Chen019, you are a liar.

[magellan01]

@MrDibble

:rolleyes: no, not racist at all. Just sorry he can’t say “Like a nigger from a watermelon patch”…out loud.

Hmmm. Oh, only if there was some other explanation. Oh wait, there is! As it turns out, the fastest sprinters in the world are all Black. See for yourself, ya dummy.

Rank Fastest time Athlete Country Date Location
1 9.58 Usain Bolt Jamaica 16 August 2009 Berlin
2 9.69 Tyson Gay United States 20 September 2009 Shanghai
3 9.72 Asafa Powell Jamaica 2 September 2008 Lausanne
4 9.78 Nesta Carter Jamaica 29 August 2010 Rieti
5 9.79 Maurice Greene United States 16 June 1999 Athens
6 9.80 Steve Mullings Jamaica 4 June 2011 Eugene
7 9.82 Yohan Blake Jamaica 8 September 2011 Zurich
8 9.84 Donovan Bailey Canada 27 July 1996 Atlanta
Bruny Surin Canada 22 August 1999 Seville
10 9.85 Leroy Burrell United States 6 July 1994 Lausanne
Justin Gatlin United States 22 August 2004 Athens
Olusoji Fasuba Nigeria 12 May 2006 Doha
Mike Rodgers United States 4 June 2011 Eugene
Richard Thompson Trinidad and Tobago 13 August 2011 Port of Spain

Why you would categorize the fastest sprinters in the whorl, who happen to all be Black, as “niggers” is beyond me. Can you explain that to me, you dumb racist bastard.

[brazil84]

@magellan01

Why you would categorize the fastest sprinters in the whorl, who happen to all be Black, as “niggers” is beyond me.

It reminds me of the old saying: A “racist” is someone who is winning an argument against a liberal.

[andros]

@magellan01

Why you would categorize the fastest sprinters in the whorl, who happen to all be Black, as “niggers” is beyond me.

Why you would categorize Americans, Jamaicans, and Canadians as “West Africans” is beyond me.
(knowing I’m on ignore, not really caring.)

[magellan01]

@andros

Why you would categorize Americans, Jamaicans, and Canadians as “West Africans” is beyond me.
(knowing I’m on ignore, not really caring.)

As of yet, you have not demonstrated the requisite degree of dishonesty or stupidity to be placed on ignore. Your strain has been rather run-of-the-mill. Though you could prove me wrong.

That said, it’s fairly common knowledge that Black short distance runners have ancestry going back to West Africa. Whereas the best marathoners in the world tend to be from the eastern side of the continent. Hopefully, now that a little ignorance of yours has been slayed, my statement is no longer “beyond” you.

[mister_nyx]

@brazil84

I do not engage with this poster.

Yes, you are obviously quite consistent in your strategy of refusing to engage with anyone who effectively challenges what you say. It’s a foolproof way to avoid being proven wrong.

@brazil84

Why not? Is there some rule which says that if you are dividing people into groups, each group must be roughly equally diverse by some measure?

That’s ridiculously simplistic, but it aims somewhat at a valid point.

If you’re arguing (as you and your fellow “race realists” have been) that you can draw statistical insights about human subpopulations due to shared genetic heritage, assigning the great majority of genetic diversity into one grab-bag group obviously makes that impossible. You can’t make useful generalizations about “black people” or “Subsaharan Africans” as compared to the rest of humanity once you acknowledge that large subpopulations of Subsaharan Africans are more genetically similar to white people and Asians than they are to their fellow Africans.

[QUOTE=Blake]
There is of course a rule which says that if you are dividing people into groups, the groups can’t be paraphyletic.
[/quote]

Yes, this gets at brazil84’s error in a relatively pithy way.

[MrDibble]

@magellan01

Hmmm. Oh, only if there was some other explanation. Oh wait, there is! As it turns out, the fastest sprinters in the world are all Black.

How many of them are West African?

Why you would categorize the fastest sprinters in the whorl, who happen to all be Black, as “niggers” is beyond me. Can you explain that to me, you dumb racist bastard.

:rolleyes:

[BrainGlutton]

@Blake

There is of course a rule which says that if you are dividing people into groups, the groups can’t be paraphyletic.

And any who become so will be asked to leave.

[andros]

@magellan01

As of yet, you have not demonstrated the requisite degree of dishonesty or stupidity to be placed on ignore. Your strain has been rather run-of-the-mill. Though you could prove me wrong.

Oh, I’m not straining, I assure you.

That said, it’s fairly common knowledge that Black short distance runners have ancestry going back to West Africa.

And they are therefore “West African?” Just want to make sure I’m understanding your use of terminology.

[brazil84]

@mister_nyx

Yes, you are obviously quite consistent in your strategy of refusing to engage with anyone who effectively challenges what you say.

Nonsense. Did you even bother to look up the exchange after which I decided to stop engaging with Ibn?

Or are you simply making an assumption?

If you’re arguing (as you and your fellow “race realists” have been) that you can draw statistical insights about human subpopulations due to shared genetic heritage,

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Can you quote me where I made such an argument? Then I will hopefully understand what you mean.

assigning the great majority of genetic diversity into one grab-bag group obviously makes that impossible. You can’t make useful generalizations about “black people” or “Subsaharan Africans” as compared to the rest of humanity once you acknowledge that large subpopulations of Subsaharan Africans are more genetically similar to white people and Asians than they are to their fellow Africans.

I’m not sure what you mean by “useful.” For me, “useful” means having predictive value. For example, knowing that somebody belongs to the category “black” allows me to make better guesses about that person’s characteristics than if I knew nothing about which category he belonged to.

What does “useful” mean to you?

Also, does this principal apply to other categorization schemes? For example, if there is a Category X and a Category Y, and there are many members of Category X which are closer to members of category Y than to their fellow members of Category X, does it follow that this categorization scheme is not useful?

Yes, this gets at brazil84’s error in a relatively pithy way.

:shrug: Show me the rule.

Also, is this the point you were making earlier? If so, can you quote yourself where you did so?

[magellan01]

@MrDibble

How many of them are West African?

If you mean are of West African descent, this should help you:

Nearly all the sprinters who have beaten the 10-second barrier are of West African descent. Namibian (formerly South-West Africa) Frankie Fredericks became the first man of non-West African heritage to achieve the feat in 1991 and in 2003 Australia’s Patrick Johnson (who has Irish and Indigenous Australian heritage) became the first sub-10-second runner without an African background.[5][6][7][8] Frenchman Christophe Lemaitre became the first white European under ten seconds in 2010 (although Poland’s Marian Woronin had unofficially surpassed the barrier with a time of 9.992 seconds in 1984).[9] In 2011, Zimbabwean Ngonidzashe Makusha became the 76th man to break the barrier, yet only the fourth man not of West African descent.[10] No sprinter of predominantly Asian or East African descent has officially achieved this feat.[11][12][13]

Now let me ask you a couple of questions pointedly: Why would you categorize the fastest sprinters in the world, who happen to all be Black, as “niggers”? And what about the discussion of world class sprinters leads your mind to toggle to “niggers in a watermelon patch”?

[magellan01]

@andros

Oh, I’m not straining, I assure you.

Ouch. But not for the reason you probably think.

@andros

And they are therefore “West African?” Just want to make sure I’m understanding your use of terminology.

Why the hell else would I use that descriptor? I don’t see where the confusion might be…it’s not like there’s a country called West Africa. How else might you interpret my use of the adjective? Surely you are aware of the construct:

people from Africa: African
people from Asia: Asian
people from from Norway, Sweden, etc.: Scandinavian

[mister_nyx]

@brazil84

Nonsense. Did you even bother to look up the exchange after which I decided to stop engaging with Ibn?

Or are you simply making an assumption?

I’m drawing a conclusion based upon your behavior in this thread and your numerous references to refusing to speak to people because they out-argue you. Yes, I’m sure you have some other rationalization for it, but judging by this thread and the caliber of the arguments being made by the people you’re ignoring, it’s pretty obvious that it’s your all-purpose response to people who outmatch you.

[QUOTE=brazil84]

[QUOTE=me]
If you’re arguing (as you and your fellow “race realists” have been) that you can draw statistical insights about human subpopulations due to shared genetic heritage,
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Can you quote me where I made such an argument? Then I will hopefully understand what you mean.
[/QUOTE]

No, there is absolutely no reason why I should have to quote you on this point unless you’re now claiming you don’t believe that it’s possible that these different “races” have statistically different traits. And if that is what you mean to imply here, then you’re trying to “win” by changing your argument.

(Obviously avoiding tautological distinctions, as I’m sure members of magellan01’s imagined “dark-skinned and kinky-haired race” would statistically be darker-skinned than others.)

[QUOTE=brazil84]
What does “useful” mean to you?
[/QUOTE]

It means you need to get a dictionary. I’m not going to define every single common word I use because you prefer to avoid substantial discussions.

[QUOTE=brazil84]
:shrug: Show me the rule.
[/QUOTE]

Uh, this ought to be obvious. The claim you and others have been making is that there are distinct “races” whose members have shared genetic markers and phenotypical similarities on the basis of their relatedness. If you are now discussing paraphyletic “races”, the discussion has shifted to you trying to argue a completely incoherent position.

Or do you just not know what “paraphyletic” means, and you’re trying to bluff your way out of demonstrating ignorance of concept that’s basic to discussion of population genetics?

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Also, is this the point you were making earlier? If so, can you quote yourself where you did so?
[/QUOTE]

It was an assumption underlying my post; it honestly had not occurred to me to explain such a basic and fundamental concept.

[andros]

@magellan01

Why the hell else would I use that descriptor? I don’t see where the confusion might be…it’s not like there’s a country called West Africa. How else might you interpret my use of the adjective? Surely you are aware of the construct:

people from Africa: African
people from Asia: Asian
people from from Norway, Sweden, etc.: Scandinavian

Again, I’m just making sure I understand you. When you call people “West African” that means “of West African descent.” Right?
ETA: It also appears that you equate “Black” and “West African.” Is that also correct?

[magellan01]

@andros

Again, I’m just making sure I understand you. When you call people “West African” that means “of West African descent.” Right?

I’m really not getting your confusion, especially after my last post.

@andros

ETA: It also appears that you equate “Black” and “West African.” Is that also correct?

Equate? No. One is a subset of the other.

[MrDibble]

@magellan01

If you mean are of West African descent, this should help you:

No, that wasn’t what I asked

Now let me ask you a couple of questions pointedly: Why would you categorize the fastest sprinters in the world, who happen to all be Black, as “niggers”?

:rolleyes:Obvious strawman is obvious.

And what about the discussion of world class sprinters leads your mind to toggle to “niggers in a watermelon patch”?

There wasn’t any discussion of world class sprinters in that exchange, before you brought them in to egg on your cohort. It was all BMI and hypertension. You just wanted to use an insult aimed at Doc, but tellingly, you went for a racially loaded one. Because that’s how the mind of the racist works.

[andros]

@magellan01

I’m really not getting your confusion, especially after my last post.

My apologies, then, for the failure in communication.

You made a joke about West African sprinters being fast. In support of that, you presented a list primarily of American, Canadian, and Jamaican runners. Except for the sole Nigerian on the list, none of them are West African.

Except you patiently pointed out to me that we generally call people from Africa “Africans.” That makes it seem like you’re saying that the runners you listed, being, as you say, “West African” are from Africa, when they are not.

So, either you’re calling them “runners of West African descent” or you’re calling them “runners from West Africa.” But it really looks like you’re doing both.

I find that confusing.

I guess I’m just asking that you be a little more plain for me. Those runners you’re using as evidence to support the claim “West Africans are fast”: are they West African?

(I’m not at all sure where “Black” comes into it, but baby steps.)
.

[Kimstu]

@andros

You made a joke about West African sprinters being fast. In support of that, you presented a list primarily of American, Canadian, and Jamaican runners. Except for the sole Nigerian on the list, none of them are West African.

[…]
Those runners you’re using as evidence to support the claim “West Africans are fast”: are they West African?

An especially interesting question when you consider that the top 8 of those fastest runners in the world are all from North American and Caribbean nations where there’s been a lot of racial mixing in the population. None of them are actually from Africa.

In fact, the only actual African anywhere on that list, the Nigerian Olusoji Fasuba, is the son of a Jamaican mother! Likewise, of the two runners officially listed as Canadian, one was originally from Jamaica and the other from Haiti.

Evidenty, it’s not that “West Africans are fast”, it’s that Jamaicans are fast.

[andros]

@Kimstu

Evidenty, it’s not that “West Africans are fast”, it’s that Jamaicans are fast.

Hell, I knew that. I watched that documentary about Doug E Doug’s Olympic career!

(He’s Jamaican, right?)

[magellan01]

@MrDibble

No, that wasn’t what I asked:rolleyes:Obvious strawman is obvious.There wasn’t any discussion of world class sprinters in that exchange, before you brought them in to egg on your cohort. It was all BMI and hypertension. You just wanted to use an insult aimed at Doc, but tellingly, you went for a racially loaded one. Because that’s how the mind of the racist works.

Heavens, this is worse than I thought. I was really of the mind you were of slightly above average intelligence. Well, ignorance fought.

But here goes. It appeared that a poster had run off after brazil’s comment. I lamented that fact, as I found the exchange interesting, and made a joke that went to the apparent sped at which he ran away from the thread. Given that much of the exchange has revolved around race, with the usual charge of “racist” being thrown around willy-nilly, I infused my joke with something racial. I thought it common knowledge to anyone that might engage in these conversations would have been aware of the degree that the fastest sprinters on earth tend to be of West African descent. No news, really. Then again, maybe I overestimated you in the knowledge category, as well. If so, my mistake.

But I hope you enjoy now having this new fact added to your databank. And, hopefully, you can now enjoy my wonderfully entertaining joke with the glee it delivers to all on-racists. You know, those of us who, when hearing about fast sprinters from Western Africa, do not immediately conjure up in our heads the notion of “niggers in a watermelon patch”. We hope to one day include you in our numbers.

Godspeed. (Who, I hear, is even faster than the fastest West African.)

[Kimstu]

@magellan01

[…] those of us who, when hearing about fast sprinters from Western Africa […]

Psssst: most of the guys you’re talking about are actually from Jamaica.

Again, this showcases one of the most bizarre aspects of the so-called “race realist” approach to terminology: their insistence on using a less accurate and less descriptive term in preference to a more accurate and descriptive one.

If you want to specify a group of people who have produced a lot of fast sprinters, and six out of the top eight all-time fastest sprinters are Jamaican-born, then why would you insist on referring to them as “from West Africa” instead of “from Jamaica”?

I mean, when we talk about the current rugby world champions, we don’t say that most of them are “from the British Isles” just because they’re descended from British colonists. We say that they’re “from New Zealand”. Which they are.