qman said:

...I put forward the POSSIBILITY that there's a biological inclination towards violence for certain races...

---

DividedQuantum said:

qman said:

Yeah, because we can't see any differences in professional athletics, but that's OK as long as it shows blacks outperforming whites.

Can you show me any evidence that blacks are better athletes?  Because I can't accept the real world reality of the situation.

---

Everyone knows blacks are better at football, basketball and golf, while whites are better at baseball, hockey and tennis.  That's a racist comment, but I'd be amused to see someone try to refute it.

(Just havin' fun).

---

The Ecstatic said:

DividedQuantum said:

qman said:

Yeah, because we can't see any differences in professional athletics, but that's OK as long as it shows blacks outperforming whites.

Can you show me any evidence that blacks are better athletes?  Because I can't accept the real world reality of the situation.

---

Everyone knows blacks are better at football, basketball and golf, while whites are better at baseball, hockey and tennis.  That's a racist comment, but I'd be amused to see someone try to refute it.

(Just havin' fun).

---

How many inner city blacks have hockey rinks, tennis courts, and baseball fields at their disposal? How many that do have the money for equipment?

I think youve illustrated the point perfectly. Its absurd to think that there is a genetic basis for blacks being good at basketball but poor at basketball. Most of these sports are only a couple generations old. Like I said: its environment. Look at golf ffs. Most expensive sport to play. Is it really a wonder that the PGA is chalk full of young rich white boys? Come on, people.

---

qman said:

ballsalsa said:

presumably it is that people of african descent are genetically more prone to violence and crime than other groups.  I'm not 100% on that, but it seems to be the point of the last several posts in this thread

---

No, I put forward the POSSIBILITY that there's a biological inclination towards violence for certain races, it's commonly accepted that there's a biological inclination towards violence depending on sex and age, but when race comes into the equation some people start to freak out, it's called being closed minded when a person won't even entertain a possibility.

Also, why would anyone assume being more inclined to be violent is a bad thing?  Again, more defensive bullshit.

---

qman said:

You still don't get it because you're so defensive and closed minded.

"BUT what there is no evidence for is that blacks are genetically-predisposed to violence"

You admit there's clear differences in muscle structure, bone structure, jaw structure, blood structure, skin, ect.  But as soon as someone even suggests there is a difference in neurological structure, you CLOSE your mind to EVEN consider the POSSIBILITY.

Even if Blacks were "genetically-predisposed to violence", it wouldn't make them inferior!!! In fact, in some environments it could make them SUPERIOR, but you're too closed minded to even think of that outcome.

---

so because I need evidence for ridiculous claims youre making, i'm defensive and closed minded??
sounds like youre defensive and close minded for reacting that way to a request for evidence for your established presumption about black people..

yes I accept the differences backed by scientific fact, I dont accept massive leaps into BS conjecture. Id consider any possibility but without any evidence and logic backing it up, it would not be likely.

You can do all the acrobatics you like, we all know what your implying. You can try to obfuscate it as saying that blacks are superior with their "innate violence" but if you haven't proven your first BS premise, how are your following BS conclusions going to work?

You are all over the place, qman.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

...I put forward the POSSIBILITY that there's a biological inclination towards violence for certain races...

---

No one is denying that possibility.  But your previous comments seem to suggest that you accept this as fact rather than possibility ("Pointing out biological differences is NOT racism").

---

PeyoteZen said:

---

The funnest part of telling this election story to my grandchildren will be the part where Hillary tried to label Rare Pepe memes as white nationalist.

Tipote said:

amp244 said:

I don't agree. Lets assume, hypothetically, that Qman is right, and that biologically black people are really more prone to aggression, and this could in fact be identified as being the result of a unique genetic difference. In this case, under your interpretation, the universe, or God, as it were, is racist. The mere thought or belief that people are different is not racist. Treating people different or advocating such treatment based in anyway on those differences, whether perceived or fully demonstrated, is racist. The belief  that "black people", in general, are more prone to having big lips, more prone to being violent, or more prone to playing basketball, is not racist if I base it on science. If I go up to a random black person and ask him to autograph my basketball, or belittle him for having unique facial features, or yell at him to back off and warn him with a pistol, that is racist. I have TREATED him DIFFERENT based on his race.

There is also, as with everything, the element of intent. If I am autistic and I simply run up to everyone and ask them to sign my basketball, I am not racist when I run up to the black man and do the same. You have to be treating them DIFFERENT than others, and it must be based on RACE. 

Races are different biologically. Broad races can be differentiated based on jaw bones alone, when there is no skin or facial features. Kenyans are successful long distance runners because of the unique physical attributes in the bones of their legs, which allow them perform better in long races. This is not racist, it is a matter of fact. Black people have a higher proportion of explosive muscle to slow twitch muscle than white people, on average. You can see the results of this proven in the NFL, where the overwhelming majority of the positions requiring elite athletes are filled by African Americans. The wide-outs, running backs, line backers, corner backs, safeties; are OVERWHELMINGLY black, despite the fact that there are far more white people in the country. Not that there aren't Jordy Nelson's and Brian Urlacers, but, when taken on average, the differences in genetics are clearly there. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between one another. Pointing that out is NOT RACIST, it is a scientific fact, provable through the scientific process and statistics. Treating people differently, or advocating such treatment, based on these differences, is racist.

---

ok apparently you as well as qman did not read my post or I was not absolutely clear enough. I said very clearly that talking about difference based on scientific fact is not racist - even if it says that people from eg. Kenya are more likely to exhibit a phenotype than someone from Ohio. I dont know about the evidence behind this twitch-muscle thing you keep mentioning but I'm not suggesting that would be racist. BUT what there is no evidence for is that blacks are genetically-predisposed to violence and crime. If there is no evidence then it is pure conjecture based on (in qman's case) a long established prejudice.

I'm saying that the categorisation of the races in a hierarchy especially with the power structure that goes with it is racist. That is NOT as simple as the reductionist definition of "treating people differently according to race is racist". Otherwise you could make the case that reparations for slavery were racist..(which qman would probably say actually...)  If I said black people have bigger lips and that makes them worse than whites then it is racism. If I say that blacks are innately criminal and violent (without any conclusive evidence)then it is racist as it implies inferiority.

While white male dominance is threatened, white supremacy is an established political order which is still in the process of collapse. When qman makes these baseless statements, he reveals his clear ranking with only his prejudice to back it up.

Did you ever have the displeasure of meeting WAN? The Asian immigrant to Canada who hated non-whites. She even said she grew up with the idea that whites are best, then asian..and then people squabble about the order but blacks at the bottom with arabs above them. Can you pretend that has not been the defacto status quo of how people construct race hierarchy? in Sudan, there is Arab superiority over black Sudanese groups.

race is a human construct and should not be used so rigidly. It can be useful when talking about some important biological differences based on scientific proof and used as a rough guide.

---

amp244 said:

Tipote said:

amp244 said:

I don't agree. Lets assume, hypothetically, that Qman is right, and that biologically black people are really more prone to aggression, and this could in fact be identified as being the result of a unique genetic difference. In this case, under your interpretation, the universe, or God, as it were, is racist. The mere thought or belief that people are different is not racist. Treating people different or advocating such treatment based in anyway on those differences, whether perceived or fully demonstrated, is racist. The belief  that "black people", in general, are more prone to having big lips, more prone to being violent, or more prone to playing basketball, is not racist if I base it on science. If I go up to a random black person and ask him to autograph my basketball, or belittle him for having unique facial features, or yell at him to back off and warn him with a pistol, that is racist. I have TREATED him DIFFERENT based on his race.

There is also, as with everything, the element of intent. If I am autistic and I simply run up to everyone and ask them to sign my basketball, I am not racist when I run up to the black man and do the same. You have to be treating them DIFFERENT than others, and it must be based on RACE. 

Races are different biologically. Broad races can be differentiated based on jaw bones alone, when there is no skin or facial features. Kenyans are successful long distance runners because of the unique physical attributes in the bones of their legs, which allow them perform better in long races. This is not racist, it is a matter of fact. Black people have a higher proportion of explosive muscle to slow twitch muscle than white people, on average. You can see the results of this proven in the NFL, where the overwhelming majority of the positions requiring elite athletes are filled by African Americans. The wide-outs, running backs, line backers, corner backs, safeties; are OVERWHELMINGLY black, despite the fact that there are far more white people in the country. Not that there aren't Jordy Nelson's and Brian Urlacers, but, when taken on average, the differences in genetics are clearly there. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between one another. Pointing that out is NOT RACIST, it is a scientific fact, provable through the scientific process and statistics. Treating people differently, or advocating such treatment, based on these differences, is racist.

---

ok apparently you as well as qman did not read my post or I was not absolutely clear enough. I said very clearly that talking about difference based on scientific fact is not racist - even if it says that people from eg. Kenya are more likely to exhibit a phenotype than someone from Ohio. I dont know about the evidence behind this twitch-muscle thing you keep mentioning but I'm not suggesting that would be racist. BUT what there is no evidence for is that blacks are genetically-predisposed to violence and crime. If there is no evidence then it is pure conjecture based on (in qman's case) a long established prejudice.

I'm saying that the categorisation of the races in a hierarchy especially with the power structure that goes with it is racist. That is NOT as simple as the reductionist definition of "treating people differently according to race is racist". Otherwise you could make the case that reparations for slavery were racist..(which qman would probably say actually...)  If I said black people have bigger lips and that makes them worse than whites then it is racism. If I say that blacks are innately criminal and violent (without any conclusive evidence)then it is racist as it implies inferiority.

While white male dominance is threatened, white supremacy is an established political order which is still in the process of collapse. When qman makes these baseless statements, he reveals his clear ranking with only his prejudice to back it up.

Did you ever have the displeasure of meeting WAN? The Asian immigrant to Canada who hated non-whites. She even said she grew up with the idea that whites are best, then asian..and then people squabble about the order but blacks at the bottom with arabs above them. Can you pretend that has not been the defacto status quo of how people construct race hierarchy? in Sudan, there is Arab superiority over black Sudanese groups.

race is a human construct and should not be used so rigidly. It can be useful when talking about some important biological differences based on scientific proof and used as a rough guide.

---

You apparently didn't read what I wrote. I posed a hypothetical where qman was right. If the difference could be proved genetically, or if statistics lead one to hold such a theory, than his belief would not be based on racism. Is that concise enough for you?

2nd, your point about the general difference to the consequences of racism is moot to the topic. A poor white man who doesn't get a job because of affirmative action is just as damaged as a poor black man who doesn't get a job because of similar racial discrimination. The racism is just as damaging to any race within a given economic class. I do however, take your point.

3rd, the fact that there is an establishment in place, and that those pulling the strings happen to be white, does not mean that any white male is part of the club. You are holding an entire race of people accountable for the actions of an incredibly minute number of people. You are clearly displaying racism when you assume Qman is part of this group, simply because his skin is white. You are displaying racism when you say that job discrimination based on race is more severe for a given black man, than it is for a given white man. Do you see how readily you discriminate and pass judgement based on racism, without even knowing it?

Oh there is an Asian who went to Canada and hated all non-whites? Well there are entire city streets currently filled with White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian people shouting at whites and calling them devils and shit. What's your point?

---

DividedQuantum said:

qman said:

Yeah, because we can't see any differences in professional athletics, but that's OK as long as it shows blacks outperforming whites.

Can you show me any evidence that blacks are better athletes?  Because I can't accept the real world reality of the situation.

---

Everyone knows blacks are better at football, basketball and golf, while whites are better at baseball, hockey and tennis.  That's a racist comment, but I'd be amused to see someone try to refute it.

(Just havin' fun).

---

The Ecstatic said:

Thats a good point. I'd say its pretty clear that blacks, at least in America, are on average more athletic than their white counterparts.

---

Tipote said:

qman said:

ballsalsa said:

presumably it is that people of african descent are genetically more prone to violence and crime than other groups.  I'm not 100% on that, but it seems to be the point of the last several posts in this thread

---

No, I put forward the POSSIBILITY that there's a biological inclination towards violence for certain races, it's commonly accepted that there's a biological inclination towards violence depending on sex and age, but when race comes into the equation some people start to freak out, it's called being closed minded when a person won't even entertain a possibility.

Also, why would anyone assume being more inclined to be violent is a bad thing?  Again, more defensive bullshit.

---

qman said:

You still don't get it because you're so defensive and closed minded.

"BUT what there is no evidence for is that blacks are genetically-predisposed to violence"

You admit there's clear differences in muscle structure, bone structure, jaw structure, blood structure, skin, ect.  But as soon as someone even suggests there is a difference in neurological structure, you CLOSE your mind to EVEN consider the POSSIBILITY.

Even if Blacks were "genetically-predisposed to violence", it wouldn't make them inferior!!! In fact, in some environments it could make them SUPERIOR, but you're too closed minded to even think of that outcome.

---

so because I need evidence for ridiculous claims youre making, i'm defensive and closed minded??
sounds like youre defensive and close minded for reacting that way to a request for evidence for your established presumption about black people..

yes I accept the differences backed by scientific fact, I dont accept massive leaps into BS conjecture. Id consider any possibility but without any evidence and logic backing it up, it would not be likely.

You can do all the acrobatics you like, we all know what your implying. You can try to obfuscate it as saying that blacks are superior with their "innate violence" but if you haven't proven your first BS premise, how are your following BS conclusions going to work?

You are all over the place, qman.

---

"I need evidence for ridiculous claims"

Yet, you accept the fact that sex/age genetically and biologically play a major role for the inclination of violence. You also accept the fact the blacks are biologically different in many different areas.

"without... logic backing it up, it would not be likely"

Because violent crime statistics are NOT based on logic.

"You are all over the place, qman"

No, it's actually been pointed out it's you and your hypocrisy that's all over the place, you're just too caught up in defending your baseless position.  You're solution is just using the typical liberal response when you don't like the suggestion- "you're racist!!".

qman said:

ballsalsa said:

qman said:

ballsalsa said:

I didn't say it was a bad thing, and you may have noticed by now that I am open to the idea of many behavioral traits having a genetic basis.  That being said, until someone does some conclusive studies on the subject of genetic behavioral predispositions in humans, and until those studies' results show a definite link between specific genes or sets of genes and specific behaviors, any assertion about the genetic basis of violence or crime is pure conjecture. (or maybe wishful thinking, depending on who you are)

---

Yet, you acknowledge there's a genetic basis for violence when it comes to sex? 

And a biological basis when it comes to age?

And you also acknowledge genetic and biological differences between human races?

---

Show me the data, or explain the reasoning to me, and i very well may.

as for genetic differences between human populations; of course there are differences.  "Race" as we think of it may not even be a great method for grouping these differences though, because there are as many differences within "races" as between.

---

So, I'll assume you answered "yes" to my questions.

"Race" as we think of it may not even be a great method for groups these differences"

Yeah, because we can't see any differences in professional athletics, but that's OK as long as it shows blacks outperforming whites.

Can you show me any evidence that blacks are better athletes?  Because I can't accept the real world reality of the situation.

---