Supreme Court rules against LGBTQ

#301
#301
615vols said:
Explaining what I mean isn’t backtracking. I’ve stated the same thing to you repeatedly, and you have confirmed that you are indeed too stupid to understand. You ever figure out why everyone else in the thread is calling you Luther, embarrassing, stupid, etc? 😂
Click to expand...
It’s not backtracking to go from “none of it mattered” to “somewhat squandered” to “well okay, most of it mattered but they lost an opportunity…” ?

You ever figure out why I don’t care if somebody who thinks that ship floats calls me stupid?
 
#302
#302
RockyTop85 said:
It’s not backtracking to go from “none of it mattered” to “somewhat squandered” to “well okay, most of it mattered but they lost an opportunity…” ?

You ever figure out why I don’t care if somebody who thinks that ship floats calls me stupid?
Click to expand...

No, it’s not back tracking to people who have basic reading comprehension skills.
 
#303
#303
85SugarVol said:
Again, I think the big difference is that steroids was in the shadows. And they don’t let them play - it’s against the rules.

The outrage would have been much greater if they had openly used and been allowed to compete. The outrage today would be huge if steroid users were allowed to compete.
Click to expand...
That seems backwards.

Competitors subversively going around the rules is deceptive and reflects on the competitor.
Making bad rules in advance reflects on those who made the rules, but everybody knew the rules when they started.
It also doesn’t seem to be accurate when you account for sports where there is only the barest veil of plausible deniability.
 
#305
#305
RockyTop85 said:
Well, at least now it’s apparent why you don’t understand what a contradiction is.
Click to expand...

Remember when you equated hendon hooker missing out on the heisman ceremony to women being forced to compete against biological men in terms of fairness? 😂
 
#307
#307
RockyTop85 said:
That seems backwards.

Competitors subversively going around the rules is deceptive and reflects on the competitor.
Making bad rules in advance reflects on those who made the rules, but everybody knew the rules when they started.
It also doesn’t seem to be accurate when you account for sports where there is only the barest veil of plausible deniability.
Click to expand...
There was nothing subversive about Lia swimming with girls. It was open, and celebrated.

I guess it falls into the bad rules bucket. If the argument is the outrage should be with the NCAA, and not Lia, I agree with that.
 
#308
#308
RockyTop85 said:
Baseball was also huge. And, yes, to @whodeycin85, there were people mad but it was baseball fans and it still wasn’t inserted into conversations like this, nobody tried to make a political issue of it, and people didn’t just fly into a blind rage and ignore what was actually being discussed.

Most women’s collegiate athletics are more on par with professional CrossFit.
Click to expand...
It didn't go political because it didn't effect everyone...the trans issue is sports is the same use as trans in the locker room or bathroom..it's the stating point to taking away womens rights...or God forbid spaces for them to be safe. Steroids in a professional sport doesn't raise to many alarms outside of the fan base...but think about unfair practices of SMU resulting in the death penalty in college football. That is still referenced today years later...and people till got outraged until NIL..and people still have issues with it.....
 
#309
#309
EasternVol said:
So socialism is your solution to discrimination?
Click to expand...

If the majority are wanting to literally put their money where their mouth is, yes. Otherwise, they shouldn't talk the talk if they're not willing to walk the walk.

It's easy to virtue-signal when it doesn't cost you anything.
 
#310
#310
615vols said:
Remember when you equated hendon hooker missing out on the heisman ceremony to women being forced to compete against biological men in terms of fairness? 😂
Click to expand...

I remember pointing to that as an example of organizational credibility being squandered by the organization defying the obvious when handing out honorifics and that being denied honorifics by an organization without credibility didn’t diminish athletic achievement.

As I recall, that’s where you started squealing about years of hard work not mattering because they still couldn’t beat a man, you laughably pretending that the meaning of “backtrack” changed in the last 15 minutes, and us coming full circle on the matter of guarding one’s credibility.

615vols said:
Just out of curiosity, do you agree that Leah Thomas for example is a man?
Click to expand...

I’m with @85SugarVol on this. I’m fine with honoring her personal preferences, but that doesn’t put her on an even playing field with female athletes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
#311
#311
whodeycin85 said:
It didn't go political because it didn't effect everyone...the trans issue is sports is the same use as trans in the locker room or bathroom..it's the stating point to taking away womens rights...or God forbid spaces for them to be safe. Steroids in a professional sport doesn't raise too many alarms outside of the fan base...but think about unfair practices of SMU resulting in the death penalty in college football. That is still referenced today years later...and people till got outraged until NIL..and people still have issues with it.....
Click to expand...

Nah. This became political because republicans took it on the face with moderate suburban families in 2020 and 2022, and they’re pushing it as an issue because they think it bridges the gap between the lunatic fringe that they now need and more moderate voters.

And it might. Who knows.
 
#313
#313
kiddiedoc said:
Since I obviously understand anatomy, genetics, and endocrinology better than certain posters in this forum, that's not surprising at all.
Click to expand...

My HS girlfriend was one of the top single A tennis players in the state, I could barely return her serve. I suck at tennis but still she could hit that ball hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol and kiddiedoc
#314
#314
RockyTop85 said:
I remember pointing to that as an example of organizational credibility being squandered by the organization defying the obvious when handing out honorifics and that being denied honorifics by an organization without credibility didn’t diminish athletic achievement.

As I recall, that’s where you started squealing about years of hard work not mattering because they still couldn’t beat a man, you laughably pretending that the meaning of “backtrack” changed in the last 15 minutes, and us coming full circle on the matter of guarding one’s credibility.



I’m with @85SugarVol on this. I’m fine with honoring her personal preferences, but that doesn’t put her on an even playing field with female athletes.
Click to expand...

Yeah it was an idiotic comparison you made lol, it’s even funnier watching you try to save face so thanks. You’ve been abused quite a bit in this thread, maybe next time just know when to bow out .
 
#315
#315
hog88 said:
My HS girlfriend was one of the top single A tennis players in the state, I could barely return her serve. I suck at tennis but still she could hit that ball hard.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I doubt she would fare well against Isner.

I have never had great groundstrokes, but my serve gave me a huge advantage when playing mixed doubles.
 
#317
#317
hog88 said:
My HS girlfriend was one of the top single A tennis players in the state, I could barely return her serve. I suck at tennis but still she could hit that ball hard.
Click to expand...
Talk about making comparisons to a bygone era.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#322
#322
615vols said:
Yeah it was an idiotic comparison you made lol, it’s even funnier watching you try to save face so thanks. You’ve been abused quite a bit in this thread, maybe next time just know when to bow out .
Click to expand...

The purpose of that analogy was emphasized two different places in the post and there’s a transitional phrase, for anyone stupid enough to miss one of them. Going 0-3 on that is abysmal.

RockyTop85 said:
…it is only opinion of the organization that the competition was an accurate test.

As an analog, look at the Heisman trophy. Do you think it’s fair that Hendon Hooker didn’t get an invite to the ceremony? Does that change the season that he had? Does it decrease his passing yards or touchdowns? Does it increase the number of interceptions? Do you consider his season a disappointment because the Heisman voters didn’t give him that recognition? Or do you just consider the selection process flawed and stupid?
Click to expand...

You already look foolish for saying you didn’t backtrack. No need to compound it with this pathetic attempt at a recovery.
 
Last edited:
#323
#323
85SugarVol said:
There was nothing subversive about Lia swimming with girls. It was open, and celebrated.

I guess it falls into the bad rules bucket. If the argument is the outrage should be with the NCAA, and not Lia, I agree with that.
Click to expand...

I think it’s like 85% the rule. I’m saying deceit is more outrage provoking than a bad rule. And who celebrated it? I didn’t even know about it until it started producing skid marks on here.
 
#324
#324
creekdipper said:
If the majority are wanting to literally put their money where their mouth is, yes. Otherwise, they shouldn't talk the talk if they're not willing to walk the walk.

It's easy to virtue-signal when it doesn't cost you anything.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, alright then.
 
#325
#325
RockyTop85 said:
I think it’s like 85% the rule. I’m saying deceit is more outrage provoking than a bad rule. And who celebrated it? I didn’t even know about it until it started producing skid marks on here.
Click to expand...
I agree it’s more the rule. And not everyone celebrated it. Many of the outfits and factions that championed Caitlin Jenner in the beginning were very vocal and pro Lia swimming against girls.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top