Moderator: Community Team


^^this guynew guy1 wrote:People, he could have said any race and it would have sparked an argument. If he had said "does this offend you? The words 'lazy and stupid'", he would not have gotten a response from anyone that was a 10. Adding context like "black people" is the same as putting "dogs, cats, or any other animal". It offends more people to certain degrees. We get offense is a relative concept, but the OP doesnt ask for the definition, it asks for your personal offense level. We get alot of people are voting 10 because he added black people, but he did not ask if it was racist or how you personally felt about it or whether this should be "Is this offensive" vs "Is this Racist?". Just vote so he can get his information. Why does this forum always start debates over everything?
Pfft, Im drunk and Im posting this crap. Take my word for it though, otherwise Ill rage.Army of GOD wrote:^^this guynew guy1 wrote:People, he could have said any race and it would have sparked an argument. If he had said "does this offend you? The words 'lazy and stupid'", he would not have gotten a response from anyone that was a 10. Adding context like "black people" is the same as putting "dogs, cats, or any other animal". It offends more people to certain degrees. We get offense is a relative concept, but the OP doesnt ask for the definition, it asks for your personal offense level. We get alot of people are voting 10 because he added black people, but he did not ask if it was racist or how you personally felt about it or whether this should be "Is this offensive" vs "Is this Racist?". Just vote so he can get his information. Why does this forum always start debates over everything?
You spoke the truth, so...new guy1 wrote:Pfft, Im drunk and Im posting this crap. Take my word for it though, otherwise Ill rage.Army of GOD wrote:^^this guynew guy1 wrote:People, he could have said any race and it would have sparked an argument. If he had said "does this offend you? The words 'lazy and stupid'", he would not have gotten a response from anyone that was a 10. Adding context like "black people" is the same as putting "dogs, cats, or any other animal". It offends more people to certain degrees. We get offense is a relative concept, but the OP doesnt ask for the definition, it asks for your personal offense level. We get alot of people are voting 10 because he added black people, but he did not ask if it was racist or how you personally felt about it or whether this should be "Is this offensive" vs "Is this Racist?". Just vote so he can get his information. Why does this forum always start debates over everything?

What would you propose the new use of the forum be, if not to debate?new guy1 wrote:People, he could have said any race and it would have sparked an argument. If he had said "does this offend you? The words 'lazy and stupid'", he would not have gotten a response from anyone that was a 10. Adding context like "black people" is the same as putting "dogs, cats, or any other animal". It offends more people to certain degrees. We get offense is a relative concept, but the OP doesnt ask for the definition, it asks for your personal offense level. We get alot of people are voting 10 because he added black people, but he did not ask if it was racist or how you personally felt about it or whether this should be "Is this offensive" vs "Is this Racist?". Just vote so he can get his information. Why does this forum always start debates over everything?
Delete one of the poll options, submit, then repaste it back in?Army of GOD wrote:god dammit, how do I reset the poll?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Delete one of the poll options, submit, then repaste it back in?Army of GOD wrote:god dammit, how do I reset the poll?
I should rephrase, why discuss if it is racist when it is asking if its offensive? You should discuss the level of offensiveness and if racism had something to do with it then throw in "I probably wouldnt have been quite as offended if race wasnt involved" and it suddenly becomes a tag on to WHY it offended you. And I am not debating what should be posted, Im just saying I opened this topic expecting to read funny comments/more offensive remarks/"oh god thats so offensive", not "Why you gonna throw that entire race under the bus? Thats so racist, you need to rename this topic". I wouldnt say Im starting a debate, Id say Im trying to put the debate on the correct topicAAFitz wrote:What would you propose the new use of the forum be, if not to debate?new guy1 wrote:People, he could have said any race and it would have sparked an argument. If he had said "does this offend you? The words 'lazy and stupid'", he would not have gotten a response from anyone that was a 10. Adding context like "black people" is the same as putting "dogs, cats, or any other animal". It offends more people to certain degrees. We get offense is a relative concept, but the OP doesnt ask for the definition, it asks for your personal offense level. We get alot of people are voting 10 because he added black people, but he did not ask if it was racist or how you personally felt about it or whether this should be "Is this offensive" vs "Is this Racist?". Just vote so he can get his information. Why does this forum always start debates over everything?
And be careful, you are very close to what I would consider debating how people should respond to a particular thread...
jay_a2j wrote:It's not offensive, it's ignorant. When you use blanket statements it shows you aren't very bright.
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
An extreme (and not quite accurate but makes the point) analogy would be to say Men are better basketball players than Woman.Scientists are definitive in their findings that athletes of West African ancestry are the most anaerobically efficient athletes, East African are the fittest aerobically, and whites fall in the middle.
For years it was axiomatic that muscles have two types of fibers - white, or fast-twitch, which were thought to be adapted for power movements, such as leaping or sprinting; and red, or slow-twitch, which were adapted for endurance. Now we know the model is more complicated. There are in fact two different types of fast-twitch fibers, one more metabolically efficient. Whites on average have a higher percentage of slow-twitch fibers than West African blacks who generally have more of both types of fast-twitch fibers.
Geneticist and exercise physiologist Claude Bouchard at Laval University in Quebec City, has run numerous experiments comparing two populations, French-Canadian and West African students. Using long needles inserted into the thighs of test subjects, Bouchard's team extracted tiny sections of fibers, which look to the naked eye like pieces of raw meat. They were chemically treated to reveal metabolic differences, put on a glass slide, and slipped under a high-power microscope, where they appeared as a collage of tiny red and white crocodile scales. The West Africans, by a ratio of approximately two to one, had more of the larger fast-twitch fibers. The researchers concluded that the force generating capacity of type-II muscle fibers at high velocity, the speed and tempo of movements, and the capacity of an individual to adapt to exercise training are all genetically influenced.
Although physical activity can improve fitness, it generally cannot alter a person's biological endowment by converting fast-twitch fibers to slow-twitch ones, or vice versa (although people do gradually and permanently lose fast-twitch muscles as a result of aging). It's estimated that 40 percent is due to environmental influences such as exercise, whereas 45 percent is associated with genetic factors (the remaining 15 percent is due to sampling error). At the far end of the performance bell curve in sprinting, where small differences can be crucial, genetics clearly circumscribes possibility.