my head hurts
It’s rather arrogant to imply that football and basketball represent the pinnacle of athletic competition.
Could it not be argued that non-blacks dominate soccer, tennis, all forms of weightlifting (olympic, powerlifting), strongman, ice hockey, rugby, speed skating, olympic wrestling, many martial arts(don’t really follow this much, but MMA comes to mind), gymnastics, baseball, fencing…
i think as more black start to enter the sport the more they will dominate.
second off, how many black people do you know that fence, ski, or play hockey?
i agree that eastern euros and northern euros dominate oly and strongman but on the contrary most black people have it easier on the bodybuilding side.
it could also be that more black people gravitate to basketball and football versus baseball and soccer. if you look at the countries in africa they do much better at running sports, so maybe thats just whats more popular there. in america where there is also a strong black presence no one at all plays soccer who is black except for africans and hatians.
brazil has a very dominate soccer team and most brazilians are of mixed race so theres something to look at.
[quote]Wimpy wrote:
It’s rather arrogant to imply that football and basketball represent the pinnacle of athletic competition.
Could it not be argued that non-blacks dominate soccer, tennis, all forms of weightlifting (olympic, powerlifting), strongman, ice hockey, rugby, speed skating, olympic wrestling, many martial arts(don’t really follow this much, but MMA comes to mind), gymnastics, baseball, fencing…
[/quote]
Chris Rock had something funny to say about this, “The brother doesn’t feel the need to dominate another sport!”
[quote]Scrotus wrote:
So I would like to hear the details surrounding said discreditment.[/quote]
You’re right that there is a huge “popularity effect” in science. I don’t think that’s the case here. I’d love to explain what’s wrong with this guy’s “theory”, but I can’t. Well, I can, but I’m not willing to. I’d just have to explain too much to get anyone up to speed before I can even start talking about what’s wrong with his ideas.
Athletic performance is all about racial characteristics. Genetics: it’s why the Italians are so dominant in boxing, and the Jews dominate basketball.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Scrotus wrote:
So I would like to hear the details surrounding said discreditment.
You’re right that there is a huge “popularity effect” in science. I don’t think that’s the case here. I’d love to explain what’s wrong with this guy’s “theory”, but I can’t. Well, I can, but I’m not willing to. I’d just have to explain too much to get anyone up to speed before I can even start talking about what’s wrong with his ideas.[/quote]
You dont have a link or something. Their is definitely a genetic difference as far as different “races” (skin color for one, slight differences in median proportions and other things) are concerned, but I havent got a clue if said differences pertain to intelligence.
If you want to say that not all people of a certain group have the same proportions, well that is accurate. It would likely be a bell curve with most around average and some outliers.
Also, It is not uncommon for black americans, and possibly europeans and jamaicans, to have a large percentage of non-black ancestors.
Now, I do believe in evolution, and the ideal build and proportions for ice age europe is much different from ice age africa.
Also, the need for a higher fat storage in a colder, harsher environment would probably be more prevalent. That said, the only need for more intelligence I could think of is to deal with the increased demand in a larger community, to deal with understanding motives of a greater number of people and other things, as a highly social species as ourself. Northern Europeans, however, did not have such communities(or so I have been led to believe) until maybe 1000 years ago, and ancient Germans etc were still primarily hunter gatherers even in the Roman days.
You dont need to be smart enough to do calculas to throw a spear at a pig, or dig up some starchy root out of the ground. It is entirely possible that our excess of intelligence could have been mostly built by the process of sexual selection, making our brain the equivalent of peacock feathers.
I dont know why, but this stuff is really interesting to me.
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
my head hurts[/quote]
You must a specimen of that “inferior race”.
[quote]Xen Nova wrote:
seriously. Take a sociology course. Or pick up a sociology 1 book, and read away. None of the things you’re mentioning are biological. [/quote]
All of them are biological. Everyone knows that sociology is made-up bullshit and not a real scientific field.
And that’s all I’m going to say on this dumb-ass thread.
“Your history is not found in books. It is in your blood.”
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
All of them are biological. Everybody knows that sociology is bullshit.
And that’s all I’m going to say on this dumb-ass thread.[/quote]
That’s because you’re a dumb-ass. And a racist one at that.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
i think as more black start to enter the sport the more they will dominate.
second off, how many black people do you know that fence, ski, or play hockey?
i agree that eastern euros and northern euros dominate oly and strongman but on the contrary most black people have it easier on the bodybuilding side.
it could also be that more black people gravitate to basketball and football versus baseball and soccer. if you look at the countries in africa they do much better at running sports, so maybe thats just whats more popular there. in america where there is also a strong black presence no one at all plays soccer who is black except for africans and hatians.
brazil has a very dominate soccer team and most brazilians are of mixed race so theres something to look at.[/quote]
disprove what you said about what?
That blacks are more athletically gifted or that white people are crazy?
Or that blacks are the original man?
Blacks are the original Man<<<<
In order to say that you have to define what is black?
Considering most African Americans are heavily mixed.
You also must come up with a new definition of original, if the genes never changed how are you not original? as well as what are white people?
Are you saying they are white because of lack of sun or their genes changed? Not having sun isn’t going to change your genes, so if thats the case they are as original as Africans.
If your saying their genes changed, how did they change? Did some mosquito infect all european africans and give them a white gene?
You have nothing to disprove because you haven’t stated any valid arguments. Your stereotypes are very substantial, but until you back them with a better hypothesis they’re as weak as the stereotype of the old lady that used to follow me around Woolworths.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
All of them are biological. Everybody knows that sociology is bullshit.
And that’s all I’m going to say on this dumb-ass thread.
That’s because you’re a dumb-ass. And a racist one at that.[/quote]
Stop posting.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
All of them are biological. Everybody knows that sociology is bullshit.
And that’s all I’m going to say on this dumb-ass thread.
That’s because you’re a dumb-ass. And a racist one at that.
Stop posting.[/quote]
Why dont you go back to reading “Mein Kampf” and leave us the fuck alone.