Not Surprised - you made ludicrous comparisons with charges 2, 3 and 4. And when I called you on them started back peddling furiously. Try as you might though, you cannot defend the indefensible. And as to the consternation I have caused those in this thread who revel in moral self-aggrandizement, why yes, I think I have won. Thank you for acknowledging it.
You mean in addition to charges 1 through 9 I am also a fool?! The cops can't get here quick enough! Where are the razor blades? Curse you safety razor! Curse you!
3) Supporting those who consume capsules of dead baby flesh
4) Supporting those who picket funerals
5) Thinking women are weak
6) Thinking that women who are raped are the ones who are really to blame
7) Being obsessed with sex
8) Thinking I am a victim because others disagree with me
9) Living in the dark ages
Quite the rap sheet. And what has occasioned this truly epic list of charges? :
"a simple common sense argument that in a physical contact sport, there is strong potential for a 15 year old boy to touch a 15 year old girl in an inadvertently inappropriate manner. And that additionally, in such a situation, allegations could be leveled at the boy by either the girl, or parents."
Well of course, the evidence is damning! Call the cops I say! Heck, I'll do it myself, the weight of my evil doings having finally driven me to my knees!
You flatter yourself. To identify behavior is not adopt the mantle of victim. Though if you need to believe such, well, no words of mine will convince you otherwise.
This debate format is getting a little frustrating as I have two comments above both awaiting moderation. However, to answer the question, or attempt to, dependent on whether I find myself in moderation limbo again :
"How does it not compare? You are saying it wouldn’t happen if she did not choose to stand there."
So lets break this down, to acknowledge a base reality, that in a defined physical game, inadvertent inappropriate touching could occur between a 15 year old girl and 15 year old boys, is to equate blame for this occurrence to the girl in question?
This, despite the fact the acts I have talked of have been inadvertent and not deliberate, and that, I have expressed just as much concern for the boys involved, as I have the girl? Well yes, I see it now, the parallels to a wholly non-consensual attack are vast.
What I see with this argument and those clambering to climb aboard it, is intellectual dishonesty. You seek to ally yourselves with the status of victim a sufferer of sexual assault rightly holds, while painting me as one who would seek to invalidate such a woman. As an act of character assassination it is beneath contempt, and telling of the paucity of your position.
Yes, in a strictly literal sense the situation I describe would not occur if there girl was not there. But then again, nor would the situation occur if someone had not made the baseball diamond. Or heck, invented the game itself. Strict literal interpretations are the last refuge for those bereft of any substantive argument.
"But denying a girl from participating in sports whith boys because someone might step over the line is wrong, it’s like blaming a girl for being raped because she wears revealing close."
I disagree with your comparison completely. You are talking about a physical competition in which a girl in a relatively stationary position will have young men charging directly at her. The potential for inadvertent inappropriate touching here, is high. That base physical reality can simply not be gotten around of.
In such a scenario not only can the girl be victimized, but so too can the boy. What if an allegation was to be leveled against him?
None of this in anyway compares to the blame the victim mentality that so often accompanies cases of rape.
Alice - I was in the process of writing a response on the 'gay' question you posed. It is awaiting moderation.
As to your assertion that it is impossible that the parent of the girl, or the girl herself, could not level an accusation at a 15 year old boy who came down atop her? I suggest that you have been blinded by ideology. If you can honestly not see the potential for such a situation to arise, then the gap between us is far to vast for mere words to span.
Not Surprised - Not once in my defense of the school's position have I used faith as an argument. Indeed, I have eschewed Christianity completely. What I put forward instead is what I believe to be a commonsense assessment of the physical realities involved. That in a physical contact sport, there is strong potential for a 15 year old boy to touch a 15 year old girl in an inadvertently inappropriate manner. And that additionally, in such a situation, allegations could be leveled at the boy by either the girl, or parents. That's it.
Now, what have I received in response to this? Aside from ludicrous comparisons to quite obscene practices. Well, it basically boils down to two:
1) 15 year old boys would not notice a 15 year old female form in the context of sport. To which I reply, nonsense.
and
2) Well, what if some of the boys are gay?
Now, this argument directly contradicts the first. Because it acknowledges that there is the potential inadvertent touching of sexual nature to occur, and that satisfaction could be derived from this. (Yet this fact did not deter Alice from using both arguments)
Now, aside from the fact that homosexuality is not nearly as prevalent as any TV show of late would have you believe, lets run with this second hypothetical.
Firstly, for a heterosexual male there are quite obviously more targets of opportunity, targets normally off limits when it comes to teen girl, than in the situation of a gay male youth. As an obvious example, practically all 15 year old girls will cover their chest's when going to the beach. The same can certainly not be said for 15 year old boys.
Secondly, homosexuality is not the equivalent of heterosexuality. There are mass of interactions across a mass of fronts where physical and societal interactions differ. There are undoubtedly male gay youths and adults that play contact sports with other men. Yet, because such contact is accepted between men in these sports, it is not viewed through a sexual prism. (Unless something grotesque were to occur.) The reason for this is that heterosexuality is the default according to which all of society is structured.
NS - as to your use of the word 'children'. I find it completely misleading giving the sexual context of the argument.
Finally, I note no-one has addressed the potential for allegations to leveled at a teen boy in such an interaction with a teen girl. Nor have any of those who have disagreed with me criticized the girl's mother for her statement that the sport her daughter plays does not carry the potential for physical contact. Was she being dishonest, or dim?
Alice - adults are not children, you ignore the potential for damaging allegations that I have discussed, and as for the rest, well, copy and paste time :
"You are of course correct. 15 year old boys are well known for their complete disinterest in laying hands upon the 15 year old female form whenever the specter of sport is brought into play. Why, the fact that it is baseball practically turns them into eunuchs!"
As to how a simple, honest acknowledge of physical realities magically transforms itself into an obsession with sex, well, at least you have not stated that I am in league with Islamic fascists, or those who take dead baby capsules. So that's something for you to cling to.
Not Surprised - you voluntarily give your poisonous bias towards Catholicism but such was not required, as it presents itself in ten foot high letters.
This bias has hopelessly corrupted your critical thinking faculties.
I find it humorous that you derisively use words such as 'tradition' and 'faith' and 'rationalize' to describe a simple common sense argument that in a physical contact sport, there is strong potential for a 15 year old boy to touch a 15 year old girl in an inadvertently inappropriate manner. And that additionally, in such a situation, allegations could be leveled at the boy by either the girl, or parents.
And what do you compare such reasoning to? Why to people burying babies of course! And also those who consume capsules of baby flesh! And not to forget, those who picket funerals! And why wouldn't you? The similarities are obvious!
Not Surprised, I congratulate you. I had thought the inanity bar set unsurpassably high with the arguments already ranged against me that:
a) 15 year old boys would not notice a 15 year old female body because they were playing sport (NS - note the age give, 15 years old, not the far more ambiguous 'children' that you dishonestly employ)
and
b) my argument is comparable to that used by Islamic fascists who enforce the wearing of the burka by the women in their society.
But you have sailed easily over that mark. A feat bespeaking a dedication to your art that stretches the span of many years.
"If the issue is that the boys may accidentially get in contact with a breast or other parts of her body, then so what? It’s not like the female body is poisonous, they are just humans for christ sake! It’s a sports game, not a sexual situation. Jeez!"
You are of course correct. 15 year old boys are well known for their complete disinterest in laying hands upon the 15 year old female form whenever the specter of sport is brought into play. Why, the fact that it is baseball practically turns them into eunuchs!
"Craig, do you realize that your argument “shun females to protect each sides’ sexual purity” is EXACTLY what muslims use to enfoce the wearing to hijabs and burkas and shadors?"
So to believe that 15 year old boys (minors, though in full puberty) should not play a heavy contact sport in which they could potentially (inadvertently) inappropriately touch a 15 year old girl (also a minor) makes me a tacit supporter of Islamic fascism? Who knew?
Tell me oh enlightened ones, what would happen to one of those teenage boys if either the teen girl, or one of the parents, cried that such inadvertent touching was actually on purpose? The probability of such an occurrence is all too real. And has been preceded by fights on field resulting in assault charges.
Alice - on purpose you wholly ignore the potential for the inappropriate touching of a minor that I talked about. And instead, mention only rough play. Now why on earth would that be?
My daughter is not in her teens yet, but according to you I would live in the dark ages if, when she turns 15, I would not want 15 year old boys barreling into her and potentially (albeit inadvertently) touching her in a manner in which, if it occurred off of the baseball diamond, would invite the attention of the authorities? That being your position, it is safe to say that your values are very different to my own.
Aside from that, albeit wholly unwittingly on your part, you acknowledge that the daughter's mother is indeed obtuse and that her daughter is playing a game in which physical contact is a very real prospect.
Alice, do not worry, it is I who stands in the minority, the number of men who will afford you no consideration at all for you gender grows by leaps and bounds year after year.
BTW, having watched my wife give birth I indeed know what women are capable of. I also know that if I ran my 250lbs into her at full clip she would not be getting up again anytime soon. It's a little thing called physics, whereby the heavier the mass at a given speed the greater the force it strikes with.
The girl has obviously hit puberty, she plays second base, and a teenage boy comes hurtling towards her determined to make that base before she gets the ball. And according to the girl's mother the game is not physical? That simply is delusional.
Whether the stronger male crashes into her and hurts her, or, in the collision, lays hands upon her breasts, or collides with other areas if he comes down upon her, no intellectually honest person could deny that there is the potential for physical contact of an inappropriate nature to occur.
The only way a male player could avoid this would be to hold back in his own efforts and so disadvantage himself and his team. But this reality isn't important, because, again, according to the girl's mother, the same woman who thinks her daughter does not play a physical contact sport, "(they believe) that a girl’s place is not on a field."
The School's Statement : ""Teaching our boys to treat ladies with deference, we choose not to place them in an athletic competition where proper boundaries can only be respected with difficulty."
Unmentioned in the story above, is that the other two times the teams met, the 15 year old girl sat the games out.
Is it really so outrageous that 15 year old boys should be taught that it is not okay to go crashing into into 15 year old girls, but rather, that they should treat them with a little physical courtesy? According to Alice in the comments, it is something to be depressed about. Yet I would be depressed if I did not teach my son that.
Alice - off the top of my head, no. Though feel free to show me up on your googlefu skills. Or else, just put it to commonsense, do those at the top ever get in line behind everyone else? Despite all the impassioned speeches and rending of garments, when it comes down to the crunch, they are always at the head of the queue.
As to how much you pay privately, I imagine that would be a sum dictated by individual health/age circumstance. As I said already, I am not against semi-socialization provided a bit of honesty is employed. That being that Health Care is not free. And when socialization is brought into play, far greater demand is placed upon services, for after all, if a trip to the Dr costs you nothing, why not go? As I asked already, why does it have to be one or the other?
"Today, Canada has free universal health care. The man who made it happen: former Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas. Here’s his story."
There are heavy problems with full out socialization of medicine. As should be apparent when Obama himself states that while he is for such a system, he would not subject himself, his children or his wife to it. The age old story, all are equal, but some are more equal than others.
1) Supporting Islamic fascism
2) Supporting the burying of live babies
3) Supporting those who consume capsules of dead baby flesh
4) Supporting those who picket funerals
5) Thinking women are weak
6) Thinking that women who are raped are the ones who are really to blame
7) Being obsessed with sex
8) Thinking I am a victim because others disagree with me
9) Living in the dark ages
Quite the rap sheet. And what has occasioned this truly epic list of charges? :
"a simple common sense argument that in a physical contact sport, there is strong potential for a 15 year old boy to touch a 15 year old girl in an inadvertently inappropriate manner. And that additionally, in such a situation, allegations could be leveled at the boy by either the girl, or parents."
Well of course, the evidence is damning! Call the cops I say! Heck, I'll do it myself, the weight of my evil doings having finally driven me to my knees!
"How does it not compare? You are saying it wouldn’t happen if she did not choose to stand there."
So lets break this down, to acknowledge a base reality, that in a defined physical game, inadvertent inappropriate touching could occur between a 15 year old girl and 15 year old boys, is to equate blame for this occurrence to the girl in question?
This, despite the fact the acts I have talked of have been inadvertent and not deliberate, and that, I have expressed just as much concern for the boys involved, as I have the girl? Well yes, I see it now, the parallels to a wholly non-consensual attack are vast.
What I see with this argument and those clambering to climb aboard it, is intellectual dishonesty. You seek to ally yourselves with the status of victim a sufferer of sexual assault rightly holds, while painting me as one who would seek to invalidate such a woman. As an act of character assassination it is beneath contempt, and telling of the paucity of your position.
Yes, in a strictly literal sense the situation I describe would not occur if there girl was not there. But then again, nor would the situation occur if someone had not made the baseball diamond. Or heck, invented the game itself. Strict literal interpretations are the last refuge for those bereft of any substantive argument.
I disagree with your comparison completely. You are talking about a physical competition in which a girl in a relatively stationary position will have young men charging directly at her. The potential for inadvertent inappropriate touching here, is high. That base physical reality can simply not be gotten around of.
In such a scenario not only can the girl be victimized, but so too can the boy. What if an allegation was to be leveled against him?
None of this in anyway compares to the blame the victim mentality that so often accompanies cases of rape.
As to your assertion that it is impossible that the parent of the girl, or the girl herself, could not level an accusation at a 15 year old boy who came down atop her? I suggest that you have been blinded by ideology. If you can honestly not see the potential for such a situation to arise, then the gap between us is far to vast for mere words to span.
Now, what have I received in response to this? Aside from ludicrous comparisons to quite obscene practices. Well, it basically boils down to two:
1) 15 year old boys would not notice a 15 year old female form in the context of sport. To which I reply, nonsense.
and
2) Well, what if some of the boys are gay?
Now, this argument directly contradicts the first. Because it acknowledges that there is the potential inadvertent touching of sexual nature to occur, and that satisfaction could be derived from this. (Yet this fact did not deter Alice from using both arguments)
Now, aside from the fact that homosexuality is not nearly as prevalent as any TV show of late would have you believe, lets run with this second hypothetical.
Firstly, for a heterosexual male there are quite obviously more targets of opportunity, targets normally off limits when it comes to teen girl, than in the situation of a gay male youth. As an obvious example, practically all 15 year old girls will cover their chest's when going to the beach. The same can certainly not be said for 15 year old boys.
Secondly, homosexuality is not the equivalent of heterosexuality. There are mass of interactions across a mass of fronts where physical and societal interactions differ. There are undoubtedly male gay youths and adults that play contact sports with other men. Yet, because such contact is accepted between men in these sports, it is not viewed through a sexual prism. (Unless something grotesque were to occur.) The reason for this is that heterosexuality is the default according to which all of society is structured.
NS - as to your use of the word 'children'. I find it completely misleading giving the sexual context of the argument.
Finally, I note no-one has addressed the potential for allegations to leveled at a teen boy in such an interaction with a teen girl. Nor have any of those who have disagreed with me criticized the girl's mother for her statement that the sport her daughter plays does not carry the potential for physical contact. Was she being dishonest, or dim?
"You are of course correct. 15 year old boys are well known for their complete disinterest in laying hands upon the 15 year old female form whenever the specter of sport is brought into play. Why, the fact that it is baseball practically turns them into eunuchs!"
As to how a simple, honest acknowledge of physical realities magically transforms itself into an obsession with sex, well, at least you have not stated that I am in league with Islamic fascists, or those who take dead baby capsules. So that's something for you to cling to.
This bias has hopelessly corrupted your critical thinking faculties.
I find it humorous that you derisively use words such as 'tradition' and 'faith' and 'rationalize' to describe a simple common sense argument that in a physical contact sport, there is strong potential for a 15 year old boy to touch a 15 year old girl in an inadvertently inappropriate manner. And that additionally, in such a situation, allegations could be leveled at the boy by either the girl, or parents.
And what do you compare such reasoning to? Why to people burying babies of course! And also those who consume capsules of baby flesh! And not to forget, those who picket funerals! And why wouldn't you? The similarities are obvious!
Not Surprised, I congratulate you. I had thought the inanity bar set unsurpassably high with the arguments already ranged against me that:
a) 15 year old boys would not notice a 15 year old female body because they were playing sport (NS - note the age give, 15 years old, not the far more ambiguous 'children' that you dishonestly employ)
and
b) my argument is comparable to that used by Islamic fascists who enforce the wearing of the burka by the women in their society.
But you have sailed easily over that mark. A feat bespeaking a dedication to your art that stretches the span of many years.
It’s not like the female body is poisonous, they are just humans for christ sake! It’s a sports game, not a sexual situation. Jeez!"
You are of course correct. 15 year old boys are well known for their complete disinterest in laying hands upon the 15 year old female form whenever the specter of sport is brought into play. Why, the fact that it is baseball practically turns them into eunuchs!
"Craig, do you realize that your argument “shun females to protect each sides’ sexual purity” is EXACTLY what muslims use to enfoce the wearing to hijabs and burkas and shadors?"
So to believe that 15 year old boys (minors, though in full puberty) should not play a heavy contact sport in which they could potentially (inadvertently) inappropriately touch a 15 year old girl (also a minor) makes me a tacit supporter of Islamic fascism? Who knew?
Tell me oh enlightened ones, what would happen to one of those teenage boys if either the teen girl, or one of the parents, cried that such inadvertent touching was actually on purpose? The probability of such an occurrence is all too real. And has been preceded by fights on field resulting in assault charges.
My daughter is not in her teens yet, but according to you I would live in the dark ages if, when she turns 15, I would not want 15 year old boys barreling into her and potentially (albeit inadvertently) touching her in a manner in which, if it occurred off of the baseball diamond, would invite the attention of the authorities? That being your position, it is safe to say that your values are very different to my own.
Aside from that, albeit wholly unwittingly on your part, you acknowledge that the daughter's mother is indeed obtuse and that her daughter is playing a game in which physical contact is a very real prospect.
Alice, do not worry, it is I who stands in the minority, the number of men who will afford you no consideration at all for you gender grows by leaps and bounds year after year.
BTW, having watched my wife give birth I indeed know what women are capable of. I also know that if I ran my 250lbs into her at full clip she would not be getting up again anytime soon. It's a little thing called physics, whereby the heavier the mass at a given speed the greater the force it strikes with.
Whether the stronger male crashes into her and hurts her, or, in the collision, lays hands upon her breasts, or collides with other areas if he comes down upon her, no intellectually honest person could deny that there is the potential for physical contact of an inappropriate nature to occur.
The only way a male player could avoid this would be to hold back in his own efforts and so disadvantage himself and his team. But this reality isn't important, because, again, according to the girl's mother, the same woman who thinks her daughter does not play a physical contact sport, "(they believe) that a girl’s place is not on a field."
The School's Statement : ""Teaching our boys to treat ladies with deference, we choose not to place them in an athletic competition where proper boundaries can only be respected with difficulty."
Unmentioned in the story above, is that the other two times the teams met, the 15 year old girl sat the games out.
Is it really so outrageous that 15 year old boys should be taught that it is not okay to go crashing into into 15 year old girls, but rather, that they should treat them with a little physical courtesy? According to Alice in the comments, it is something to be depressed about. Yet I would be depressed if I did not teach my son that.
As to how much you pay privately, I imagine that would be a sum dictated by individual health/age circumstance. As I said already, I am not against semi-socialization provided a bit of honesty is employed. That being that Health Care is not free. And when socialization is brought into play, far greater demand is placed upon services, for after all, if a trip to the Dr costs you nothing, why not go? As I asked already, why does it have to be one or the other?
"Today, Canada has free universal health care. The man who made it happen: former Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas. Here’s his story."
There are heavy problems with full out socialization of medicine. As should be apparent when Obama himself states that while he is for such a system, he would not subject himself, his children or his wife to it. The age old story, all are equal, but some are more equal than others.