Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Virex]

You're right, I should've stayed my hand a page back. Sorry for the derail.

[Neonivek]

If this wasn't the Irritation and annoyance thread I would have switched the topic to "Unintentional Parodies"

For example the first time I heard "Friday" I thought it was an amazing song! Not because it was good, not because it was soo bad it was good, but because I thought it was a well crafted Parody of the current trend in popsongs.

Even now I pretend it is a parody.

[Nadaka]

http://www.doctortipster.com/6952-dutch-researcher-created-a-super-influenza-virus-with-the-potential-to-kill-millions.html

does this count as a progressive issue?, so we have something else to talk about?

[Luke_Prowler]

Topic switch!

*ding*

Did you guys hear that Barney Frank is no longer running for congress?

[Urist Imiknorris]

http://www.doctortipster.com/6952-dutch-researcher-created-a-super-influenza-virus-with-the-potential-to-kill-millions.html

does this count as a progressive issue?, so we have something else to talk about?

Evil Overlord Sighted.

[Andir]

If this wasn't the Irritation and annoyance thread I would have switched the topic to "Unintentional Parodies"

For example the first time I heard "Friday" I thought it was an amazing song! Not because it was good, not because it was soo bad it was good, but because I thought it was a well crafted Parody of the current trend in popsongs.

Even now I pretend it is a parody.

The first time I heard it, I thought: "Cool song for a young kid to write... it may be juvenile rhyming and lyrics, but at least she did it."  Then I read it was written by the guy in the car partway through the video and I felt sad.  How could a grown man come up with such a terrible set of lyrics?  I guess he knew how to make a viral song, but wow.

http://www.doctortipster.com/6952-dutch-researcher-created-a-super-influenza-virus-with-the-potential-to-kill-millions.html

does this count as a progressive issue?, so we have something else to talk about?

I really don't have a problem with him creating the strain (I wouldn't want to get it) but if it helps scientists understand influenza better and people are working on combating it... all the better?

[GlyphGryph]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html

How.. unfortunately unsurprising.

[Nadaka]

http://news.yahoo.com/banned-players-settle-gay-softball-group-183040349.html

I am not sure how to describe this...

[fqllve]

Two were determined to be gay, but the committee found Apilado, Charles and Russ to be straight.

Most ridiculous sentence I have read all week.

On the other hand, this seems pretty sensible to me.

But U.S. District Judge John Coughenour ruled that the organization had a constitutional right to limit the number of straight players as a means of promoting their message that openly gay, bisexual and transgendered individuals can thrive in competitive sports.

I'd prefer it that we lived in a world where no such message needed to be promoted though.

[kaijyuu]

Wait wait. Which constitutional right? Free speech?

I dunno, but giving people the right to disqualify people based on sexuality provided you're promoting a "message" sounds ripe for abuse.

[Criptfeind]

Yeah.... No. That sounds. Like a bad idea.

On the other hand I am not one to work with "morals" or what ever. Right might as well make right with me. So okay.

[Andir]

Was it this thread where there was talk of how the Bill of Rights applies (or doesn't) to groups/business/people?

I have mixed feelings on the whole thing.  I mean, it could boil down to stopping someone from making a team (are they?) that only accepts gays.  It's like the whole Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts accepting girls/boys respectively.  Seems silly that someone couldn't just create an organization simply called Scouts and accept both to compete with the other two.  On the other hand, abuses have occurred in the past with restaurants that didn't accept blacks.  On one hand, my personal freedom side dislikes that you cannot create a group that specifically focuses on a particular subsection of society and on the other hand I see how it can be abused.  It raises discrimination issues like how the sports leagues can get away with separate organizations for different sexes... why not different sexual orientations?  (I mean, is one of the reasons we don't have co-ed sports leagues because of "co-mingling" of players?  How would that impact a team of gay men?)

Idealistically, there would only be one softball league and women and men (straight and gay) would be able to play on any team they like against other teams that would accept any sex/orientation... but I'm sure someone would have a problem with that because the biological makeup of one sex may predispose them to be favored for certain spots on the team or all spots.  (ie: imagine any WNBA team playing any NBA team... would women even be recruited for NBA teams?)

[kaijyuu]

Idealistically, there would only be one softball league and women and men (straight and gay) would be able to play on any team they like against other teams that would accept any sex/orientation... but I'm sure someone would have a problem with that because the biological makeup of one sex may predispose them to be favored for certain spots on the team or all spots.  (ie: imagine any WNBA team playing any NBA team... would women even be recruited for NBA teams?)

It should be noted that this only really applies at really high levels of play. The physical differences between men and women (on average) are not that big. At lower levels of play, practice and hard work matter far, far more.

To answer your question, probably yes. Just not as often.


My view on it is this: Could not the same argument be made about other genetic traits that, on average, give an advantage? The most obvious is race. Depending on your genetic makeup, you might be taller than average. This obviously gives an advantage in sports such as basketball.

If you look at the USA's sports teams (such as basketball and american football), there's a very large amount of african americans. They do not however hold a monopoly on playing these sports competitively. Similarly, I do not think men would have a total monopoly on playing these sports were women included.


Another thing of note... does anyone really care about the WNBA? To me it seems like it is viewed as the "lesser" league. Why? Because any time you have more than one league, one is going to come out on top and be the "important" one for that sport. That women are not allowed to play in the "real" league does not sit well with me.

[Truean]

Eh, I dunno. GLBT athletes have it rather rough. I'm not sure if it's so much "exclusive" as it is "the only damn place they can really play." Isn't it funny how when the shoe's on the other foot, that's when shit hits the fan?

They've only had ONE gay professional baseball player and they didn't realize he was gay when they signed him. He came out later. Also, he invented the high five, because just that much awesome was around him.... It was an unwritten rule that gays basically weren't allowed to do most things for quite some time really. If you even look gay, then they won't let you give blood today.... That's not changing any time soon over BS HIV concerns, even though straight people totally have that too and we're not valid scapegoats.

Quite frankly, we're in a world where it's considered perfectly fine for the Boy Scouts to categorically ban all gay men, because they are afraid we're child molesters. Keep in mind that the Boy Scouts are full of child molesters. They knew it and didn't do shit about it, so it cost them $18.5 Million.  Their ban against gays and atheists doesn't do shit. And frankly, no, nothing is going to compete with the brand name recognition of the Boy Scouts. I'm sorry, it isn't gonna happen that way and everyone should know that. I guess it's technically possible, but incredibly practically difficult to the point where everyone just sorta shrugs and signs their kids up for Boy/Girl Scouts, because who needs the hassle? "Somebody" should? Nobody does.... Case in point, Campfire USA. It's an alternative. Very few people use it. It's been tried and it doesn't really work on an effective scale to rival crap with the Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts.

How hypocritical is this country going to become exactly? It's perfectly ok for everyone who wants to discriminate against gays to do so, but when gays try to form their own little spaces where they can exist, shock and horror! Shock and horror.... Ideally, it wouldn't matter at all and there would be no divisions about that shit at all, but there simply are. As long as this is the world we live in, then this is what we're faced with. If the Boy Scouts and basically all of society can marginalize and discriminate against gays, then the absolute least you can do is allow them to have their own little groups where they can take solace in each others' company. Shit, are they really welcome anywhere else? No, lip service doesn't count....

When the shoe's on the other foot, don't you know that's when shit hits the fan....

[Fenrir]

The physical differences between men and women (on average) are not that big.

Are you sure?

While I would hardly be resistant to correction, for I have not done much research, I had always supposed that leagues were grouped by sex due to genuine differences that would put women at a competative disadvantage in many types of sports.

I understand that this is a subject that may ignite the fires of anger amongst the flame warriors of the Internet, but I hope any mistake I have made is understood to have been born by simple lack of knowledge rather than malice of heart.