Sports should be divided by race

[tehevil99]

Ive presented my thoughts to severl different forums that i have joined and have yet seen a semi-intelligent reply that could sway my thoughts.

Think about it. From my understanding of things, women don't compete in mens sports because they are not physically equal. Well, neither is a white man to a black one. You look at the NBA, nearly all black. Now if blacks were a majority, it would make sense. But no, they are a minority, and yet still dominate the court. Why is this? Why, it's their physical makeup of course.So why is it that we don't just remove the unfair advantage blacks have against whites by just giving them their own seperate sports? If we can do it for gender, why not race? And speaking of which, just why is it a woman can play in the PGA tour but a man can't play in the LPGA?

Thank you. ~tehevil99~

[Tanktunker]

Maybe the environment that many black people grow up in is different from the environment that many white people do?

[Squidude]

I think it is a lot of genetics, based on what sort of physical things their ancestors had to do to survive, but it is also partly enviroment. I don't think race division would be good, because skill and training win out over race.

[tehevil99]

the environment they grow up in does play a factor tanktunker... good point. Not to sound racist, but in the "hood" black people play alot sports and rap but dont set their goals towards school.

[Spectral]

Regardless of race, men are all equal and women are all equal. The only thing that affects how many members of a particular group participate in a professional sport is the emphasis on that sport within their culture. You can expect members of the black culture to play basketball as a primary sport; you can't expect to see many members of the black culture playing Hockey. This isn't due to physical abilities, it is due to cultural inclination (basically, whether or not they played it a lot as a kid).

Ive presented my thoughts to severl different forums that i have joined and have yet seen a semi-intelligent reply that could sway my thoughts.

Think about it. From my understanding of things, women don't compete in mens sports because they are not physically equal. Well, neither is a white man to a black one. You look at the NBA, nearly all black. Now if blacks were a majority, it would make sense. But no, they are a minority, and yet still dominate the court. Why is this? Why, it's their physical makeup of course.

In case you haven't noticed, the NBA has been getting players from all over the world. Look at Tony Parker, he's French. Dirk Nowitzki is German. Manu Ginobili is from Argentina. Yao Ming is from China. The NBA isn't all black, and it will be stupid if they segregated sports. It's not about race, it's about the interest of people. Women and Men both have different leagues, but I don't think it's about sexism.

So why is it that we don't just remove the unfair advantage blacks have against whites by just giving them their own seperate sports? If we can do it for gender, why not race?

Stupid idea, because gender and race are completely different. If you are a White man, Black man, Hispanic man, Asian man, Indian man, or whatever, you are still a man. Same goes for women. More women would rather be interested to watch women play rather than men, and the same goes for men. Besides, there are a lot less racist people who want a separate league, so it's never going to happen.

And speaking of which, just why is it a woman can play in the PGA tour but a man can't play in the LPGA?

Well I believe it's because women had to fight to get equal rights, and they still do that today. The PGA probably doesn't want to seem sexist, so they let women play since they had to prove themselves, which they did. Men don't play in the LPGA because it would probably seem unfair for them to fight women that had to get their own league, whereas the men just got theres because supposedly they are the more "dominant" sex.

[DarkReality]

Absolutely correct, we are not genetically equal. And while it would be "fair" to split up basketball by race, why stop there then? Why not split it up by height? I mean, tall people have a clear advantage over short ones (assuming both have equal endurance, strength, training in general). That's a matter of genetics, as is race. So why not split up sports by race? Because then we'd have the NBAFMB180A185: NBA for men between 1,80 (meters) and 1,85 (meters).

Doesn't really make NBA fans happy, now does it :-)

[Tanktunker]

What about splitting it between the size of your manlyhood?
But I guess that's just black people and white people.

[e p]

It would be a pain in the ass to set up new leagues. Plus you'd have all the people complaining about "racism."

[Vagrant]

My main question is what's the purpose? Sports display the ideas of Darwin. The strongest survive. Whether it's blacks, whites, asians, or whomever, the best of the best end up in the NBA. Dividing it up by races, heights, weights, etc only devalues a part of the sport. Instead of cheering for your favorite team, you have to cheer for your favorite black team, white team, asian team, latino team, your favorite 5'10 team, your favorite 6'0 team, your favorite 6'2 team...

The technicalities get pointless and detract from the point of the GAME.

Wrestling and fighting are the only sports I see a reason to even things up according to height and weight. I don't expect a 100 lbs shrimp to be able to stand up to a 300 lbs rhino.

[Malignus]

It would be a pain in the ass to set up new leagues. Plus you'd have all the people complaining about "racism."

You're right. Know why? Because it would be racist. No quotation marks necessary.

[Anonymous]

I think he just notices the black people more because they stand out among all the white people and light colored floors.

It's utterly ridiculous.

[Karl]

There is no such thing as race.

We are a species. One species. There should be no further division.

[Joest]

There is no such thing as race.

We are a species. One species. There should be no further division.That is the smartest thing I've heard anyone say all day.

[Soon to be flash master]

Segrigation has gotten a bad rap over the past century. Lets not revisit it.

There is no such thing as race.

We are a species. One species. There should be no further division.

Derrrrrrrrrrr. *quote comedian*

You wait until these un racist people get mugged, you think there gonna say this;
What did he look like?
A person.
What race was he?
Human.

[Vince]

Absolutely correct, we are not genetically equal. And while it would be "fair" to split up basketball by race, why stop there then? Why not split it up by height? I mean, tall people have a clear advantage over short ones (assuming both have equal endurance, strength, training in general). That's a matter of genetics, as is race. So why not split up sports by race? Because then we'd have the NBAFMB180A185: NBA for men between 1,80 (meters) and 1,85 (meters).

Doesn't really make NBA fans happy, now does it :-)

Pretty much what I was thinking about saying.

[theryman]

This reminds me of the antebellum United States, when people thought that blacks where physicall inferior to whites.

Anyways, no.

[AssaultRifle]

I agree that different races are built slightly different when they are in different geological locations, but by no means are any of these changes significant enough to show /amazing/ change.

If you would like to use the NBA, yes, it is mostly black. But, there are white people who play it, which means it is a possibility. Until it is 100% black, don't count on segregated sports.

[Soon to be flash master]

Black people shouldn't be allowed to shoot 3 pointers, swim or Write with a blue pen.

[Posh Jibbons]

Or white people could just stop sucking at basketball.

[Kevim]

I think that is a dumb idea. I don't know if there is a definitive genetic thing that makes black people on average physically better than white people, but either way, it doesn't matter. I think you just see more black people in the NBA than any other race because NBA is a *black sport*. And also, black people as a whole just tend to be more athletic and sports-prone than white people.

Anyways, it would be dumb to divide any sports league by race. It is about the best of the best. And every race should have a chance of getting into it.

[Karl]

Derrrrrrrrrrr. *quote comedian*
There's a difference between recognizing that people have different skin color, and that there's no such thing as race. Biologically speaking, all humans are the same. It's when people start making assumptions based on racial stereotypes that we have a problem.

The person who started the thread said that Blacks are better atheletes than whites. While obviously true in some cases, it's unfair to think that of every black person.

[Prejure]

Ive presented my thoughts to severl different forums that i have joined and have yet seen a semi-intelligent reply that could sway my thoughts.

Think about it. From my understanding of things, women don't compete in mens sports because they are not physically equal. Well, neither is a white man to a black one. You look at the NBA, nearly all black. Now if blacks were a majority, it would make sense. But no, they are a minority, and yet still dominate the court. Why is this? Why, it's their physical makeup of course.So why is it that we don't just remove the unfair advantage blacks have against whites by just giving them their own seperate sports? If we can do it for gender, why not race? And speaking of which, just why is it a woman can play in the PGA tour but a man can't play in the LPGA?

Thank you. ~tehevil99~

Look, black people where they tend to grow up is in poor goverment funded areas. They have little money and can't do many things. All they can do is go to local parks and play with what the goverment gives them. Their lives are school, playing ball, friends and go to sleep. When you practice your whole life a sport and you are taller and stronger than the rest you can assure yourself a descent future in the NBA.

[DarkReality]

My main question is what's the purpose? Sports display the ideas of Darwin. The strongest survive. Whether it's blacks, whites, asians, or whomever, the best of the best end up in the NBA. Dividing it up by races, heights, weights, etc only devalues a part of the sport. Instead of cheering for your favorite team, you have to cheer for your favorite black team, white team, asian team, latino team, your favorite 5'10 team, your favorite 6'0 team, your favorite 6'2 team...

The technicalities get pointless and detract from the point of the GAME.

Wrestling and fighting are the only sports I see a reason to even things up according to height and weight. I don't expect a 100 lbs shrimp to be able to stand up to a 300 lbs rhino.

And yet we have the special olympics for special people as well has leagues for handicapped people :-) Where's the Darwinism there? A handicapped person is just as responsible for not being able to play in the NBA as I am for being white and shorter than 6 feet.

That is the smartest thing I've heard anyone say all day.

And it's also completely wrong. Which makes you look stupid for considering it smart.

After all, you don't put a Chihuaha or a poodle infront of a dog sled (replacing the husky that belongs there). There IS such a thing as race. There IS such a thing as racial division. Asians are shorter, Black men can jump higher, and white men can blend into the snow >_>

There's a difference between recognizing that people have different skin color, and that there's no such thing as race. Biologically speaking, all humans are the same. It's when people start making assumptions based on racial stereotypes that we have a problem.

Once again, you are completely wrong. Humans are not the same. South American natives have a completely different body build than nordic people. People from the north are tall and robust with the tendency to well-formed upper body strength. They were required to survive harsh winters. South American natives needed to be able to move through trees (on the ground, of course). They needed to be quick, silent and agile. While we are the same in our basic setup, we have quite a few differences.

Africans, for example, tend towards being born with sickle-cell disease (or is it a vast majority with sickle-cell?). Why? Because it protected them from Malaria. Natural selection. We changed depending on where we lived.

Look, black people where they tend to grow up is in poor goverment funded areas. They have little money and can't do many things. All they can do is go to local parks and play with what the goverment gives them. Their lives are school, playing ball, friends and go to sleep. When you practice your whole life a sport and you are taller and stronger than the rest you can assure yourself a descent future in the NBA.

Jesus effing christ shut up now! That reeks so much of prejudice, I smell it over here. That's right, across the ####ing Atlantic Ocean. Whites are never born into poor regions and all blacks love playing basketball? What next? Blacks are all gangsters and say "homy g-dawg whatup mah n****!" at LEAST 6 times a day? The first game a South Korean learns to play isn't checkers, it's Starcraft? Pshaw.

[Karl]

Once again, you are completely wrong. Humans are not the same. South American natives have a completely different body build than nordic people. People from the north are tall and robust with the tendency to well-formed upper body strength. They were required to survive harsh winters. South American natives needed to be able to move through trees (on the ground, of course). They needed to be quick, silent and agile. While we are the same in our basic setup, we have quite a few differences.

Africans, for example, tend towards being born with sickle-cell disease (or is it a vast majority with sickle-cell?). Why? Because it protected them from Malaria. Natural selection. We changed depending on where we lived.
Of course humans have differences. But at a basic level, humans are the same. Any two humans could mate and produce offspring. Breed two dogs from different species, and usually you won't have offspring.

You're confusing race with species. Race is a concept created by a human.

[Kevim]

Breed two dogs from different species, and usually you won't have offspring.

Actually, you usually will. The only occurence where dogs can't mate with each other, is when there are huge size differences. Great Dane + Chiwawa is a no. But you could probably mix a giant poodle and a gray wolf if you were so cruel.

[snoman99991]

I think it is a lot of genetics, based on what sort of physical things their ancestors had to do to survive, but it is also partly enviroment. I don't think race division would be good, because skill and training win out over race.

Just thought that looked funny. I can imagine black ancestors playing basketball in order to survive = P

But seriously though. All humans are 99% genetically alike. Don't fool yourselves, race is an idiotic concept. And yes, it is true that we are all 99% genetically alike, even if I'm not as stupid as you are = P

[Syrito]

WE SHOULD SPLIT UP PEOPLE BY HAIR COLOUR TOO.

DAMN THE MELANIN LEVEL DIFFERENCES. [/caps]

[.Valhalla.]

I seem to remember an olympic ago were Italy kicked Americas ass.


Crack head theory gone?

[Vagrant]

Of course humans have differences. But at a basic level, humans are the same. Any two humans could mate and produce offspring. Breed two dogs from different species, and usually you won't have offspring.

You're confusing race with species. Race is a concept created by a human.

Well, of course we're all the same species. But what people mean by "race" in humans is what's considered a sub-species. What exactly constitutes a "sub-species" is up for debate.

Different people from certain regions of the world do exhibit differences in how their body is built and other traits. Asians are generally smaller (I'm not entirely sure why that is, they just are), Africans generally are better at running and usually have longer legs, and thus are taller (This is due to hunting on the plains. Longer legs = better chasing animals). Europeans generally have stronger upper bodies (I believe this has something to do with better storage of body heat in the North). Middle Easterners/Semites generally have longer, skinnier bodies (something to do with heat loss, I believe).

And yet we have the special olympics for special people as well has leagues for handicapped people :-) Where's the Darwinism there?Human sympathy overriding Darwinism. ;)

[Tanktunker]

You're confusing race with species. Race is a concept created by a human.
So if my Melanin produces white skin pigments and your's produces black skin pigments, then we're exactly the same?

[denacioust]

Hell why stop at sports? I say we segregate the world by race. Black people get Antarctica, White People get Africa, Eskimoes get the Middle East.

[Vagrant]

So if my Melanin produces white skin pigments and your's produces black skin pigments, then we're exactly the same?

There are seven different genes that produce skin color. 2^7 = 128 different shades of skin.

Despite that, I don't think 7 genes should change the course of human history due to intolerance, do you?

[Karl]

So if my Melanin produces white skin pigments and your's produces black skin pigments, then we're exactly the same?
Obviously we're not clones. But the small regional differences don't create sub-species.

I'm not one of those people that thinks he's colorblind. I call black people 'black people'. What I object to is that people group all black people (or asians, or europeans) into an arbitrary concept of 'race'.

Black people usually have wider, smaller noses, and longer, thinner limbs. This mostly has to do with heat. Their melanin count protects them from UV rays.

White people usually have larger, longer noses, and shorter, stockier limbs, again because of the temperature. Their skin is lighter to accept vitamins from sunlight.

I recognize these differences. The problem is when you apply one description to a large group of people without basis. It just isn't true.

[highwatermark]

There are seven different genes that produce skin color. 2^7 = 128 different shades of skin.

Despite that, I don't think 7 genes should change the course of human history due to intolerance, do you?

it's 4^7 = 16384. It can be A, C, T, or G, not just either A or G (or C or T). That makes the statement unarguable.

[Tanktunker]

There are seven different genes that produce skin color. 2^7 = 128 different shades of skin.

Despite that, I don't think 7 genes should change the course of human history due to intolerance, do you?
Nah, who'd think of creating free, expendable labour and use race or religion as a reason for the exploitation of the people in question?
I mean, beside white people.
And Arabs.
And Spaniards.
<.<
>.>

[DarkReality]

Of course humans have differences. But at a basic level, humans are the same. Any two humans could mate and produce offspring. Breed two dogs from different species, and usually you won't have offspring.

You're confusing race with species. Race is a concept created by a human.

...

Do not speak if you don't know what you're talking about. There are no two dogs from different species, as our domestic dogs are one and the same species, but bred to be a different "race". You're right, race is a concept created by humans. A concept that describes differences in inividuals that still belong to the same species.

And since when can I not cross-breed dogs? "Race" is just the same as "Breed" in dogs. And if I can emphasize that my dog is pure-bred, there's gotta be cross-bred dogs, oui? :-)

I suggest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28biology%29

But seriously though. All humans are 99% genetically alike. Don't fool yourselves, race is an idiotic concept. And yes, it is true that we are all 99% genetically alike, even if I'm not as stupid as you are = P

We are, I believe, 97 percent like rats, when it comes to our DNA. Percentages mean jack #### because even if it's a 0.7% difference, with the millions of nucleotides (the parts that compose the DNA? Correct term?) we have in our DNA, 0.7% is a LOT.

Nah, who'd think of creating free, expendable labour and use race or religion as a reason for the exploitation of the people in question?
I mean, beside white people.
And Arabs.
And Spaniards.
<.<
>.>

WE DID NO SUCH THING! LIAR!

>_>

[CDestroyer]

Wow, just because some different races or genders are "essentially" better at sports than others means that we should make different leagues, according to the Declaration of independence, all men are created equal. Don't get all on me over, "all MEN what about teh women lol nub," it means everybody, in a weird kind of way. Sure, more Blacks play better at Basketball, and White people are better at golf, so it means we should divide everything if according to race? No.

[Alphaniner]

Wow, just because some different races or genders are "essentially" better at sports than others means that we should make different leagues, according to the Declaration of independence, all men are created equal. Don't get all on me over, "all MEN what about teh women lol nub," it means everybody, in a weird kind of way. Sure, more Blacks play better at Basketball, and White people are better at golf, so it means we should divide everything if according to race? No.

*cough*Tiga Woods!*cough*

[Vagrant]

it's 4^7 = 16384. It can be A, C, T, or G, not just either A or G (or C or T). That makes the statement unarguable.

Genes, you fool, not nucleotides. Genes are not determined by not single groupings of nucleotides. They are multiple groupings of nucleotides, and often come in fairly long sequences. They are determined by CHROMOSOMES, which happen to come in PAIRS. So it really is 2^7.

We are, I believe, 97 percent like rats, when it comes to our DNA. Percentages mean jack #### because even if it's a 0.7% difference, with the millions of nucleotides (the parts that compose the DNA? Correct term?) we have in our DNA, 0.7% is a LOT.

The funniest thing about the human genome is that huge chunks of it don't even code for anything. Scientists still wonder what the use of these particular sections is.

[Alphaniner]

There's really no stereotype as to "Xrace is always better than Yrace at Zsport."

Cuz, while white people are generally bettter than others at golf, there is this guy called Tiger Woods. He's kind of a big deal. Pretty good. Nothing special or anything. But yeah.

And, currently, Steve Nash is having a pretty dominant year at basketball. And he's white, and 6'3", which is pretty short relative to NBA players.

So, you can't automatically assume that somebody is good/bad at a sport based on race.

[highwatermark]

Genes, you fool, not nucleotides. Genes are not determined by not single groupings of nucleotides. They are multiple groupings of nucleotides, and often come in fairly long sequences. They are determined by CHROMOSOMES, which happen to come in PAIRS. So it really is 2^7.

I see my first mistake. However, being a "pair" doesn't mean that there are only 2 outcomes. Assuming R is (partially) dominant and r is recessive, in certain genes Rr can be something that's different from both RR and rr (I'm pretty sure that "racial" genes has at least 1 like this). So a more mathematical formula would be something like

2^(x) * 3^(7-x).

Forgive me for bluntly asserting that first mistake; I haven't read any bio in a while.

[Vagrant]

I see my first mistake. However, being a "pair" doesn't mean that there are only 2 outcomes. Assuming R is (partially) dominant and r is recessive, in certain genes Rr can be something that's different from both RR and rr (I'm pretty sure that "racial" genes has at least 1 like this). So a more mathematical formula would be something like

2^(x) * 3^(7-x).

Forgive me for bluntly asserting that first mistake; I haven't read any bio in a while.

Erm...That formula still makes no sense.

Since there are seven different genes for skin color, and 2 options each (incomplete dominance) per gene, there are 2^7 different possible combinations.

(I'm not sure whether these are all on the same chromosome or not, that was a mistake of mine. I do know that 2^7 is relatively accurate. Actually, some scientists believe there are 9 genes for skin color, or 2^9, others think there are different numbers. I think the standard is 7 though.)

[highwatermark]

Erm...That formula still makes no sense.

Since there are seven different genes for skin color, and 2 options each (incomplete dominance) per gene, there are 2^7 different possible combinations.

(I'm not sure whether these are all on the same chromosome or not, that was a mistake of mine. I do know that 2^7 is relatively accurate. Actually, some scientists believe there are 9 genes for skin color, or 2^9, others think there are different numbers. I think the standard is 7 though.)

Whether it be 9 or 7, imcomplete dominance ends up with 3 options, not just 2. (dominant, recessive, [some kind of mix]) so there'll probably be more than 2^7 or 2^9, where I can't say an exact number.

[DarkReality]

Back to the actual debate, splitting up sports by race or other factors could actually revive racism. One league would ultimately be favored by the majority of viewers, broadcasting channels adjust to this, and one league or another would sink into being a second-class nothing. Probably been said.

And forcing people into leagues would rob them of their freedom to choose. Which wouldn't be too nice. Even though we do it with women >_>

[Alphaniner]

Back to the actual debate, splitting up sports by race or other factors could actually revive racism. One league would ultimately be favored by the majority of viewers, broadcasting channels adjust to this, and one league or another would sink into being a second-class nothing. Probably been said.

And forcing people into leagues would rob them of their freedom to choose. Which wouldn't be too nice. Even though we do it with women >_>

That's because women are inferior and by no stretch of the imagination capable of doing anything that we manly types are! So there!

Well, men can't play in womens league, and vice versa. Men are naturally stronger than women. I think we all know that. Not trying to be sexist, but it's simply in the differences between the male and female body. It's this schnifty little guy known as testosterone. Now that's not to say that if a woman works out all the time and is very physically active, she could easily be stronger than many men. However, if you were to have mixed gender leagues in certain sports, basketball probably more than most, it's just natural that the women would probably get dominated. Men are naturally taller and stronger, so it's probably for the best that the WNBA is around.

[highwatermark]

That's because women are inferior and by no stretch of the imagination capable of doing anything that we manly types are! So there!

Well, men can't play in womens league, and vice versa. Men are naturally stronger than women. I think we all know that. Not trying to be sexist, but it's simply in the differences between the male and female body. It's this schnifty little guy known as testosterone. Now that's not to say that if a woman works out all the time and is very physically active, she could easily be stronger than many men. However, if you were to have mixed gender leagues in certain sports, basketball probably more than most, it's just natural that the women would probably get dominated. Men are naturally taller and stronger, so it's probably for the best that the WNBA is around.

Well yeah, most of the time. However, one thing women can do better than men: arctic / record-breaking swimming. Women have an extra layer of fat right under the skin (which makes it look tight and curvy instead of muscular) which insulates heat better. So one thing women can do better would be swimming in cold places (some important swimming records held are by women).

PS I'm not a feminist. I post a lot in the hot chick thread.

[Karl]

Well, men can't play in womens league, and vice versa. Men are naturally stronger than women. I think we all know that. Not trying to be sexist, but it's simply in the differences between the male and female body. It's this schnifty little guy known as testosterone. Now that's not to say that if a woman works out all the time and is very physically active, she could easily be stronger than many men. However, if you were to have mixed gender leagues in certain sports, basketball probably more than most, it's just natural that the women would probably get dominated. Men are naturally taller and stronger, so it's probably for the best that the WNBA is around.
Couldn't you use the same argument for having seperate 'races' in seperate leagues? Although I still don't agree with that racial stereotyping.

[highwatermark]

Couldn't you use the same argument for having seperate 'races' in seperate leagues? Although I still don't agree with that racial stereotyping.

You can't really associate qualities with race. There are a lot of hidden variables, such as the way a person is brought up, his/her diet, etc. That's what is actually associated with race, which gets associated with qualities. Because there are not much experiments with race done yet, you can't conclude with anything (yet).

Note: Racial stereotyping = associating race with a form of bringing up, which fits the description of what I just said people do.

[Vagrant]

It's this schnifty little guy known as testosterone. Now that's not to say that if a woman works out all the time and is very physically active, she could easily be stronger than many men

Testosterone is a natural anabolic steroid. It allows men's muscles to grow in size. Because women lack testosterone, their muscles cannot grow in size, and can only get better toned. "Manly" women, the bodybuilders, probably get shots of testosterone. Theoretically, women can become as strong as men, but they have to work a lot harder to get there.

Couldn't you use the same argument for having seperate 'races' in seperate leagues?

Not really. The physical difference between men and women is too great -- specifically the hormones. Because men have testosterone, they become much stronger. It's like pitting somebody with steroids versus somebody without. The outcome should be obvious.

[Endless]

Ive presented my thoughts to severl different forums that i have joined and have yet seen a semi-intelligent reply that could sway my thoughts.

Think about it. From my understanding of things, women don't compete in mens sports because they are not physically equal. Well, neither is a white man to a black one. You look at the NBA, nearly all black. Now if blacks were a majority, it would make sense. But no, they are a minority, and yet still dominate the court. Why is this? Why, it's their physical makeup of course.So why is it that we don't just remove the unfair advantage blacks have against whites by just giving them their own seperate sports? If we can do it for gender, why not race? And speaking of which, just why is it a woman can play in the PGA tour but a man can't play in the LPGA?

Thank you. ~tehevil99~

Segregation is illegal and Imorral.


End of story

[Freddy]

Didn't Jackie Robinson and his homies work hard to integrate the sports.
It'd be a pretty good leap backwards to just split them up again.

[highwatermark]

Segregation is illegal and Imorral. End of story

But it happens. That's why this exists.

[mattz1010]

Whether it be 9 or 7, imcomplete dominance ends up with 3 options, not just 2. (dominant, recessive, [some kind of mix]) so there'll probably be more than 2^7 or 2^9, where I can't say an exact number.

no, it's # of genes, factorial!

XD

*dies*

rofl, 9 factorial = # of skin colour possibilities.

that'd be nice.

let's freeze the computer! and see what we get.

362880 choices, lawl.

[Karl]

It's like pitting somebody with steroids versus somebody without. The outcome should be obvious.
Unless you're counting ball size!

Ba-dum-pish!

>.>

[highwatermark]

no, it's # of genes, factorial!

wait what? How is it factorial? The genes don't interact with each other so it should be [relatively] small. Since 9! [way bigger]> 2^9, I'm pretty sure it's not that way. Binary stuff don't have factorials.

[Alphaniner]

Testosterone is a natural anabolic steroid. It allows men's muscles to grow in size. Because women lack testosterone, their muscles cannot grow in size, and can only get better toned. "Manly" women, the bodybuilders, probably get shots of testosterone. Theoretically, women can become as strong as men, but they have to work a lot harder to get there.

Is there a hidden contradiction here? That sounds the same as what I said. I don't know if you were confirming what I said or what...

[highwatermark]

It's interesting that there are many different debates going on, sort of parallel like a strand of DNA...

[Tanktunker]

But it happens. That's why this exists.
No, it happens because it exists.
Heathen.

[mattz1010]

wait what? How is it factorial? The genes don't interact with each other so it should be [relatively] small. Since 9! [way bigger]> 2^9, I'm pretty sure it's not that way. Binary stuff don't have factorials.

...I don't think you get it...

[highwatermark]

...I don't think you get it...

I don't think you get it either. Explain in professional terms, or nobody is going to even consider believing what you say.

[highwatermark]

No, it happens because it exists.
Heathen.

THIS = as in this thread, not the existance of racism.

[CDestroyer]

*cough*Tiga Woods!*cough*
Well yeah, but there are some good B Ball players right... *runs*