Yes, it was bold before the confirmation by you that it was ignorant.
honestly, not everything in this world that deals with races (positively or negatively) is considered racist. People need to get that out of their heads.
You're not looking at the meat and potatoes of this discussion. You are seeing "this white man doesn't want a black man marrying a white woman". It's a lot more complex than that.
And don't forget that very good point someone said a couple pages ago, that in essence, the media can portray this dolt anyway they want to. If they want him to look like a racist (which to most, he will, given the oversensitivity of today's populace-"did you say the work black? YOU ARE WHITE! RACIST!"), then he will look racist.
dude, the only one showing their ignorance here is you...
and fuck complex...this is simple...it's you that wants to make it "complex" to justify your support of this racist...
first, I never said YOU were ignorant. I said your statement was. big difference. can the insults.
second, yeah, I forgot, race relations is a breeze. :roll:
well, I never said you were ignorant, I said you were showing ignorance...
as for things being complex, I guess when one is a racist, it's harder to hide those feelings and biases in today's world...I suppose that can be seen as a good thing...
and this is your "point" that you say I don't understand. I understand things when they are presented to me coherently. You said that a psych disadvantage is no different than a physical one. And I said "and your point is..?". It is a logical question within the context of this discussion. I never argued that they weren't different, so I asked what point were you trying to make with that statement. You were, to me, arguing a point that was never argued. Simple as that. I don't want to go into specifics, but I know personally very well why they are no different, so we can agree on that.
Now, to get back to the topic, let me give you a hypothetical:
A man owns two purebred dogs. He loves both dogs equally. Yet he doesn't want them to breed together, because he believes that they should stay within their breed. Is this man a breedist ( )? No, he wants both his dogs to breed, just not together. Does this mean he is disrespecting these dogs? Nope, he's looking out for what he believes is best for each of their future families. Do I agree with this dog-lover? Nope, because I could care less about breeds of dogs. And I think dogs should be able to f*** whoever they want!
This man acted outside of the law. He should be fired. But he is not racist with the facts that we know as reported by the media.
You seriously think your dog analogy works for different races of people? If you do then there is no discussion to be had here. Different races of people are not different BREEDS of humans.
But let me go with you for a while. You say the dog-breeder (not lover) is looking out for what is best for their future dog families. Seriously, you accuse me before of giant leaps then make statements like this. Where is the scientific evidence behind any of this nonsense? Let me give you some scientific evidence behind animal breeding. It is beneficial for humans (not animals) to selectively breed animals/organisms because they end up getting more "product" out of it. Its bad for animals because they become vulnerable to diseases and genetic disorders. Why? Because selective breeding results in recessive genes being inherited from both parents making diseases breed-specific. Breeds also become acclimatised to a very specific niche. If you limit the gene pool of a species then you increase the likelihood of extinction. Other examples include selective breeding of cows who now have trouble giving birth unassisted. Another one that comes to mind is hamsters and their high risk of tumor development.
see, the point that I am in this discussion is not to make "great comebacks", it's to have a discussion. I have never painted my opinion on this matter as fact, which many here continue to do. It's not black and white, which so many have said it is.
And you once again overdramatize. I did not accuse folks of slandering me. I simply told people to calm down to keep it a legitimate discussion, not to turn it into a pissing match. Which is what is happening now.
Check all my previous posts. Why would I try to deviate from the topic at hand? I have made several points, and I stand by them. I'll check out the points you say I "don't understand" (another nice condescension) a bit later when I get to work, and I'll be happy to respond.
Let me see if I can have a "legitimate discussion". The main argument the guy has put forward is that kids from a mixed culture will have a disadvantage growing up. Let us forget for a second that there is no evidence behind these claims and take his claim from a purely scientific point of view. He is suggesting that same race marriages produce more viable (less disadvantaged) offspring than mixed marriages which in itself implies that this guy believes there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between each race. Racist.
I'll repeat this in case you forgot. Another definition of Racism, which you have accepted, is as follows:
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character
there you go. I did quote the correct person. I never said you were swearing at me, the point was you were getting all hot under the collar (IMO-if you say you were not, then fine), I just wanted to keep this discussion on the straight and narrow, that was all.
Now you are going to act like you took offense to me calling the guy a racist piece of shit. What is he your relations or something? Give me a break. If you think I'm all "hot under the collar" because I used the words "racist piece of shit" then you have serious misjudgment of emotions. If I remember correctly random swearing is not banned on this board so quit trying to act like a swear word would never come out of your mouth.
Would he have been okay with a Swede marrying an Italian? English/Greek? Chinese/Korean?
(of course)
Now, would he have been okay with any of those ethnicities marrying a black person?
and how do you know that? that was one of my main points a few pages ago. many ethnicities have an issue with their offspring marrying outside of their own heritage. is that considered racist? no one answered that question.
then I guess you consider a good portion of baby boomers and and the majority of those older, racist then? that's a pretty bold statement.
both my parents are in their 50's aka baby boomers ask them if they expected me to marry a black woman and they would tell you it was as far fetched as the earth being flat
I would put that in the column of unintentional racism, call it what you will but there is an ingrained part of them that expected me to marry a white woman just becuase I am white
and this is your "point" that you say I don't understand. I understand things when they are presented to me coherently. You said that a psych disadvantage is no different than a physical one. And I said "and your point is..?". It is a logical question within the context of this discussion. I never argued that they weren't different, so I asked what point were you trying to make with that statement. You were, to me, arguing a point that was never argued. Simple as that. I don't want to go into specifics, but I know personally very well why they are no different, so we can agree on that.
Now, to get back to the topic, let me give you a hypothetical:
A man owns two purebred dogs. He loves both dogs equally. Yet he doesn't want them to breed together, because he believes that they should stay within their breed. Is this man a breedist ( )? No, he wants both his dogs to breed, just not together. Does this mean he is disrespecting these dogs? Nope, he's looking out for what he believes is best for each of their future families. Do I agree with this dog-lover? Nope, because I could care less about breeds of dogs. And I think dogs should be able to f*** whoever they want!
This man acted outside of the law. He should be fired. But he is not racist with the facts that we know as reported by the media.
You seriously think your dog analogy works for different races of people? If you do then there is no discussion to be had here. Different races of people are not different BREEDS of humans.
But let me go with you for a while. You say the dog-breeder (not lover) is looking out for what is best for their future dog families. Seriously, you accuse me before of giant leaps then make statements like this. Where is the scientific evidence behind any of this nonsense? Let me give you some scientific evidence behind animal breeding. It is beneficial for humans (not animals) to selectively breed animals/organisms because they end up getting more "product" out of it. Its bad for animals because they become vulnerable to diseases and genetic disorders. Why? Because selective breeding results in recessive genes being inherited from both parents making diseases breed-specific. Breeds also become acclimatised to a very specific niche. If you limit the gene pool of a species then you increase the likelihood of extinction. Other examples include selective breeding of cows who now have trouble giving birth unassisted. Another one that comes to mind is hamsters and their high risk of tumor development.
see, the point that I am in this discussion is not to make "great comebacks", it's to have a discussion. I have never painted my opinion on this matter as fact, which many here continue to do. It's not black and white, which so many have said it is.
And you once again overdramatize. I did not accuse folks of slandering me. I simply told people to calm down to keep it a legitimate discussion, not to turn it into a pissing match. Which is what is happening now.
Check all my previous posts. Why would I try to deviate from the topic at hand? I have made several points, and I stand by them. I'll check out the points you say I "don't understand" (another nice condescension) a bit later when I get to work, and I'll be happy to respond.
Let me see if I can have a "legitimate discussion". The main argument the guy has put forward is that kids from a mixed culture will have a disadvantage growing up. Let us forget for a second that there is no evidence behind these claims and take his claim from a purely scientific point of view. He is suggesting that same race marriages produce more viable (less disadvantaged) offspring than mixed marriages which in itself implies that this guy believes there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between each race. Racist.
I'll repeat this in case you forgot. Another definition of Racism, which you have accepted, is as follows:
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character
there you go. I did quote the correct person. I never said you were swearing at me, the point was you were getting all hot under the collar (IMO-if you say you were not, then fine), I just wanted to keep this discussion on the straight and narrow, that was all.
Now you are going to act like you took offense to me calling the guy a racist piece of shit. What is he your relations or something? Give me a break. If you think I'm all "hot under the collar" because I used the words "racist piece of shit" then you have serious misjudgment of emotions. If I remember correctly random swearing is not banned on this board so quit trying to act like a swear word would never come out of your mouth.
The main argument the guy has put forward is that kids from a mixed culture will have a disadvantage growing up. Let us forget for a second that there is no evidence behind these claims and take his claim from a purely scientific point of view. He is suggesting that same race marriages produce more viable (less disadvantaged) offspring than mixed marriages which in itself implies that this guy believes there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between each race. Racist.
And its so bogus. My girls are SMART. My 10th grader is in 11th grade math, science,french. She also sings, is in speech and debate, just took the psats, and is already sending away for college brochures. That girl will be out of this little town like a shot as soon as she's able. My older girl is in Digital Arts at a tech university, and is a wonderful artist. Disadvantage? I don't think so. I'd like to think my husband and I brought the best from each of our cultures to our children. (He's from Indian subcontinent and we both value and have modeled the importance of education) The children are only disadvantaged if they get poor parenting and that has nothing to do with the color of skin.
R.i.p. Rigoberto Alpizar.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
mixed children are at a psychological disadvantage..... are ignorant
or anyone who thinks.....
that different races marrying is similar to dogs breeding..... is ignorant
ok, none of you obviously read my follow-up post where I admitted the limitations of that analogy. But many of you like to omit what doesn't suit your collective need to be angry with someone who won't follow your opinion, which you can't help but present as fact. Gimme a break.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Now you are going to act like you took offense to me calling the guy a racist piece of shit. What is he your relations or something? Give me a break. If you think I'm all "hot under the collar" because I used the words "racist piece of shit" then you have serious misjudgment of emotions. If I remember correctly random swearing is not banned on this board so quit trying to act like a swear word would never come out of your mouth.
I never took offense to you calling him a racist piece of shit. I said, HELLO, in my opinion, you were getting hot under the collar. What you failed to read, YET AGAIN, was that if you weren't, then FINE. Jesus, why the rampage??
Yes, I swear. No, it doesn't hurt my feelings. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK. Jesus, is that better? Get the fuck over it. Move on.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The main argument the guy has put forward is that kids from a mixed culture will have a disadvantage growing up. Let us forget for a second that there is no evidence behind these claims and take his claim from a purely scientific point of view. He is suggesting that same race marriages produce more viable (less disadvantaged) offspring than mixed marriages which in itself implies that this guy believes there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between each race. Racist.
And its so bogus. My girls are SMART. My 10th grader is in 11th grade math, science,french. She also sings, is in speech and debate, just took the psats, and is already sending away for college brochures. That girl will be out of this little town like a shot as soon as she's able. My older girl is in Digital Arts at a tech university, and is a wonderful artist. Disadvantage? I don't think so. I'd like to think my husband and I brought the best from each of our cultures to our children. (He's from Indian subcontinent and we both value and have modeled the importance of education) The children are only disadvantaged if they get poor parenting and that has nothing to do with the color of skin.
my GAAAAWWWWWWWWWD. I don't recall him saying anything about them being disadvantaged mentally (again, if I'm wrong, and you show me, I'll admit it). He said simply that they were going to be disadvantaged socially, and in a way of being able to identify with their roots. If you want to argue actual points in the article, then go ahead, but you people need to stop making shit up.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The main argument the guy has put forward is that kids from a mixed culture will have a disadvantage growing up. Let us forget for a second that there is no evidence behind these claims and take his claim from a purely scientific point of view. He is suggesting that same race marriages produce more viable (less disadvantaged) offspring than mixed marriages which in itself implies that this guy believes there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between each race. Racist.
WRONG. You have completely turned around the point of what the man said. Jesus, quit making shit up. Maybe you should go back and study a little harder and report back when you have actually read the article.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The main argument the guy has put forward is that kids from a mixed culture will have a disadvantage growing up. Let us forget for a second that there is no evidence behind these claims and take his claim from a purely scientific point of view. He is suggesting that same race marriages produce more viable (less disadvantaged) offspring than mixed marriages which in itself implies that this guy believes there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between each race. Racist.
"As a race, blacks have more muscle mass, especially in the lower back, glutes and thighs. But there is more to that explanation also. There are two types of muscle fiber "slow twitch" and "fast twitch". Slow twitch fibers are slower but are better for endurance activities. Fast Twitch fibers activate quickly and are good for jumping and sprinting, but are not good for endurance activities. The average person has a 50/50 mix of fast and slow twitch muscle fibers in their body, but of course this ratio will vary from individual to individual, depending on genetics, and the effects of long term training.
Blacks of West African descent have predominantly fast twitch fibers in their body. The body composition of fast twitch fibers in this group is as much as 90% to even 100% fast twitch fibers. Ergo, this is why so many blacks are great jumpers and sprinters.
But what about the Kenyan and Ethiopian long distance runners you may ask? These blacks have a good deal of muscle mass as well, and long legs. But these blacks are of East African descent and do not have the predominantly fast twitch fibers in their body as the blacks of West African descent. And because of their lifestyle growing up in East Africa (long distance running, high grain and cereal diet) have developed slow twitch endurance fibers as a long term result of their lifestyle and training. "
So I guess since science has identified a FUNDAMENTAL difference between races, by your admitted logic, Nok, science then, as a rule, is racist. Back to the drawing board!
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The main argument the guy has put forward is that kids from a mixed culture will have a disadvantage growing up. Let us forget for a second that there is no evidence behind these claims and take his claim from a purely scientific point of view. He is suggesting that same race marriages produce more viable (less disadvantaged) offspring than mixed marriages which in itself implies that this guy believes there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between each race. Racist.
"As a race, blacks have more muscle mass, especially in the lower back, glutes and thighs. But there is more to that explanation also. There are two types of muscle fiber "slow twitch" and "fast twitch". Slow twitch fibers are slower but are better for endurance activities. Fast Twitch fibers activate quickly and are good for jumping and sprinting, but are not good for endurance activities. The average person has a 50/50 mix of fast and slow twitch muscle fibers in their body, but of course this ratio will vary from individual to individual, depending on genetics, and the effects of long term training.
Blacks of West African descent have predominantly fast twitch fibers in their body. The body composition of fast twitch fibers in this group is as much as 90% to even 100% fast twitch fibers. Ergo, this is why so many blacks are great jumpers and sprinters.
But what about the Kenyan and Ethiopian long distance runners you may ask? These blacks have a good deal of muscle mass as well, and long legs. But these blacks are of East African descent and do not have the predominantly fast twitch fibers in their body as the blacks of West African descent. And because of their lifestyle growing up in East Africa (long distance running, high grain and cereal diet) have developed slow twitch endurance fibers as a long term result of their lifestyle and training. "
So I guess since science has identified a FUNDAMENTAL difference between races, by your admitted logic, Nok, science then, as a rule, is racist. Back to the drawing board!
i was going to stay out of this thread because it is painful to see how people can go on for 11 pages defending this justice of the peace, who is a bigot by the way, but i saw the above post and had to jump in.
frst of all, any legitimate article published in any reputable medical journal would not refer to them as "blacks". that is inherently offensive and the author of this article has lost complete credibility right away.
speaking as someone with extensive medical background, mostly in orthopedics, i will say that this argument has no basis in fact with regard to anatomy and physiology, kinesiology, or biomechanics. it is complete bullshit. any physician, physical therapist, occupational therapist, athletic trainer, or maybe even a personal trainer would scoff at this article. this is the same argument that Jimmy the Greek, who used to pick football games on CBS was fired for back in the 80s. he said something like "blacks are better athletes because they have more muscles and more muscle fibers in their legs"....there is no basis in science to back up these claims, and any claim of this is a stereotype pure and simple.
another thing, contrary to what the above post states, training does not make you have more fast or more slow twitch muscle fibers, you have what you are born with. period. that is like saying that if you lift weights you can build more muscle fibers, which is also completely false. in weight training the muscle fibers you have grow/thicken or hypertorphy resulting in more strength and size.
when i was in graduate school i had a stack of studies that suggested there were more differences in skeletal sturcture between men and women (wider pelvis, increased q-angle, and more bowed femur, extra rib, etc) than between caucasions, asians, and africans. there were no significant differences in muscular composition and the biopsy results that looked at muscle fibers showed no difference as significant as what the above post is suggesting. we all have the same muscles and the same muscular anatomy, except about 30% of the population has a muscle in the low leg called the plantaris, but the plantaris is very small and does nothing other than help with actively bending of the knee and plantar flexion of the ankle, hardly anything to make a person a better athlete.
it is completely absurd to say that people have 90-100% fast twitch muscle fibers. if that were the case these people would not be able to walk for over a mile because those fast twitch muscle fibers are for short bursts, not for prolonged activity. walking a mile at a normal walking pace would take about 12-18 minutes and these fast twitch fibers would have fatigued after a very short period of time . these facts" in your post are made up and they are inherently stereotypical and borderline racist. they are theories that have been disproven years ago.
next time, if you are going to post something trying to explain a question about the body, why not search for something along the lines of a peer reviewed medical journal instead of something that does not have to be verified like a wiki link or answer.com link? anyone can make any of this shit up and post it, and unfortunately most people who do not know any better believe what they read. just because it is on the internet does not make it true.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
I never took offense to you calling him a racist piece of shit. I said, HELLO, in my opinion, you were getting hot under the collar. What you failed to read, YET AGAIN, was that if you weren't, then FINE. Jesus, why the rampage??
Yes, I swear. No, it doesn't hurt my feelings. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK. Jesus, is that better? Get the fuck over it. Move on.
Seriously do you even follow the discussion at hand? You throw in accusations nonstop then when someone calls you out, you resort to "get the fuck over it" hahaha very lame. Are you now hot under the collar?
WRONG. You have completely turned around the point of what the man said. Jesus, quit making shit up. Maybe you should go back and study a little harder and report back when you have actually read the article.
You can go into a debate on degree of "study" if you like but I must warn you it is very likely I outclass you in that aspect.
So the guy says the children will be disadvantaged socially.. "by not being able to identify with their roots". So basically what you are trying to say is that White Americans generally through their daily life identify with their British roots and African-Americans through their daily life identify with their African roots. Children from a mixture of these races will be confused as to what to identify with and become disadvantaged. Are you serious? Do you realise how much of a crock of shit that argument is?
Clearly all this is is a guy stereotyping each race to fit his racist views. Which is why he thinks the kids will be disadvantaged.
"As a race, blacks have more muscle mass, especially in the lower back, glutes and thighs. But there is more to that explanation also. There are two types of muscle fiber "slow twitch" and "fast twitch". Slow twitch fibers are slower but are better for endurance activities. Fast Twitch fibers activate quickly and are good for jumping and sprinting, but are not good for endurance activities. The average person has a 50/50 mix of fast and slow twitch muscle fibers in their body, but of course this ratio will vary from individual to individual, depending on genetics, and the effects of long term training.
Blacks of West African descent have predominantly fast twitch fibers in their body. The body composition of fast twitch fibers in this group is as much as 90% to even 100% fast twitch fibers. Ergo, this is why so many blacks are great jumpers and sprinters.
But what about the Kenyan and Ethiopian long distance runners you may ask? These blacks have a good deal of muscle mass as well, and long legs. But these blacks are of East African descent and do not have the predominantly fast twitch fibers in their body as the blacks of West African descent. And because of their lifestyle growing up in East Africa (long distance running, high grain and cereal diet) have developed slow twitch endurance fibers as a long term result of their lifestyle and training. "
So I guess since science has identified a FUNDAMENTAL difference between races, by your admitted logic, Nok, science then, as a rule, is racist. Back to the drawing board!
I had a long reply to this but then as I came to post I realised gimmesometruth27 has just ripped your post to shreds with an eloquent reply so there is no point for me to add anything.
And its so bogus. My girls are SMART. My 10th grader is in 11th grade math, science,french. She also sings, is in speech and debate, just took the psats, and is already sending away for college brochures. That girl will be out of this little town like a shot as soon as she's able. My older girl is in Digital Arts at a tech university, and is a wonderful artist. Disadvantage? I don't think so. I'd like to think my husband and I brought the best from each of our cultures to our children. (He's from Indian subcontinent and we both value and have modeled the importance of education) The children are only disadvantaged if they get poor parenting and that has nothing to do with the color of skin.
Bogus would be an understatement. The word idiotic comes to mind.
And I would bet your girls do not get "confused" trying to identify with their "roots". In fact, the furthest they would go is asking about their parent's families out of interest. In the end they know they are American and any confusion regarding this issue would ONLY arise if they lived in a RACIST society that made them feel unwelcome.
so i wonder if this justice of the peace or whatever the hell he is would refuse a marriage license to two people of extreme low intelligence, or even two intellectually handicapped people, knowing that any child of such a union may well be subject to merciless psychological and quite possibly physical abuse by their peers growing up because of their parents 'lack of smarts'.
Post edited by catefrances on
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Seriously do you even follow the discussion at hand? You throw in accusations nonstop then when someone calls you out, you resort to "get the fuck over it" hahaha very lame. Are you now hot under the collar?
WRONG. You have completely turned around the point of what the man said. Jesus, quit making shit up. Maybe you should go back and study a little harder and report back when you have actually read the article.
You can go into a debate on degree of "study" if you like but I must warn you it is very likely I outclass you in that aspect.
wow, now you're just being pompous. what a joke. What are you basing this on? You don't know me from a hole in the ground, yet you assume you are more learned than me. Maybe you are, maybe you aren't. You sound like a very nice person that is not judgmental at all.
no, actually, I'm not hot under the collar at all. Just responding to you in kind.
are you kidding me? I'M not following the discussion?? Are you reading my posts??
Post edited by Hugh Freaking Dillon on
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
i was going to stay out of this thread because it is painful to see how people can go on for 11 pages defending this justice of the peace, who is a bigot by the way, but i saw the above post and had to jump in.
frst of all, any legitimate article published in any reputable medical journal would not refer to them as "blacks". that is inherently offensive and the author of this article has lost complete credibility right away.
speaking as someone with extensive medical background, mostly in orthopedics, i will say that this argument has no basis in fact with regard to anatomy and physiology, kinesiology, or biomechanics. it is complete bullshit. any physician, physical therapist, occupational therapist, athletic trainer, or maybe even a personal trainer would scoff at this article. this is the same argument that Jimmy the Greek, who used to pick football games on CBS was fired for back in the 80s. he said something like "blacks are better athletes because they have more muscles and more muscle fibers in their legs"....there is no basis in science to back up these claims, and any claim of this is a stereotype pure and simple.
another thing, contrary to what the above post states, training does not make you have more fast or more slow twitch muscle fibers, you have what you are born with. period. that is like saying that if you lift weights you can build more muscle fibers, which is also completely false. in weight training the muscle fibers you have grow/thicken or hypertorphy resulting in more strength and size.
when i was in graduate school i had a stack of studies that suggested there were more differences in skeletal sturcture between men and women (wider pelvis, increased q-angle, and more bowed femur, extra rib, etc) than between caucasions, asians, and africans. there were no significant differences in muscular composition and the biopsy results that looked at muscle fibers showed no difference as significant as what the above post is suggesting. we all have the same muscles and the same muscular anatomy, except about 30% of the population has a muscle in the low leg called the plantaris, but the plantaris is very small and does nothing other than help with actively bending of the knee and plantar flexion of the ankle, hardly anything to make a person a better athlete.
it is completely absurd to say that people have 90-100% fast twitch muscle fibers. if that were the case these people would not be able to walk for over a mile because those fast twitch muscle fibers are for short bursts, not for prolonged activity. walking a mile at a normal walking pace would take about 12-18 minutes and these fast twitch fibers would have fatigued after a very short period of time . these facts" in your post are made up and they are inherently stereotypical and borderline racist. they are theories that have been disproven years ago.
next time, if you are going to post something trying to explain a question about the body, why not search for something along the lines of a peer reviewed medical journal instead of something that does not have to be verified like a wiki link or answer.com link? anyone can make any of this shit up and post it, and unfortunately most people who do not know any better believe what they read. just because it is on the internet does not make it true.
I found that whole "blacks" thing quite offensive too. Kinda like how many of the people on this thread call us "whites". :roll:
In all seriousness, fine, then I concede that point. It was the first link I found in the search I did, which actually, yielded a shitload of results. Now, I have to completely agree with your last point, and I think it's a fantastic point for you all to take a good hard look at:
"just because it is on the internet does not make it true".
Was this story not found on the internet? EXACTLY.
How many times have I stated that you people are judging him based on this article, which could be completely taken out of context and skewed the way the reporter wanted it to be? Do you all believe that everything he said is actually in there? Every word? Really? And every intelligent person knows for a FACT that inflection is a massive cog in the communication machine. The printed word is flawed, to say the least. If you don't believe that, then you are naive.
And you know what? All people, races, sexes, etc, are not created equal. That's what makes the world beautiful.
And what about the lies that some of you told, about how he only refused black/white marriages? I called you on it, asked for your source, and got no response. From this, I can only assume it was a lie. I'm curious why someone who thinks they are right in this discussion would feel the need to make stuff up.
I quoted an article, gave the link, and it was debunked, and after reading Doc's post, I realized it was wrong, and admitted so. Why can't the rest of you be mature enough to do the same?
Many of you are incorrectly accusing me of defending this loser. I am absolutely not defending what this jackass did. He obviously has some oddball view of the world as we know it, but all I said was he's not a racist within the context of this discussion, with all the facts that we know. Many of you just can't understand that.
I NEVER SAID HE WAS NOT WRONG IN WHAT HE DID. Is that understood?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
ok, gimmesometruth, I've had a bit more time to research this a bit, and I've found MANY articles with medical background that support the theory that Africans have different muscular make-ups than whites. Oh, sorry, is it ok to say "whites"? Or do I have to say European-Americans?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Many of you are incorrectly accusing me of defending this loser. I am absolutely not defending what this jackass did. He obviously has some oddball view of the world as we know it, but all I said was he's not a racist within the context of this discussion, with all the facts that we know. Many of you just can't understand that.
i understand what you are saying, but i disagree he is not racist.
i don't understand why you would dedicate 49 posts to defending someone you have described as a jackass though. if it was me, and i was that passionate about something, i'd probably put my energy into defending someone who at least was worthy of it. certainly not a jackass. Just a thought, of course.
ok, gimmesometruth, I've had a bit more time to research this a bit, and I've found MANY articles with medical background that support the theory that Africans have different muscular make-ups than whites. Oh, sorry, is it ok to say "whites"? Or do I have to say European-Americans?
care to enlighten us then? just a warning, if they are not from peer reviewed medical and scientific journals then they have no credibility in the medical field.
what this has to do with the main point of this thread i have no idea...
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
0
Options
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,126
Many of you are incorrectly accusing me of defending this loser. I am absolutely not defending what this jackass did. He obviously has some oddball view of the world as we know it, but all I said was he's not a racist within the context of this discussion, with all the facts that we know. Many of you just can't understand that.
i understand what you are saying, but i disagree he is not racist.
i don't understand why you would dedicate 49 posts to defending someone you have described as a jackass though. if it was me, and i was that passionate about something, i'd probably put my energy into defending someone who at least was worthy of it. certainly not a jackass. Just a thought, of course.
Wow, that many that's almost a third of this whole thread. :shock: You the man, go on with your bad self JS
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Many of you are incorrectly accusing me of defending this loser. I am absolutely not defending what this jackass did. He obviously has some oddball view of the world as we know it, but all I said was he's not a racist within the context of this discussion, with all the facts that we know. Many of you just can't understand that.
i understand what you are saying, but i disagree he is not racist.
i don't understand why you would dedicate 49 posts to defending someone you have described as a jackass though. if it was me, and i was that passionate about something, i'd probably put my energy into defending someone who at least was worthy of it. certainly not a jackass. Just a thought, of course.
Wow, that many that's almost a third of this whole thread. :shock: You the man, go on with your bad self JS
Peace
that's what happens when I'm the lone person responding to everyone else on this thread. Post count arguments are silly.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Many of you are incorrectly accusing me of defending this loser. I am absolutely not defending what this jackass did. He obviously has some oddball view of the world as we know it, but all I said was he's not a racist within the context of this discussion, with all the facts that we know. Many of you just can't understand that.
i understand what you are saying, but i disagree he is not racist.
i don't understand why you would dedicate 49 posts to defending someone you have described as a jackass though. if it was me, and i was that passionate about something, i'd probably put my energy into defending someone who at least was worthy of it. certainly not a jackass. Just a thought, of course.
because everyone's side deserves a chance to be heard/defended/whatever you want to call it, regardless of nature of the discussion. Call it being a devil's advocate, it doesn't matter. I just don't think everything is as black and white as people on here are saying it is. It's really as simple as that.
everyone is worthy of having a defense. but that's just my opinion.
I seem to be putting just as much energy into defending myself as I am defending this person's right to his opinion, which has become exhausting.
In the end, I have my opinion, and everyone else here seems to have theirs. Not one can be proven over the other, regardless if someone wants to quote some scientific linear theory on the matter or orthopedics or whatever.
Peace everyone. No hard feelings on my end. Hopefully not on yours either.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
wow, now you're just being pompous. what a joke. What are you basing this on? You don't know me from a hole in the ground, yet you assume you are more learned than me. Maybe you are, maybe you aren't. You sound like a very nice person that is not judgmental at all.
no, actually, I'm not hot under the collar at all. Just responding to you in kind.
are you kidding me? I'M not following the discussion?? Are you reading my posts??
Lets see. You act all high and mighty telling me to go do more study and come back then you get riled up when I respond in kind to your post. Do you how pathetic such an act is?
ok, gimmesometruth, I've had a bit more time to research this a bit, and I've found MANY articles with medical background that support the theory that Africans have different muscular make-ups than whites. Oh, sorry, is it ok to say "whites"? Or do I have to say European-Americans?
He rips your argument and this is all you have to say? Haha
I don't know. Maybe ask the person who went that direction.
Wow. Again. You come up with the lamest analogy of dog breeding which I proceeded to rip apart. Then you attempt to cover that embarrassment with a useless post referencing wikipedia that gimmesometruth27 proceeds to rip apart. And this is what you come up with to divert again?
The truth of the matter is I've given you solid reasons why believing children from a mixed race background will grow up disadvantaged either physically, psychologically or socially is racist, and you have responded to all with a load of crap.
Many of you are incorrectly accusing me of defending this loser. I am absolutely not defending what this jackass did. He obviously has some oddball view of the world as we know it, but all I said was he's not a racist within the context of this discussion, with all the facts that we know. Many of you just can't understand that.
i understand what you are saying, but i disagree he is not racist.
i don't understand why you would dedicate 49 posts to defending someone you have described as a jackass though. if it was me, and i was that passionate about something, i'd probably put my energy into defending someone who at least was worthy of it. certainly not a jackass. Just a thought, of course.
because everyone's side deserves a chance to be heard/defended/whatever you want to call it, regardless of nature of the discussion. Call it being a devil's advocate, it doesn't matter. I just don't think everything is as black and white as people on here are saying it is. It's really as simple as that.
everyone is worthy of having a defense. but that's just my opinion.
I seem to be putting just as much energy into defending myself as I am defending this person's right to his opinion, which has become exhausting.
In the end, I have my opinion, and everyone else here seems to have theirs. Not one can be proven over the other, regardless if someone wants to quote some scientific linear theory on the matter or orthopedics or whatever.
Peace everyone. No hard feelings on my end. Hopefully not on yours either.
i can see that everyone's worthy of having a defense, i just can't see why you or anyone else would continue to defend this guy. you fail to see any of the logical arguments and the rebuttals of your position that have been posted here, rather you change the subject or divert attention on to side issues of no relevence to the original topic. you call it playing devil's advocate, but to me it appears that you are grasping at straws or posting just to read your own words. why else would 49 posts be necessary in this thread?
you sarcastically referred to me as "doc" in a prior post and i let it go. now you poke at me by referencing my background in orthopedics. i think the problem is you posted a worthless link and you had no idea what you were even talking about and i called you on it. you conceded that you lost that point but you went on and on about something else. it is one thing to have a position that you can defend with reputable links and evidence, but it is something else entirely to post the work of such an obviously misguided writer and imply that it is credible. i have no hard feelings either, but just know that there are alot of educated people on this forum that can see through some of the BS wiki jibberish that people post on here, and when it is something that i know about as part of my profession i am going to say something about it.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
i can see that everyone's worthy of having a defense, i just can't see why you or anyone else would continue to defend this guy. you fail to see any of the logical arguments and the rebuttals of your position that have been posted here, rather you change the subject or divert attention on to side issues of no relevence to the original topic. you call it playing devil's advocate, but to me it appears that you are grasping at straws or posting just to read your own words. why else would 49 posts be necessary in this thread?
you sarcastically referred to me as "doc" in a prior post and i let it go. now you poke at me by referencing my background in orthopedics. i think the problem is you posted a worthless link and you had no idea what you were even talking about and i called you on it. you conceded that you lost that point but you went on and on about something else. it is one thing to have a position that you can defend with reputable links and evidence, but it is something else entirely to post the work of such an obviously misguided writer and imply that it is credible. i have no hard feelings either, but just know that there are alot of educated people on this forum that can see through some of the BS wiki jibberish that people post on here, and when it is something that i know about as part of my profession i am going to say something about it.
And to add to this point. It does not take a Harvard education to realize that the justice of the peace is racist. Just a little common sense. I mean come on? He said he has piles of black friends and they use his washroom?! This guy is beyond obvious racist. Quit trying to defend him. You are making Winnipeg look bad.
i can see that everyone's worthy of having a defense, i just can't see why you or anyone else would continue to defend this guy. you fail to see any of the logical arguments and the rebuttals of your position that have been posted here, rather you change the subject or divert attention on to side issues of no relevence to the original topic. you call it playing devil's advocate, but to me it appears that you are grasping at straws or posting just to read your own words. why else would 49 posts be necessary in this thread?
you sarcastically referred to me as "doc" in a prior post and i let it go. now you poke at me by referencing my background in orthopedics. i think the problem is you posted a worthless link and you had no idea what you were even talking about and i called you on it. you conceded that you lost that point but you went on and on about something else. it is one thing to have a position that you can defend with reputable links and evidence, but it is something else entirely to post the work of such an obviously misguided writer and imply that it is credible. i have no hard feelings either, but just know that there are alot of educated people on this forum that can see through some of the BS wiki jibberish that people post on here, and when it is something that i know about as part of my profession i am going to say something about it.
I do see the logical arguments that others have put forth to me. I have admitted as such. I can absolutely see why someone would think this guy is racist. I think people are making pretty wild assumptions on someone based on one interview that may or may have not been sensationalized by a media outlet.
But I also find it quite hypocritical the amount of times you count people on this topic on your side of the discussion that chastise me for not seeing things their way, when they don't even entertain my ideas.
Yes, I referred to you as doc. If that offended you, that was not my intention. And I didn't poke at your background in orthopedics, I stated that an opinion cannot be proven regardless of someone's degree in orthopedics. It was not meant to be offensive or derogatory. You said you have background in orthopedics, so that's what I said. It was not meant in any sarcastic manner at all.
You discredited the article that I posted the link to. You are obviously experienced in such fields, as I am not. I have heard this sort of thing before, from doctors, sports therapists, etc, so yes, I made the incorrect assumption that it was based in some scientific fact. I didn't get it from Fox News! I already admitted that. Is there some reason you continue to press the issue when it's already been resolved?
You call it "going on and on about something else". When one point of a discussion resolves itself, then we move on. That's my definition of what a discussion is. (I'm not being sarcastic here, just so we're clear).
And I already answered that question about the 49 posts. When I am the one person on one side of the discussion, with several people on the other side, it doesn't take a mathemetician to figure out why my post count on this discusion would be higher than the rest.
I understand fully that there are a lot of educated people on this board. I never tried to insult anyone's intelligence. Quite the contrary. I think this is a very important issue that needed to be discussed, but I felt that on ocassion I was defending myself rather than the actual matter at hand. People were getting all personal about it "I'm smarter than you" and all that crap. I understand that with such a heated topic, it's hard for that not to happen, but it would be nice if people would stop telling me that I'm "full of shit", or that I'm "giving Winnipeg a band name". Come on.
That kind of stuff just isn't necessary. I'll be the first to admit that we've all on this board resorted to that type of behaviour at one point or another, myself included, but people don't have to keep doing it just to try to get their point across. It just becomes annoying, that's all.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
i can see that everyone's worthy of having a defense, i just can't see why you or anyone else would continue to defend this guy. you fail to see any of the logical arguments and the rebuttals of your position that have been posted here, rather you change the subject or divert attention on to side issues of no relevence to the original topic. you call it playing devil's advocate, but to me it appears that you are grasping at straws or posting just to read your own words. why else would 49 posts be necessary in this thread?
you sarcastically referred to me as "doc" in a prior post and i let it go. now you poke at me by referencing my background in orthopedics. i think the problem is you posted a worthless link and you had no idea what you were even talking about and i called you on it. you conceded that you lost that point but you went on and on about something else. it is one thing to have a position that you can defend with reputable links and evidence, but it is something else entirely to post the work of such an obviously misguided writer and imply that it is credible. i have no hard feelings either, but just know that there are alot of educated people on this forum that can see through some of the BS wiki jibberish that people post on here, and when it is something that i know about as part of my profession i am going to say something about it.
And to add to this point. It does not take a Harvard education to realize that the justice of the peace is racist. Just a little common sense. I mean come on? He said he has piles of black friends and they use his washroom?! This guy is beyond obvious racist. Quit trying to defend him. You are making Winnipeg look bad.
look, you have an opinion. I have mine. I have mixed-race close family, so don't sit there in your tower and tell me what racist is or isn't. I have a fairly good idea what racist is or isn't, I'm just not so quick to judge as everyone else here seems to be.
And that's my opinion.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Comments
well, I never said you were ignorant, I said you were showing ignorance...
as for things being complex, I guess when one is a racist, it's harder to hide those feelings and biases in today's world...I suppose that can be seen as a good thing...
You seriously think your dog analogy works for different races of people? If you do then there is no discussion to be had here. Different races of people are not different BREEDS of humans.
But let me go with you for a while. You say the dog-breeder (not lover) is looking out for what is best for their future dog families. Seriously, you accuse me before of giant leaps then make statements like this. Where is the scientific evidence behind any of this nonsense? Let me give you some scientific evidence behind animal breeding. It is beneficial for humans (not animals) to selectively breed animals/organisms because they end up getting more "product" out of it. Its bad for animals because they become vulnerable to diseases and genetic disorders. Why? Because selective breeding results in recessive genes being inherited from both parents making diseases breed-specific. Breeds also become acclimatised to a very specific niche. If you limit the gene pool of a species then you increase the likelihood of extinction. Other examples include selective breeding of cows who now have trouble giving birth unassisted. Another one that comes to mind is hamsters and their high risk of tumor development.
Let me see if I can have a "legitimate discussion". The main argument the guy has put forward is that kids from a mixed culture will have a disadvantage growing up. Let us forget for a second that there is no evidence behind these claims and take his claim from a purely scientific point of view. He is suggesting that same race marriages produce more viable (less disadvantaged) offspring than mixed marriages which in itself implies that this guy believes there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between each race. Racist.
I'll repeat this in case you forgot. Another definition of Racism, which you have accepted, is as follows:
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character
Now you are going to act like you took offense to me calling the guy a racist piece of shit. What is he your relations or something? Give me a break. If you think I'm all "hot under the collar" because I used the words "racist piece of shit" then you have serious misjudgment of emotions. If I remember correctly random swearing is not banned on this board so quit trying to act like a swear word would never come out of your mouth.
both my parents are in their 50's aka baby boomers ask them if they expected me to marry a black woman and they would tell you it was as far fetched as the earth being flat
I would put that in the column of unintentional racism, call it what you will but there is an ingrained part of them that expected me to marry a white woman just becuase I am white
mixed children are at a psychological disadvantage..... are ignorant
or anyone who thinks.....
that different races marrying is similar to dogs breeding..... is ignorant
And its so bogus. My girls are SMART. My 10th grader is in 11th grade math, science,french. She also sings, is in speech and debate, just took the psats, and is already sending away for college brochures. That girl will be out of this little town like a shot as soon as she's able. My older girl is in Digital Arts at a tech university, and is a wonderful artist. Disadvantage? I don't think so. I'd like to think my husband and I brought the best from each of our cultures to our children. (He's from Indian subcontinent and we both value and have modeled the importance of education) The children are only disadvantaged if they get poor parenting and that has nothing to do with the color of skin.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
ok, none of you obviously read my follow-up post where I admitted the limitations of that analogy. But many of you like to omit what doesn't suit your collective need to be angry with someone who won't follow your opinion, which you can't help but present as fact. Gimme a break.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I never took offense to you calling him a racist piece of shit. I said, HELLO, in my opinion, you were getting hot under the collar. What you failed to read, YET AGAIN, was that if you weren't, then FINE. Jesus, why the rampage??
Yes, I swear. No, it doesn't hurt my feelings. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK. Jesus, is that better? Get the fuck over it. Move on.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
my GAAAAWWWWWWWWWD. I don't recall him saying anything about them being disadvantaged mentally (again, if I'm wrong, and you show me, I'll admit it). He said simply that they were going to be disadvantaged socially, and in a way of being able to identify with their roots. If you want to argue actual points in the article, then go ahead, but you people need to stop making shit up.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
WRONG. You have completely turned around the point of what the man said. Jesus, quit making shit up. Maybe you should go back and study a little harder and report back when you have actually read the article.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_black ... y_athletic
"As a race, blacks have more muscle mass, especially in the lower back, glutes and thighs. But there is more to that explanation also. There are two types of muscle fiber "slow twitch" and "fast twitch". Slow twitch fibers are slower but are better for endurance activities. Fast Twitch fibers activate quickly and are good for jumping and sprinting, but are not good for endurance activities. The average person has a 50/50 mix of fast and slow twitch muscle fibers in their body, but of course this ratio will vary from individual to individual, depending on genetics, and the effects of long term training.
Blacks of West African descent have predominantly fast twitch fibers in their body. The body composition of fast twitch fibers in this group is as much as 90% to even 100% fast twitch fibers. Ergo, this is why so many blacks are great jumpers and sprinters.
But what about the Kenyan and Ethiopian long distance runners you may ask? These blacks have a good deal of muscle mass as well, and long legs. But these blacks are of East African descent and do not have the predominantly fast twitch fibers in their body as the blacks of West African descent. And because of their lifestyle growing up in East Africa (long distance running, high grain and cereal diet) have developed slow twitch endurance fibers as a long term result of their lifestyle and training. "
So I guess since science has identified a FUNDAMENTAL difference between races, by your admitted logic, Nok, science then, as a rule, is racist. Back to the drawing board!
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
i was going to stay out of this thread because it is painful to see how people can go on for 11 pages defending this justice of the peace, who is a bigot by the way, but i saw the above post and had to jump in.
frst of all, any legitimate article published in any reputable medical journal would not refer to them as "blacks". that is inherently offensive and the author of this article has lost complete credibility right away.
speaking as someone with extensive medical background, mostly in orthopedics, i will say that this argument has no basis in fact with regard to anatomy and physiology, kinesiology, or biomechanics. it is complete bullshit. any physician, physical therapist, occupational therapist, athletic trainer, or maybe even a personal trainer would scoff at this article. this is the same argument that Jimmy the Greek, who used to pick football games on CBS was fired for back in the 80s. he said something like "blacks are better athletes because they have more muscles and more muscle fibers in their legs"....there is no basis in science to back up these claims, and any claim of this is a stereotype pure and simple.
another thing, contrary to what the above post states, training does not make you have more fast or more slow twitch muscle fibers, you have what you are born with. period. that is like saying that if you lift weights you can build more muscle fibers, which is also completely false. in weight training the muscle fibers you have grow/thicken or hypertorphy resulting in more strength and size.
when i was in graduate school i had a stack of studies that suggested there were more differences in skeletal sturcture between men and women (wider pelvis, increased q-angle, and more bowed femur, extra rib, etc) than between caucasions, asians, and africans. there were no significant differences in muscular composition and the biopsy results that looked at muscle fibers showed no difference as significant as what the above post is suggesting. we all have the same muscles and the same muscular anatomy, except about 30% of the population has a muscle in the low leg called the plantaris, but the plantaris is very small and does nothing other than help with actively bending of the knee and plantar flexion of the ankle, hardly anything to make a person a better athlete.
it is completely absurd to say that people have 90-100% fast twitch muscle fibers. if that were the case these people would not be able to walk for over a mile because those fast twitch muscle fibers are for short bursts, not for prolonged activity. walking a mile at a normal walking pace would take about 12-18 minutes and these fast twitch fibers would have fatigued after a very short period of time . these facts" in your post are made up and they are inherently stereotypical and borderline racist. they are theories that have been disproven years ago.
next time, if you are going to post something trying to explain a question about the body, why not search for something along the lines of a peer reviewed medical journal instead of something that does not have to be verified like a wiki link or answer.com link? anyone can make any of this shit up and post it, and unfortunately most people who do not know any better believe what they read. just because it is on the internet does not make it true.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Seriously do you even follow the discussion at hand? You throw in accusations nonstop then when someone calls you out, you resort to "get the fuck over it" hahaha very lame. Are you now hot under the collar?
You can go into a debate on degree of "study" if you like but I must warn you it is very likely I outclass you in that aspect.
So the guy says the children will be disadvantaged socially.. "by not being able to identify with their roots". So basically what you are trying to say is that White Americans generally through their daily life identify with their British roots and African-Americans through their daily life identify with their African roots. Children from a mixture of these races will be confused as to what to identify with and become disadvantaged. Are you serious? Do you realise how much of a crock of shit that argument is?
Clearly all this is is a guy stereotyping each race to fit his racist views. Which is why he thinks the kids will be disadvantaged.
I had a long reply to this but then as I came to post I realised gimmesometruth27 has just ripped your post to shreds with an eloquent reply so there is no point for me to add anything.
Bogus would be an understatement. The word idiotic comes to mind.
And I would bet your girls do not get "confused" trying to identify with their "roots". In fact, the furthest they would go is asking about their parent's families out of interest. In the end they know they are American and any confusion regarding this issue would ONLY arise if they lived in a RACIST society that made them feel unwelcome.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
wow, now you're just being pompous. what a joke. What are you basing this on? You don't know me from a hole in the ground, yet you assume you are more learned than me. Maybe you are, maybe you aren't. You sound like a very nice person that is not judgmental at all.
no, actually, I'm not hot under the collar at all. Just responding to you in kind.
are you kidding me? I'M not following the discussion?? Are you reading my posts??
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I found that whole "blacks" thing quite offensive too. Kinda like how many of the people on this thread call us "whites". :roll:
In all seriousness, fine, then I concede that point. It was the first link I found in the search I did, which actually, yielded a shitload of results. Now, I have to completely agree with your last point, and I think it's a fantastic point for you all to take a good hard look at:
"just because it is on the internet does not make it true".
Was this story not found on the internet? EXACTLY.
How many times have I stated that you people are judging him based on this article, which could be completely taken out of context and skewed the way the reporter wanted it to be? Do you all believe that everything he said is actually in there? Every word? Really? And every intelligent person knows for a FACT that inflection is a massive cog in the communication machine. The printed word is flawed, to say the least. If you don't believe that, then you are naive.
And you know what? All people, races, sexes, etc, are not created equal. That's what makes the world beautiful.
And what about the lies that some of you told, about how he only refused black/white marriages? I called you on it, asked for your source, and got no response. From this, I can only assume it was a lie. I'm curious why someone who thinks they are right in this discussion would feel the need to make stuff up.
I quoted an article, gave the link, and it was debunked, and after reading Doc's post, I realized it was wrong, and admitted so. Why can't the rest of you be mature enough to do the same?
Many of you are incorrectly accusing me of defending this loser. I am absolutely not defending what this jackass did. He obviously has some oddball view of the world as we know it, but all I said was he's not a racist within the context of this discussion, with all the facts that we know. Many of you just can't understand that.
I NEVER SAID HE WAS NOT WRONG IN WHAT HE DID. Is that understood?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
i don't understand why you would dedicate 49 posts to defending someone you have described as a jackass though. if it was me, and i was that passionate about something, i'd probably put my energy into defending someone who at least was worthy of it. certainly not a jackass. Just a thought, of course.
what this has to do with the main point of this thread i have no idea...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Wow, that many that's almost a third of this whole thread. :shock: You the man, go on with your bad self JS
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
that's what happens when I'm the lone person responding to everyone else on this thread. Post count arguments are silly.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I don't know. Maybe ask the person who went that direction.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
because everyone's side deserves a chance to be heard/defended/whatever you want to call it, regardless of nature of the discussion. Call it being a devil's advocate, it doesn't matter. I just don't think everything is as black and white as people on here are saying it is. It's really as simple as that.
everyone is worthy of having a defense. but that's just my opinion.
I seem to be putting just as much energy into defending myself as I am defending this person's right to his opinion, which has become exhausting.
In the end, I have my opinion, and everyone else here seems to have theirs. Not one can be proven over the other, regardless if someone wants to quote some scientific linear theory on the matter or orthopedics or whatever.
Peace everyone. No hard feelings on my end. Hopefully not on yours either.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Lets see. You act all high and mighty telling me to go do more study and come back then you get riled up when I respond in kind to your post. Do you how pathetic such an act is?
He rips your argument and this is all you have to say? Haha
Wow. Again. You come up with the lamest analogy of dog breeding which I proceeded to rip apart. Then you attempt to cover that embarrassment with a useless post referencing wikipedia that gimmesometruth27 proceeds to rip apart. And this is what you come up with to divert again?
The truth of the matter is I've given you solid reasons why believing children from a mixed race background will grow up disadvantaged either physically, psychologically or socially is racist, and you have responded to all with a load of crap.
i can see that everyone's worthy of having a defense, i just can't see why you or anyone else would continue to defend this guy. you fail to see any of the logical arguments and the rebuttals of your position that have been posted here, rather you change the subject or divert attention on to side issues of no relevence to the original topic. you call it playing devil's advocate, but to me it appears that you are grasping at straws or posting just to read your own words. why else would 49 posts be necessary in this thread?
you sarcastically referred to me as "doc" in a prior post and i let it go. now you poke at me by referencing my background in orthopedics. i think the problem is you posted a worthless link and you had no idea what you were even talking about and i called you on it. you conceded that you lost that point but you went on and on about something else. it is one thing to have a position that you can defend with reputable links and evidence, but it is something else entirely to post the work of such an obviously misguided writer and imply that it is credible. i have no hard feelings either, but just know that there are alot of educated people on this forum that can see through some of the BS wiki jibberish that people post on here, and when it is something that i know about as part of my profession i am going to say something about it.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
And to add to this point. It does not take a Harvard education to realize that the justice of the peace is racist. Just a little common sense. I mean come on? He said he has piles of black friends and they use his washroom?! This guy is beyond obvious racist. Quit trying to defend him. You are making Winnipeg look bad.
I do see the logical arguments that others have put forth to me. I have admitted as such. I can absolutely see why someone would think this guy is racist. I think people are making pretty wild assumptions on someone based on one interview that may or may have not been sensationalized by a media outlet.
But I also find it quite hypocritical the amount of times you count people on this topic on your side of the discussion that chastise me for not seeing things their way, when they don't even entertain my ideas.
Yes, I referred to you as doc. If that offended you, that was not my intention. And I didn't poke at your background in orthopedics, I stated that an opinion cannot be proven regardless of someone's degree in orthopedics. It was not meant to be offensive or derogatory. You said you have background in orthopedics, so that's what I said. It was not meant in any sarcastic manner at all.
You discredited the article that I posted the link to. You are obviously experienced in such fields, as I am not. I have heard this sort of thing before, from doctors, sports therapists, etc, so yes, I made the incorrect assumption that it was based in some scientific fact. I didn't get it from Fox News!
You call it "going on and on about something else". When one point of a discussion resolves itself, then we move on. That's my definition of what a discussion is. (I'm not being sarcastic here, just so we're clear).
And I already answered that question about the 49 posts. When I am the one person on one side of the discussion, with several people on the other side, it doesn't take a mathemetician to figure out why my post count on this discusion would be higher than the rest.
I understand fully that there are a lot of educated people on this board. I never tried to insult anyone's intelligence. Quite the contrary. I think this is a very important issue that needed to be discussed, but I felt that on ocassion I was defending myself rather than the actual matter at hand. People were getting all personal about it "I'm smarter than you" and all that crap. I understand that with such a heated topic, it's hard for that not to happen, but it would be nice if people would stop telling me that I'm "full of shit", or that I'm "giving Winnipeg a band name". Come on.
That kind of stuff just isn't necessary. I'll be the first to admit that we've all on this board resorted to that type of behaviour at one point or another, myself included, but people don't have to keep doing it just to try to get their point across. It just becomes annoying, that's all.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
look, you have an opinion. I have mine. I have mixed-race close family, so don't sit there in your tower and tell me what racist is or isn't. I have a fairly good idea what racist is or isn't, I'm just not so quick to judge as everyone else here seems to be.
And that's my opinion.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
As would I. I would expect nothing less from anyone else.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014