skinz Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Your either answering for boyfriday or your one and the same and have multiple accounts on here. Something which is against forum rules i believe. So which is it? Yes i answered for him coz we iz blud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 How's about the fact that most blacks from slave stock have mixed race heritage? Maybe it's the injection of other race's DNA that means they're more successful than blacks who aren't decended from slaves? There's a white sprinter who's broken the 10s barrier for the 100m. A few fractions of a second is hardly proof of inherent racial inequality in sport. Different sports are suited to different groups of people due to their availability and location. With the exception of high altitude runners, because they have a clear physical advantage, aren't most sports perfected by hard work and time spent on them? People are really not that different. It is an interesting way to look at things. We supposedly have 'evolution', and this often descends into talks about eugenics, people often refer to people on benefits breeding as us tending towards idiocracy. But when you look at the females who get pregnant, the good looking ones do more so. What is more worrying is that women are attracted to men with wealth, and that men with inferior genes who inherit wealth have an advantage in breeding. 100% inheritance tax would be the best way to improve the gene pool... Very subjective. Depends which women you find attractive. You've obviously never visited a council estate if you believe this to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I don't think a few hundred years of slaving would alter the genes generally to make the recipients stronger..Although only the strong would have survived so natural selection could play a part. What about White slave masters? Maybe their descendants evolved through natural selection, the result being the KKK, BNP, EDL as they all seem to have a specific trait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 You are typical a typical "Google genius". You know nothing whatsoever about science , so you "google" for knowledge as a comeback. You then totally misinterpret what you read and regurgitate the misunderstood bile all over a forum thread. It is a forums equivalent of "Binge drinking" Feel free to prove me wrong. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 You saying blacks arent classy enough to play golf? Seems a bit of a generalization to me does that. If you'd continued to read further, you'd see that I'm saying the social infrastructure that surrounds private golf and tennis clubs excludes working class people, a group that most black people are members of. Just as an example, many years ago a friend of mine who is a golf fanatic invited me to attend a pro/celebrity day at his private club. He mentioned to the steward that I'd be his guest and anticipating my skin colour might cause a problem mentioned that too. The steward in the most diplomatic fashion he could said my presence would "embarrass the club president". Now I've often found myself in positions where I've embarrassed myself and the people around me, but never because Im black. It was no great issue to me and no more than I expected, but it certainly wasn't a sport I felt comfortable engaging in so never did so and never encouraged my kids to do so (all of whom are very sporty), golf's loss I say. I'm sure similar comments by the steward could have been made about women/bricklayers/unemployed/students/miners/taxi drivers etc etc..golf & tennis clubs do themselves no favours by perpetuating this vile class and hierarchical discrimination whose 'accepted' members are only happy to engage in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Your either answering for boyfriday or your one and the same and have multiple accounts on here. Something which is against forum rules i believe. So which is it? Why is that any of your business? Many posters would have taken the same view skinz did of your crass post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooisit Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 If their ancestors were as good at running they would never hve ended up as slaves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 If their ancestors were as good at running they would never hve ended up as slaves. Most probably found it difficult to outrun a bullet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Expert cctv Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Most probably found it difficult to outrun a bullet. Or the relative that sold them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooisit Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Most probably found it difficult to outrun a bullet. Dead people didn't make very good slaves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.