Better yet, let’s make the locker room very obviously wheelchair accessible. Put ramps everywhere. Make the sinks low, and the stalls around the toilets extra large. Make sure that there’s no doubt that it’s clear that the locker rooms are designed to accomodate disabled people. After all, folks in wheelchairs are no good at football. So comparing your opponents to a bunch of cripples would be fine, right?
I don’t know how to explain why these sorts of insults are insulting any more clearly than has been done (good job, by the way, WonJohnSoup.) I can only say that it’s clear that the experience of folks who are accustomed to being in the majority is vastly, vastly different from that of the rest of us.
Have you ever seen murderball? Those guys are hardcore, and don’t seem to have any qualms whatsoever in openly recognizing the varying handicaps of the players. It’s actually woven into the rules themselves; players are graded 0-5 (or close) on the mobility they possess, and no team can field more than a combined 8 (or so) at any one time.
I can easily imagine a murderball team taunting their opponents by claiming they appear to be fielding a team of zeros. Seriously, have you seen any interviews with these guys? I’d bet money they do use this kind of taunting. The premiere player in the league was paralyzed when his best friend crashed a car they were in. So he calls his friend the “quadfather.” No, those in wheelchairs don’t seem to possess the same whiny sour grapes that you and the good professor appear to.
Why is it that women want to be falsely recognized as being capable of something they are simply not capable of? If they do not, why is it so offensive to recognize the disparity? The parapalegics don’t seem to mind, and that was apparently your ace-in-the-hole strawman. Sucks when you can’t even make your point effectively with a strawman, don’t it?
Wow, you’ve totally missed something here. Number one, you made up your example (what was the word you used for that?) Number two, do you understand the difference between when a minority uses a term normally used as a pejorative within their own group and when someone who’s not from that group does so? Because, uh, that’s pretty basic. And it kind of destroys your imaginary comparison.
I don’t know why you need to be so rude to me, nor why you think that it’s nothing but “sour grapes” (a term that you’ve misused, incidentally) to be upset at an insult. As I’ve said over and over in this thread, my opinion is that this is the sort of thing that happens and is part of sports culture, and should be recognized for what it is, not made into a public issue. But I won’t pretend that the outlandish claims that “It has nothing to do with women! You’re sexist for even noticing that pink is associated with femininity in our culture!” have any validity.
Yes, I understand the hypocrisy of that train of thought, though I do not subscribe to the notion. If I hear a person speak in a way that they themselves would consider racist if it were coming from a person of a different group, I consider that person to be racist.
Because you were so monumentally stupid as to equate women and children with parapalegics. There is nothing wrong with being a woman or a child; being a parapalegic is not something anyone would want their child to be. You get it now? There is nothing wrong with women. The fact that they are incapable of competing in a football game has no relevance to their worth as human beings. The natural reality is that women are smaller, slower and weaker than men. We fucking evolved that way. Pretending this is not the case is delusional. Feeling that this reality is insulting to women is pathetic in the extreme.
But hey, feel free to nitpick my syntax, grammar boy.
You made a post that claimed that any comparison between women and paraplegics in this thread was wrong. You specifically stated that the two are different things for the purposes of this discussion. Then, in the following sentences, you explicitly state that women’s inability to play football has no relevance to their worth as human beings. It is only reasonable to assume thatyou believe something different about paraplegics.
Furthermore, despite your constant disparagement of the intelligence of others, it is your own logic that is completely lacking in this thread. The issue of whether being a woman is preferable to being a paraplegic is not relevant, despite your own strawman attempt to make it so.
The issue, as you yourself have made clear, is whether or not it is acceptable to disparage another football team by making comparisons that are based in truth. For example, you assert that it is acceptable to compare the other football team to women because, like it or not, women aren’t as good at football as men.
By this logic, it is equally acceptable to compare the other football team to paraplegics because, like it or not, paraplegics aren’t as good at football as able-bodied people.
In both cases, according to your logic, one could make this assertion without in any way telling a falsehood or making value judgments about the group being compared.
Ah, so the answer is that you really are that dumb. The difference is actually quite simple. Women are not competitive because they are naturally built that way. Paraplegics aren’t competitive because there is something wrong with them. Get it yet, dumbass? That is the difference. You might have realized that had you read the unbolded sentence of mine you quoted two posts back: “There is nothing wrong with women.” The next sentence, which you did bold, goes on to further elaborate that concept. It is not referring to paraplegics in any way. Since there is something wrong with paraplegics, only a fool or a person with an axe to grind would make the connection you did.
Your post drips of so much stupidity that I feel compelled to respond line by line, which I am normally loathe to do. Your comments in bold.
Furthermore, despite your constant disparagement of the intelligence of others, it is your own logic that is completely lacking in this thread.
Yes, when you feed my logic through your dysfunctional brain, it does indeed break down. When taken as written, however, it makes much more sense.
The issue of whether being a woman is preferable to being a paraplegic is not relevant, despite your own strawman attempt to make it so.
My strawman? I believe it was Excaliber who introduced the argument, not me. I merely responded to it.
The issue, as you yourself have made clear, is whether or not it is acceptable to disparage another football team by making comparisons that are based in truth.
My point is that the comparisons are based on the actual, natural, this-is-how-the-human-race-ended-up-evolving reality. Introducing cultural bias in standardized testing or the unfortunate state of being permanently handicapped is to totally miss the point, and therefore IMO a strawman tactic.
For example, you assert that it is acceptable to compare the other football team to women because, like it or not, women aren’t as good at football as men.
Yes, yes that is it exactly. I can’t wait to read the great refutation you must surely follow this with.
By this logic, it is equally acceptable to compare the other football team to paraplegics because, like it or not, paraplegics aren’t as good at football as able-bodied people.
And yet again you miss the boat. Is the natural state of people to be paralyzed?
In both cases, according to your logic, one could make this assertion without in any way telling a falsehood or making value judgments about the group being compared.
One would be ridiculing an unfortunate and tragic injury. The other would be recognizing the fact that the genders evolved to emphasize different traits. I have yet to see any argument at all – much less a compelling one – why the latter should be considered bad.
Hoist on your own petard, retard.
You think that your post was a home run? Really?
Whether or not it is “natural” to be paralysed is completely beside the point. The question is, rather, whether it is natural for paralysed people to be worse at football than able-bodied people.
And the other key questions are:
a) whether the group being compared is as good as able-bodied men at playing football
b) whether it is in any way disparaging to that group to compare them unfavourably to able-bodied male football players.
Given that paraplegics don’t bear any moral stigma as a result of their condition (the same agument you’ve made regarding women), why should they be offended when it’s pointed out that they aren’t as good at football as able-bodied men? After all, as you say about women, it’s just a simple fact, and not any sort of negative reflection on the group being compared.
Because making fun of the handicapped is offensive. Until you demonstrate that women are “handicapped” because they can’t compete with men at football, this entire train of thought is ridiculously off topic.
Are you truly, honestly unable to grasp this concept?
hehheh, okay, that was funny. Apologies for the personal attacks, Excalibre.
Just as a reminder to the group, my position is that the “you play like women” taunt is not disparaging to women, and not just because I saw footage of a female NFL fan screaming this very taunt at her losing team in a clip just yesterday. (The NFL Films roundtable discussion with its cameramen show.) My previously-stated reasoning is:
In a nutshell, it is not a bad thing that women can’t compete with men on the football field. This doesn’t mean that women are somehow inferior to men. It’s a simple matter of men and women evolving to emphasize different traits, and football happens to be an activity that focuses on the traits that happened to be emphasized in men and not women. It is not a bad thing to recognize this evolutionary disparity.
It would sure be nice if anybody would actually address this, instead of veering off into unrelated tangents.
But, by your logic, it wouldn’t even be making fun of the handicapped.
After all, as you point out about women, it is a plain and simple fact that the handicapped cannot play football as well as the able-bodied. To make such an observation is not to ridicule or make fun of the handicapped, it is simply a statement of plain fact.
Your inconsistency on this issue is pathetic to behold. You claim that comparing football players to women is not disparaging to women because it’s a basic fact that they aren’t as good at football as men; yet you apparently believe that comparing football players to paraplegics is offensive, despite it being a basic fact that paraplegics aren’t as good at football as the able-bodied.
Here are a few of the things you’ve said in this thread:
and
and
Substitute “paraplegics” or “handicapped” for “women,” and “able-bodied” for “men” in those quotes, and they would be just as true. I’ll ask you your own question: “The truth is insulting now?”
If I’m following this right, the reason we lay off drawing comparisons with paraplegics is out of pity. In that case, women are entitled to the same consideration if we accept that women are as pitiable as paraplegics. I’m cool with that if that’s really what you want to ask for, mhendo.
It’s not a question of whether one is more pitiable. It has simply been, for me, a question of logical consistency.
Ellis Dee made the fundamental argument that disparaging football players by comparing them to women is acceptable because it is an indisputable fact that women are not as good at football as men. Yet he refuses to accept that disparaging football players by comparing them to paraplegics is acceptable, despite it being an indisputable fact that paraplegics are not as good at football as the able-bodied. Despite his assertion that the truth is not (or should not be) insulting, he apparently feels that the truth is insulting to paraplegics, but not to women. I hold no particular opinion on whether or not it is acceptable to compare opposition football players to paraplegics; i was simply pointing out that doing so would be logically consistent with Ellis Dee’s position regarding women.
When it comes down to it, i’m not especially offended by the case of the pink locker room. I think that there are more important things for feminists to be concerned about. I’m just rather bemused at the wilfull blindness to the fact that constantly making invidious comparisons using a particular group (whether it be women, the disabled, blacks, whatever) is likely to offend those groups and raise their hackles, and that this is likely to happen whether or not the comparisons are (or might be) factually valid.
I didn’t say you had asserted that we refrain from drawing invidious comparisons to the disabled is out of pity for them, mhendo. I do reason, however, that this is why we refrain. And like I say, if you want comparisons with the sporting prowess of women to be as invidious as comparisons with the sporting prowess of paraplegics, you need only bracket women with paraplegics as objects deserving of pity. You really think we should walk on eggshells over women’s capabilities the way we do with paraplegics? Inquiring minds just want to know.
While I ommitted the qualification in my earlier posts because I did not foresee every possible strawman, that is not an accurate representation of my position, which I have clarified countless times now. It should read:
Disparaging football players by comparing them to women is acceptable because it is an indisputable fact that women naturally evolved in a way that makes them not as good at football as men.
You have yet to address my actual position. All you have done is harped on your interpretation of my position, despite the fact that I have clarified and explained it to you multiple times. Willful ignorance is the only way to describe your postings at this point.
Malacandra has quite accurately expressed my position, which is that it is not pitiable, shameful, wrong, or in any way bad that women are unable to compete with men on the football field. Unfortunately, you have now turned your willfully ignorant lense onto his post as well.
Why won’t you address my actual position? I concede that I could have worded my earliest posts more clearly. Now, please, address my actual position, assuming that this isn’t all just a personal vendetta you have against me.