Obama says students with disabilities have a right to play sports

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#251 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 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.

He's a bit worse. Obama has a pseudo-socialist mindset that makes his authority more dangerous to what America is supposed to be about.

#252 Posted by jimkabrhel (15416 posts) -

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

He's clearly no different than his predecessors.

hartsickdiscipl

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

Which is extremely vague and includes no real solutions.

No President gets elected without a slogan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tippecanoe_and_Tyler_Too

#253 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"] Kinda goes against his whole "Hope and change" campaign spiel.jimkabrhel

Which is extremely vague and includes no real solutions.

No President gets elected without a slogan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tippecanoe_and_Tyler_Too

Yeah that was lame too.

#254 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"] Kinda goes against his whole "Hope and change" campaign spiel.jimkabrhel

Which is extremely vague and includes no real solutions.

No President gets elected without a slogan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tippecanoe_and_Tyler_Too

The difference is America actually got Tippecanoe and Tyler too after that election.
#255 Posted by MrPraline (21284 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"] Kinda goes against his whole "Hope and change" campaign spiel.jimkabrhel

Which is extremely vague and includes no real solutions.

No President gets elected without a slogan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tippecanoe_and_Tyler_Too

Lol, that's pretty awesome. Better than sh*t political freestyle Ludacris did for Obama.
#256 Posted by CongressManStan (918 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
I'm just going to say this, I'm not a fan of Obama, but complaining about stuff like this makes me have little respect for you. The fact that people get stirred up by meaningless stuff like this is ridiculous. Now, I may have an opinion on a topic like this, but for Christ's sake, who cares? I mean seriously, who cares? This is like foxnews complaining about Obama not mentioning God anywhere in a thanksgiving address, who cares?
#257 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.

CongressManStan
I'm just going to say this, I'm not a fan of Obama, but complaining about stuff like this makes me have little respect for you. The fact that people get stirred up by meaningless stuff like this is ridiculous. Now, I may have an opinion on a topic like this, but for Christ's sake, who cares? I mean seriously, who cares? This is like foxnews complaining about Obama not mentioning God anywhere in a thanksgiving address, who cares?

Regardless of who does care, people should care because Obama is setting a bad precedent by doing this. It is not the role of government to restrict and regulate recreational activities.
#258 Posted by MrPraline (21284 posts) -
[QUOTE="CongressManStan"][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
I'm just going to say this, I'm not a fan of Obama, but complaining about stuff like this makes me have little respect for you. The fact that people get stirred up by meaningless stuff like this is ridiculous. Now, I may have an opinion on a topic like this, but for Christ's sake, who cares? I mean seriously, who cares? This is like foxnews complaining about Obama not mentioning God anywhere in a thanksgiving address, who cares?

Regardless of who does care, people should care because Obama is setting a bad precedent by doing this. It is not the role of government to restrict and regulate recreational activities.

I agree, but sadly both republicans and democrats seem to want a big government that controls every aspect of their lives. Nanny state is disgusting.
#259 Posted by ROFLCOPTER603 (2140 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

I would understand not agreeing with this if the disabled athletes in question are put on the team regardless of how they perform, but if they can make the team, why shouldn't they be allowed? I think it's not fair to force them to perform in "special" programs, which are pretty demeaning in my opinion.

Also, what political agenda is the government trying to push? Equality for everyone? Filthy communist. Next thing you know they'll paint the white house red.

#260 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 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.

ROFLCOPTER603

I would understand not agreeing with this if the disabled athletes in question are put on the team regardless of how they perform, but if they can make the team, why shouldn't they be allowed? I think it's not fair to force them to perform in "special" programs, which are pretty demeaning in my opinion.

Also, what political agenda is the government trying to push? Equality for everyone? Filthy communist. Next thing you know they'll paint the white house red.

Did you even read the article?

#261 Posted by ROFLCOPTER603 (2140 posts) -

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

[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.

hartsickdiscipl

I would understand not agreeing with this if the disabled athletes in question are put on the team regardless of how they perform, but if they can make the team, why shouldn't they be allowed? I think it's not fair to force them to perform in "special" programs, which are pretty demeaning in my opinion.

Also, what political agenda is the government trying to push? Equality for everyone? Filthy communist. Next thing you know they'll paint the white house red.

Did you even read the article?

Yes, I did. The rule changes they made weren't game breaking. Making an opponent always touch his competitor because he can't see? Giving kids insulin? It's one thing if they have an armless kid play baseball, it's another to make tiny changes that don't affect others but allow the disabled person to compete.

#262 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

I would understand not agreeing with this if the disabled athletes in question are put on the team regardless of how they perform, but if they can make the team, why shouldn't they be allowed? I think it's not fair to force them to perform in "special" programs, which are pretty demeaning in my opinion.

Also, what political agenda is the government trying to push? Equality for everyone? Filthy communist. Next thing you know they'll paint the white house red.

ROFLCOPTER603

Did you even read the article?

Yes, I did. The rule changes they made weren't game breaking. Making an opponent always touch his competitor because he can't see? Giving kids insulin? It's one thing if they have an armless kid play baseball, it's another to make tiny changes that don't affect others but allow the disabled person to compete.

Clearly these changes do effect how others play the sports, since the whole point of the changes are to keep people from doing certain things so that the disabled can participate in the sports too.

#263 Posted by ROFLCOPTER603 (2140 posts) -

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Did you even read the article?

Laihendi

Yes, I did. The rule changes they made weren't game breaking. Making an opponent always touch his competitor because he can't see? Giving kids insulin? It's one thing if they have an armless kid play baseball, it's another to make tiny changes that don't affect others but allow the disabled person to compete.

Clearly these changes do effect how others play the sports, since the whole point of the changes are to keep people from doing certain things so that the disabled can participate in the sports too.

Well what are these "clear" negative effects? There's no way that you can say that the insulin thing is an advantage (unless the kid does it to call extra time outs), and as for the always touching rule I think that it would happen anyways in a wrestling match, but if the kid knows his opponent is blind he's just going to stay away and sneak up on him, which isn't fair.

#264 Posted by ZombieKiller7 (6194 posts) -

I heard Obama says blind people can be artists.

And he also thinks community organizers can be President (but only if they're black.)

#265 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -

I heard Obama says blind people can be artists.

And he also thinks community organizers can be President (but only if they're black.)

ZombieKiller7
Except there are blind artists. Deaf musicians too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s0Mp7LFI-k
#266 Posted by worlock77 (22544 posts) -

I heard Obama says blind people can be artists.ZombieKiller7

They can be.

#267 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

Yes, I did. The rule changes they made weren't game breaking. Making an opponent always touch his competitor because he can't see? Giving kids insulin? It's one thing if they have an armless kid play baseball, it's another to make tiny changes that don't affect others but allow the disabled person to compete.

ROFLCOPTER603

Clearly these changes do effect how others play the sports, since the whole point of the changes are to keep people from doing certain things so that the disabled can participate in the sports too.

Well what are these "clear" negative effects? There's no way that you can say that the insulin thing is an advantage (unless the kid does it to call extra time outs), and as for the always touching rule I think that it would happen anyways in a wrestling match, but if the kid knows his opponent is blind he's just going to stay away and sneak up on him, which isn't fair.

In wrestling, who initiates contact can dictate who has the advantage when grappling.

#268 Posted by Aljosa23 (24337 posts) -

I heard Obama says blind people can be artists.

ZombieKiller7

Beethoven was deaf.

#269 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

I heard Obama says blind people can be artists.

Aljosa23

Beethoven was deaf.

Not for his whole career

#270 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149559 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

I heard Obama says blind people can be artists.

hartsickdiscipl

Beethoven was deaf.

Not for his whole career

Made his best music while losing/after losing his hearing.
#271 Posted by JDWolfie (1843 posts) -

I aee this opening a can of worms. So if one student in a wheelchair wants to play basketball, the school has to open up a program for the student? Schools will shut down their sports programs altogether to meet the needs of a few.

#272 Posted by ROFLCOPTER603 (2140 posts) -

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Clearly these changes do effect how others play the sports, since the whole point of the changes are to keep people from doing certain things so that the disabled can participate in the sports too.

hartsickdiscipl

Well what are these "clear" negative effects? There's no way that you can say that the insulin thing is an advantage (unless the kid does it to call extra time outs), and as for the always touching rule I think that it would happen anyways in a wrestling match, but if the kid knows his opponent is blind he's just going to stay away and sneak up on him, which isn't fair.

In wrestling, who initiates contact can dictate who has the advantage when grappling.

So if they start in contact before the match wouldn't they be even? I doubt that the blind kid gets to choose how he starts the match.

#273 Posted by worlock77 (22544 posts) -

I aee this opening a can of worms. So if one student in a wheelchair wants to play basketball, the school has to open up a program for the student? Schools will shut down their sports programs altogether to meet the needs of a few.

JDWolfie

The article does not say that at all.

#274 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -

[QUOTE="JDWolfie"]

I aee this opening a can of worms. So if one student in a wheelchair wants to play basketball, the school has to open up a program for the student? Schools will shut down their sports programs altogether to meet the needs of a few.

worlock77

The article does not say that at all.

Shut up man we can't get mad enough if we don't extrapolate this to the extreme.
#275 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

Well what are these "clear" negative effects? There's no way that you can say that the insulin thing is an advantage (unless the kid does it to call extra time outs), and as for the always touching rule I think that it would happen anyways in a wrestling match, but if the kid knows his opponent is blind he's just going to stay away and sneak up on him, which isn't fair.

ROFLCOPTER603

In wrestling, who initiates contact can dictate who has the advantage when grappling.

So if they start in contact before the match wouldn't they be even? I doubt that the blind kid gets to choose how he starts the match.

A wrestling match isn't just one continuous event where the wrestlers start facing each other until the match is over. If you knew anything about the sport, you'd know why it's an issue.

#276 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

I aee this opening a can of worms. So if one student in a wheelchair wants to play basketball, the school has to open up a program for the student? Schools will shut down their sports programs altogether to meet the needs of a few.

JDWolfie

Next we'll be limiting how high people can jump so that the guy in a wheelchair can get a rebound.

#277 Posted by Rich3232 (2754 posts) -

[QUOTE="JDWolfie"]

I aee this opening a can of worms. So if one student in a wheelchair wants to play basketball, the school has to open up a program for the student? Schools will shut down their sports programs altogether to meet the needs of a few.

hartsickdiscipl

Next we'll be limiting how high people can jump so that the guy in a wheelchair can get a rebound.

Dat slippery slope.
#278 Posted by ROFLCOPTER603 (2140 posts) -

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

In wrestling, who initiates contact can dictate who has the advantage when grappling.

hartsickdiscipl

So if they start in contact before the match wouldn't they be even? I doubt that the blind kid gets to choose how he starts the match.

A wrestling match isn't just one continuous event where the wrestlers start facing each other until the match is over. If you knew anything about the sport, you'd know why it's an issue.

I still don't get how it undermines the other player?

#279 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="JDWolfie"]

I aee this opening a can of worms. So if one student in a wheelchair wants to play basketball, the school has to open up a program for the student? Schools will shut down their sports programs altogether to meet the needs of a few.

Rich3232

Next we'll be limiting how high people can jump so that the guy in a wheelchair can get a rebound.

Dat slippery slope.

This isn't a slipper slope. Obama is establishing the principle that it is okay to place restrictions on people to keep them from doing things disabled people can't do. He wants everyone to be equally handicapped.
#280 Posted by worlock77 (22544 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Next we'll be limiting how high people can jump so that the guy in a wheelchair can get a rebound.

Laihendi

Dat slippery slope.

This isn't a slipper slope. Obama is establishing the principle that it is okay to place restrictions on people to keep them from doing things disabled people can't do. He wants everyone to be equally handicapped.

In what f*cking way is he doing that?

#281 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3760 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
#282 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3760 posts) -
#283 Posted by jimkabrhel (15416 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.

NEWMAHAY

I haven't seen a media outlet that made sound wrong. You are completely delusional if you think this will remove competitiveness in sports.

I expect you t come back every year for 20 to give me an update on how Obama ruined sports

You'll see. Obama will contribute more to the downfall of American sports than the creators of title IX, Jackie Robinson, and Billy Jean King. /sarcasm
#284 Posted by lonewolfman10 (541 posts) -

I agree, that one guy with the prostectic leg competed in the Summer Olympics remember and did very well

#285 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

I agree, that one guy with the prostectic leg competed in the Summer Olympics remember and did very well

lonewolfman10

 

That was fine.  They didn't alter the event to accommodate him.  

#286 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

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

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.

worlock77

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

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

Abject nonsense. The players in the NFL, NBA etc. are the best in the world. The worst player in those leagues is still one of the most elite on the planet. You can find women who can play sports better than most men, but you can't find women who can play at the level of the most elite in the world. There is no evidence for this whatsoever, and the only reason you believe this is PC horsesh*t about equality. Please show one shred of evidence for this that doesn't appeal to something completely unfalsifiable.
#287 Posted by worlock77 (22544 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

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

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

Abject nonsense. The players in the NFL, NBA etc. are the best in the world. The worst player in those leagues is still one of the most elite on the planet. You can find women who can play sports better than most men, but you can't find women who can play at the level of the most elite in the world. There is no evidence for this whatsoever, and the only reason you believe this is PC horsesh*t about equality. Please show one shred of evidence for this that doesn't appeal to something completely unfalsifiable.

I'm not saying necessarily that women could compete at that level. Maybe some could, maybe not. We'll never know ether way however, because of the cultural mindset that surrounds these sports.

#288 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

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

worlock77

Abject nonsense. The players in the NFL, NBA etc. are the best in the world. The worst player in those leagues is still one of the most elite on the planet. You can find women who can play sports better than most men, but you can't find women who can play at the level of the most elite in the world. There is no evidence for this whatsoever, and the only reason you believe this is PC horsesh*t about equality. Please show one shred of evidence for this that doesn't appeal to something completely unfalsifiable.

I'm not saying necessarily that women could compete at that level. Maybe some could, maybe not. We'll never know ether way however, because of the cultural mindset that surrounds these sports.

Culture does not emerge from nowhere. The reason that cultural mindset exists is because of biological truths. The best female athletes do not compare to the best male athletes by any objective metric. Group X not performing equally to group Y is not necessarily the result of some cultural idea. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that women could ever play at that level, other than PC appeals to equality. Differences between groups aren't all down to socialization, despite what people want to believe. All the evidence points to a certain conclusion, that conclusion seems pretty reasonable.
#289 Posted by worlock77 (22544 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] Abject nonsense. The players in the NFL, NBA etc. are the best in the world. The worst player in those leagues is still one of the most elite on the planet. You can find women who can play sports better than most men, but you can't find women who can play at the level of the most elite in the world. There is no evidence for this whatsoever, and the only reason you believe this is PC horsesh*t about equality. Please show one shred of evidence for this that doesn't appeal to something completely unfalsifiable.Rhazakna

I'm not saying necessarily that women could compete at that level. Maybe some could, maybe not. We'll never know ether way however, because of the cultural mindset that surrounds these sports.

Culture does not emerge from nowhere. The reason that cultural mindset exists is because of biological truths. The best female athletes do not compare to the best male athletes by any objective metric. Group X not performing equally to group Y is not necessarily the result of some cultural idea. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that women could ever play at that level, other than PC appeals to equality. Differences between groups aren't all down to socialization, despite what people want to believe. All the evidence points to a certain conclusion, that conclusion seems pretty reasonable.

Certainly. There are, however, exceptions to every rule, but I doubt such exceptions would even be considered for a chance to show they could compete. (And frankly, you can drop the "PC" bit, as I'm anything but.)

#290 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

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

worlock77

Abject nonsense. The players in the NFL, NBA etc. are the best in the world. The worst player in those leagues is still one of the most elite on the planet. You can find women who can play sports better than most men, but you can't find women who can play at the level of the most elite in the world. There is no evidence for this whatsoever, and the only reason you believe this is PC horsesh*t about equality. Please show one shred of evidence for this that doesn't appeal to something completely unfalsifiable.

I'm not saying necessarily that women could compete at that level. Maybe some could, maybe not. We'll never know ether way however, because of the cultural mindset that surrounds these sports.

 

 

No, we DO know that elite female athletes cannot compete with elite male athletes.  All you have to do is watch a track and field event to know that.  If you deny this, you're either blind or lying to yourself.  

#291 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -
[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] Abject nonsense. The players in the NFL, NBA etc. are the best in the world. The worst player in those leagues is still one of the most elite on the planet. You can find women who can play sports better than most men, but you can't find women who can play at the level of the most elite in the world. There is no evidence for this whatsoever, and the only reason you believe this is PC horsesh*t about equality. Please show one shred of evidence for this that doesn't appeal to something completely unfalsifiable.Rhazakna

I'm not saying necessarily that women could compete at that level. Maybe some could, maybe not. We'll never know ether way however, because of the cultural mindset that surrounds these sports.

Culture does not emerge from nowhere. The reason that cultural mindset exists is because of biological truths. The best female athletes do not compare to the best male athletes by any objective metric. Group X not performing equally to group Y is not necessarily the result of some cultural idea. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that women could ever play at that level, other than PC appeals to equality. Differences between groups aren't all down to socialization, despite what people want to believe. All the evidence points to a certain conclusion, that conclusion seems pretty reasonable.

There was previously a cultural mindset that women shouldn't vote. I very much doubt you'd argue that cultural mindset emerged out of a biological truth about women being less competent at politics than men. There is still huge stigma toward women joining sports teams at the lower level and while they are, according to the rules, allowed in to the professional level in the same competition with the men you may notice the stigma toward women in sports is still very much present. To say that the difference in average physique is the sole reason for this culture of the sport is flat out wrong.
#292 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I'm not saying necessarily that women could compete at that level. Maybe some could, maybe not. We'll never know ether way however, because of the cultural mindset that surrounds these sports.

Ace6301

Culture does not emerge from nowhere. The reason that cultural mindset exists is because of biological truths. The best female athletes do not compare to the best male athletes by any objective metric. Group X not performing equally to group Y is not necessarily the result of some cultural idea. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that women could ever play at that level, other than PC appeals to equality. Differences between groups aren't all down to socialization, despite what people want to believe. All the evidence points to a certain conclusion, that conclusion seems pretty reasonable.

There was previously a cultural mindset that women shouldn't vote. I very much doubt you'd argue that cultural mindset emerged out of a biological truth about women being less competent at politics than men. There is still huge stigma toward women joining sports teams at the lower level and while they are, according to the rules, allowed in to the professional level in the same competition with the men you may notice the stigma toward women in sports is still very much present. To say that the difference in average physique is the sole reason for this culture of the sport is flat out wrong.

 

Even if it's not the "sole reason," it's a good enough reason.  It's the only one needed.  Women can't compete at that level.  If a woman showed up at an NFL training camp and kicked ass, she'd make the team.  It's not going to happen though.  

#293 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I'm not saying necessarily that women could compete at that level. Maybe some could, maybe not. We'll never know ether way however, because of the cultural mindset that surrounds these sports.

worlock77

Culture does not emerge from nowhere. The reason that cultural mindset exists is because of biological truths. The best female athletes do not compare to the best male athletes by any objective metric. Group X not performing equally to group Y is not necessarily the result of some cultural idea. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that women could ever play at that level, other than PC appeals to equality. Differences between groups aren't all down to socialization, despite what people want to believe. All the evidence points to a certain conclusion, that conclusion seems pretty reasonable.

Certainly. There are, however, exceptions to every rule, but I doubt such exceptions would even be considered for a chance to show they could compete. (And frankly, you can drop the "PC" bit, as I'm anything but.)

Based on what? Has there been a woman of equal skill who was rejected? There is absolutely no way of knowing how these leagues would react to a woman performing on the same level, until it happens. In fact, I bet a lot of struggling franchises would love to have the first woman player of their respective sport, if only as a novelty. This idea that it's culture keeping women from competing at the highest athletic level is based on nothing except politically correct platitudes. You may think you're not PC (maybe you laugh at un-PC humor or whatever), but you've very clearly internalized PC narratives about equality. Fundamentally that's what being "politically correct" is.
#294 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I'm not saying necessarily that women could compete at that level. Maybe some could, maybe not. We'll never know ether way however, because of the cultural mindset that surrounds these sports.

Ace6301
Culture does not emerge from nowhere. The reason that cultural mindset exists is because of biological truths. The best female athletes do not compare to the best male athletes by any objective metric. Group X not performing equally to group Y is not necessarily the result of some cultural idea. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that women could ever play at that level, other than PC appeals to equality. Differences between groups aren't all down to socialization, despite what people want to believe. All the evidence points to a certain conclusion, that conclusion seems pretty reasonable.

There was previously a cultural mindset that women shouldn't vote. I very much doubt you'd argue that cultural mindset emerged out of a biological truth about women being less competent at politics than men. There is still huge stigma toward women joining sports teams at the lower level and while they are, according to the rules, allowed in to the professional level in the same competition with the men you may notice the stigma toward women in sports is still very much present. To say that the difference in average physique is the sole reason for this culture of the sport is flat out wrong.

That's a faulty analogy. Success at sports is almost entirely biological. Success in sports, in essence, is a genetic lottery. Work ethic is important, but not as important as having the right genes. Men have evolved to be better athletes. All the evidence seems to suggest that the reason women do not succeed at sports to the degree men do is largely biological. There is no evidence to contradict this, and saying "women used to be unable to do X" isn't an argument.
#295 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] Culture does not emerge from nowhere. The reason that cultural mindset exists is because of biological truths. The best female athletes do not compare to the best male athletes by any objective metric. Group X not performing equally to group Y is not necessarily the result of some cultural idea. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that women could ever play at that level, other than PC appeals to equality. Differences between groups aren't all down to socialization, despite what people want to believe. All the evidence points to a certain conclusion, that conclusion seems pretty reasonable.

There was previously a cultural mindset that women shouldn't vote. I very much doubt you'd argue that cultural mindset emerged out of a biological truth about women being less competent at politics than men. There is still huge stigma toward women joining sports teams at the lower level and while they are, according to the rules, allowed in to the professional level in the same competition with the men you may notice the stigma toward women in sports is still very much present. To say that the difference in average physique is the sole reason for this culture of the sport is flat out wrong.

That's a faulty analogy. Success at sports is almost entirely biological. Success in sports, in essence, is a genetic lottery. Work ethic is important, but not as important as having the right genes. Men have evolved to be better athletes. All the evidence seems to suggest that the reason women do not succeed at sports to the degree men do is largely biological. There is no evidence to contradict this, and saying "women used to be unable to do X" isn't an argument.

To be successful you have to have been given a chance in the first place. As I said while at the pro level it's generally fair game to play that is not true down the ladder. There's also still a massive stigma that women should play less physical sports which obviously is going to reduce the amount of candidates for the elite. Men do indeed have a natural advantage. However it hasn't even been 100 years since women were allowed to compete at all in most sports and it's only been 40 years since women were actually taken seriously in anyway in sports, even at a low level. I'm not saying I expect teams to be 50/50, that simply won't happen. However if the culture of sports were more accepting of the women who have the potential to compete I think we'd see more trying out for the same level as current elite sports.
#296 Posted by ROFLCOPTER603 (2140 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] There was previously a cultural mindset that women shouldn't vote. I very much doubt you'd argue that cultural mindset emerged out of a biological truth about women being less competent at politics than men. There is still huge stigma toward women joining sports teams at the lower level and while they are, according to the rules, allowed in to the professional level in the same competition with the men you may notice the stigma toward women in sports is still very much present. To say that the difference in average physique is the sole reason for this culture of the sport is flat out wrong. Ace6301
That's a faulty analogy. Success at sports is almost entirely biological. Success in sports, in essence, is a genetic lottery. Work ethic is important, but not as important as having the right genes. Men have evolved to be better athletes. All the evidence seems to suggest that the reason women do not succeed at sports to the degree men do is largely biological. There is no evidence to contradict this, and saying "women used to be unable to do X" isn't an argument.

To be successful you have to have been given a chance in the first place. As I said while at the pro level it's generally fair game to play that is not true down the ladder. There's also still a massive stigma that women should play less physical sports which obviously is going to reduce the amount of candidates for the elite. Men do indeed have a natural advantage. However it hasn't even been 100 years since women were allowed to compete at all in most sports and it's only been 40 years since women were actually taken seriously in anyway in sports, even at a low level. I'm not saying I expect teams to be 50/50, that simply won't happen. However if the culture of sports were more accepting of the women who have the potential to compete I think we'd see more trying out for the same level as current elite sports.

There's no "stigma" against women playing physical sports. I'd say that western culture at least has progressed to the point where it's accepted that women play sports. The problem is that they physically cannot compete with male athletes. A woman is never going to join the NFL because women just don't naturally get that big. If a woman joined, even at the peak of fitness, she's going to get crushed, or at the very least not be able to compare to the average male football player. The same goes for pretty much all physical sports. As for the second bolded point, women don't try out because they can not compare to the male athletes. It has nothing to do with "the culture of sports". Like someone already said, a woman athlete who could perform well would be a money maker. Owners of sports teams aren't being sexist, they're being pragmatic.

#297 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] There was previously a cultural mindset that women shouldn't vote. I very much doubt you'd argue that cultural mindset emerged out of a biological truth about women being less competent at politics than men. There is still huge stigma toward women joining sports teams at the lower level and while they are, according to the rules, allowed in to the professional level in the same competition with the men you may notice the stigma toward women in sports is still very much present. To say that the difference in average physique is the sole reason for this culture of the sport is flat out wrong.

That's a faulty analogy. Success at sports is almost entirely biological. Success in sports, in essence, is a genetic lottery. Work ethic is important, but not as important as having the right genes. Men have evolved to be better athletes. All the evidence seems to suggest that the reason women do not succeed at sports to the degree men do is largely biological. There is no evidence to contradict this, and saying "women used to be unable to do X" isn't an argument.

To be successful you have to have been given a chance in the first place. As I said while at the pro level it's generally fair game to play that is not true down the ladder. There's also still a massive stigma that women should play less physical sports which obviously is going to reduce the amount of candidates for the elite. Men do indeed have a natural advantage. However it hasn't even been 100 years since women were allowed to compete at all in most sports and it's only been 40 years since women were actually taken seriously in anyway in sports, even at a low level. I'm not saying I expect teams to be 50/50, that simply won't happen. However if the culture of sports were more accepting of the women who have the potential to compete I think we'd see more trying out for the same level as current elite sports.

All you're doing is restating your previous non-argument. Every objective metric clearly shows that the most elite male athletes trounce the most elite females. Hell, you don't even have to look at athletes, look at any physically demanding job, and compare male-female performance. There may be some crowding out effect due to culture, but the idea that the effect is enough to keep deserving people out of professional sports leagues is spurious at best. The only way you can argue that professional sports have a glass ceiling for women is if you presuppose the existence of said glass ceiling. There is no reason to believe that elite female athletes will ever be equal to male elites, other than appeals to PC notions of equality. Your argument is essentially saying "In the past women couldn't do X because of cultural limitations. Therefore, anything women currently don't do is also because of culture". There is no evidence for this, it is an assumption that is contradicted by the evidence we have.
#298 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

Even the best WNBA player couldn't compete in the NBA.  Just look at the speed of the game and how physical it is.  This is true to an even greater extent in the NFL.  

I work on construction sites where there are a few women.  Not even the most delusional ones would attempt to do some of the work that I do.  

#299 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] That's a faulty analogy. Success at sports is almost entirely biological. Success in sports, in essence, is a genetic lottery. Work ethic is important, but not as important as having the right genes. Men have evolved to be better athletes. All the evidence seems to suggest that the reason women do not succeed at sports to the degree men do is largely biological. There is no evidence to contradict this, and saying "women used to be unable to do X" isn't an argument.

To be successful you have to have been given a chance in the first place. As I said while at the pro level it's generally fair game to play that is not true down the ladder. There's also still a massive stigma that women should play less physical sports which obviously is going to reduce the amount of candidates for the elite. Men do indeed have a natural advantage. However it hasn't even been 100 years since women were allowed to compete at all in most sports and it's only been 40 years since women were actually taken seriously in anyway in sports, even at a low level. I'm not saying I expect teams to be 50/50, that simply won't happen. However if the culture of sports were more accepting of the women who have the potential to compete I think we'd see more trying out for the same level as current elite sports.

All you're doing is restating your previous non-argument. Every objective metric clearly shows that the most elite male athletes trounce the most elite females. Hell, you don't even have to look at athletes, look at any physically demanding job, and compare male-female performance. There may be some crowding out effect due to culture, but the idea that the effect is enough to keep deserving people out of professional sports leagues is spurious at best. The only way you can argue that professional sports have a glass ceiling for women is if you presuppose the existence of said glass ceiling. There is no reason to believe that elite female athletes will ever be equal to male elites, other than appeals to PC notions of equality. Your argument is essentially saying "In the past women couldn't do X because of cultural limitations. Therefore, anything women currently don't do is also because of culture". There is no evidence for this, it is an assumption that is contradicted by the evidence we have.

So do you or do you not admit there is a crowding out effect due to the current culture. I don't know if you've misunderstood what is being said here or if you're purposefully trying to move it away from the issue for whatever reason but you're certainly not arguing the same thing Worlock or I are. Also I don't know why you think that what happened in the past is irrelevant to culture. 40 years ago was not long ago at all.
#300 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] To be successful you have to have been given a chance in the first place. As I said while at the pro level it's generally fair game to play that is not true down the ladder. There's also still a massive stigma that women should play less physical sports which obviously is going to reduce the amount of candidates for the elite. Men do indeed have a natural advantage. However it hasn't even been 100 years since women were allowed to compete at all in most sports and it's only been 40 years since women were actually taken seriously in anyway in sports, even at a low level. I'm not saying I expect teams to be 50/50, that simply won't happen. However if the culture of sports were more accepting of the women who have the potential to compete I think we'd see more trying out for the same level as current elite sports. Ace6301
All you're doing is restating your previous non-argument. Every objective metric clearly shows that the most elite male athletes trounce the most elite females. Hell, you don't even have to look at athletes, look at any physically demanding job, and compare male-female performance. There may be some crowding out effect due to culture, but the idea that the effect is enough to keep deserving people out of professional sports leagues is spurious at best. The only way you can argue that professional sports have a glass ceiling for women is if you presuppose the existence of said glass ceiling. There is no reason to believe that elite female athletes will ever be equal to male elites, other than appeals to PC notions of equality. Your argument is essentially saying "In the past women couldn't do X because of cultural limitations. Therefore, anything women currently don't do is also because of culture". There is no evidence for this, it is an assumption that is contradicted by the evidence we have.

So do you or do you not admit there is a crowding out effect due to the current culture. I don't know if you've misunderstood what is being said here or if you're purposefully trying to move it away from the issue for whatever reason but you're certainly not arguing the same thing Worlock or I are. Also I don't know why you think that what happened in the past is irrelevant to culture. 40 years ago was not long ago at all.

 

Nobody could point at women and say, "See how the vote!  They shouldn't be allowed to.  Clearly they can't do it!"

We can look at female athletes play sports and know that they can not compete with high-level male athletes.  That's why your analogy was so bad.