 |
| |
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking
But based on your generalization, you would have to agree that pygmies are more likely to run faster and jump higher than germans.
And THAT is why it is racism.
It is a lie. |
How do you know it is a lie? If pygmies are more likely to do so, there can't possibly be anything wrong in STATING it.
quote:
You look at a non-random subset of people, and choose to associate a trait you SELECTED those people for with another obvious trait they happen to have.
Then you ASSUME that all people who have the obvious trait (black skin) also have the selected trait (good sprinting). |
Nope, you assume that a greater proportion of those with trait X will have trait Y, because when you select those with trait Y (good sprinters), you find that a disproportionate number of them have trait X (black).
quote:
It can only lead to differing expecatations, which can only lead to different treatment. |
This argument applies whether or not it is true. Are you suggesting censoring the truth because you find it unpleasant?
quote:
Stop before you start.
Once you assume that "black people" are a homogenous group with innate physiological differences, it is too easy to decide they have innate behaviours as well. |
What if they ARE a homogenous group with innate physiological differences? (that's not what we're claiming, but OK)
Your argument is that same as that evolution is false or bad, because people can use it to justify Social Darwinism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Viking
|
 |
of the Great White North
Feb 2000
time: 05:35
|
|
The point is, pygmies are black. They are not more likely to run faster. Neither are bushmen.
We don't know that being black makes you more likely to be a better runner.
All we know is that if you are among the fastest runners in the world, you are more likely to be black.
THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING. GO TAKE A PROBABILITY & STATISTICS COURSE!!! 
Among all the black people, how many are actually fast runners, and how many might be genetically SLOWER. Like pygmies, bushmen, watusis, ethiopians, mandingos, australians, etc. who have never sent a sprinter to the podium?
The average black person could easily be slower than the average asian or white. The elite black athletes quite likely are a subset of all blacks that is NOT representative.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking
But based on your generalization, you would have to agree that pygmies are more likely to run faster and jump higher than germans. |
No, you would have to say that in a race between the fastest german and the fasted pygmy, the pygmy would win. It may not even be that the average pygmy would be faster than the average german, because it may be that germans have less variation in terms of fast twitch muscles.
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking
And THAT is why it is racism. |
Whether or not you consider it racism to say that the fastest sprinters in the world will be black, because they have the right genes for fast twitch muscles, or not, doesn't stop the fact that it is true. The fastest sprinters in the world have black skin, almost without exception. That is because they have a genetic history that includes the genes for large amounts of fast twitch muscles.
Do you think it's racism to say that much of the worlds best Steeplechasers come from a single villiage in Kenya? They happen to have the right genes for muscles that are more efficient. It would be discrimination to say that they are the only people who are eligable to run in the Kenyan team, but it would not be discrimination to say that the fastest runners should be in the Kenyan team, whether they happen to all be from a certain villiage or not.
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Then you ASSUME that all people who have the obvious trait (black skin) also have the selected trait (good sprinting). |
No I don't. I assume that the people who excel at a selected trait (sprinting) will have another obvious trait (black skin). I do not assume the reverse is true. Not every black person will be a great sprinter. However all of the worlds best sprinters will be black.
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Once you assume that "black people" are a homogenous group with innate physiological differences, it is too easy to decide they have innate behaviours as well. |
I don't assume that. Also, that leap is a bit strong for me. However, genetics do have a say in physical and mental attributes. You would be correct, if I assumed that "black people" are a homogenous group. I don't. I realise that all people differ hugely. However I can also say that if you go to the very pinacle of an attribute, like sprinting or long distance running, you will find them usually to be of a certain genetic type, in that the genes that give fast twitch muscles, or efficient muscles that can go for longer, are more prevelant there, and no matter how much training someone without that genetic background has, they will not match the accomplishments of the fastest people that have that genetic background.
All top athelets train incredibly hard. However in order to be right at the top, one of the best in the world, at that particular attribute, you would have to train hard and have the right genetic makeup. When I used to be very competetive at athletics, I had to come to realise that because of my genetic makeup, no matter how hard I trained, I would never win an Olympic gold medal. That is not because of my skin colour, that is because of my genes. I can't say that a black person has the right genes to win an Olympic gold medal at sprinting. There are incredibly few people that have the right genes, since we're talking about the absolute pinacle. However I can say that every single person who has the right genes will also happen to be black. I am not generalising about black people, since some can sprint, and some can't, as with any ethnic background. I am generalising about sprinters, because in order to have the genes that give large amounts of fast twitch muscles, you must have the genetic background that has those genes.
As I have said, I don't advocate treating people with different skin colours differently. I do advocate realising that no caucasian happens to have then genes to be the best sprinter in the world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking
The point is, pygmies are black. They are not more likely to run faster. Neither are bushmen.
We don't know that being black makes you more likely to be a better runner.
All we know is that if you are among the fastest runners in the world, you are more likely to be black. |
Thus, blacks are more likely to be fast runners, or at least to be among the fastest runners in the world.
THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING. GO TAKE A PROBABILITY & STATISTICS COURSE!!! [/q]
The proportion of "fastest runners in world" that is black is larger than the proportion of "people in world" that is black, thus the proportion of "blacks" that are "fastest runners in world" is larger than the proportion of "not blacks" that are "fastest runners in world". Basic statistics - I don't need to have taken AP Stat to know it (though having a dad who's an actuary helps  ).
Among all the black people, how many are actually fast runners, and how many might be genetically SLOWER. Like pygmies, bushmen, watusis, ethiopians, mandingos, australians, etc. who have never sent a sprinter to the podium?
quote:
The average black person could easily be slower than the average asian or white. The elite black athletes quite likely are a subset of all blacks that is NOT representative. |
So you're just saying that it's curved, that blacks are more likely to be OK runners or elite runners, but less likely to be something in between.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Viking
|
|
of the Great White North
Feb 2000
time: 05:35
|
|
From basic theory:
quote:
There are several common pitfalls in using correlation. Correlation is symmetrical, not providing evidence of which way causation flows. If other variables also cause the dependent variable, then any covariance they share with the given independent variable in a correlation will be falsely attributed to that independent. |
Kuci, you are full of crap.
Therefore, all people who are full of crap must be Kuci.
You are just wrong, and refuse to admit it. Like a young school child, caught in a lie.
Last Conformist:
quote:
Given the numbers of humans around, a measurable correlation would be practically certain not to be totally random. Probably it would turn out that the genes for dark skin and good running skills are prevalent in the same populations, and once we've identified the running genes we can GM all humans to give everyone the same chances to win an olympic gold in sprinting. |
THIS ISN'T PROBABLE AT ALL!
Its no different than deciding most black people like watermelons.
"a measurable correlation would be practically certain not to be totally random" 
Lookit, there are a 1-2 billion black people in the world. They are found native to different continents. Their genes vary tremendously amongst each other.
Using this illogic, you can look at the shortest people in the world, (pygmies) and be certain that blacks are the shortest people in the world.
Then, you can look at the tallest people in the world (the Watusi and the Dinka) and be just as certain that blacks are the tallest people in the world.
If you don't believe me, try Big Crunch. Nicer avatar, more calm than I am.
The fact that the vast majority of elite sprinters are black DOES NOT MEAN, AT ALL, IN ANY WAY, that the average black is faster.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking
From basic theory:
quote:
There are several common pitfalls in using correlation. Correlation is symmetrical, not providing evidence of which way causation flows. If other variables also cause the dependent variable, then any covariance they share with the given independent variable in a correlation will be falsely attributed to that independent. |
Kuci, you are full of crap.
Therefore, all people who are full of crap must be Kuci.
You are just wrong, and refuse to admit it. Like a young school child, caught in a lie. |
You are an IDIOT!
TMV is an idiot. Kucinich is not an idiot. Therefore, a person who is an idiot is more likely to be TMV than Kucinich.
For a better example: there are twenty schmoos, ten red and ten blue. There are seven big red schmoos and three big blue schmoos - the rest are small. Therefore, red schmoos are more likely to be big, and big schmoos are more likely to be red.
I've NEVER claimed causation. The most I've ever pointed out is possible common causation, in a parenthetical in a post regarding the point of the entire thread.
quote:
The fact that the vast majority of elite sprinters are black DOES NOT MEAN, AT ALL, IN ANY WAY, that the average black is faster. |
So? It is likely, because running speed, like almost every other (linear) biological charactaristic, is distributed over a bell curve. Thus a faster extreme means that it is likely that their is a faster median.
However, I concede that it is POSSIBLE that the distribution is different. However, this doesn't change that an elite runner is more likely to be black, or that a black is more likely to be an elite runner (than a member of another race is).
Last edited by Kuciwalker on 07-04-2004 at 06:10
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
Why do you all hate black people so much?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
 |
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Last Conformist:
quote:
Given the numbers of humans around, a measurable correlation would be practically certain not to be totally random. Probably it would turn out that the genes for dark skin and good running skills are prevalent in the same populations, and once we've identified the running genes we can GM all humans to give everyone the same chances to win an olympic gold in sprinting. |
THIS ISN'T PROBABLE AT ALL!
Its no different than deciding most black people like watermelons.
"a measurable correlation would be practically certain not to be totally random"
Lookit, there are a 1-2 billion black people in the world. They are found native to different continents. Their genes vary tremendously amongst each other.
Using this illogic, you can look at the shortest people in the world, (pygmies) and be certain that blacks are the shortest people in the world.
Then, you can look at the tallest people in the world (the Watusi and the Dinka) and be just as certain that blacks are the tallest people in the world.
|
First, the fact that you answered my obviously less-than-serious post at all strongly suggests you're an idiot.
Let's explain real slowly this time.
a) Most top sprinters are black. Indeed, an overwhelming majority of top sprinters are.
b) Most people are not black.
c) Combining (a) and (b), it follows that a black person chosen at random is much more likely (several times, infact) to be a top sprinter than a randomly chosen non-black person.
d) Spring ability is, to a considerable extent, dependent on genes determining body build, muscle tissue types and the like.
e) Since people who do not have genes conducive to top sprinting ability do not become top sprinters, it follows that such genes are more common among top sprinters than among other people.
f) Taken together, (e) and (f) suggest that genes conducive to top sprinting ability are more common among black people than among other people.
Despite being a probable idiot, you will notice that I nowhere suggest that black skin causes superior running ability, nor that the average black person is a better sprinter than the average non-black.
What you say about pygmies and Dinkas is, of course, perfectly in accordance with what I say. That you apparently intend it as an attack on my position is further evidence you're an idiot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Viking
|
|
of the Great White North
Feb 2000
time: 05:35
|
|
Idiot?  Strike a nerve, did I?
What you said in your first post is:
quote:
Probably it would turn out that the genes for dark skin and good running skills are prevalent in the same populations |
This is simply not probable. This is not the same argument you are making now. The word "prevalent" I guess troubles me.
Simply put, I suppose I don't agree with calling "dark skinned" a population. I see no evidence for defining this as a population. (Probably because I am an idiot.) Why you would choose to put pygmies, ethiopes, dinkas, bushmen, australian aboriginies in the same population is beyond me. Is a Carib "dark-skinned"? A Papuan is, yes?
I agree with the arguments you are making now:
quote:
genes conducive to top sprinting ability are more common among black people than among other people. |
But while this:
quote:
a black person chosen at random is much more likely (several times, infact) to be a top sprinter than a randomly chosen non-black person. |
is true, it is not particularly informative. Because the probability in either case approaches zero. You are talking about the extreme fringe of Poisson distribution here. 1 in 1,000,000. You cannot deduce anything reliable about a population by looking only a sample of the extreme fringe.
 By the way, where did I personally insult you?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Idiot? Strike a nerve, did I?
What you said in your first post is:
quote:
Probably it would turn out that the genes for dark skin and good running skills are prevalent in the same populations |
This is simply not probable. This is not the same argument you are making now. The word "prevalent" I guess troubles me.
Simply put, I suppose I don't agree with calling "dark skinned" a population. I see no evidence for defining this as a population. (Probably because I am an idiot.) Why you would choose to put pygmies, ethiopes, dinkas, bushmen, australian aboriginies in the same population is beyond me. Is a Carib "dark-skinned"? A Papuan is, yes?
I agree with the arguments you are making now:
quote:
genes conducive to top sprinting ability are more common among black people than among other people. |
But while this:
quote:
a black person chosen at random is much more likely (several times, infact) to be a top sprinter than a randomly chosen non-black person. |
is true, it is not particularly informative. Because the probability in either case approaches zero. You are talking about the extreme fringe of Poisson distribution here. 1 in 1,000,000. You cannot deduce anything reliable about a population by looking only a sample of the extreme fringe.
By the way, where did I personally insult you? |
I would be willing to bet that the average 25 year old black american female would run slower than the average 25 year old white american female.
I chose this age because it's negates the fact that they may be participating in a high school or collegiate sports program.
I base this on personal observation and a report that talks about the fact that black women exercise less than white women in America. The fact that they exercise less leads to inferior physical conditions. The reasons for the difference is in the way black women have their hair done. It's purely for social reasons and has nothing to do with genetics.
Similarly, Some groups will not participate in certain activities thus their prowess cannot be accurately measured. Prime examples tennis and golf. There are very few non-whites in both sports but evidence suggests that other groups could do well in both these sports.
Also, Baseball and Boxing. These sports are seeing more and more Latino's enter when initially, it was a white the black dominated sport. Is it the case that blacks and whites where no longer able to throw a punch or did these groups lose interest starting at the playground level. Two black High school students in the U.S. had this to say about the waning popularity of America's favorite pastime. "Some people think baseball is boring. We think it's really really boring."
My point is that when it comes to sports, arts, or jobs the potential or success cannot be determined by skin color.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-04-2004 22:31
|