I love how these “race” threads bring the stupid out of people…even those that are not black :+
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
Just to clear a few things up:
The blacks in America are direct descendants of slaves.
And slave owners.[/quote]
Amen…and even those who were not slave owners…and Native Americans,too. I’ll see some of yall at the family reunion one day.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
His current supporters are killing him with the normal people in this country.[/quote]
Wait, you mean you think Stormfront’s endorsement of Ron Paul won’t help his chances in a general election?
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
Just to clear a few things up:
The blacks in America are direct descendants of slaves.
And slave owners.
Amen…and even those who were not slave owners…and Native Americans,too. I’ll see some of yall at the family reunion one day.[/quote]
See you there. I’ll be wearing my MENSA t-shirt so you will know I am white.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I was saying that a single generation of forced breeding couldn’t produce any kind of significant evolutionary change because of the ridiculous amount of genes that go into determining ones intelligence, ability to learn, and athletic ability.
What are you talking about? How do you manage only one generation in 200+ years of slavery?
Evolution takes thousands if not millions of years. Not one generation of selective breeding.
Bullshit. You can see major changes in as little as 3-4 generation intervals. You are talking about natural selection versus selective breeding. Both contribute to evolution - but at much, much different speeds.
Ok, I miss worded, sheesh. Many generations. So you’re telling me we totally eliminated some odd thousand or two genetic sequences that could possibly lead to a less than “average” athletic ability? Alright then.
That’s like saying Jews are intelligent because the holocaust killed all the stupid ones dumb enough to stay in Nazi Germany. And, for the record, that statement is equally as stupid.
What I’m saying it after the 3-4 generations of slavery (which did not TOTALLY control breeding as you are p[postulating), their have been 3-4 generations of completely uncontrolled breeding. The chances that such a significant change in overall genetic structure was made in such a large group of people is implausible. [/quote]
You need to read a book on genetics. Even better would be a book on selective breeding practices.
Seriously - don’t write any thing more about genetics, or selective breeding. You are truly talking out of your ass on this one.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I think a major reason for the disparity in the performance of black students and whites or asians may be related to DIET. Poor people eat lousy food. This lessens full development. The middle class black students I’ve had were equal to (or sometimes better than) the middle class white students.
Black people also live in less healthy places. A suburb with relatively cleaner air and water will always be cleaner than an inner city.[/quote]
I like this idea. I think the poverty thing is MUCH bigger than the race thing, anyway.
What I wouldn’t give to see what this thread would look like if Professor X was still around.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
His current supporters are killing him with the normal people in this country.
Wait, you mean you think Stormfront’s endorsement of Ron Paul won’t help his chances in a general election?[/quote]
It didn’t hurt GWB in 2000 when he got money and support from the Stormfront crowd.
It does have the potential to hurt Ron Paul, and this is something that his supporters have known since Day 1. We all know what we’re up against.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
It didn’t hurt GWB in 2000 when he got money and support from the Stormfront crowd.[/quote]
Setting aside the veracity of this, George W. Bush didn’t have a general electability problem in 2000. Bad analogy.
A fringe candidate who already has general election problems can’t afford such endorsements. That was the original point - that Paul’s “current supporters are killing him with the normal people in this country” - read more closely. Ron Paul needs normal people desperately - twerp moonbats drive him further and further from normal people.
But then, you probably got all atwitter at the mention of Stormfront and didn’t think your analogy through - your kinda guys, those fascist, racist bobbleheads, of course.
Actually, I don’t think you do. Ron Paul supporters are drunk on stupid and crazy, and a fringe candidate who has Stormfront and Alex Jones in his portfolio won’t even sniff a nomination.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I was saying that a single generation of forced breeding couldn’t produce any kind of significant evolutionary change because of the ridiculous amount of genes that go into determining ones intelligence, ability to learn, and athletic ability.
What are you talking about? How do you manage only one generation in 200+ years of slavery?
Evolution takes thousands if not millions of years. Not one generation of selective breeding.
Bullshit. You can see major changes in as little as 3-4 generation intervals. You are talking about natural selection versus selective breeding. Both contribute to evolution - but at much, much different speeds.
Ok, I miss worded, sheesh. Many generations. So you’re telling me we totally eliminated some odd thousand or two genetic sequences that could possibly lead to a less than “average” athletic ability? Alright then.
That’s like saying Jews are intelligent because the holocaust killed all the stupid ones dumb enough to stay in Nazi Germany. And, for the record, that statement is equally as stupid.
What I’m saying it after the 3-4 generations of slavery (which did not TOTALLY control breeding as you are p[postulating), their have been 3-4 generations of completely uncontrolled breeding. The chances that such a significant change in overall genetic structure was made in such a large group of people is implausible.
You need to read a book on genetics. Even better would be a book on selective breeding practices.
Seriously - don’t write any thing more about genetics, or selective breeding. You are truly talking out of your ass on this one.
[/quote]
Apparently so. Any recommendations? I was under the impression that thousands of genetic sequences, some dominant and some resessive, that determined athletic ability. I’m wrong?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Apparently so. Any recommendations? I was under the impression that thousands of genetic sequences, some dominant and some resessive, that determined athletic ability. I’m wrong?[/quote]
Personally - I would go find a cattle breeder and talk to him.
Then you need to define athletic ability.
This has to be one of the most dehumanizing conversations I have ever had. I hate referring to fellow human beings as stock, and it is beyond sad that that is how they were viewed for centuries.
But with that said - slaves were bred as stock animals. Desirable traits were bred in, undesirable traits were bred out. Farmers were doing this long before there was any knowledge of gene sequencing. Milk cows were bred for milk production. Draft animals were bred for strength and endurance. Food animals were bred for their ability to put on weight quickly and efficiently.
We are not talking about creating a new species - it is as simple as slectively breeding for desirable traits.
Jesus Christ, there goes my lengthy reply
Fuck!
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
Just to clear a few things up:
The blacks in America are direct descendants of slaves.
And slave owners.
Amen…and even those who were not slave owners…and Native Americans,too. I’ll see some of yall at the family reunion one day.
See you there. I’ll be wearing my MENSA t-shirt so you will know I am white.[/quote]
lol…good one.
what is an “average Negroid?”…better yet…what the fuck is a Negroid?
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
what the fuck is a Negroid?[/quote]
The word Negroid means “of or relating to the division of humankind represented by the indigenous peoples of central and southern Africa.”
The equivalent terms pertaining to the other two divisions of humankind are “Caucasoid” and “Mongoloid.”
Obviously, because some people get all flustered and offended when they hear these words, they are not used as often as they used to be.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
what the fuck is a Negroid?
The word Negroid means “of or relating to the division of humankind represented by the indigenous peoples of central and southern Africa.”
The equivalent terms pertaining to the other two divisions of humankind are “Caucasoid” and “Mongoloid.”
Obviously, because some people get all flustered and offended when they hear these words, they are not used as often as they used to be.[/quote]
actually my exposure to that word was to describe racial features…just never heard it used to describe a person in general…especially in 2007. As you pointed out…its been forever since people used that term…I was hoping for him to enlighten me with his awesome reasoning.
I remember reading something a while back about how the use of term “Negro” was obsolete by 1966 or something like that… considering its on my birth certificate from 1977…was an interesting observation…to me anyways.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Apparently so. Any recommendations? I was under the impression that thousands of genetic sequences, some dominant and some resessive, that determined athletic ability. I’m wrong?
Personally - I would go find a cattle breeder and talk to him.
Then you need to define athletic ability.
This has to be one of the most dehumanizing conversations I have ever had. I hate referring to fellow human beings as stock, and it is beyond sad that that is how they were viewed for centuries.
But with that said - slaves were bred as stock animals. Desirable traits were bred in, undesirable traits were bred out. Farmers were doing this long before there was any knowledge of gene sequencing. Milk cows were bred for milk production. Draft animals were bred for strength and endurance. Food animals were bred for their ability to put on weight quickly and efficiently.
We are not talking about creating a new species - it is as simple as slectively breeding for desirable traits.
[/quote]
The thing is, cattle breeders have stupid stupid animals that demonstrate their abilities daily. Humans are not cattle. How could one test for athletic ability when they were all being under fed and over worked? How could they test for intelligence when their education was suppressed? And most of all, how could they breed out all of the recessive genes for these qualities completely causing such a drastic impact on the later generations whose breeding is no longer controlled?
I’m not even arguing anymore, by the way, I’m just interested.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
The thing is, cattle breeders have stupid stupid animals that demonstrate their abilities daily. Humans are not cattle. How could one test for athletic ability when they were all being under fed and over worked? How could they test for intelligence when their education was suppressed? And most of all, how could they breed out all of the recessive genes for these qualities completely causing such a drastic impact on the later generations whose breeding is no longer controlled?
I’m not even arguing anymore, by the way, I’m just interested.[/quote]
I am not talking about intelligence. That is a totally different tangent than the one we have taken.
I have no idea how difficult it would be to breed out intelligence, although high inbreeding coefficient would probably be a decent start.
Humans are not cattle. But selectively breeding for desirable physical traits is not that difficult regardless of the animal.
I think you hold the human genome in too high of a regard for this discussion.
If I want to create a bigger stronger stock animal, I buy bigger stronger stock, and breed it. Then I take the best of the offspring and do it over again. You do that for 200 years, and you get bigger stronger animals that will do it on less food.
Try not to think of humans s being that much superior than the rest of the animal kingdom. I think that cattle share like 90% of our genetic make up. Hardly that much difference when talking about such basic attributes as physical stature.
I getcha.
But that still wouldn’t account for why the native Africans still kick our pale behinds in most athletics, so this whole conversation is kinda moot point, huh.