother to deal with accusations of racism?

I can see what you mean with Arthur Jensen, but he is still a professor emeritus at UCal-Berkeley and he still publishes.

Charles Murray does whatever it is potted plants at the AEI do, and James Watson retired at the age of 79. Watson is free to pop off without fear of repercussions, and the AEI pays Charles Murray to do it. I see nothing disgraceful there.

Oh please, what's disgraceful is to accuse scientists of being racists for no good reason. What's disgraceful for a civilized society is the appliance of the racism boggey-man to the field of science and the politicization of shouldn't be politicized.

MannyIsGod

10-05-2009, 06:25 PM

:lol Fuck you guys trying to slam meteorology. You should see the math I'm having to take. If you even try to consider it not a hard science you will go immediately on ignore.

MiamiHeat

10-05-2009, 06:37 PM

Isn't that suggestion of ulterior motives a way of conditioning the interest of people by using a bogey man? "Oh, this guy is researching the relationship between race, genes and intelligence, I wonder if he likes to burn crosses...".

The obvious problem with this kind of pressures - that are very intense and widespread in the academic/political world - is the precedent they open. I find the analogy with the creationism/evolutionism debate quite apt. It's a form of obscurantism to use scaremongering, even if with the best intentions and for good political reasons, to obstruct the discovery of the truth.

Maybe we're better without knowing some things. I admit that. All the preliminary evidence that points to an existence of a relationship between ethnic groups, certain genes, big head sizes and psychometric tests results will eventually lead to some racist groups claiming a scientific support for their political thesis. I don't see the big deal. It doesn't make them right in any way. But in the end we can't really know what things we're better without knowing, because we don't know what we don't know and it will prove to be futile: the impetus to search the truth is too strong.

What if there are some guys with a couple of alleles selected and their common in some populations but not others (and, because of that, have some sort of cognitive advantage)? Dr. Lahn research has pretty much settled that there are differences in brain function between groups. Yeah, probably asians are smarter than whites and whites are smarter than blacks because of their different evolutionary process. But as you say the differences withing groups are much, much larger, and, in the end, the difference in genetics is microscopic when compared with the similitudes.

The danger is that, as it's already happening, genetics research when it comes to the brain is abandoned because of the fear of repercurssions if "politically incorrect" results are find:

This is grothesc because it has to do with pressure motivaded by political views and not sound scientif reasons. We know there are genetic differences between races that give advtanges or disavantges. Adult whites can digest milk much better than asians or blakcs. Some blacks have a gene that protects them from malaria that whites miss. Etc. etc. The brain is a potentially more dangerous territory, but that's not a good reason to not make science.

What has been happening to scientists like James Walton, Charles Murray, Arthur Jensen and many others is an absolute disgrace for a free and civilized society.

Wow. I haven't read a quality post like this... since.... since I read one of my own posts. Definitely been a long time since I have read this type of quality from someone else.

:toast

nuclearfm

10-05-2009, 07:42 PM

:lol Fuck you guys trying to slam meteorology. You should see the math I'm having to take. If you even try to consider it not a hard science you will go immediately on ignore.

It is very hard, were are you going to school at?

nuclearfm

10-05-2009, 07:52 PM

Shouldn't you be posting at the stormfront sports forum jack?

The funny thing is that many many posts are of this type there.

jack sommerset

10-05-2009, 08:10 PM

The funny thing is that many many posts are of this type there.

Not a racist bone in my body.

NoOptionB

10-05-2009, 08:13 PM

If blacks are not dominating a certain sport, that just means they have not found it yet.

Hockey is the last frontier.

Once Tiger arrived, I even almost started considering Golf a sport for this very reason.

jack sommerset

10-05-2009, 08:17 PM

If blacks are not dominating a certain sport, that just means they have not found it yet.

Hockey is the last frontier.

That is wrong. Soccer,tennis,swimming,rugby,golf,baseball,etc.... . The blacks dominate in Americas top two sports. Football and basketball. The rest of the world is catching up with basketball. It's not like the sports are hiding. They have been around a long long time.

nuclearfm

10-05-2009, 09:57 PM

That is wrong. Soccer,tennis,swimming,rugby,golf,baseball,etc.... . The blacks dominate in Americas top two sports. Football and basketball. The rest of the world is catching up with basketball. It's not like the sports are hiding. They have been around a long long time.

If that's the case, why make a big thread about it? What you should look is at the obesity rates in this country, that and culture has a lot to do with it. I don't mean NFL type obesity either, I mean lazy fat ass obesity. Point is, you trying to describe something that you can't. It's stereotyping and yes it is racist.

Ginobilly

10-05-2009, 10:00 PM

Yes they are......I wish I was black!:depressed

anyways.....
Football: blacks >>>>>>other races
Soccer: blacks > other races (Brazilian blacks have dominated soccer for quite some time, but the gap is closing (i.e. Cristiano Ronaldo, Messi, Kaka, etc)
Basketball: blacks>>>>>>>>>>>>> other races. It's not even funny.
Strongman competitions: blacks<<<<<<<<<<whites
conquering and military strategy: Whites
Math: Asians

jack sommerset

10-05-2009, 10:15 PM

If that's the case, why make a big thread about it? What you should look is at the obesity rates in this country, that and culture has a lot to do with it. I don't mean NFL type obesity either, I mean lazy fat ass obesity. Point is, you trying to describe something that you can't. It's stereotyping and yes it is racist.

I'm tempted to break down your post but that is too much work. You r all over the place.

MiamiHeat

10-05-2009, 10:19 PM

If that's the case, why make a big thread about it? What you should look is at the obesity rates in this country, that and culture has a lot to do with it. I don't mean NFL type obesity either, I mean lazy fat ass obesity. Point is, you trying to describe something that you can't. It's stereotyping and yes it is racist.

I don't agree with jack sommerset, but making a thread about it is fine with me.

Nothing wrong with looking at facts, observing the situation, and taking a completely rational and scientific look at things. It's not racist to discuss it

Ginobilly

10-05-2009, 10:20 PM

These types of discussions and experiments are incredibly sensitive.

You can't even talk about genetic differences, such as physical traits, or differences in brain development, between whites/blacks/asians without people carrying pitchforks.

Even though it's completely rational, we can't talk about these things without people getting their politically correct hearts broken. It's perfectly OK to talk about brain development in apes, monkeys, birds, dogs, between breeds and such..

but when it comes to human, if you even THINK about trying to say "Whites have an increase in brain matter of at least 7% over blacks, enabling rational thinking and problem solving"

you would be hanged and labeled a racist.

Your exactly right. First of all, there's no such thing races. Scientist today are classifying humans, and breaking us down into sub ethnic breeds. We are more like dogs per say, with each human breed being susceptible to certain behaviors, physical and mental traits. I don't think it's racist....it's rather quite interesting.

Ginobilly

10-05-2009, 10:26 PM

MiamiHeat

10-05-2009, 10:31 PM

People also seem to forget that we are animals! We belong in the Animalia kingdom, along with dogs, horses, and rabbits. Our arrogance is quite indescribable, thinking that the biological laws don't apply to us.

:toast Agreed

It would help us understand each other a lot more, why we do things, why we behave certain ways, why we cheat, why we get angry and become violent, etc...

jack sommerset

10-05-2009, 10:33 PM

I don't agree with jack sommerset, but making a thread about it is fine with me.

Nothing wrong with looking at facts, observing the situation, and taking a completely rational and scientific look at things. It's not racist to discuss it

Damn straight but I think I am right. If you really believe a race is physically better suited for a job you have to think a race is better suited mentally for a job. I think neither. What I see is a race dominated in the top two American sports and there is a reason for it.

Winehole23

10-05-2009, 10:55 PM

It may be easy, I said difficult in the sense of irrelevant. Then why did you reply to it?

It's the product that matter, not the producer, when evaluating what science is. If not, if a geneticist writes a poem one would call it science. Good example. To me, Charles Murray writing a book about human intelligence is like a geneticist writing poetry.

What's the degree of importance I'm suggesting? What I said was that "research when it comes to the brain is abandoned because of the fear of repercurssions if "politically incorrect" results are find". I even provided an example. Are you saying that the genetics of the brain isn't important? Do you really think I did?:rolleyes

Let's just say I'm skeptical that advances in neurobiology are being held up by political correctness.

Are they? Are you sure that some scientific works aren't being done because researches just don't want to bother to deal with accusations of racism? I can't help it if researchers lack the courage of their convictions. They have only themselves to blame if they prize their reputations above their professional and personal integrity.

Oh please, what's disgraceful is to accuse scientists of being racists for no good reason. What's disgraceful for a civilized society is the appliance of the racism boggey-man to the field of science and the politicization of shouldn't be politicized.People get called names and everything gets politicized. It's a shame, but it's also not that big a deal.

What happened to Arthur Jensen isn't too common and it also happened 40 years ago, in a far more explosive social milieu. Putting it forward as an example of what happens to heterodox research now is misleading.

It's not like Dr. Murray lost his job or something; he was merely denounced as a racist: big effing deal. Then he got a lifetime sinecure with AEI. Wah.

Watson resigned in shame after spouting some jackassed foolishness. Was the furore overblown? Sure. But Dr Watson deserved the flames. What he said was just about totally unsupported by scientific data. Embarrass the institution, lose your job. Dr. Watson should've known better.

Ginobilly

10-05-2009, 11:02 PM

I going to put it in layman terms for everybody:

A long time ago Europe sent conquistadores to America to conquer the Natives and establish colonies. A lot of the men that Europe sent were quite strong: descendants of Viking/Basque warriors who were notorious for being big and strong. They weren't probably the fastest, but their brute strength and power was unmatchable. The natives were overwhelmed. Soon they started bringing in African slaves because the natives just couldn't cut it. Africans aren't known for being strong, but they are agile,tall, fast, and have a history of being exposed to European diseases, thus making them better options for intense labor. A lot of those strong European men raped those helpless poor African Women, thus giving birth to hybrids. Those hybrids got the best of both worlds. The brute, physical strength of the European man, plus the quickness and agility of the African. This happened, as MH has explained for generations(selective breeding), creating some of the worlds best athletes that we see today.

jack sommerset

10-05-2009, 11:07 PM

MiamiHeat

10-05-2009, 11:09 PM

So in a nutshell, without slave-breeding, blacks would be inferior to whites in athleticism as well?

What a loaded question. You just want to imply someone is racist.

It's obvious, without slave breeding, they would be just like native africans.

Ginobilly

10-05-2009, 11:11 PM

So in a nutshell, without slave-breeding, blacks would be inferior to whites in athleticism as well?

Yup. American blacks got the best of both worlds through selective breeding. Whites are the strongest race on earth. It's no secret why they always win the strongman competitions.

jack sommerset

10-05-2009, 11:13 PM

it's not that I'm racist. it's just the blood that flows through my veins is superior.

Superior in what is the question? Prisons are full of a certain race. That is a fact. Is it fair or are they wrongfully prosecuted.

MiamiHeat

10-05-2009, 11:14 PM

it's not that I'm racist. it's just the blood that flows through my veins is superior.

I know you are being sarcastic, but you are wrong in trying to paint others that way

Nobody is superior. Just because, as a population, blacks or whites or asians have an advantage in X subject, it doesn't mean it pertains to ALL of the race.

It's just the 'average'. Every person is still different and could defy the average.

Ginobilly

10-05-2009, 11:14 PM

How come those hybrids did not inherit the superior intelligence?

That's more of a question of the social class infrastructure that the slaves were put into by the slave owners. The tools were there, but whitey book blocked out of an education.

MiamiHeat

10-05-2009, 11:16 PM

Yup. American blacks got the best of both worlds through selective breeding. Whites are the strongest race on earth. It's no secret why they always win the strongman competitions.

I was talking about selective breeding in the USA with the slaves.

American slave owners brought the european traditions. Horse and dog breeding practices were well established and understood by the time of slavery in america. Slave owners did the same thing with their slaves.

The biggest strongest males were valued and were worth more money. Their children were worth more money.

Females that were strong and fertile were worth more money, also.

MiamiHeat

10-05-2009, 11:18 PM

How come those hybrids did not inherit the superior intelligence?

White slave owners would kill any slaves who were reading books or trying to learn. They kept them ignorant on purpose to control them.

Ginobilly

10-05-2009, 11:19 PM

I know you are being sarcastic, but you are wrong in trying to paint others that way

Nobody is superior. Just because, as a population, blacks or whites or asians have an advantage in X subject, it doesn't mean it pertains to ALL of the race.

It's just the 'average'. Every person is still different and could defy the average.

exactly! Each of us just have our strengths and weaknesses in certain things, and it's nothing to be ashamed of.

jack sommerset

10-05-2009, 11:22 PM

I was talking about selective breeding in the USA with the slaves.

American slave owners brought the european traditions. Horse and dog breeding practices were well established and understood by the time of slavery in america. Slave owners did the same thing with their slaves.

The biggest strongest males were valued and were worth more money. Their children were worth more money.

Females that were strong and fertile were worth more money, also.

Have you not left your house in 50 years. Whites are fucking blacks, Blacks fucking whites, asians fucking mexicans....... The top golfer is half black half philipino. There is no breeding.
People are fucking who they want. It's society who chooses who they want to suceed!

Ginobilly

10-05-2009, 11:23 PM

I was talking about selective breeding in the USA with the slaves.

American slave owners brought the european traditions. Horse and dog breeding practices were well established and understood by the time of slavery in america. Slave owners did the same thing with their slaves.

The biggest strongest males were valued and were worth more money. Their children were worth more money.

Females that were strong and fertile were worth more money, also.

I've read about it. Sad but true. But Europeans also introduced a lot of their genes also onto the slave population.

Ginobilly

10-05-2009, 11:28 PM

Have you not left your house in 50 years. Whites are fucking blacks, Blacks fucking whites, asians fucking mexicans....... The top golfer is half black half philipino. There is no breeding.
People are fucking who they want. It's society who chooses who they want to suceed!

That's the case now, but back then things were a lot different. Same thing how women have slowly but surely gotten more freedoms and rights as we progress for the better.

jack sommerset

10-05-2009, 11:32 PM

I'm telling you motherfuckers blacks are not better athletes! Nor do I think any race is better at anything over another race. You wanna talk about why a certain race does not have a chance in a certain feild, my ears are wide open. Don't tell me there is no such thing as reverse racism. It's alive in America, just look at football and basketball.

Ginobilly

10-05-2009, 11:36 PM

Are we talking with, or without steroids?
Does it really matter? I hate to admit it, but when it comes to fighting and conquering, whites have scoreboard on almost 3/4 of the native populations across the world. What could we do? We are just lucky whitey has had a change of heart over the last 150 years.

MiamiHeat

10-05-2009, 11:41 PM

No no no my friend, I welcome these kind of topics, and take no offense to anything that may be implied as racist. We're too emotional these days, and a lot of this shit needs to be put out front. Its easier to accept a person when you know how they truly feel. Now, back to the point. There are still native Africans that have never been fortunate enough to go through the whole breeding process like the American Negro, yet the native African is nowhere close to being as athletic as his Caucasian counter-part. Also, would you consider Martial Art as an athletic?

Martial arts is different. It depends on the fighter's skill, it doesn't matter what style he practices or what race they are. It doesn't matter how big and strong you are, a smaller, less athletic fighter can still win. So athleticism doesn't really matter as much when talking about martial arts.

There are overweight, 40 year old black belts that will kick my ass.

MiamiHeat

10-05-2009, 11:43 PM

Does it really matter? I hate to admit it, but when it comes to fighting and conquering, whites have scoreboard on almost 3/4 of the native populations across the world. What could we do? We are just lucky whitey has had a change of heart over the last 150 years.

When it comes to white military dominance, how much of it can be attributed to intelligence?

Superior weapons, superior tactics, much better organization of government and military chain of command, etc...

jack sommerset

10-05-2009, 11:48 PM

Well, blacks do have a history of surpassing whites in sports that they were previously excluded from. Football, basketball, baseball, now tennis, and golf.

Dude that is WRONG! There are like 3 black tennis players in the history of TENNIS that anyone talks about. Arthur Ashe and the Williams sister. There is one "black" golfer whose mom is philipino and he is not been determined as the best in the history books. Baseball is full of whites and Latinos. The true American sports are football and basketball. Seeing we are all here because of basketball because of this site I think we can agree the NBA is gaining ground in non black americans. Soccer has like one black star. Swimming...NONE. Hockey NONE.. Race horsing NONE... Bowling...WTF are you talking about? It's two sports in america you make your opinion on.

Ginobilly

10-05-2009, 11:52 PM

When it comes to white military dominance, how much of it can be attributed to intelligence?

Superior weapons, superior tactics, much better organization of government and military chain of command, etc...

I think it's 50/50. You cannot send a very smart but physically weak dude, cause he will get his ass kicked regardless of his intelligence

MiamiHeat

10-05-2009, 11:57 PM

Could it be that the brute strength of these whites came from some selective breeding that the Moors took part in while conquering the majority of southeastern Europe, mainly Spain and Portugal?

It's all really irrelevant.

The point of the thread is black americans. It doesn't matter if we are all mixed.

The black americans, who are born physically strong and more athletic than other races, are a product of slavery.

Ginobilly

10-06-2009, 12:01 AM

Could it be that the brute strength of these whites came from some selective breeding that the Moors took part in while conquering the majority of southeastern Europe, mainly Spain and Portugal?

It could be. It is well documented that the Spanish used Basque warriors in the conquering of the Americas. Those dudes are known for their strength and power/athleticism. Same with the English. They used their biggest and baddest of warriors which were the descendants of the viking. If you were to conquer a nation back then...would you send your Steve Kerr's or your Brock Lesnar's?

jack sommerset

10-06-2009, 12:10 AM

Well, you got me on horse racing. One black Soccer star??? I think you misunderstood my question, but carry on.

:lmao Yeah, thats all I said.

MiamiHeat

10-06-2009, 12:14 AM

This is true, but its not because of slavery alone. The black Egyptians were not a mixed race, nor slaves, yet were far more superior physically, and some would say mentally as well than whites.

Are you one of those conspiracy people who believe that egyptians were a black civilization?

The black Moors were also not a product of slavery, yet they conquered the majority of southeastern Europe, both physically and mentally.

military conquests have much more to do with superior military strategy and weapons/armaments than the physical strength of the soldiers.

MiamiHeat

10-06-2009, 12:56 AM

No, sorry, they weren't black. Africa does not = black. Yes, there were blacks in egypt, even black pharoahs, but it was not a 'black civilization'

As Egypt reached the end, it became more of a 'mix' than any 1 race. However, primarily, Egypt was closer to a sumerian civilization than a nubian one.

The skin color in art work in tombs, coffins or sarcophagi, had nothing to do with a depiction of what the owner's skin color was in real life. They are symbolic. For instance, using the color black means the person is dead.

http://www.egyptianmyths.net/colors.htm

I've heard this conspiracy theory before and I can tell you with 100% certainty that it's not true.

MiamiHeat

10-06-2009, 01:13 AM

and I forgot to mention

The Moors weren't black, either.

MiamiHeat

10-06-2009, 01:51 AM

They sure do look Nubian/black. The Sumerians (Iraqi people) were none other than the brothers of Persians/Arabs. Why do you keep calling it a conspiracy when Egypt is in Africa, the people there look like they have African decent, and the history that they left behind proves that they were black. Not to mention, the GIZA is much older than the the history we have of the Sumerians. Your story folds like a lawn chair when we investigate the truth. The only conspiracies we have about Egypt is that there were Jews there as slaves that built pyramids.

Africa does not = black.

The Moors were arab.

I really am not going to waste my time showing you the proof. Go read about it yourself or you can continue your conspiracy theory. You are black, right? Only blacks who need a self-esteem boost buy into the revisionist bullshit propagated by other black afrocentrists.

The scientific community will tell you that Egyptians looked pretty much like what modern egyptians look like, and that the Moors were Arab. The only time sub-saharan africans (black) peoples were used by Moors as soldiers in Spain was in the 12th centruy. The Moors invaded Spain first, before they had sub-saharans. The Moors had already invaded Spain in the 8th century, and they were only arab.

I'm really not going to waste my time. It's a conspiracy theory. Modern science laughs at these conspiracies. "Whitey did it to steal our culture!"

MiamiHeat

10-06-2009, 01:54 AM

(1) Arabs and Beduins conquered the Maghreb.

(2) Immediately after they crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and conquered Spain.

(3) South Saharan Africa (Mali, Shonghai) were conquered by the Moors AFTER they conquered Spain. The Moors WERE NOT the same people than Black Africans.

(4) There is only one record of Subsharan troops in Spain and it was in the 12th century, not in the 8th. The reaction of Spaniards to those strange people, both from Muslims and Christians alike, was noticeable, and that fired the beginning of the end of the Reconquist. Three centuries later Muslims were gone from Spain.

These are the Moors.

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/h-orient_to_rome/images/orient10.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/anahita_whitehorse/bayad-wa-riyad-3.jpg

MiamiHeat

10-06-2009, 01:55 AM

Where would Spain be if it weren't for those Nero Moors.

there is no reason to believe they were black in the first place. The Moors were a group of Berbers led by Arabs, from North Africa, and neither the Berbers, Arabs or French for that matter are black today. It's very likely the Arabs brought with them Negroid slaves, as they did everywhere, but how many there were of these is hard to estimate, and it is unreasonable to assume they were a dominant or major element. Negroes were generally not held in very high regard by the Arabs. The famous 14th century sociologist Ibn Khaldun, an Arab from an upper class Andalusian family, writes of the Negroes:

"The only people who accept slavery are the Negroes, owing to their low degree of humanity and proximity to the animal stage. Other persons who accept the status of slave do so as a means of attaining high rank, or power, or wealth, as is the case with the Mameluke Turks in the East and with those Franks and Galicians who enter the service of the state [in Spain].

Ibn Khaldun as quoted in Bernard Lewis' book "Race and Colour in Islam".

Africa is home to indigenous Caucasoid peoples(one example Berbers), and has been for over 30,000 years. Sub-saharan peoples are mainly black, and that's what you must be thinking about, but don't make the mistake of saying africa = black, because it's false

MiamiHeat

10-06-2009, 02:09 AM

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Travel/Egypt/BedouinBoyOnCamel.jpg

He's not black.

MiamiHeat

10-06-2009, 02:11 AM

:lol

I pegged you correctly without even knowing you. You are black.

Big surprise :sleep

Only blacks who need a self-esteem boost like to practice in afrocentrism and claim a conspiracy theory. It really is sad. I have met people like you and have wasted my time to show them the evidence that they are wrong...

MiamiHeat

10-06-2009, 02:14 AM

http://www.insideoutmag.com/0305/images/tagged/Allison%20Falk/girl_tamil_nadu.jpg

She's not black, either.

MiamiHeat

10-06-2009, 02:18 AM

By the way,

even IF everyone just sat back and didn't correct you, let you believe that egyptians/moors were black...

that still doesn't have anything to do with you. American blacks are descendants of western africa. Nothing to do with egypt or the moors.

Sorry.

Did they forget to tell you that part?

MiamiHeat

10-06-2009, 02:33 AM

Did that hurt you?

Afrocentrist beliefs are a joke, lakaluva. Do the research. Scholars will tell you the same.

MiamiHeat

10-06-2009, 02:39 AM

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/photogalleries/tut_mummy/images/primary/tut8.jpg

http://www.digitaldreammachine.com/blogimages/ddm/KingTutFace.jpg

damn what a conspiracy theory. grrr those evil white devils! they are all lying!

MiamiHeat

10-06-2009, 03:03 AM

It is a truly sad case of the inferiority complex where one feels that the achievements of a certain people are so small one has to steal the achievements of others. Think about what a grave insult this is to your people.

MiamiHeat

10-06-2009, 03:17 AM

Son, I have heard all of your beliefs before from other people. There's nothing special about you. Afrocentrists are ridiculed wherever they go.

It is really sad to have such an inferiority complex like that.

I leave you with the words of the famous historian, Herodotus

Herodotus used Libuwa indicating Libya while he called the Libyans Libyes in the Greek language. From his point of view, Libya was the name of the African continent, while "the Libyans" were the light-skinned North Africans, whereas the southern Africans were known as "the Ethiopians" to him.

lebomb

10-06-2009, 06:50 AM

How come there are no Chinese or Japanese in the NFL? or NHL? Fuckin racist!!!!

LnGrrrR

10-06-2009, 07:04 AM

:lol Fuck you guys trying to slam meteorology. You should see the math I'm having to take. If you even try to consider it not a hard science you will go immediately on ignore.

The math may be hard, but you only have to come up with the right answer 50% of the time.... :lol

LnGrrrR

10-06-2009, 07:06 AM

Damn straight but I think I am right. If you really believe a race is physically better suited for a job you have to think a race is better suited mentally for a job. I think neither. What I see is a race dominated in the top two American sports and there is a reason for it.

You insisting that the reason is X truth doesn't make it true.

DarkReign

10-06-2009, 08:44 AM

Well, this thread went about the way I thought it would.

NoOptionB

10-06-2009, 09:31 AM

King Tut LOL

rjv

10-06-2009, 09:35 AM

Well, this thread went about the way I thought it would.

and back to point A at that, with no conclusion drawn about anything except for the fact that everyone is a self-proclaimed expert on race and human behavior.

jman3000

10-06-2009, 09:48 AM

Different ethnicities are different physically, perhaps mentally as well, but I think adaptation to sorroundings has more to do with your physical makeup than your mental.

Indian's from the Peruvian Highlands have somewhat larger hearts because their bodies adapted and needed the extra oxygen in the oxygen poor environment of the mountains. That doesn't make them better or worse than other people. It just makes them what they are. Each one of those bastards would probably make a great long distance runner.

I'm sure there are thousands of other differences (other than appearance) between different groups and that's all fine.

jman3000

10-06-2009, 09:50 AM

This thread is ultimately about penis envy most likely.

LnGrrrR

10-06-2009, 10:03 AM

This thread is ultimately about penis envy most likely.

It's my firm belief that penis ratio is directly linked average posterior size.

Black - Large booty, large penis
Asian - Small booty, small penis
White - Both, both

Discuss. :lol

rjv

10-06-2009, 10:06 AM

It's my firm belief that penis ratio is directly linked average posterior size.

Black - Large booty, large penis
Asian - Small booty, small penis
White - Both, both

Discuss. :lol

now you went an opened pandora's box. we will have to hear all sorts of opinions on the state of a flacid penis versus an erect one and then theories on the need for a large ass in order to endure the heat of the sahara.

jman3000

10-06-2009, 10:09 AM

Well, if you look at it from a nature POV, penis and ball size is related to the size of the female's genitals and the amount of competition one has in their territory.

Asian women are really, really, really tight and tiny... so it would only be natural for their male counterparts to be able to fit them comfortably. It has nothing to do with "Oh you have a tiny peepee hahah" it's "you naturally have a smaller penis because the women your ethnicity has been fucking for 100,000 years have really tight snatches"

I'm not sure if it's the bigger the sack the more competition or the reverse. I know mountain gorillas have really tiny wangs and really big balls.

jman3000

10-06-2009, 10:12 AM

God damn I must have seen that on the Discovery Channel over 5 years ago. I'm a bit worried I remembered a fact about a primate's balls.

rjv

10-06-2009, 10:13 AM

google is going to be curious as to why so many there are so many searches for "evolutionary theories about the penis" and "lamark and the ass" today.

rjv

10-06-2009, 10:14 AM

God damn I must have seen that on the Discovery Channel over 5 years ago. I'm a bit worried I remembered a fact about a primate's balls.

as long as you're not at the zoo standing in front of the gorilla's cages all day you should be fine.

Ginobilly

10-06-2009, 10:49 AM

I don't know what everybody is getting worked up one? I mean, come on! We have it really good here than in Africa. We could get to watch Basketball, drive expensive cars, have sex with white/Mexican/whatever chicks, and eat Tacos and fried Chicken! I ain't complaining! Que mas quieres?

The Reckoning

10-06-2009, 11:09 AM

meh. someday we'll all look the same anyway because exotic women are fiiiiiiine

JamStone

10-06-2009, 11:25 AM

IronMexican

10-06-2009, 11:30 AM

CosmicCowboy

10-06-2009, 11:32 AM

LnGrrrR

10-06-2009, 11:44 AM

Methinks cc missed the joke.

CosmicCowboy

10-06-2009, 12:13 PM

apparently

DarkReign

10-06-2009, 12:17 PM

Hold on. Race doesn't have a cotton pickin thing to do with athleticism. It's about the individual. When an athlete slaves away to make his body fast and strong, the credit goes to him or her, not some master notion of race or genetics. It's an individual's desire to free himself or herself from the chains of physical limitation the body has on itself. So that athlete will push his or her body like it's being cracked by a whip to get the most athleticism it can out of it. Credit the individual, not the race.

This sounds well and good to the politically correct crowd, but when 15% of the population composes 85%+ of two professional leagues, the facts speak differently.

I dont know why and I couldnt fancy a guess as to why it is the way it is, but the bottom line is that black people are (per capita) better athletes than white people.

They dominate track, American football and basketball. Im sure that list could be longer, thats just off the top of my head.

I think if there were a concentrated effort on the part of black athletes to excel in other areas (swimming, etc), they would as well.

I only speak from an American perspective. Black people compose 15% of the total population, yet they dominate in athletics. Most are not rich or come from well-educated families.

Hell, lets just say it, most are poor and from poverty stricken families. Yet, without the benefit of money for trainers, camps and nutritionists or congenial surroundings, they come out of poverty to absolutely dominate in their sport of choice.

How many players are taken in the NBA/NFL draft are black? Nearly all of them. Nearly every one.

Thats athletic domination from a stark minority of the population. Hell, if Mexicans dominated it wouldnt be as curious only because Latinos make up something like 30% of the population, double that of African-Americans.

No, the facts speak for it. Black people, in America, are (per capita) freakish athletes when compared to any other ehtnicity.

DarkReign

10-06-2009, 12:17 PM

Guess I missed the joke, too. Oh well.

JamStone

10-06-2009, 12:45 PM

hee hee

Apparently, I wrote it well enough and subtly enough...

rjv

10-06-2009, 01:06 PM

hee hee

Apparently, I wrote it well enough and subtly enough...

it would have made jonathan swift proud (or andy kaufman). well done.

CosmicCowboy

10-06-2009, 01:10 PM

I just assumed you were a fucking idiot. You wouldn't be the first one in here.

rjv

10-06-2009, 01:19 PM

i really liked the like "a cotton picking thing to do..."

nice touch

nkdlunch

10-06-2009, 01:33 PM

0AReqPVFliM

DarkReign

10-06-2009, 02:30 PM

I just assumed you were a fucking idiot. You wouldn't be the first one in here.

:lmao

I know JS from the Pistons forum, not an idiot by any stretch, but this still made me laugh.

Blake

10-06-2009, 09:51 PM

Well, this thread went about the way I thought it would.

It's about 10 pages too short.

lebomb

10-07-2009, 08:52 AM

hee hee

Apparently, I wrote it well enough and subtly enough...

I got it, and I almost LULZ, but I didnt. :depressed

jack sommerset

10-08-2009, 08:55 PM

I guess it's cool there are only handful of black head coaches in the NFL/College and maybe High School. Sure. Gotcha. No racism in Americas number one sport.

ChumpDumper

10-08-2009, 09:22 PM

So how many black head coaches are there in college?

Give us a number, jack.

Blake

10-08-2009, 09:51 PM

I'd like to know how many black coaches should there be. what's a good percent?

ChumpDumper

10-08-2009, 09:54 PM

Sounds like jack should go into coaching since the blacks kept him from going pro.

Creepn

10-09-2009, 01:50 AM

I really am not going to waste my time showing you the proof. Go read about it yourself or you can continue your conspiracy theory. You are black, right? Only blacks who need a self-esteem boost buy into the revisionist bullshit propagated by other black afrocentrists.

You're white huh? You are white. I knew that the first moment I read your posts. It seems like your the one needing some kind of esteem boost by trying to deny the history of black civilization. It's sad you feel that you have to feel superior to be proud of your race.

Also, I recall you saying that all blacks did was dance around a bonfire.

mogrovejo

10-09-2009, 09:18 AM

Could it be that the brute strength of these whites came from some selective breeding that the Moors took part in while conquering the majority of southeastern Europe, mainly Spain and Portugal?

Well, they conquered almost the entire Peninsula Iberica (Portugal and Spain still didn't exist, they were formed during the reconquista, by the end of the 10th century), but that's far from a majority of southeastern Europe.

In any case, it didn't last long and there was nothing remotely closed to a large scale slavery instituted, let alone something like selective breeding. For much of the occupation, Christians and Moors lived side by side (many cities and villages in Portugal and Spain have neighbourhoods called "Mouraria", that were where Moors . For example, alliances between a Christian king and a Moor king to fight another Moor king (or vice-versa) were pretty common. And there was no kind of racial conflict: Moors weren't blacks or anything, everybody was coming from the ruins of the Roman Empire. The division was basically religious: basically every Portuguese of Spaniard has a dozen of Christianized Moor in his ancestry.

The reason why the Iberians people later conquered and discovered most of the new worlds had nothing to do with strenght but with thecnichal advancements that were mostly a product of their geographical location. The Moors occupation played a role because it allowed the locals to take contact with techniques developed by them.

MiamiHeat

10-09-2009, 09:35 AM

You're white huh? You are white. I knew that the first moment I read your posts. It seems like your the one needing some kind of esteem boost by trying to deny the history of black civilization. It's sad you feel that you have to feel superior to be proud of your race.

Also, I recall you saying that all blacks did was dance around a bonfire.

Incorrect. I'm not white.

So there goes your theory. and there is no evidence that the Moors or Egyptians are 'black history'. You are a conspiracy theorist that 99% of the world's scholars do not agree with, in fact, afrocentrists are seen as nutjobs and ridiculed where they go.

mogrovejo

10-09-2009, 09:37 AM

Then why did you reply to it?

To correct it.

Good example. To me, Charles Murray writing a book about human intelligence is like a geneticist writing poetry.
Yeps, that's a great example: there's no reason why a geneticist can't write great poetry. Goethe, for example. A philosopher can make science and a scientist can make philosophy: Theilhard de Chardin, for example. And obviously Charles Murray can make good science or write a good book about human intelligence.

It's very telling that you don't even try to dispute anything Murray wrote. You just attempt to disqualify him by citing his academic qualifications. You don't even look at the opus, just at the man. That's nothing more than an uncivilized ad hominem argument, with no substantive value.

Let's just say I'm skeptical that advances in neurobiology are being held up by political correctness.I refer you to the quote about the NG program.

I can't help it if researchers lack the courage of their convictions. They have only themselves to blame if they prize their reputations above their professional and personal integrity.Really? So, let's see: you make the bullish insinuation that if a scientist is investigating the genetics of the brain and populations, he has ulterior motives and is a racist. Then if the financers opt to cut funds because they don't want to be associated with accusations of racism or the guy thinks "the heck witht his, I don't want to be a martyr", they lack professional and personal integrity. This is bullyism at his best and a reasoning ever applied by obscurantists of all ages (v.g. Galileo).

I don't know if the idea that those who can't resist to unfair and bullyish public and peer pressure is scientifically tested, but I'm pretty certain that it is wrong.

People get called names and everything gets politicized. It's a shame, but it's also not that big a deal.

What happened to Arthur Jensen isn't too common and it also happened 40 years ago, in a far more explosive social milieu. Putting it forward as an example of what happens to heterodox research now is misleading.

It's not like Dr. Murray lost his job or something; he was merely denounced as a racist: big effing deal. Then he got a lifetime sinecure with AEI. Wah.

Watson resigned in shame after spouting some jackassed foolishness. Was the furore overblown? Sure. But Dr Watson deserved the flames. What he said was just about totally unsupported by scientific data. Embarrass the institution, lose your job. Dr. Watson should've known better.I see that for you being unfairly denounced as a racist and losing jobs because of that is not a big deal because it happens all the time. Dully noted.

Nash2TimeMVp

10-09-2009, 12:52 PM

the reason them negroes are so atheletic is because in afrika back in the day their grandpappy's used to dodge, run and wrestle them lions and tigers and shit, one with nature and that mumbo jumob gave them six packs and stuff.

but whites still have the best pg to ever play basketball, so it's all cool.

jack sommerset

10-09-2009, 12:54 PM

rjv

10-09-2009, 01:15 PM

Nash is Canadian. If he grew up in America he would never had a chance.

tell that to larry bird.

jack sommerset

10-09-2009, 01:36 PM

tell that to larry bird.

I guess when Jackie Robinson was palying ball you could say "America was not racist towards blacks in baseball, tell that to Robinson"

Tell Mike Singletary the NFL is not racist when they make teams interview blacks for head coaching there is not a race problem.

rjv

10-09-2009, 02:21 PM

I guess when Jackie Robinson was palying ball you could say "America was not racist towards blacks in baseball, tell that to Robinson"

Tell Mike Singletary the NFL is not racist when they make teams interview blacks for head coaching there is not a race problem.

someone woke up waiting to bitch and bitch. save it for the cable company.

if you toned down your ebenezer meter just a notch you'd get that my point was that nash most definitely would have made it in the NBA had he not been canadian.

if i wanted to get into a discussion on race with you i would be less subtle, but such a dialogue would be like alain locke and rush limbaugh getting together for a chat on the significance of black culture in the US; a complete waste of time.

TheProfessor

10-09-2009, 02:29 PM

someone woke up waiting to bitch and bitch. save it for the cable company.

if you toned down your ebenezer meter just a notch you'd get that my point was that nash most definitely would have made it in the NBA had he not been canadian.

if i wanted to get into a discussion on race with you i would be less subtle, but such a dialogue would be like alain locke and rush limbaugh getting together for a chat on the significance of black culture in the US; a complete waste of time.
:lol

jack sommerset

10-09-2009, 02:31 PM

if you toned down your ebenezer meter just a notch you'd get that my point was that nash most definitely would have made it in the NBA had he not been canadian..

What on Earth are you spewing about? I got your point. I disagree with it. Nash would not make it to the NBA if he was raised in the America is my point. Perhaps you should tone down your meter.

rjv

10-09-2009, 02:44 PM

What on Earth are you spewing about? I got your point. I disagree with it. Nash would not make it to the NBA if he was raised in the America is my point. Perhaps you should tone down your meter.

nice try. a simple i think nash would have not made it in the NBA would have done. all the extra race baiting nonsense about jackie robinson and the NFL's racist hiring policies was just extra spewage and a waste of bandwidth.

by the way, nash was born in canada but played his college basketball in the united states where he was santa clara's all team leader in assists. he was also a prolific soccer player.

jack sommerset

10-09-2009, 02:55 PM

nice try. a simple i think nash would have not made it in the NBA would have done. all the extra race baiting nonsense about jackie robinson and the NFL's racist hiring policies was just extra spewage and a waste of bandwidth.

by the way, nash was born in canada but played his college basketball in the united states where he was santa clara's all team leader is assists. he was also a prolific soccer player.

Honestly. I only can figure out half of what you are talking about. And it's not a big deal. Not asking you to explain yourself. Not race baiting. You said ask Larry Bird so I said ask Jackie Robinson or Mike Singletary. Thats it. Just two names compared to your 1 name. Sorry if I overwhelmed you with info. The comparsion is fair.

By the way Nash grew up in Canada. Congrats for yet another white international player to make it to our college and NBA leagues.

rjv

10-09-2009, 03:04 PM

Honestly. I only can figure out half of what you are talking about. And it's not a big deal. Not asking you to explain yourself. Not race baiting. You said ask Larry Bird so I said ask Jackie Robinson or Mike Singletary. Thats it. Just two names compared to your 1 name. Sorry if I overwhelmed you with info. The comparsion is fair.

By the way Nash grew up in Cananda. Congrats for yet another white international player to make it to our college and NBA leagues.

simple enough. steve nash is a talented basketball player. he would have been as talented in the US as in canada. he played soccer in canada as well (the same sport you are trying to suggest his racist culture would have insisted he succeed in had he been american). stupid if you ask me. he is 6'4" and has great basketball skills. if you want to compare 1950's america to today's NBA so be it. but i hardly think any NBA scout would agree with you on steve nash.

mogrovejo

10-09-2009, 03:49 PM

Professional sports are too competitive these days for decision makers to be worried about the race of the guys they're paying money to. If a green Martian was able score, rebound and defend, he'd get a job in the NBA.

Creepn

10-10-2009, 12:59 AM

Incorrect. I'm not white.

So there goes your theory. and there is no evidence that the Moors or Egyptians are 'black history'. You are a conspiracy theorist that 99% of the world's scholars do not agree with, in fact, afrocentrists are seen as nutjobs and ridiculed where they go.

Were 99% of those "scholars" white?

Egypt prior to the white invasion was a thriving African civilization. Simple as that. End of story. I just pwned 99% of your scholars.

sabar

10-10-2009, 02:16 AM

Because poor people are attracted to cheap sports and most poor people are minorities.

Why only certain sports like the NFL vs. NHL? Culture. Blacks don't play street hockey in their culture, they never discover the skill. Few public schools have programs in that sport as well.

You will notice that countries that don't have a large poor black population have a bunch of white guys or whatever ethnicity they have playing their sports. If blacks were so naturally great, there should be more black representation in other societies.

You will notice that life makes more sense when you get away from race. Poor people commit violent crime. Poor people get into sports. Rich people succeed in life. Rich people are good race car drivers.

In America, blacks are poor, whites are rich. In Europe, whites are poor, whites are rich. America has a bunch of black athletes, Europe white ones. This isn't that hard to follow.

Life is based on your social class, not anything else. Your race/sex/hair color/whatever might influence your social class that you start in, but not much else.

sabar

10-10-2009, 02:45 AM

Also the selective breeding argument doesn't work. You couldn't make a breed of dog that is noticeably stronger than their mutt friends in 22.6 generations and you can't do it with people either. Stronger sure, but only marginally. When you include factors such as fresh imports from Africa, cross-breeding, and few people doing selective breeding, you realize you won't have anywhere near 15 generations of pure strength breeding. Maybe at the best you have 7-8, but this is nowhere near enough to show any traits from the control population. Not to mention any of this breeding would be diluted with the end of slavery and inter-racial children.

Any evolutionary advantage that does exist would be inherit in the whole race from a few thousand years of evolution, back in Africa. But whites ran from wolves just as much as blacks did from lions.

MiamiHeat

03-28-2018, 06:28 PM

Yeah. African americans are better athletes.

benefactor

03-28-2018, 09:23 PM

Yeah. African americans are better athletes.
Damn bro...I thought you died or some shit

Blake

03-28-2018, 09:59 PM

Damn bro...I thought you died or some shit

Lol holy crap, I thought he must have gone up in a fireball after driving his pt cruiser off a cliff

monosylab1k

03-28-2018, 10:23 PM

Lol holy crap, I thought he must have gone up in a fireball after driving his pt cruiser off a cliff

While eating reheated pizza

benefactor

03-28-2018, 10:27 PM

I'm trying to figure out why he waited 7 years then picked this thread for his first post. The ST universe is one of the internets great mysteries.:lol

Spurtacular

03-28-2018, 11:48 PM

I'm trying to figure out why he waited 7 years then picked this thread for his first post. The ST universe is one of the internets great mysteries.:lol

Lol holy crap, I thought he must have gone up in a fireball after driving his pt cruiser off a cliff

While eating reheated pizza

:lmao Bentover, cuck, and slob pissing themselves about Harlem posting under an old screen name :lmao

Avante

03-29-2018, 12:04 AM

Nigeria has had more sub 10.00 sprinters than all of white Europe and Asia combined. Then we have the Caribbean, how can a small island like Jamaica do what they do in sprinting? How many Chinese do we have, so where are they vs Jamaica?

Only ..one....white sprinter has ever ran a sub10.00, Trinidad alone has had a half dozen black sub10.00 cats. TONS...of black sub 10.00 cats.

Where are those big fast white NFLers, a guy like Bo Jackson, Randy Moss, Calvin Johnson, Herschel Walker? Where are those white Tyreek Hills? Size with speed and quicks is a black thing.

Look at age group athletics, there it is right there, little black kids totally dominating.

Anyone thinking this is about culture, $$$$$$, want/need is stupid, it's all about unique physical attributes only found in those with western African roots. Yes, we do have physical differences.

Hell, just watch the NFL combine, how many big fast white guys do we see there, yep....we don't. A big white RB is a thumper like a Mike Alstott, not a speedster like a Earl Campbell.

The last white sprinter to run on a USA Olympic 4x1 was way back in 1964, Gerald Ashworth out of Dartmouth. The last white NFL 1000 yard rusher, Peyton Hillis. The last great white cornerback.....ah.......Seahorn?

What white WR belongs with....

Jerry Rice
Antonio Brown
Randy Moss
Larry Fitzgerald
Julio Jones
Chris Carter
Tim Brown
Terrell Owens
Marvin Harrison

.....well?

This is a black thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Ms_37TWBI

Back in the 80's a lazy, dumb, aloof kid out of the Florida sticks named Houston McTear ran a WORLD RECORD 9.0 for 100 yards, he was just a junior at Baker HS, where he also averaged over 13 yards a carry as a RB this cat was dumb as a rock. Just naturally fast.

He ended up way out here in Cali at Cerritos JC, then Santa Monica City. In my opinion and most everyone else, this kid was the...naturally...fastest human ever.

I saw him run in Fresno while at Cerritos, inagine a WR holder vs JC kids, hahaha~~~ Yep, he stunned/shocked the crowd by coming from way back on a 4x2 anchor.

Expert

03-29-2018, 12:26 AM

When you look at college track and field teams, you see the white guys are distance runners and the black guys as sprinters or jumpers or a combination. It's a pretty clean line.

Avante

03-29-2018, 12:31 AM

When you look at college track and field teams, you see the white guys are distance runners and the black guys as sprinters or jumpers or a combination. It's a pretty clean line.

We do see that John Teeters 10.00 at Oklahoma State, now and then. But white sprinters are rare.

There is a reason we rarely see any world class sprinters out of Russia, Poland, Holland, Germany, Sweden, China, Japan, yet tons out of Trinidad, Nigeria, Jamaica, Ghana, Cuba.

Avante

03-29-2018, 01:04 AM

Fair question. I can't name a white running back in the NFL. Not one. I can't name a white wide reciever in the NFL. Not one. If you can that is a great trivia question. The last white dude that everyone said could play ball was Larry Bird. Golf.....Tiger Woods, this guy is up against history. He is far behind Jacks Championships and other folks records but he is known as the best in history. NHL is a white sport. Baseball has a fair mix of whites,blacks and illegals. Our President is black. What the fuck is going on when people talk race card. NFL whites can easily claim race cuz there are few whites. Baseball whites can call race card because the majority is from other countries. NBA whites................ITS A ALL BLACK LEAGUE. So on a national level how can anyone claim race.

White NFL RB's

Jim Taylor
Steve Van Buren
John Riggins
Larry Csonka
Hugh "King" McElhenny
Frank Gifford
Paul Hornung

All in the Hall of Fame

White WR

Ray Berry
Don Hutson
Tom Fears
"Crazy Legs" Hirsch
Steve Largent
Fred Biletnikoff
Tommy McDonald
Don Maynard
Lance Alworth

All in the Hall of Fame

This 8 man white flag football team.

Steve Young
Julian Edelman
Danny Amendola
Tim Dwight
Wes Welker
Christian McCaffrey
Danny Woodhead
Jordy Nelson

Could hang with anybody.

lebomb

03-29-2018, 07:33 AM

Edelman with the Patriots. He is white, but he could be a light skin brutha to.

Avante

03-29-2018, 10:42 AM

I live in central Cali, this region of the world has had.....

Tommie Smith Lemoore
Maxie Parks Fresno
Lemon King Delano
Lee Evans Madera
Randy Williams Fresno
Rafer Johnson Kingsburg

All Olympians, all black. Where are the white cats, ok...Bob Mathias Tulare.

When I was in HS the speed king around here was Edisons (Fresno) Sam Davis, who would end up running on those great SJS relay teams with John Carlos,Ronnie Ray Smith and Kirk Clayton, yep...all black.

HS's like Hawthorne, Muir, Long Beach Poly all with a huge black population, all with tons of qualiy sprinters. Same with Edison. Where are the fast white guys?

Only a blind man couldn't see the obvious differences in physique. Blacks more naturally muscular, that ass sits up higher, longer legs in relationship to the torso, then theres that natural rhythm.

Blake

03-29-2018, 10:50 AM

Mention "fast black men" and it's like moth to flame

Chucho

03-29-2018, 11:05 AM

Aww fuck, he's back.

Avante

03-29-2018, 11:09 AM

Defensive line

Aaron Donald
Bruce Smith
Reggie White
"Mean" Joe Greene
Charles Haley
Deacon Jones
Vince Woolfolk

Linebackers

Ray Lewis
Patrick Willis
Mike Singletary
Bobby Bell
Lawrence Taylor
Willie Lanier
Derrick Thomas

DB's

Ronnie Lott
Rod Woodson
Deion Sanders
Earl Thomas
Emlen Tunnell
"Night Train" Lane
Willie Brown
Michael Haynes
Richard Sherman

White D?

Avante

03-29-2018, 11:11 AM

Aww fuck, he's back.

Love them mountains, should have been born and raised in the Appalachians. Hillbillie music, moonshine, plenty of places to get lost.

Chucho

03-29-2018, 11:13 AM

Love them mountains, should have been born and raised in the Appalachians. Hillbillie music, moonshine, plenty of places to get lost.

There's plenty of mountains in the Sierra Nevada to get lost in.

Blake

03-29-2018, 11:21 AM

Love them mountains, should have been born and raised in the Appalachians. Hillbillie music, moonshine, plenty of places to get lost.

Not lost enough

Avante

03-29-2018, 11:35 AM

There's plenty of mountains in the Sierra Nevada to get lost in.

Yep, and that's where I;ve been, just above Springville. Food, coffee, just tastes better up there. No Mexicans in the Appalacians.

rmt

03-29-2018, 11:38 AM

Chucho

03-29-2018, 11:45 AM

Yep, and that's where I;ve been, just above Springville. Food, coffee, just tastes better up there. No Mexicans in the Appalacians.

Stay there.

Avante

03-29-2018, 11:49 AM

Proud to be from a small island (< 3mil) that has produced Usain Bolt (record holder in 100m and 200m) and both current men's (Bolt) and women's (Thompson) Olympic gold in 100m and 200m. Been watching since Don Quarrie won 1976 Olympic gold in 200m and seen a LONG string of outstanding Jamaican sprinters but none to compare to Bolt.

Back in the late 40's, early 50's Jamaica had the three fastest 400m sprinters in the world in George Rhoden, Herb McKenley and Arthur Wint (800 also). They along with 100/200 cat Les Laing totally demolished the 4x4 world record. This is where we first saw that Jamaican sprint prowess.

Jamaican born.

Ben Johnson Olympic champ for Canada
Linford Christie Olympic champ for GB
Donovan Bailey Olympic champ for Canada
Yohan Blake World Champion
Dennis Johnson 9.3 WR holder
Ray Stewart ranked number one in the world
Asafa Powell king of the sub10.00
Lennox Miller Olympic silver/bronze
Don Quarrie Olympic gold, silver

A gang of cats like Nesta Carter, Steve Mullings, Nikel Ashmeade, Michael Frater and on and on........

Only the 300 mill plus USA can come close to comparing to that.

Bolt came up as a 400, 200m sprinter, he spent years training as a long sprinter. So his speed endurance is on a whole other level than just 100m cats, then ya add that 6-5 stride, yep...THE FREAK

1951 Wotld Rankings

1951

1.......................George Rhoden (Jamaica)
2........................Herb McKenley (Jamaica)
3.............................. Arthur Wint (Jamaica)
4.....................................

Mal Whitfield (US)

5....................................Charlie Moore (US)6.................................... Dick Maiocco (US)7.................Hans Geister (West Germany)8............... Schalk Booysen (South Africa)9......Karl-Friedrich Haas (West Germany)
10...................................John Bradley (US

Avante

03-29-2018, 11:50 AM

Stay there.

Dude, grow the fuck up, please. So tired of your childish bullshit, ok?

rmt

03-29-2018, 12:01 PM

Back in the late 40's, early 50's Jamaica had the three fastest 400m sprinters in the world in George Rhoden, Herb McKenley and Arthur Wint (800 also). They along with 100/200 cat Les Laing totally demolished the 4x4 world record. This is where we first saw that Jamaican sprint prowess.

Jamaican born.

Ben Johnson Olympic champ for Canada
Linford Christie Olympic champ for GB
Donovan Bailey Olympic champ for Canada
Yohan Blake World Champion
Dennis Johnson 9.3 WR holder
Ray Stewart ranked number one in the world
Asafa Powell king of the sub10.00
Lennox Miller Olympic silver/bronze
Don Quarrie Olympic gold, silver

A gang of cats like Nesta Carter, Steve Mullings, Nikel Ashmeade, Michael Frater and on and on........

Only the 300 mill plus USA can come close to comparing to that.

Bolt came up as a 400, 200m sprinter, he spent years training asa long sprinter. So his speed endurance is in a whole other level than just 100m cats, then ya add that 6-5 stride, yep...THE FREAK

1951 Wotld Rankings

1951

1.......................George Rhoden (Jamaica)
2........................Herb McKenley (Jamaica)
3.............................. Arthur Wint (Jamaica)
4.....................................

Mal Whitfield (US)

5....................................Charlie Moore (US)6.................................... Dick Maiocco (US)7.................Hans Geister (West Germany)8............... Schalk Booysen (South Africa)9......Karl-Friedrich Haas (West Germany)
10...................................John Bradley (US

Back in the day, Jamaicans represented other countries because of scholarships, money, training facilities but now, maybe, because it's easier to make a different country's team than Jamaica's. Not just the men but the women too - powerhouses.

Chucho

03-29-2018, 12:02 PM

Dude, grow the fuck up, please. So tired of your childish bullshit, ok?

What are you going to do about it? The same exact thing you'd do in real life; Jack Shit.

Avante

03-29-2018, 12:08 PM

Back in the day, Jamaicans represented other countries because of scholarships, money, training facilities but now, maybe, because it's easier to make a different country's team than Jamaica's. Not just the men but the women too - powerhouses.

I think you are thinking of Trinidad there, who did rep GB back in the day. Jamaicans have always ran for Jamaica (many were schooled in the USA, but ran for Jamaica). When it comes to sprinting Jamaica has been a powerhouse for awhile now.

Ben Johnson, Linford Christie, Donovan Bailey left Jamaica at an early age.

Avante

03-29-2018, 12:09 PM

What are you going to do about it? The same exact thing you'd do in real life; Jack Shit.

Dude, ya worry way too much about other posters, how about sticking to the topic of the thread instead, ok ya little prick?

Chucho

03-29-2018, 12:13 PM

Correct, I'm not going to do Jack Shit. I'm a fat loser blow hard that has returned to a place where I'm universally despised because that's the shit reality of my life.

Avante

03-29-2018, 12:19 PM

Dude, stick to the topic of a thread, can ya do that, nobody cares about your pesonal problems, got it bitch?

rmt

03-29-2018, 12:25 PM

Avante

03-29-2018, 12:28 PM

Tall and fast and black.

All 6-3 and taller all world class athletes.

Carl Lewis Houston
Francis Obikwelu Nigeria
Mark Witherspoon ACU
Usain Bolt Jamaica
Reggie Jones Tennessee
Tommie Smith and John Carlos SJS
Randy Moss Marshall
Calvin Johnson Georgia Tech
Jason Rouser Oklahoma

That is a black thing.

Blake

03-29-2018, 12:29 PM

Mention "fast black men" and it's like moth to flame

Tall and fast and black.

All 6-3 and taller all world class athletes.

Carl Lewis Houston
Francis Obikwelu Nigeria
Mark Witherspoon ACU
Usain Bolt Jamaica
Reggie Jones Tennessee
Tommie Smith and John Carlos SJS
Randy Moss Marshall
Calvin Johnson Georgia Tech
Jason Rouser Oklahoma

That is a black thing.

Avante

03-29-2018, 12:34 PM

Talking about cultural differences - it's just what one is brought up with/used to. For instance, I grew up hearing reggae and Motown music - my kids classical music and church hymns. They have not one ounce of (dancing) rhythm - not musical as they all play instrument(s). Trying to teach the youngest how to slow dance and it's SAD - I don't think he can even hear the beat much less move to it. Dh is just like them and that's such a pity because I love dancing.

We have to look at %.

I'm a white guy, who is into the history of black music/sports. I own all them old blues from the 20's, all those doo wop groups from the 50's, all that primitive jazz.

I do believe blacks do possess another level of rhythm. And we see that in their running ability, especially on a football field.

I was a sprinter, RB and a dancer, I know for a fact my rhythm had a lot to do with that.

Avante

03-29-2018, 12:46 PM

Why have we NEVER seen an Asian American 220 pound RB with 4.4 jets? Why is that? Where are those Mexican American 6-3 4.3 WR's?

Who can name...one....great white USA female sprinter?

boutons_deux

03-29-2018, 01:11 PM

Avante

03-29-2018, 02:11 PM

Avante is a racist because he says physical traits by race also imply mental traits, (in)abilities, while neuroscience shows that all human brains have enormous plasticity, trainability.

Avante is a racist because he says hispanic, mestizo, black brains are inferior by "nature", totally excluding the all-important (negative) effects of "nurture".

We are different, that's why we have..RACES...ya reckon? I see no reason to play silly ass games about it. Blacks can run faster...FACT. Asia is far better off than Mexico and South America..FACT.

If I own a computer business, I;d much rather have Asian working for me than Mexicans. I'de rather coach an all black football team than an all white one.

SpursforSix

03-29-2018, 04:03 PM

When you look at college track and field teams, you see the white guys are distance runners and the black guys as sprinters or jumpers or a combination. It's a pretty clean line.

are you saying the blacks are too lazy to run distance?

Avante

03-29-2018, 09:21 PM

You can't really get just how supeior blacks really are in sports unless you know what whites can do.

All Time USA White 100m

lane

1.Charles Paddock WR 9.6/1920 Oly gold
2.Hal Davis WR 10.2/top sprinter in the world in the early 40's
3.Dave Sime WR 9.3/Oly silver (grandpa of NFLer Christian McCaffrey)
4.Bobby Morrow WR 9.3/1956 Oly gold
5.Mel Patton WR 9.3/1948 200m Oly gold
6.John Teeters his 10.00 the fastest white American
7.Frank Wykoff WR 9.4
8.Darel Newman 9.2/only white sprinter to beat Bob Hayes

Where we really see a HUGE, MASSIVE, difference in with black/white female sprinters in the USA. We never ever see a fast white female sprinter, NEVER. Why?

Avante

03-29-2018, 10:39 PM

Size with speed the big difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9tuwPAbbPc

rmt

03-30-2018, 12:32 PM