Conquer Club

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:I wouldn't doubt if a difference in IQ exists similar to how tall people generally have a higher IQ than short people. Yea, economic differences have an impact too I bet, but it'd be naive in my opinion if you said straight up that biology has nothing to do with it.

Like, black people have larger muscles than whites. Is that based on economic differences as well?

Black people have larger muscles than white people? All of them?

On average, I'd guess. What else accounts for the fact that blacks are better athletes?

inb4 "blacks aren't better athletes"

Well Aog has a point here. Why is it all the marathon runners in the Olympics seem to be from the horn of africa?

I don't think AoG has a point. If black people were better athletes because of the color of their skin, wouldn't all athletes be black? Is Tiger a good golfer because he's black?

thegreekdog wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:I wouldn't doubt if a difference in IQ exists similar to how tall people generally have a higher IQ than short people. Yea, economic differences have an impact too I bet, but it'd be naive in my opinion if you said straight up that biology has nothing to do with it.

Like, black people have larger muscles than whites. Is that based on economic differences as well?

Black people have larger muscles than white people? All of them?

On average, I'd guess. What else accounts for the fact that blacks are better athletes?

inb4 "blacks aren't better athletes"

Well Aog has a point here. Why is it all the marathon runners in the Olympics seem to be from the horn of africa?

I don't think AoG has a point. If black people were better athletes because of the color of their skin, wouldn't all athletes be black? Is Tiger a good golfer because he's black?

No. He's a good golfer because he's Thai/Chinese.

Like I said, it doesn't work on an individual scale. Saying all blacks are more athletic than whites is stupid and racist. Saying, on average, blacks are more athletic isn't. Is it coincidence that like 85% of basketball players are black? How Peyton Hillis is the only what running back and how only slot receivers are white? What about the saying "white men can't jump"?

:]<<

oh, and I know my opinion is hardly based on scientific evidence so I would gladly alter my opinion if some evidence otherwise was presented. I'm just saying as of right now with a mostly unbiased viewpoint, that's what I think if someone put a gun to my head.

Army of GOD wrote:Like I said, it doesn't work on an individual scale. Saying all blacks are more athletic than whites is stupid and racist. Saying, on average, blacks are more athletic isn't. Is it coincidence that like 85% of basketball players are black? How Peyton Hillis is the only what running back and how only slot receivers are white? What about the saying "white men can't jump"?

Is it a coincidence that the American basketball team always dominates all the non-American teams during the Olympics? I think not; therefore, the Americans are intrinsically more athletic than non-Americans.

THis is something I don't understand really.

You guys are told so much not to be racists at school that it clouds your mind. What AoG is saying is right and so obvious.

In general, black people develop more athletic bodies than whites and asians. They are stronger. IN GENERAL. That has to account for something doesn't it? It's not random.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:Like I said, it doesn't work on an individual scale. Saying all blacks are more athletic than whites is stupid and racist. Saying, on average, blacks are more athletic isn't. Is it coincidence that like 85% of basketball players are black? How Peyton Hillis is the only what running back and how only slot receivers are white? What about the saying "white men can't jump"?

Is it a coincidence that the American basketball team always dominates all the non-American teams during the Olympics? I think not; therefore, the Americans are intrinsically more athletic than non-Americans.

Let me introduce you to my friend logical fallacy. I think you two would make a great pair. I'm sure you've already met.

I think the fact that most of the best basketball players are black has more to do with the fact that basketball is and has been very popular among poorer, black, American neighbourhoods. ie, it's a cultural phenomena, and is not directly attributable to the colour of someone's skin.

If you were to look at a sport with wider appeal (in fact the widest appeal), and take soccer for an example, would the skin-colour arguments still hold true?

Timminz wrote:I think the fact that most of the best basketball players are black has more to do with the fact that basketball is and has been very popular among poorer, black, American neighbourhoods. ie, it's a cultural phenomena, and is not directly attributable to the colour of someone's skin.

If you were to look at a sport with wider appeal (in fact the widest appeal), and take soccer for an example, would the skin-colour arguments still hold true?

There is no wider appeal than running. It's the only sport that is basically the same across all cultures, climates, socio-economic situations, etc. You don't need a big ass field of green grass to run. You don't need equipment. You don't need anything. You just go out there and run.

What physical characteristic would you say exists among the majority of successful runners globally?

72o wrote:

Timminz wrote:I think the fact that most of the best basketball players are black has more to do with the fact that basketball is and has been very popular among poorer, black, American neighbourhoods. ie, it's a cultural phenomena, and is not directly attributable to the colour of someone's skin.

If you were to look at a sport with wider appeal (in fact the widest appeal), and take soccer for an example, would the skin-colour arguments still hold true?

There is no wider appeal than running.

Um, no... soccer is a far more popular sport than running.

Army of GOD wrote:Notice how I said "on average" and not "every single black person".

Yeah, I did notice that and I replied that there were "plenty" of skinny weak black people. I'm just trying to say that it's not the fact that those people are black that makes them better athletes, it's that their genes have been "engineered" over time to make certain groups of black people physically stronger, faster, etc.. Their basic makeup is no different.

Timminz wrote:

72o wrote:

Timminz wrote:I think the fact that most of the best basketball players are black has more to do with the fact that basketball is and has been very popular among poorer, black, American neighbourhoods. ie, it's a cultural phenomena, and is not directly attributable to the colour of someone's skin.

If you were to look at a sport with wider appeal (in fact the widest appeal), and take soccer for an example, would the skin-colour arguments still hold true?

There is no wider appeal than running.

Um, no... soccer is far more popular a sport than running.

We're not talking about spectating. We're talking about number of people participating in the activity worldwide.

Why are there no black swimmers in the Olympics? Genetic, or learned behavior?

72o wrote:

Timminz wrote:

72o wrote:

Timminz wrote:I think the fact that most of the best basketball players are black has more to do with the fact that basketball is and has been very popular among poorer, black, American neighbourhoods. ie, it's a cultural phenomena, and is not directly attributable to the colour of someone's skin.

If you were to look at a sport with wider appeal (in fact the widest appeal), and take soccer for an example, would the skin-colour arguments still hold true?

There is no wider appeal than running.

Um, no... soccer is far more popular a sport than running.

We're not talking about spectating. We're talking about number of people participating in the activity worldwide.

As a sport? If we're only talking about activities, breathing, drinking, and eating have a wider appeal than anything. Are black people better at breathing, drinking, and eating?

72o wrote:Why are there no black swimmers in the Olympics? Genetic, or learned behavior?

No black Olympic swimmers?! Are you sure you don't want to amend that statement.

72o wrote:Why are there no black swimmers in the Olympics? Genetic, or learned behavior?

Professional sports depend a lot on muscle memory. It's so tough that you depend completely in what your muscles can do automatically.

I'd say that determination, practice and then talent is the order of importance for success in professional sports. Some do without much talent, but have great determination and practice a lot. Others have so much talent that need little practice, and their determination is based in the fact they know they are great.

But give the same kind of food and activities to a black man and a white man, and odds are the black guy will develop bigger muscles and more athleticism than the white guy. (A third white man working out ever other day will do better than both in athleticism).

But then take a black man with his size, add talent, practice and determination, and you have Matt Kemp.

Timminz wrote:

72o wrote:

Timminz wrote:

72o wrote:

Timminz wrote:I think the fact that most of the best basketball players are black has more to do with the fact that basketball is and has been very popular among poorer, black, American neighbourhoods. ie, it's a cultural phenomena, and is not directly attributable to the colour of someone's skin.

If you were to look at a sport with wider appeal (in fact the widest appeal), and take soccer for an example, would the skin-colour arguments still hold true?

There is no wider appeal than running.

Um, no... soccer is far more popular a sport than running.

We're not talking about spectating. We're talking about number of people participating in the activity worldwide.

As a sport? If we're only talking about activities, breathing, drinking, and eating have a wider appeal than anything. Are black people better at breathing, drinking, and eating?

72o wrote:Why are there no black swimmers in the Olympics? Genetic, or learned behavior?

No black Olympic swimmers?! Are you sure you don't want to amend that statement.

Okay, not "none", but few.

My argument against soccer is that it requires a lot more than pure athleticism. Handling a soccer ball is a much harder skill than dribbling a basketball or running with a football in my opinion.

Army of GOD wrote:My argument against soccer is that it requires a lot more than pure athleticism. Handling a soccer ball is a much harder skill than dribbling a basketball or running with a football in my opinion.

Handle your balls and dribble somewhere else dude, we are trying to have a serious discussion here...

Army of GOD wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:Like I said, it doesn't work on an individual scale. Saying all blacks are more athletic than whites is stupid and racist. Saying, on average, blacks are more athletic isn't. Is it coincidence that like 85% of basketball players are black? How Peyton Hillis is the only what running back and how only slot receivers are white? What about the saying "white men can't jump"?

Is it a coincidence that the American basketball team always dominates all the non-American teams during the Olympics? I think not; therefore, the Americans are intrinsically more athletic than non-Americans.

Let me introduce you to my friend logical fallacy. I think you two would make a great pair. I'm sure you've already met.

Aren't you homogenizing individuals, who might not share the exact same (or general set of) characteristics, into one group (e.g. "black" or "white")?

I used "American" v. "Non-American." You used "black" v. "white." Obviously, mine is false, but by analogy, the black v. white is false for similar reasons.


(1)
So... what does it mean to be "black" (or, "American")? Is it some set of genes? Is it merely skin color? Or is there such an exact thing?
If it's genetic, then what type of genes are generally held by whites and by blacks (Am. v. Non-Am, and etc.)?
(Then what about children from interracial couples? How shall they be lumped into the homogenous groupings of black v. white?)

If you can't answer these, then you should be skeptical about your hypothesis, and this criticism applies to the following as well:


(2)
And how does the black v. white causal relationship account for other important causes, e.g. culture, upbringing, etc.?
(Your explanation does not. It simply serves as a cover-all without explaining the variance caused by important variables. It's just as 'useful' as my "American" v. "Non-American" explanation. All you can factually say is that there's more blacks than whites who play professional basketball. But as soon as you stress that causal relationship, you have to be able to account for the causes.)


For example, compared to white kids, what proportion of black kids grow up playing basketball while having black, athletic role models in mind? Is this self-reinforcing among the homogenous group of "black"? If so, then this would disproportionally expand the pool of potentially professional, black basketball players. (so, it may not be the case that blacks are intrinsically more suited to performing better in basketball due to some alleged, physical advantage. It may be simply be the case that more blacks apply to the basketball profession).

(3)
Then there's the broader issue of how the youth of either group perceive expected profits (monetary and psychological) compared to the relative opportunities. If white kids in general have more perceived opportunities for advancing themselves in whatever fashion compared to black kids, then it should be no surprise that there's less white kids striving to become professional basketball players.


The econometric project would have to hold constant income bracket of the families, geographic regions, genetic make-up, skin color, expectations, etc., etc.

If your hypothesis can't explain the above, then we can reasonably doubt its veracity or simply discard it.

Army of GOD wrote:My argument against soccer is that it requires a lot more than pure athleticism. Handling a soccer ball is a much harder skill than dribbling a basketball or running with a football in my opinion.

What exactly is 'pure athleticism'?
(Is it something like PhatScotty's vague definition of 'Marxism' which allows him to arbitrarily apply it?)


A skill isn't some thing with a single unit of measurement which can be seamlessly applied across all sports and physical activities. Handling a soccer ball requires some skill which would be completely different from dribbling a basketball. In other words, a particular skill in X may not be comparable to a particular skill in Y.

Then there's not only particular skills, but also some set of things like traits, genes, upbringing, etc., which will cater one to having a comparative advantage in a particular physical activity.

I always figured a "black" person was someone whose DNA is mainly of African descent.

It is true that race can be useful in narrowing down the genetic traits prevalent among certain people. Skin color is one part of that, as was mentioned, it determines the metabolization and resistance against sunlight, and on the inside humans have been narrowed down to many more strengths and weaknesses from generations of their lifestyles; the tolerance or intolerance to certain foods, lung capacity based on environment, disease resistance and vulnerabilities, differences in metabolizing drugs and foods, bone density, even the size of noses makes some difference.

I would say that there is not enough data to say conclusively what factors are genetic race, and what factors are racial culture (traditional diets, teachings, efficiency of languages, desirability of certain goals, etc), but being born as a "stereotypically cultured" person probably does have significant impact on the end result because of the culmination of said factors.

Funkyterrance wrote:I always figured a "black" person was someone whose DNA is mainly of African descent.

So descendants of Somalians are black? Some are Caucasian ("white"), and yet some Caucasians look Indian or even darker in skin...
What about African Jews, who ancestors hail from modern day Israel (and around that country)?
And what of the American Tunisians? Are they "black"?
And what about the "white" Europeans whose ancestors have been living in sub-saharan Africa for centuries? Are they "black"?

How far must the DNA lineage be in order to conclude that one is of African descent? And what constitutes as "mainly"? (>50%? 75%?)

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:I always figured a "black" person was someone whose DNA is mainly of African descent.

So descendants of Somalians are black? Some are Caucasian ("white"), and yet some Caucasians look Indian or even darker in skin...
What about African Jews, who ancestors hail from modern day Israel (and around that country)?
And what of the American Tunisians? Are they "black"?
And what about the "white" Europeans whose ancestors have been living in sub-saharan Africa for centuries? Are they "black"?

How far must the DNA lineage be in order to conclude that one is of African descent? And what constitutes as "mainly"? (>50%? 75%?)

Well you have to make an imaginary line in the sand I suppose(no pun intended) in order to believe that black people exist at all. For the sake of argument I have to admit that they do and thus have to conform a little. So yes, I suppose your examples(at least the ones I recognize) would be black by my definition. I think I need more information to answer your question with any real conviction though, BBS.
I suppose you have raised a really good question though, BBS: what makes a "black person"? I do have to say though that the color of someone's skin doesn't enter into it in my mind.