Doesn’t change anything. So what if their lesser footballing ability is “natural,” rather than the result of some unfortunate injury? The key question is whether this lack of footballing ability somehow reflects poorly on the group in question, to the extent that it should be used or taken as an insult. And it still doesn’t change the fact that it is completely understandable that some women might find it offensive to have their gender constantly used as a derogatory reference point by neanderthal morons, just as it would be completely understandable for paraplegics to take offence at similar comparisons.
And what about those who are physically handicapped through some congenital disease or birth defect? One could reasonably argue that their condition is “natural,” in the sense that it was not the result of some foreseeable or preventable accident. While someone born with spina bifida, for example, might be part of a smaller population subsection than women, their condition is still a natural one, something that is part of the human condition.
Ah, the “why are you picking on little old me?” technique of debate. The fact that i continue to argue against you shows that i must have some sort of personal vendetta, right? It couldn’t possibly be because your actual position is questionable or problematic. There’s absolutely no chance, is there, that you might not be completely correct? So anyone who maintains that you are wrong must be harboring some sort of personal grudge.
Go cry to mother, tell her you’re being picked on.
It doesn’t reflect poorly on anyone. Why do you think it does?
Do you really think that women give a flying fuck that they would lose a football game against men?
You’ve got some funny ideas about what constitutes “natural.”
The fact that you think women are legitimately comparable to paraplegics and those born with spina bifida makes you one of those neanderthal morons you so vehemently decry.
I mistakenly thought you were trying to bait me into supporting a completely ridicuolous position that there is no difference between women and the physically disabled. Apparently, you actually believe that nonsense, and don’t understand how it could be that I do not.
I notice that there isn’t a single person agreeing with you.
Since you are unable to distinguish between women and the handicapped, you have nothing to offer this discussion.
Your logical comprehension is around the level of a five-year old.
I’m not saying, nor have i ever said, that “there is no difference between women and the physically disabled.” Show me where i have. And i am perfectly able “to distinguish between women and the handicapped.”
The question was merely one of the logic (or, actually, the sheer absence thereof) in your “argument.” :wally
Why is my idea funny? I see something as natural if it is a product of nature, of natural processes. Unless specifically caused by some sort of external pathogen or toxin, many birth defects are natural. So are many forms of cancer. And some psychological disorders. Hurricanes are natural.
Just because something is not normal, in the sense of being usual or common, doesn’t make it unnatural. And just because something is unpleasant, and we try to cure it or minimize its impact, does not make it unnatural.
It’s interesting that your argument about women involved a reference to their biological evolution as creatures that are weaker than men. Well, many diseases and disorders that plague humans are also the result of similar evolutionary and biological processes.
What is this, some sort of perverted intellectual democratism? “Hey, there’s no-one taking your side, so you must be wrong.”
For the past twenty posts or so, this thread has pretty much been left for dead by everyone but you and me, with a couple of typically substance-free contributions inserted by Malacandra.
I think i’ll stop posting now. By your logic, that should allow you to claim victory as the last person standing. Enjoy it.
ESPN is doing a story about the pink locker rooms tonight, so I hope it’s okay to revive this. A few points:
Hayden Fry seemed reasonably sincere about the psychology angle. Interestingly, footage show the locker rooms used to be pink and green, which lends some credence to the “calming” angle. Fry also said that part of the advantage came from the way opposing coaches reacted to it - some visitors actually instructed their assistants to cover up the pink walls. Since the coloring was obviously in the heads of the coaches to that extent, advantage Iowa.
So I’ll admit that Fry may have intended no insult. Anyone else see this feature?
Oh God help us, I don’t think I can take more of this thread. OK OK I haven’t seen it but I’ll take your word for it and admit I for one was horribly horribly wrong in this thread. Feminists are insane. Hayden Frye is a Saint.
No no don’t worry about it - you’re good for posting it, especially when it goes against your position. I love that. It’s just that when I saw the words “pink locker room” reappear on my screen I got an instant migraine. Kind of like an icepick through my skull.
I think the hilarious part is that a coach actually thought this would work. Could you imagine this conversation on the opposing sideline?:
Coach: What the hell are you doing out there you completely missed your blocking assignment!
Player: Gee coach I was going to hit him but all of a sudden I felt tranquil and peaceful inside and just couldn’t hit him. That damn pink locker room I was in 3 hours ago emasculated me!
