Obama says students with disabilities have a right to play sports

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#201 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[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.

worlock77

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?

The rules don't prevent them from trying to compete. They won't be able to compete athletically without changing the rules of the game.

#202 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]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?worlock77

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.

That's not the issue at hand. In the article that the TC posted, the rules of the sport were actually altered to allow a mostly blind person to be more competitive.

#203 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151440 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

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

hartsickdiscipl

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

The rules don't prevent them from trying to compete. They won't be able to compete athletically without changing the rules of the game.

Are you sure about that? Since it's never been done....I think it would premature to say not one woman could play in the pros if given the chance.
#204 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

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

LJS9502_basic

The rules don't prevent them from trying to compete. They won't be able to compete athletically without changing the rules of the game.

Are you sure about that? Since it's never been done....I think it would premature to say not one woman could play in the pros if given the chance.

Then let's see it. I want to see one woman make it in the NFL for more than a season playing a position other than kicker or punter.

#205 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151440 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

The rules don't prevent them from trying to compete. They won't be able to compete athletically without changing the rules of the game.

hartsickdiscipl

Are you sure about that? Since it's never been done....I think it would premature to say not one woman could play in the pros if given the chance.

Then let's see it. I want to see one woman make it in the NFL for more than a season playing a position other than kicker or punter.

Culture of the sport doesn't allow it.:|
#206 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

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

hartsickdiscipl

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

You're not referring to dunking, are you?

No the three point line was introduced so that white males would still be competitive in the NBA.

#207 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]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?hartsickdiscipl

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.

That's not the issue at hand. In the article that the TC posted, the rules of the sport were actually altered to allow a mostly blind person to be more competitive.

The fundamental rules? No, not really they weren't. Not sure if you realize this but minor rules are not static, and most leagues in any given sport make their own rule adjustments for any number of different reasons.

#208 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Are you sure about that? Since it's never been done....I think it would premature to say not one woman could play in the pros if given the chance.LJS9502_basic

Then let's see it. I want to see one woman make it in the NFL for more than a season playing a position other than kicker or punter.

Culture of the sport doesn't allow it.:|

And that won't change precisely because of mindsets like hartsick's.

#209 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Culture of the sport doesn't allow it.:|

It has nothing to do with the culture of the sport. A woman could not physically play a position like linebacker where the player's body is constantly being abused.
#210 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

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.

worlock77

That's not the issue at hand. In the article that the TC posted, the rules of the sport were actually altered to allow a mostly blind person to be more competitive.

The fundamental rules? No, not really they weren't. Not sure if you realize this but minor rules are not static, and most leagues in any given sport make their own rule adjustments for any number of different reasons.

Making it so wrestlers have to touch each other at all times it not a minor rule. That is a huge change to the sport, and in that example it served absolutely no purpose for anyone except that one blind guy.

#211 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Culture of the sport doesn't allow it.:|jim_shorts
It has nothing to do with the culture of the sport. A woman could not physically play a position like linebacker where the player's body is constantly being abused.

I'm sure there are many who could. Women aren't delicately little flowers who'll break if touched or breathed on too hard. They can be a lot tougher than many men want to give them credit for.

#212 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151440 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Culture of the sport doesn't allow it.:|jim_shorts
It has nothing to do with the culture of the sport. A woman could not physically play a position like linebacker where the player's body is constantly being abused.

Position =/= sport. And I think you'd be surprised by some women....

#213 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

That's not the issue at hand. In the article that the TC posted, the rules of the sport were actually altered to allow a mostly blind person to be more competitive.

Laihendi

The fundamental rules? No, not really they weren't. Not sure if you realize this but minor rules are not static, and most leagues in any given sport make their own rule adjustments for any number of different reasons.

Making it so wrestlers have to touch each other at all times it not a minor rule. That is a huge change to the sport, and in that example it served absolutely no purpose for anyone except that one blind guy.

Considering that the sport consists of two guys rubbing against each other, yeah, it's a minor change.

#214 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

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

worlock77

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.

Forcing a new rule onto a sport that makes vision irrelevant makes it so that all of the participants might as well be blind. Because one person could not benefit from vision, nobody was allowed to benefit from vision.
#215 Posted by Abbeten (2898 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

That's not the issue at hand. In the article that the TC posted, the rules of the sport were actually altered to allow a mostly blind person to be more competitive.

Laihendi

The fundamental rules? No, not really they weren't. Not sure if you realize this but minor rules are not static, and most leagues in any given sport make their own rule adjustments for any number of different reasons.

Making it so wrestlers have to touch each other at all times it not a minor rule. That is a huge change to the sport, and in that example it served absolutely no purpose for anyone except that one blind guy.

i wrestled in high school this isn't that much of a change
#216 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The fundamental rules? No, not really they weren't. Not sure if you realize this but minor rules are not static, and most leagues in any given sport make their own rule adjustments for any number of different reasons.

worlock77

Making it so wrestlers have to touch each other at all times it not a minor rule. That is a huge change to the sport, and in that example it served absolutely no purpose for anyone except that one blind guy.

Considering that the sport consists of two guys rubbing against each other, yeah, it's a minor change.

Have you even watched wrestling? There is lots of time where they aren't touching each other.
#217 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The fundamental rules? No, not really they weren't. Not sure if you realize this but minor rules are not static, and most leagues in any given sport make their own rule adjustments for any number of different reasons.

Abbeten

Making it so wrestlers have to touch each other at all times it not a minor rule. That is a huge change to the sport, and in that example it served absolutely no purpose for anyone except that one blind guy.

i wrestled in high school this isn't that much of a change

It was a significant change because it was the difference between whether someone was or was not capable of competing in the sport.
#218 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151440 posts) -
[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Making it so wrestlers have to touch each other at all times it not a minor rule. That is a huge change to the sport, and in that example it served absolutely no purpose for anyone except that one blind guy.

Laihendi

Considering that the sport consists of two guys rubbing against each other, yeah, it's a minor change.

Have you even watched wrestling? There is lots of time where they aren't touching each other.

Is it really a big deal that they have to have physical contact? That's actually how the sport works TBH....you cannot win without touching your opponent. Having two members of my family with disabilities...and both played sports without special accommodations.....I find your ideas distasteful.
#219 Posted by Abbeten (2898 posts) -
[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Making it so wrestlers have to touch each other at all times it not a minor rule. That is a huge change to the sport, and in that example it served absolutely no purpose for anyone except that one blind guy.Laihendi
i wrestled in high school this isn't that much of a change

It was a significant change because it was the difference between whether someone was or was not capable of competing in the sport.

this is a really circular argument we can't let disabled people compete because that would require a huge change in the actual sport, and the huge change would simply be the permission of disabled people to compete okay buddy
#220 Posted by hoola (6422 posts) -

If a school wants to form a new team for them then I guess I don't care.

#221 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Considering that the sport consists of two guys rubbing against each other, yeah, it's a minor change.

LJS9502_basic

Have you even watched wrestling? There is lots of time where they aren't touching each other.

Is it really a big deal that they have to have physical contact? That's actually how the sport works TBH....you cannot win without touching your opponent. Having two members of my family with disabilities...and both played sports without special accommodations.....I find your ideas distasteful.

Yeah, it's kinda like arguing that requiring two arm wrestler's hands be bound together is a fundamental alteration to the sport.

#222 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Culture of the sport doesn't allow it.:|LJS9502_basic

It has nothing to do with the culture of the sport. A woman could not physically play a position like linebacker where the player's body is constantly being abused.

Position =/= sport. And I think you'd be surprised by some women....

The only position a woman could conceivably play is kicker. Literally nothing else. These are the top .0000001% of male athletes and you think a woman could compete with them? Maybe one in a lifetime. Women don't have the speed or the ability to put on muscle to play in the NFL. They would be a liability on any NFL team. That's why the don't get a chance.
#223 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151440 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"]It has nothing to do with the culture of the sport. A woman could not physically play a position like linebacker where the player's body is constantly being abused.jim_shorts

Position =/= sport. And I think you'd be surprised by some women....

The only position a woman could conceivably play is kicker. Literally nothing else. These are the top .0000001% of male athletes and you think a woman could compete with them? Maybe one in a lifetime. Women don't have the speed or the ability to put on muscle to play in the NFL. They would be a liability on any NFL team. That's why the don't get a chance.

It's entirely possible for a woman to physically adapt to the position a sport would require if she had the chance to play said sport. As I said above...it's the culture that stops that from happening. Why are you so panicked that a woman might play a sport that is currently male dominated? Would you feel emasculated if a woman could catch a football?
#224 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"]It has nothing to do with the culture of the sport. A woman could not physically play a position like linebacker where the player's body is constantly being abused.jim_shorts

Position =/= sport. And I think you'd be surprised by some women....

The only position a woman could conceivably play is kicker. Literally nothing else. These are the top .0000001% of male athletes and you think a woman could compete with them? Maybe one in a lifetime. Women don't have the speed or the ability to put on muscle to play in the NFL. They would be a liability on any NFL team. That's why the don't get a chance.

There have been male sub-6 ft/sub-200 lb players do pretty good in the sport. Size is not everything.

#225 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] It's entirely possible for a woman to physically adapt to the position a sport would require if she had the chance to play said sport. As I said above...it's the culture that stops that from happening. Why are you so panicked that a woman might play a sport that is currently male dominated? Would you feel emasculated if a woman could catch a football?

Not at all, I just find it ridiculous that you would argue that women could play in that league in any real capacity. Perhaps at the high school level, but these are the best athletes on the planet.
#226 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Position =/= sport. And I think you'd be surprised by some women....

worlock77

The only position a woman could conceivably play is kicker. Literally nothing else. These are the top .0000001% of male athletes and you think a woman could compete with them? Maybe one in a lifetime. Women don't have the speed or the ability to put on muscle to play in the NFL. They would be a liability on any NFL team. That's why the don't get a chance.

There have been male sub-6 ft/sub-200 lb players do pretty good in the sport. Size is not everything.

Some positions require that size, but they also require speed. Those people can run 4.4 40 times.
#227 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"] The only position a woman could conceivably play is kicker. Literally nothing else. These are the top .0000001% of male athletes and you think a woman could compete with them? Maybe one in a lifetime. Women don't have the speed or the ability to put on muscle to play in the NFL. They would be a liability on any NFL team. That's why the don't get a chance.jim_shorts

There have been male sub-6 ft/sub-200 lb players do pretty good in the sport. Size is not everything.

Some positions require that size, but they also require speed. Those people can run 4.4 40 times.

So now you're saying that women can't run ether?

#228 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -

So now you're saying that women can't run ether?

worlock77
Very, very few women could come close that time. Hell, very few men can. There's a reason there are separate heats for men and women on every track event ever held.
#229 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] It's entirely possible for a woman to physically adapt to the position a sport would require if she had the chance to play said sport. As I said above...it's the culture that stops that from happening. Why are you so panicked that a woman might play a sport that is currently male dominated? Would you feel emasculated if a woman could catch a football?jim_shorts
Not at all, I just find it ridiculous that you would argue that women could play in that league in any real capacity. Perhaps at the high school level, but these are the best athletes on the planet.

And, despite all the distraction about professional leagues, this thread is about is scholastic athletics.

#230 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] It's entirely possible for a woman to physically adapt to the position a sport would require if she had the chance to play said sport. As I said above...it's the culture that stops that from happening. Why are you so panicked that a woman might play a sport that is currently male dominated? Would you feel emasculated if a woman could catch a football?worlock77

Not at all, I just find it ridiculous that you would argue that women could play in that league in any real capacity. Perhaps at the high school level, but these are the best athletes on the planet.

And, despite all the distraction about professional leagues, this thread is about is scholastic athletics.

Pretty much all threads like this get derailed at some point. I just hopped in when people started talking about the NFL because that's more interesting to me.
#231 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

So now you're saying that women can't run ether?

jim_shorts

Very, very few women could come close that time. Hell, very few men can. There's a reason there are separate heats for men and women on every track event ever held.

But it is possible that women can, which basically contradicts what you've been arguing. And the reason why there are seperate heats is because people still have absolutely absurd notions again coed athletics.

#232 Posted by SpartanMSU (3440 posts) -

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

There have been male sub-6 ft/sub-200 lb players do pretty good in the sport. Size is not everything.

worlock77

Some positions require that size, but they also require speed. Those people can run 4.4 40 times.

So now you're saying that women can't run ether?

Or he's saying that they can't run as fast, hence the word "speed". Nowhere in his post did he say, or even imply, that women "can't run".

#233 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -

And the reason why there are seperate heats is because people still have absolutely absurd notions again coed athletics.worlock77
You're deluded. There are separate heats because the fastest woman's time is a mediocre mens' time. Let's compare. The 22nd fastest all time 100 meter dash time for men is 9.88. The fastest all time for women is 10.49. The women would literally never win if they had a single heat.

#234 Posted by SpartanMSU (3440 posts) -

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

So now you're saying that women can't run ether?

worlock77

Very, very few women could come close that time. Hell, very few men can. There's a reason there are separate heats for men and women on every track event ever held.

But it is possible that women can, which basically contradicts what you've been arguing. And the reason why there are seperate heats is because people still have absolutely absurd notions again coed athletics.

Youv'e gotta be kidding me. That's not the reason why there are separate heats...

#235 Posted by The_Last_Ride (72309 posts) -
I don't see the problem, if they get to do sports and where they can do it together with others i don't see the problem. If they get to compete with others with disability, then i don't see why people are protesting
#236 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]Actually they did, not sure about the MLB, but the NBA most certainly did...

Yusuke420

You're not referring to dunking, are you?

No the three point line was introduced so that white males would still be competitive in the NBA.

LOL. No.

#237 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Are you sure about that? Since it's never been done....I think it would premature to say not one woman could play in the pros if given the chance.LJS9502_basic

Then let's see it. I want to see one woman make it in the NFL for more than a season playing a position other than kicker or punter.

Culture of the sport doesn't allow it.:|

lol.. nice try.

#238 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

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.

worlock77

That's not the issue at hand. In the article that the TC posted, the rules of the sport were actually altered to allow a mostly blind person to be more competitive.

The fundamental rules? No, not really they weren't. Not sure if you realize this but minor rules are not static, and most leagues in any given sport make their own rule adjustments for any number of different reasons.

I guess you've never wrestled competitively. That's a big rule change. I explained why earlier in the thread.

#239 Posted by jimkabrhel (15420 posts) -

Female High School Quarterback.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/sports/girl-is-pioneer-at-quarterback-for-florida-high-school.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Changes like this often happen at younger ages and lower levels, but it will continue to trickle up.

#240 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

So now you're saying that women can't run ether?

worlock77

Very, very few women could come close that time. Hell, very few men can. There's a reason there are separate heats for men and women on every track event ever held.

But it is possible that women can, which basically contradicts what you've been arguing. And the reason why there are seperate heats is because people still have absolutely absurd notions again coed athletics.

There has never been a single woman on the face of this Earth who could beat Usain Bolt. I'm confident in saying that. Prove me wrong.

#241 Posted by Abbeten (2898 posts) -
there has never been a single man on the face of this earth who could beat usain bolt, either
#242 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -
When is Barry Obeyme going to stop pretending to be a "liberal" (classic definition) or "progressive". Instead we get red herring after red herring, all of which always seems to involve banning, regulating or forcing something.
#243 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

Female High School Quarterback.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/sports/girl-is-pioneer-at-quarterback-for-florida-high-school.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Changes like this often happen at younger ages and lower levels, but it will continue to trickle up.

jimkabrhel

Lame example. I dated a woman who was the quarterback on her high school team. It was a small high school, and she had no chance in hell of playing collegiately. She admitted as much.

#244 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

there has never been a single man on the face of this earth who could beat usain bolt, eitherAbbeten

A guy on his own team beat him during the 2012 Olympics or trials, can't remember which.

update- here you go

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-2167516/Usain-Bolt-beaten-Yohan-Blake-again.html

If you look at the fastest men's times, they are FAR faster than the fastest women's times. Even the mediocre men's times are faster. This is such a stupid discussion. There is no argument here.

#245 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

When is Barry Obeyme going to stop pretending to be a "liberal" (classic definition) or "progressive". Instead we get red herring after red herring, all of which always seems to involve banning, regulating or forcing something.MrPraline

He's clearly a delusional authoritarian.

#246 Posted by jimkabrhel (15420 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]When is Barry Obeyme going to stop pretending to be a "liberal" (classic definition) or "progressive". Instead we get red herring after red herring, all of which always seems to involve banning, regulating or forcing something.hartsickdiscipl

He's clearly a delusional authoritarian.

He's clearly no different than his predecessors.

#247 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]When is Barry Obeyme going to stop pretending to be a "liberal" (classic definition) or "progressive". Instead we get red herring after red herring, all of which always seems to involve banning, regulating or forcing something.hartsickdiscipl

He's clearly a delusional authoritarian.

yep change we can believe in
#248 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]When is Barry Obeyme going to stop pretending to be a "liberal" (classic definition) or "progressive". Instead we get red herring after red herring, all of which always seems to involve banning, regulating or forcing something.jimkabrhel

He's clearly a delusional authoritarian.

He's clearly no different than his predecessors.

Kinda goes against his whole "Hope and change" campaign spiel.
#249 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

He's clearly a delusional authoritarian.

jim_shorts

He's clearly no different than his predecessors.

Kinda goes against his whole "Hope and change" campaign spiel.

lol #hopenosis
#250 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

He's clearly a delusional authoritarian.

jim_shorts

He's clearly no different than his predecessors.

Kinda goes against his whole "Hope and change" campaign spiel.

Which is extremely vague and includes no real solutions.