How Do They Get Big In Jail?

Training Bodybuilding
121

Someone said you can not make difference between different races because we are all just human - but I would have to say that is absolute rubbish. I mean - as a member of this website you should already know that individuals differ genetically - such as natural insulin sensitivity, for example. It’s the same with muscle building potential. The dutch have an average height of 5’11" for males…one of the talest in europe, it’s only 5’9" in the UK.

You only need to look at the ‘typical’ non-trained build of different humans from varying parts of the world (black or white) to see that there are huge differences in muscle mass. With the example of black people, guys genetically from places such as Nigeria and Ghana tend to be naturally thick set and muscular. This constrast with those genetically from other parts of Africa, such as Kenya.

It really isn’t coincidence that the men’s 100m final in Beijing will be won by a black man (probably no white guy in the final). Why did Hitler get so pissed when Jesse Owens won gold - because he knew the best balck sprinters would always beat the beat white guy. I’m white by the way - I’m just very aware and happy to admit that the best black guys have much more genetic potential than me.

122

lol there are a bunch of “oops I’m a racist” moments in here…

123

[quote]evo2008 wrote:
I swear I think this whole “blacks build muscle easier” thing is from the darker skin tone making them appear bigger/more defined.

Someone said you can not make difference between different races because we are all just human - but I would have to say that is absolute rubbish. I mean - as a member of this website you should already know that individuals differ genetically - such as natural insulin sensitivity, for example. It’s the same with muscle building potential. The dutch have an average height of 5’11" for males…one of the talest in europe, it’s only 5’9" in the UK.

You only need to look at the ‘typical’ non-trained build of different humans from varying parts of the world (black or white) to see that there are huge differences in muscle mass. With the example of black people, guys genetically from places such as Nigeria and Ghana tend to be naturally thick set and muscular. This constrast with those genetically from other parts of Africa, such as Kenya.

It really isn’t coincidence that the men’s 100m final in Beijing will be won by a black man (probably no white guy in the final). Why did Hitler get so pissed when Jesse Owens won gold - because he knew the best balck sprinters would always beat the beat white guy. I’m white by the way - I’m just very aware and happy to admit that the best black guys have much more genetic potential than me.

[/quote]

Are you serious, using an Olympic event as an example, I suppose all of those guys are not using anything to help them, please read my previous post as to why more black people tend to go for sprinting. As a matter of fact there are most likely more black people who are thin and not muscular, or athletic, top athletes are not good examples, neither are people who live in very hot climates who sleep for most of the day.

124

[quote]49ersFan81 wrote:
lol there are a bunch of “oops I’m a racist” moments in here…[/quote]

Shit, go take a look at the politics forum. Everything here looks mild in comparison.

I just find it funny that they still don’t think they qualify.

125

From my experience there are skinny, fat, and muscular black people and skinny, fat, and muscular white people as well in what seems to be equal ratios. There are always that 1% that can build muscle with a shitty diet and hard training. But I will tell you one thing I live in Europe right now and I’m American. The black people here (mostly all new immigrants from north african countries) are NOT big or very ripped at all. They are almost all ectomorphs. In the US with the american diet they just got bigger were big people cause we eat so much. I guess if you add training to that you can get some results.

126

Hello my fellow T-mag geniuses, qualified anthropoligists and historians,

Hitler was not pissed that Jesse Owens received a medal at the Berlin Olympics. He actually waved and smiled at him when Owens finished the race. That whole thing of Hitler snubbing Jesse Owens is bunk and Owens stated it himself and also stated that the one who snubbed him was FDR, who showed no appreciation of him!

On to talk of the Holocaust and Germany. Yes, the Germans thought that white people were superior to other races, Blacks, Jews, Asians, and so on. They also had squabbles with other white people of different nationalities, such as the Poles. What is suprising is that some high ranking Nazis did have Slavic last names (ie: Zelewski, Blaskowitz, Skorzeny). The Holocaust happened, not because the the Nazis thought they were superior to non-whites, but because they were HELL BENT on eliminating all elements that were deemed hostile and destructive to German society and felt that only a homogeneous population could get ahead in all areas of life and society. They did not like Jews, homosexuals, Blacks, and liberalism.

Hitler also had a smouldering hatred of communism and the fact that much of the communist BUTCHERS of Europe at the time were Jewish (Luxemburg, who actually tried to stage an overthrow of Germany, Kuhn, Yagoda, Kaganovic, Morel, Trotsky, Beria, nearly the entire NKVD and 100s of others) only strengthened his dislike of Jews. Why don’t you go and read up on the Katyn Forest Massacre or the Ukranian Famine or get the book Latvia: Year of Horror before being quick to jump about causes of a Holocaust! Besides, Hitler killed his fellow whites anyway, the Poles, not on racial grounds but because he wanted territory back, Silesia and Pomerania. Maybe you want to read up on how Volga Germans in Eastern Europe were mistreated by Jewish communists in the most inhumane ways.

The concept of enslaving blacks was simply ludicrous and of course extremely inhumane and unfair to blacks. However, blacks sold us blacks that they themselves had enslaved. So much for the basis of such slavery being that whites thought they were superior to blacks.

Sento, the dimwit above was obviously directing his question towards me, but since it is apparent that most of these posters on here come across as if they do not read posts in full, nor do they know how to absorb written information and logic and truly understand what someone is saying UNLESS the writer AGREES with them. It is so mature and TOLERANT to label dissidents or those who oppose your line of thought as MORONS. Makes for very good, intellectual debate. Thanks, bigots.

And the wars and enslavement of people is not only a matter of one group thinking they are better than the other. There is more black on black crime than white on black crime. This is not a matter of some blacks thinking they are better than other blacks based on race in my view. Enslavement of blacks by other blacks in Africa goes on to this day. So watch out in pointing fingers towards Nazism and Fascism and a holocaust.

People state here that there is OVERWHELMING evidence presented by Sento. Well, I have come across conflicting evidence. Even if I did accept his evidence as true, would this change the way the races ACT in REAL LIFE, consistently, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, IN THE MAJORITY OF SITUATIONS!

Would it make a difference if I were convinced by Sento, with his overwhelming evidence, in the fact that whenever different groups of people are forced to live with one another, there is MORE hate, violence, and disharmony.

In Los Angeles, there are Mexican gangs at war with Black gangs.

Yugoslavia, a great experiment! Forcing people of fiercely nationalist beliefs (Croats, Serbs, Bosnians, Albanians, Slovenes) and religions (some Catholic, some Orthodox, some Moslem) together was great. As a matter of fact, it was great to this day. :slight_smile:

In the Middle East, there is religious diversity amongst different tribes. That works out nicely too, especially in unstable Iraq, where these groups are now free to kill each other.

In the five boroughs of NYC, the most diverse place on this earth probably, it is really pleasant to have your white friends and peers pretending to be friendly and cordial while at the same time whispering under their breaths or speaking out in private using the words n-----, ch—, go–,
sp–, ki–, and so on. I personally find it disturbing.

So, to repeat, even if Sento’s peer reviewed evidence held any weight with me, that still doesn’t hold any weight in RACIAL REALITY, the way races behave towards one another, as a GROUP, as COLLECTIVE entities over and over and over again and how they behave when they are ON THEIR OWN, as COLLECTIVE entities.

127

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Hello my fellow T-mag geniuses, qualified anthropoligists and historians,

…

And the wars and enslavement of people is not only a matter of one group thinking they are better than the other. There is more black on black crime than white on black crime. This is not a matter of some blacks thinking they are better than other blacks based on race in my view. Enslavement of blacks by other blacks in Africa goes on to this day. So watch out in pointing fingers towards Nazism and Fascism and a holocaust.

People state here that there is OVERWHELMING evidence presented by Sento. Well, I have come across conflicting evidence. Even if I did accept his evidence as true, would this change the way the races ACT in REAL LIFE, consistently, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, IN THE MAJORITY OF SITUATIONS!

Would it make a difference if I were convinced by Sento, with his overwhelming evidence, in the fact that whenever different groups of people are forced to live with one another, there is MORE hate, violence, and disharmony.

In Los Angeles, there are Mexican gangs at war with Black gangs.

Yugoslavia, a great experiment! Forcing people of fiercely nationalist beliefs (Croats, Serbs, Bosnians, Albanians, Slovenes) and religions (some Catholic, some Orthodox, some Moslem) together was great. As a matter of fact, it was great to this day. :slight_smile:

In the Middle East, there is religious diversity amongst different tribes. That works out nicely too, especially in unstable Iraq, where these groups are now free to kill each other.

In the five boroughs of NYC, the most diverse place on this earth probably, it is really pleasant to have your white friends and peers pretending to be friendly and cordial while at the same time whispering under their breaths or speaking out in private using the words n-----, ch—, go–,
sp–, ki–, and so on. I personally find it disturbing.

So, to repeat, even if Sento’s peer reviewed evidence held any weight with me, that still doesn’t hold any weight in RACIAL REALITY, the way races behave towards one another, as a GROUP, as COLLECTIVE entities over and over and over again and how they behave when they are ON THEIR OWN, as COLLECTIVE entities.

[/quote]

I wouldn’t call myself an anthropologist, but I am doing my PhD in Cultural Anthropology.

Wait…so you believe that genetics is the main driving force behind the perceived differences of behavior of various races? If so, please clarify. This argument is devoid of biological evidence and ignores the role and power of socio-economic factors in influencing group behavior. Many times, things such as economic competition are the main driving force behind For example the within an American context, the Chinese during WWII were cast under positive light, while the Japanese were demonized. In today’s world, these views are somewhat reversed because of China’s economic rise and Japan’s geopolitical role within the region.

My point is that these racial divisions and antagonisms that exist historically and in the present, are by no way hardwired nor are they indicative of any “essential” differences between races or even groups.

And yes, we have been killing each other over religious/ethnic lines for centuries. But I am not sure how you think this proves that there are in fact salient, genetic differences between races.

“So, to repeat, even if Sento’s peer reviewed evidence held any weight with me, that still doesn’t hold any weight in RACIAL REALITY, the way races behave towards one another, as a GROUP, as COLLECTIVE entities over and over and over again and how they behave when they are ON THEIR OWN, as COLLECTIVE entities.”

The old ethnographic model that views cultures as inherently isolated is pretty outdated. Most anthropologists, particularly in today’s global context, don’t see culture as something that is static, but something that is constantly in motion. Even in the ancient times very seldom can any ancient cultures be truly considered ‘isolated.’

Furthermore, on the issue of collective entities, groups and ethnicities are hard to define. Even in Papua New Guinea (which many see as the most current example of group ‘isolation’) from tribe to tribe, each have vastly different language, culture, practices, and beliefs. But as an outsider, we often still typify them as occupying the same racial category.

Just as a side note, as an undergrad, I remember speaking to one of my old Evolutionary biology professor who is fairly famous (err at least to anthropologists) on the topic of race. He told our class something to the effect of that there is no genetic or biological basis for race. He really wasn’t being PC or all “We are the World” but just that there really isn’t any scientific evidence for race, besides as an artificial categorization. He then went on to explain how there is more genetic variation between two chimps then two humans of any race.

I think what is happening is that you are seeing ethnic conflict and cultural difference only from the perspective of genetics, whereas in the real world, there are so many other forces that come into play.

128

There are other things that come into play.

I should have mentioned that tension comes into play, not SOLELY because of cultural differences, but because it is extremely DIFFICULT for people of different races to live amongst each other, because, as I stated earlier, they differ in abilities and behavior! Yes, your environment can influence your ability (lack of limited resources) and your behavior (I know I’d be one happy camper if I was brought up in a rich neighborhood) but I believe it is primarily and mostly influenced by genes. And I ask: “what is wrong with this outlook?”, considering that some scientists believe this as well.

Yes, whites have battled other whites, obviously not on racial grounds since they are all white, but more so on religious and nationalistic grounds. Asians have battled other Asians and Blacks -well- it seems blacks battle other blacks quite regularly in our cities right here, let alone the disputes they have in Africa.

And what I also meant was, that at the end of the day, I do not need science to prove to me that we are different. I observe what races DO, OVER AND OVER AND OVER, consistently and deliberately.

What does genetic variation of chimps have to do with this? I do not reside amongst chimps. The conflicts of chimps and orangutans does not concern me.

I see what you and Sento are saying here. So it is not like I am writing in hostility. Unlike the bigots on this board, I actually read what opposition has to say on such matters and take it all in and also with working out and nutrition or whatever.

And we are clearly not on the same page on the nature versus nurture thing as well. As stated above, yes, environment does influence how one turns out in life and what characteristics they possess. However, when speaking of race, I look at it from the roots, from a biological standpoint. They differ biologically. To me, it is not a matter of opportunity and given a fair hand or lack thereof but it is MUCH MORE a matter of genetic stock. I am on the side of mother nature.

So, like Sento, you are clearly an intelligent, well educated man as well. I’d like to think I have some brains as well and a decent education, formal and recreational. But we clearly look at this matter VERY differently and have been influenced by different information.

129

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
There are other things that come into play.

I should have mentioned that tension comes into play, not SOLELY because of cultural differences, but because it is extremely DIFFICULT for people of different races to live amongst each other, because, as I stated earlier, they differ in abilities and behavior! Yes, your environment can influence your ability (lack of limited resources) and your behavior (I know I’d be one happy camper if I was brought up in a rich neighborhood) but I believe it is primarily and mostly influenced by genes. And I ask: “what is wrong with this outlook?”, considering that some scientists believe this as well. [/quote]

You are spewing some serious bullshit now. I can guarantee that if you raised a white and black kid in the same household around the same stimulus, that you would get very similar characteristics and even life goals. CULTURE and ENVIRONMENT has more to do with the characteristics of an individual than their skin color.

It is difficult for forensics to even justify many of the previously believed tenants when it comes to facial reconstruction when a skull is all that is available. Any beliefs that the “race” of the skull indicates tissue density gets marred when coming from someone of a mixed racial background.

Just because you seem to WANT to believe something does not make it true.

It is difficult for SOME people to live with other races because of bigotry, not because their genes are so different. They simply look at anyone who appears different than them and start firing off about what separates them…much like you are now.

You are using STEREOTYPES to describe races. You are clearly part of the problem and not the solution.

I dare you to describe me in detail in terms of character, drive, and life goals based on the fact that I am black.

Get to it. It should be easy for you…since you can see our differences so clearly.

130

Listen to me. I have read every post carefully and I understand fully every point you are trying to make.

The problem is that you are completely, totally, woefully wrong.

You are consistently confusing the concepts of “culture” and “race”.

DO you understand the difference between “doxa” and “episteme”?

Look it up.

131

I have read all of the posts carefully. The problem is that you are completely, woefully wrong.

You consistently confuse culture and race.

Do you know what “doxa” and “episteme” mean?

Look it up.

132

[quote]Digity wrote:
I think the fear of getting up the ass makes you workout a lot so you don’t become someone’s bitch.[/quote]

When someone I know got out of prison, he said people there rarely lifted alone for that reason…because you get jumped when you’re all tuckered out from exercise.

Don’t know if that’s true or not, he also gave himself a shitty prison tat (so that speaks to his intelligence, I think).

133

Alot of these guys Ive talked to who have been to prison, weren’t very intelligent.

Others were very smart.

But some maybe the majority aren’t really good wells of knowledge.

134

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
There are other things that come into play.
[/quote]
I just jumped into this thread at the end so I apologize if I am saying something over again.

First of all, I second everything that Prof. X has said.

Secondly, you make your claim by saying “I observe what races DO, OVER AND OVER AND OVER, consistently and deliberately.” Think about this more clearly. Why do the “races” do these things “over and over again?” It isn’t on account of their biology. Rather, in general, it is because they were raised in a similar environment. You are trying to draw a link from your observations to biology and that link isn’t there. It can’t be made directly or at all.

Take, for example, a kid who comes from a rough area of town. That kid might get beaten up everyday on his way home from school. How is an education going to be remotely important to that child? His concern is that he doesn’t get beat up. Maybe he has to work to help his family get by. Education to him seems like a waste because it doesn’t help with is most immediate goals, feeding his family and not getting beat up.

So what happens when that child becomes an adult? He doesn’t have an education and so he can’t escape where he has come from. If he has his own children, they are very much in the same position that he was. The cycle continues.

Has he chosen to live this life “deliberately?” I don’t think you can say that. If he could live a different life, he would. The fact of the matter, however, is that life has thrown him a certain set of circumstances that he has to deal with.

Just for argument sake, let’s say that he comes from a family that has enough money to put food on the table and that he isn’t worried about being beat up everyday. What if his parents don’t value education? His parents aren’t going push him to do well in school. They probably won’t be able to help him. They can’t impart in him the same kind of ambition that a middle-class family can impart in their own children.

It is circumstances like these that cause the so called consistent and deliberate actions of a race. It is not biology. There are plenty of examples of people who are in similar circumstances to the ones I described above who, no matter their race, all act the same way.

Society, in general, is designed to further the existing structure. If you were born middle class, then you stay middle class. The same is true with high class and lower class. True, there are some who manage to get ahead, but they are the exception, not the rule.

This is just the tip of iceberg with this issue. I haven’t talked at all about direct discrimination or the ways society makes certain people feel like that they can’t get ahead and so they shouldn’t try.

It isn’t nature. Not at all.

135

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
I had one poster on here state that he was freightened by me stating that the races differ in various ways. What is FREIGHTENING about this? Is it freightening that German Shepherds and Bichons are different? Is it freightening that Black Widows and your common harmless house spider are different? Garden snake versus a rattlesnake?
[/quote]

I was the one who stated that I was “terrified”. Allow me to qualify: my reaction was not toward what you said NECESSARILY, but toward interpretations thereof.

A common “problem” in Western thought is reductionist thinking, creation of hierarchical structures, etc. Clearly, this in conjunction with race has created issues in the past, but to deny its current presence (not saying Bricknyce did/does) would be equally distasteful.

Now, I don’t necessarily disagree with what Bricknyce said. However, there are tons of variables that he didn’t discuss, and I understand why: it’s fucking pointless!

To be fair, I disagree with Sento as well. He’s taking an overly broad socio-cultural brush to the topic of race. His position is crucial to the discussion, but represents an extreme just like Bricknyce’s. The real “truth” lies somewhere in between the juxtaposition of the socio-culturalists’ denial that genetics is relevant and the biologists’ dismissal of the significant “noise” that cultural variables create.

Honestly, I wish I could contribute more, but I really don’t care to discuss the topic because it too easily becomes a discussion of comparison in which we’d be drowning in infinite, however transparent, differences. I’d rather discuss similarities.

136

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You are spewing some serious bullshit now. I can guarantee that if you raised a white and black kid in the same household around the same stimulus, that you would get very similar characteristics and even life goals. CULTURE and ENVIRONMENT has more to do with the characteristics of an individual than their skin color.

It is difficult for forensics to even justify many of the previously believed tenants when it comes to facial reconstruction when a skull is all that is available. Any beliefs that the “race” of the skull indicates tissue density gets marred when coming from someone of a mixed racial background.

Just because you seem to WANT to believe something does not make it true.

It is difficult for SOME people to live with other races because of bigotry, not because their genes are so different. They simply look at anyone who appears different than them and start firing off about what separates them…much like you are now.

You are using STEREOTYPES to describe races. You are clearly part of the problem and not the solution.

I dare you to describe me in detail in terms of character, drive, and life goals based on the fact that I am black.

Get to it. It should be easy for you…since you can see our differences so clearly.[/quote]

I find myself nodding in agreement with this post.

Professor X’s statement: “Just because you seem to WANT to believe something does not make it true” is deep. Respect, Professor X.

137


It’s bizarre when someone like Luigi Cavalli-Sforza writes stuff like “the classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise”, “the idea of race in the human species serves no purpose” and expects his reasearch to “contribute to the elimination of racism” but then gives us the map above and writes:

[quote]Luigi Cavalli-Sforza wrote:
The color map of the world shows very distinctly the differences that we know exist among the continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids ⿦ (purple), and Australian Aborigines (red). The map does not show well the strong Caucasoid component in northern Africa, but it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe, and in West, South, and much of Central Asia.[/quote]

And that was a few years ago. Recent research looking at large numbers of SNPs enables us to see these genetic differences much more precisely.

The whole “there are no races” thing is American and driven by politics. It seems to be in a noble cause - race relations seem healthier in Mexico (which has a color continuum rather than color lines) than in America. I lived in Texas for most of my life so I’m not just some random Slav who has heard about America on TV. But even the scientists who go on about this “there is no race” stuff obviously believe that the reality of human genetics is very close to regular folks’ understanding of race - that every one of us is more closely related to some groups of people than to others. From my vantage point it’s just bizarre.

Classifying people into taxonomical units below the level of subspecies does serve a real-world purpose, for example in medical research where certain populations are more likely to suffer from certain diseases (genetic or otherwise - Tay-Sachs, sickle-cell anemia, Cohen syndrome, alcoholism etc.) or benefit from specific medicines (BiDil comes to mind).

138

[quote]DSmolken wrote:
But even the scientists who go on about this “there is no race” stuff obviously believe that the reality of human genetics is very close to regular folks’ understanding of race - that every one of us is more closely related to some groups of people than to others. From my vantage point it’s just bizarre.
[/quote]

No one says there isn’t variation between populations, only that the differentiation is not sufficient for racial or subspecies divide. Part of the difference is that laymen often overestimate the role of genetics.

139

The strictly socio-economic theory has been destroyed by long-term studies of monozygotic twins over the last several decades. Genes play a crucial role in human development, at least 50%.

There is an emerging field known as ‘race-based medicine’. Bidil was approved by the FDA as a heart failure medication specifically for Blacks. There have been talks of medication specifically for Ashkenazi Jews. Genetic variations among large ethnic groups are detectable; hence the current fascination with DNA and genetic migration tests, the kinds you can order from National Geographic. In criminology, DNA has been put to good use in identifying the larger ethnicity of the actual suspects. These slight variations have to do with the frequencies among large groups of humans.

The idea of ‘race’ has been so misconstrued and politicized that it can’t be reasonably debated, at least not on a bodybuilding forum. I think there is some taxonomic validity to larger groupings of humans, just as there to various breeds of dogs or subspecies of other mammals with common origin. But put it this way: when Dr. Watson, one of the men responsible for discovering the DNA double helix, makes a constroversial statement about this subject and gets canned from his job, you know the scientific community has been gone totally PC on this subject. The man was one of the greatest contributors to biology and genetics of the 20th century, and he got blackballed from his own profession. Dr. William Shockley, the man “who brought Silicon to Silicon Valley,” the guy responsible for spawning the microelectronic revolution we take for granted every single day, got totally shunned in academia for making similarly controversial statements on racial differences in IQ. So there seems to be a major dogma in both academia and the scientific community on discussing this subject.

140

[quote]will to power wrote:
No one says there isn’t variation between populations, only that the differentiation is not sufficient for racial or subspecies divide. Part of the difference is that laymen often overestimate the role of genetics.[/quote]

A few people are insisting that there must be zero variation between populations in terms of the distribution of sprinting ability, long-distance running ability and muscle-building potential (to keep this somewhat on-topic). The only way that could happen is if human natural selection stopped dead 40000 years ago.

Distributions are just that - distributions. I would guess that when it comes to genes relevant to athletic performance, a random elite Finnish sprinter would probably be more similar to a Nigerian sprinter than to a Finnish marathoner (but even more similar to another Finnish sprinter). We don’t know this right now, but in 5-10 years we will.