Obama says students with disabilities have a right to play sports

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#151 Posted by Planeforger (15460 posts) -
Next Obama will likely be saying that the mentally disabled have a right to life.Laihendi
Fixed it for you there, Lai. Anyway, this is just another example of you attacking something good simply because you don't like the guy who is behind it. All these threads do is make your position look ridiculous, and highlight the decent things that your President is doing.
#152 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

Changing the rules of a sport to accomodate people with disabilities is just dumb. If someone hasn't played many competitive sports, I can see where they might not understand that. The very nature of the sport is altered by rule changes that attempt to make everyone happy.

For example- Forcing the wrestlers to be in constant contact with each other changes things a bit. Leverage and angle of attack are very important in wrestling. A person who is partially or completely blind will have elevated awareness of their surroundings based on their sense of touch. That gives them an unfair advantage over the majority of wrestlers, who have all of their senses. It also changes the techniques used in a match. Success in grappling with an opponent is often determined by who gets their hands on the other person first.

#153 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Explain the difference.

hartsickdiscipl

A disability and sports are both broad areas of discussion whilst your analogy zeroed on a specific disability and activity that are incompatible with one another.

In the end it depends on the specific disability and the specific activity. That's why specific examples are the only way to see if a general statement like "people with disabilities have the right to play sports" is valid.

and in the end, some disabilities are irrelevant when it comes to sports.
#154 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

A disability and sports are both broad areas of discussion whilst your analogy zeroed on a specific disability and activity that are incompatible with one another.

DroidPhysX

In the end it depends on the specific disability and the specific activity. That's why specific examples are the only way to see if a general statement like "people with disabilities have the right to play sports" is valid.

and in the end, some disabilities are irrelevant when it comes to sports.

If they are irrelevant, they won't require a rule change.

#155 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

That's like saying that a person who is mute has a right to sing. It's just stupid.

hartsickdiscipl

Are you saying that people with disabilities are completely incompatible with sports? Because that's what your analogy is. A complete incompatibility. Even then were we able to allow a mute person to no longer be mute and sing we would do it.

There is no such thing as a "complete" incompatibility. There is a certain level of practical incompatibility that has to be determined. That's where the lines have to be drawn. Same as with anything in life.

Yes there is such things as complete incompatibility. A mute person cannot sing. They simply cannot do it. Were a mute person be capable of singing then they would not be mute. So really all you're saying here is "I don't want to admit it but yes that's how I feel". You're drawing the line at disabled people not being compatible with sports.
#156 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Next Obama will likely be saying that the mentally disabled have a right to life.Planeforger
Fixed it for you there, Lai. Anyway, this is just another example of you attacking something good simply because you don't like the guy who is behind it. All these threads do is make your position look ridiculous, and highlight the decent things that your President is doing.

There is nothing good about what Obama is doing. It is not his place to regulate how children play sports. Regulating sports has nothing to do with the purpose of government.
#157 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Are you saying that people with disabilities are completely incompatible with sports? Because that's what your analogy is. A complete incompatibility. Even then were we able to allow a mute person to no longer be mute and sing we would do it.Ace6301

There is no such thing as a "complete" incompatibility. There is a certain level of practical incompatibility that has to be determined. That's where the lines have to be drawn. Same as with anything in life.

Yes there is such things as complete incompatibility. A mute person cannot sing. They simply cannot do it. Were a mute person be capable of singing then they would not be mute. So really all you're saying here is "I don't want to admit it but yes that's how I feel". You're drawing the line at disabled people not being compatible with sports.

I'm sure there is or soon will be some type of device that can allow a mute person to make sounds. So allow them to use their device and sing.. right? Don't they have the right to do that?

Or, if a procedure is developed that not only restores their speech, but gives them greater range (in case of a physical impairment in the throat, etc causing muteness), are they allowed to participate in singing competitions?

#158 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="Planeforger"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Next Obama will likely be saying that the mentally disabled have a right to life.Laihendi
Fixed it for you there, Lai. Anyway, this is just another example of you attacking something good simply because you don't like the guy who is behind it. All these threads do is make your position look ridiculous, and highlight the decent things that your President is doing.

There is nothing good about what Obama is doing. It is not his place to regulate how children play sports. Regulating sports has nothing to do with the purpose of government.

That is the simplest, best way of explaining the broader issue with the way Obama governs.

#159 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

There is no such thing as a "complete" incompatibility. There is a certain level of practical incompatibility that has to be determined. That's where the lines have to be drawn. Same as with anything in life.

hartsickdiscipl

Yes there is such things as complete incompatibility. A mute person cannot sing. They simply cannot do it. Were a mute person be capable of singing then they would not be mute. So really all you're saying here is "I don't want to admit it but yes that's how I feel". You're drawing the line at disabled people not being compatible with sports.

I'm sure there is or soon will be some type of device that can allow a mute person to make sounds. So allow them to use their device and sing.. right? Don't they have the right to do that?

Or, if a procedure is developed that not only restores their speech, but gives them greater range (in case of a physical impairment in the throat, etc causing muteness), are they allowed to participate in singing competitions?

I'm sure there will be devices in the future to fix all matter of disabilities. That changes nothing about how things are at the current moment.
#160 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Yes there is such things as complete incompatibility. A mute person cannot sing. They simply cannot do it. Were a mute person be capable of singing then they would not be mute. So really all you're saying here is "I don't want to admit it but yes that's how I feel". You're drawing the line at disabled people not being compatible with sports.Ace6301

I'm sure there is or soon will be some type of device that can allow a mute person to make sounds. So allow them to use their device and sing.. right? Don't they have the right to do that?

Or, if a procedure is developed that not only restores their speech, but gives them greater range (in case of a physical impairment in the throat, etc causing muteness), are they allowed to participate in singing competitions?

I'm sure there will be devices in the future to fix all matter of disabilities. That changes nothing about how things are at the current moment.

Yes it does. If you change the rules now, you set the precedent that everything is on the table later.

#161 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I'm sure there is or soon will be some type of device that can allow a mute person to make sounds. So allow them to use their device and sing.. right? Don't they have the right to do that?

Or, if a procedure is developed that not only restores their speech, but gives them greater range (in case of a physical impairment in the throat, etc causing muteness), are they allowed to participate in singing competitions?

hartsickdiscipl

I'm sure there will be devices in the future to fix all matter of disabilities. That changes nothing about how things are at the current moment.

Yes it does. If you change the rules now, you set the precedent that everything is on the table later.

Oh hey look it's the slippery slope fallacy again.
#162 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] I'm sure there will be devices in the future to fix all matter of disabilities. That changes nothing about how things are at the current moment.Ace6301

Yes it does. If you change the rules now, you set the precedent that everything is on the table later.

Oh hey look it's the slippery slope fallacy again.

Calling principles and foresight a fallacy.. Something that I hear more and more from whiny pseudo-liberals. It makes me sick. This is why the US has no future.

#163 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

In the end it depends on the specific disability and the specific activity. That's why specific examples are the only way to see if a general statement like "people with disabilities have the right to play sports" is valid.

hartsickdiscipl

and in the end, some disabilities are irrelevant when it comes to sports.

If they are irrelevant, they won't require a rule change.

Clearly that wasn't the case. hurr durr
#164 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] I'm sure there will be devices in the future to fix all matter of disabilities. That changes nothing about how things are at the current moment.Ace6301

Yes it does. If you change the rules now, you set the precedent that everything is on the table later.

Oh hey look it's the slippery slope fallacy again.

poor guy
#165 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] and in the end, some disabilities are irrelevant when it comes to sports.DroidPhysX

If they are irrelevant, they won't require a rule change.

Clearly that wasn't the case. hurr durr

Clearly it was. Clearly we have a bunch of idiots running things.

#166 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Yes it does. If you change the rules now, you set the precedent that everything is on the table later.

hartsickdiscipl

Oh hey look it's the slippery slope fallacy again.

Calling principles and foresight a fallacy.. Something that I hear more and more from whiny pseudo-liberals. It makes me sick. This is why the US has no future.

Instead of crying how about you actually say something of value.
#167 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Oh hey look it's the slippery slope fallacy again. Ace6301

Calling principles and foresight a fallacy.. Something that I hear more and more from whiny pseudo-liberals. It makes me sick. This is why the US has no future.

Instead of crying how about you actually say something of value.

You wouldn't know value if smacked you in the forehead.

#168 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Calling principles and foresight a fallacy.. Something that I hear more and more from whiny pseudo-liberals. It makes me sick. This is why the US has no future.

hartsickdiscipl

Instead of crying how about you actually say something of value.

You wouldn't know value if smacked you in the forehead.

For that to happen you would have to stop whining and actually say something.
#169 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Instead of crying how about you actually say something of value.Ace6301

You wouldn't know value if smacked you in the forehead.

For that to happen you would have to stop whining and actually say something.

I said plenty. You didn't listen because you live in a socialist fantasy world where every kid gets a free government pony and people playing basketball can't jump so that people in wheelchairs can get rebounds. Grow up already.

#170 Posted by jimkabrhel (15416 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Calling principles and foresight a fallacy.. Something that I hear more and more from whiny pseudo-liberals. It makes me sick. This is why the US has no future.

hartsickdiscipl

Instead of crying how about you actually say something of value.

You wouldn't know value if smacked you in the forehead.

Why do I find the above statement and your TJ Hooker/Bill Shatner avatar incongruous?

#171 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You wouldn't know value if smacked you in the forehead.

hartsickdiscipl

For that to happen you would have to stop whining and actually say something.

I said plenty. You didn't listen because you live in a socialist fantasy world where every kid gets a free government pony and people playing basketball can't jump so that people in wheelchairs can get rebounds. Grow up already.

What does a strawman grow up into? A scarecrow?
#172 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13593 posts) -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/students-disabilities-school-sports-obama_n_2546057.html?utm_hp_ref=impact&ir=Impact

And the liberal mainstream media acts like he is a heroic social progressive for doing so.

This of course completely contradicts the concept of sports being a display of competitive physical athleticism, because the physically disabled are by definition uncompetitive with regards to physical athleticism. Next Obama will likely be saying that the mentally disabled have a right to participate in math and debate teams.

Obviously the disabled should be able to organize and come up with alternative athletic activities for them to participate in, but they shouldn't be used as a tool to undermine competitiveness for those who aren't inhibited by physical disabilities. This is just another example of the government using public schools to push a political agenda.

Laihendi

We have women's sports don't we?

#173 Posted by sSubZerOo (43003 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] I'm sure there will be devices in the future to fix all matter of disabilities. That changes nothing about how things are at the current moment.Ace6301

Yes it does. If you change the rules now, you set the precedent that everything is on the table later.

Oh hey look it's the slippery slope fallacy again.

But Ace if we start letting black players into major league baseball now, we will have destroyed the sport!

#174 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Yes it does. If you change the rules now, you set the precedent that everything is on the table later.

sSubZerOo

Oh hey look it's the slippery slope fallacy again.

But Ace if we start letting black players into major league baseball now, we will have destroyed the sport!

Did they have to change any of the rules of the game itself to let black players in? No. Stupid, stupid example.

#175 Posted by sSubZerOo (43003 posts) -

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Oh hey look it's the slippery slope fallacy again. hartsickdiscipl

But Ace if we start letting black players into major league baseball now, we will have destroyed the sport!

Did they have to change any of the rules of the game itself to let black players in? No. Stupid, stupid example.

:| Ah yes because sports have never changed rules in the 100 years since their inception.. And I am poitning out the absurdity of your slippery slope fallacy.. Because there was huge hysteria when black players mingled with whites in major league sports that the foundations of the sport woudl be destroyed..

#176 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Oh hey look it's the slippery slope fallacy again. hartsickdiscipl

But Ace if we start letting black players into major league baseball now, we will have destroyed the sport!

Did they have to change any of the rules of the game itself to let black players in? No. Stupid, stupid example.

Actually they did, not sure about the MLB, but the NBA most certainly did...

#177 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

But Ace if we start letting black players into major league baseball now, we will have destroyed the sport!

Yusuke420

Did they have to change any of the rules of the game itself to let black players in? No. Stupid, stupid example.

Actually they did, not sure about the MLB, but the NBA most certainly did...

You're not referring to dunking, are you?

#178 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

But Ace if we start letting black players into major league baseball now, we will have destroyed the sport!

sSubZerOo

Did they have to change any of the rules of the game itself to let black players in? No. Stupid, stupid example.

:| Ah yes because sports have never changed rules in the 100 years since their inception.. And I am poitning out the absurdity of your slippery slope fallacy.. Because there was huge hysteria when black players mingled with whites in major league sports that the foundations of the sport woudl be destroyed..

They did not have to make actual rule changes to the game on the field. End of discussion.

#179 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/students-disabilities-school-sports-obama_n_2546057.html?utm_hp_ref=impact&ir=Impact

And the liberal mainstream media acts like he is a heroic social progressive for doing so.

This of course completely contradicts the concept of sports being a display of competitive physical athleticism, because the physically disabled are by definition uncompetitive with regards to physical athleticism. Next Obama will likely be saying that the mentally disabled have a right to participate in math and debate teams.

Obviously the disabled should be able to organize and come up with alternative athletic activities for them to participate in, but they shouldn't be used as a tool to undermine competitiveness for those who aren't inhibited by physical disabilities. This is just another example of the government using public schools to push a political agenda.

GummiRaccoon

We have women's sports don't we?

Women are not physically incapable of participating in traditional sports. That is why they participate in traditional sports.
#180 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/students-disabilities-school-sports-obama_n_2546057.html?utm_hp_ref=impact&ir=Impact

And the liberal mainstream media acts like he is a heroic social progressive for doing so.

This of course completely contradicts the concept of sports being a display of competitive physical athleticism, because the physically disabled are by definition uncompetitive with regards to physical athleticism. Next Obama will likely be saying that the mentally disabled have a right to participate in math and debate teams.

Obviously the disabled should be able to organize and come up with alternative athletic activities for them to participate in, but they shouldn't be used as a tool to undermine competitiveness for those who aren't inhibited by physical disabilities. This is just another example of the government using public schools to push a political agenda.

Laihendi

We have women's sports don't we?

Women are not physically incapable of participating in traditional sports. That is why they participate in traditional sports.

The argument was once made that they were.

#181 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

We have women's sports don't we?

worlock77

Women are not physically incapable of participating in traditional sports. That is why they participate in traditional sports.

The argument was once made that they were.

Yes, but that argument has no basis in reality. Look at all the women who play kickball. Now look at all the paraplegics who play kickball. Or soccer. Or baseball. Or tennis. Or football. Or basketball. Or badminton. Or croquet. Or run track. Or wrestle.

Obama believes the disabled have a right to suspend reality and live in a fantasy world where they are uninhibited by their disabilities. Of course, the practical implementation of such a delusion is to not allow anyone to who isn't crippled to take advantage of their abilities (for example, the school forcing all wrestlers to touch each other at all times so the legally blind guy could participate).

#182 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

We have women's sports don't we?

worlock77

Women are not physically incapable of participating in traditional sports. That is why they participate in traditional sports.

The argument was once made that they were.

They are incapable of competing against men in many sports. That's why they have their own leagues.

#183 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Women are not physically incapable of participating in traditional sports. That is why they participate in traditional sports.Laihendi

The argument was once made that they were.

Yes, but that argument has no basis in reality. Look at all the women who play kickball. Now look at all the paraplegics who play kickball. Or soccer. Or baseball. Or tennis. Or football. Or basketball. Or badminton. Or croquet. Or run track. Or wrestle.

Obama believes the disabled have a right to suspend reality and live in a fantasy world where they are uninhibited by their disabilities. Of course, the practical implementation of such a delusion is to not allow anyone to who isn't crippled to take advantage of their abilities (for example, the school forcing all wrestlers to touch each other at all times so the legally blind guy could participate).

How does that particular rule give ether player a particular advantage or disadvantage?

#184 Posted by Leejjohno (14086 posts) -

The idiot that is the TC confuses equality of access with equality of outcome.

Not surprisingly TC's threads always have the common denominator of idiocy.

SUD123456

lol... you make it sound like a science.

#185 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Women are not physically incapable of participating in traditional sports. That is why they participate in traditional sports.hartsickdiscipl

The argument was once made that they were.

They are incapable of competing against men in many sports. That's why they have their own leagues.

I guarentee you that there are women out there who could compete with any man in any sport.

#186 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The argument was once made that they were.

worlock77

They are incapable of competing against men in many sports. That's why they have their own leagues.

I guarentee you that there are women out there who could compete with any man in any sport.

They have to both want to do it, and then show that they can. I'd like to see any woman show up to an NFL camp and try to play any position other than maybe kicker/punter.

It's common knowledge that women are built for a different purpose. It's in their physical makeup. There's no disgrace in that. They are weaker and slower by nature. That's true of many mammals. Obviously there are some women who are faster and stronger than some men. However, the top 1-2% of women can't compete athletically with the top 5-10% of men.

#187 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29063 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The argument was once made that they were.

worlock77

They are incapable of competing against men in many sports. That's why they have their own leagues.

I guarentee you that there are women out there who could compete with any man in any sport.

Doubtful. e.g. look at the history of tennis. Even the best female tennis players couldn't get into top 100 of men's tennis. And I can guarantee you that Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Murray, etc would beat any woman 6-0 6-0 (6-0 if three sets).

#188 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The argument was once made that they were.

worlock77

Yes, but that argument has no basis in reality. Look at all the women who play kickball. Now look at all the paraplegics who play kickball. Or soccer. Or baseball. Or tennis. Or football. Or basketball. Or badminton. Or croquet. Or run track. Or wrestle.

Obama believes the disabled have a right to suspend reality and live in a fantasy world where they are uninhibited by their disabilities. Of course, the practical implementation of such a delusion is to not allow anyone to who isn't crippled to take advantage of their abilities (for example, the school forcing all wrestlers to touch each other at all times so the legally blind guy could participate).

How does that particular rule give ether player a particular advantage or disadvantage?

It has nothing to do with advantages or disadvantages. The problem is that Obama is wanting to regulate athletic recreation. He wants to make it so people aren't allowed to do something that someone else can't do. Obama wants to force physical limitations on everyone so that everyone will be equal - equally impaired, equally disabled, and equally crippled.

#189 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Yes, but that argument has no basis in reality. Look at all the women who play kickball. Now look at all the paraplegics who play kickball. Or soccer. Or baseball. Or tennis. Or football. Or basketball. Or badminton. Or croquet. Or run track. Or wrestle.

Obama believes the disabled have a right to suspend reality and live in a fantasy world where they are uninhibited by their disabilities. Of course, the practical implementation of such a delusion is to not allow anyone to who isn't crippled to take advantage of their abilities (for example, the school forcing all wrestlers to touch each other at all times so the legally blind guy could participate).

Laihendi

How does that particular rule give ether player a particular advantage or disadvantage?

It has nothing to do with advantages or disadvantages. The problem is that Obama is wanting to regulate athletic recreation. He wants to make it so people aren't allowed to do something that someone else can't do. Obama wants to force physical limitations on everyone so that everyone will be equal - equally impaired, equally disabled, and equally crippled.

Well-put. What he is doing is absurd on so many levels.

#190 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17379 posts) -
Laihendi why the self hate
#191 Posted by jimkabrhel (15416 posts) -

If women will be in combat with men in the military, and have to go through the rigor of that training, there's no reason that they shouldn't compete along side men in sports. I teach at a small enough instutition that many of the sports are coed like tennis and soccer.

#192 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

If women will be in combat with men in the military, and have to go through the rigor of that training, there's no reason that they shouldn't compete along side men in sports. I teach at a small enough instutition that many of the sports are coed like tennis and soccer.

jimkabrhel

Using the current rules that are in place, women have no chance of competing with men in the NFL, NBA, or MLB. Obviously.

#193 Posted by 00-Riddick-00 (18884 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]As long as they don't hinder the game useless I'm all for it. Example. If some kid in a wheel chair wants to do wrestling, and I'm his opponent what am I suppose to do?Pirate700

They would be in separate programs.

The school would be forced to create a separate league. Therefore making the school spend more money they don't have. No wonder Obama supports it.
#194 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]As long as they don't hinder the game useless I'm all for it. Example. If some kid in a wheel chair wants to do wrestling, and I'm his opponent what am I suppose to do?00-Riddick-00

They would be in separate programs.

The school would be forced to create a separate league. Therefore making the school spend more money they don't have. No wonder Obama supports it.

A better solution would be for a significant number of people in wheelchairs who want to wrestle to create their own league. You can't be changing the rules of the game for 1 or 2 people.

#195 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149984 posts) -
Yes....they should be able to participate in sports as long as it's within their abilities allow them to compete. What's the big deal L?
#196 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149984 posts) -

If women will be in combat with men in the military, and have to go through the rigor of that training, there's no reason that they shouldn't compete along side men in sports. I teach at a small enough instutition that many of the sports are coed like tennis and soccer.

jimkabrhel
I admit I only read the OP...but are you comparing women to disabilities?
#197 Posted by dave123321 (33579 posts) -
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

If women will be in combat with men in the military, and have to go through the rigor of that training, there's no reason that they shouldn't compete along side men in sports. I teach at a small enough instutition that many of the sports are coed like tennis and soccer.

LJS9502_basic
I admit I only read the OP...but are you comparing women to disabilities?

There was some later discussion about women in sports.
#198 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Yes, but that argument has no basis in reality. Look at all the women who play kickball. Now look at all the paraplegics who play kickball. Or soccer. Or baseball. Or tennis. Or football. Or basketball. Or badminton. Or croquet. Or run track. Or wrestle.

Obama believes the disabled have a right to suspend reality and live in a fantasy world where they are uninhibited by their disabilities. Of course, the practical implementation of such a delusion is to not allow anyone to who isn't crippled to take advantage of their abilities (for example, the school forcing all wrestlers to touch each other at all times so the legally blind guy could participate).

Laihendi

How does that particular rule give ether player a particular advantage or disadvantage?

It has nothing to do with advantages or disadvantages. The problem is that Obama is wanting to regulate athletic recreation. He wants to make it so people aren't allowed to do something that someone else can't do. Obama wants to force physical limitations on everyone so that everyone will be equal - equally impaired, equally disabled, and equally crippled.

He never said such, neither did the article you cited.

#199 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

If women will be in combat with men in the military, and have to go through the rigor of that training, there's no reason that they shouldn't compete along side men in sports. I teach at a small enough instutition that many of the sports are coed like tennis and soccer.

hartsickdiscipl

Using the current rules that are in place, women have no chance of competing with men in the NFL, NBA, or MLB. Obviously.

What specific rules in place prevent women from competing in those leagues?

#200 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

Yes....they should be able to participate in sports as long as it's within their abilities allow them to compete. What's the big deal L?LJS9502_basic

Exactly. A person who, for example, is deaf might be disabled, but there is nothing about his disability that would preclude him from playing baseball.