Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Or at least the standard absurd interpretation of it does.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschoo ... 04955.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Could have posted this in "Other Sports" but it's political. Involves a manifestation of the twisted "Progressive" or "Liberal" thought process.

Since when does "seating" have to be handicap accessible. It's a view of the game that has to be handicap accessible, not the seats.

CAA Flagship wrote:Since when does "seating" have to be handicap accessible. It's a view of the game that has to be handicap accessible, not the seats.

My thought on that while I was watching the news story was:

"So, handicapped people have more access now?"

A manifestation of the typical Liberal/Progressive mindset: Better that NOBODY have access than have anybody be excluded. Equality by virtue of creating want for everybody so everybody is equally miserable. That, to Liberals/Progressives, is Nirvana. They might never admit it. But that's how they are.

I realize that JSO is trolling for liberals here, let me know when conservatives line up to start opposing Title IX and handicap access.

A few years ago my son's HS wrestling team emerged as a state power. The schedule was upgraded and the team started travelling further to get better competition. Some of the parents started a booster club to pay for the additional expenses.

It didn't take long for parents of kids playing other sports to complain that wrestling was being treated better than everyone else. The school board sided with them and the booster was forced to alter that way it operated.

I live in a fairly conservative part of Chester County and I know many of the people involved, few if any would be considered liberals. Overreaction, jealousy and stupidity do not follow party lines.

BlueHen86 wrote:I realize that JSO is trolling for liberals here, let me know when conservatives line up to start opposing Title IX and handicap access.

A few years ago my son's HS wrestling team emerged as a state power. The schedule was upgraded and the team started travelling further to get better competition. Some of the parents started a booster club to pay for the additional expenses.

It didn't take long for parents of kids playing other sports to complain that wrestling was being treated better than everyone else. The school board sided with them and the booster was forced to alter that way it operated.

I live in a fairly conservative part of Chester County and I know many of the people involved, few if any would be considered liberals. Overreaction, jealousy and stupidity do not follow party lines.

Yeah, next thing you know they'll start making accommodations for the hearing impaired. Fucking egalitarians...

Title IX is about sex discrimination and it's comical that it has evolved into this kind of stuff. I would think JSO is not anticipating having anyone here disagree with this so I'm not sure it would count as "trolling".

Pwns wrote:Title IX is about sex discrimination and it's comical that it has evolved into this kind of stuff. I would think JSO is not anticipating having anyone here disagree with this so I'm not sure it would count as "trolling".

If that were true he wouldn't have put it in the poli forum and blamed liberals. When are conservatives and the GOP going to put an end to Title IX?

BlueHen86 wrote:

Pwns wrote:Title IX is about sex discrimination and it's comical that it has evolved into this kind of stuff. I would think JSO is not anticipating having anyone here disagree with this so I'm not sure it would count as "trolling".

If that were true he wouldn't have put it in the poli forum and blamed liberals. When are conservatives and the GOP going to put an end to Title IX?

Most don't want to get rid of Title IX. Maybe JSO does since he doesn't like anti-discrimination laws, but Title IX and how it has been applied to sports are two different things.

And how is it conservatives fault that nothing has changed with Title IX and sports? Is it liberal politicians or liberal people's fault that most states don't recognize same-sex marriages?

Pwns wrote:Title IX is about sex discrimination and it's comical that it has evolved into this kind of stuff. I would think JSO is not anticipating having anyone here disagree with this so I'm not sure it would count as "trolling".

I'm still laughing at this comment. Are there any topics in the poli forum that we all agree on? I would expect someone here to argue no matter what I posted. I could post that the sun rises in the east, and someone would probably take issue with that.

Pwns wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
If that were true he wouldn't have put it in the poli forum and blamed liberals. When are conservatives and the GOP going to put an end to Title IX?

Most don't want to get rid of Title IX. Maybe JSO does since he doesn't like anti-discrimination laws, but Title IX and how it has been applied to sports are two different things.

And how is it conservatives fault that nothing has changed with Title IX and sports? Is it liberal politicians or liberal people's fault that most states don't recognize same-sex marriages?

Are they trying to do away with Title IX? I don't recall seeing that as part of their platform. I don't recall any politicians campaigning to end Title IX.

Your comparison doesn't work. Liberals are fighting for same sex marriages, I don't see conservatives fighting to end Title IX. Same sex marriage may be a liberal/conservative issue, Title IX is not.

BlueHen86 wrote:

Pwns wrote:Title IX is about sex discrimination and it's comical that it has evolved into this kind of stuff. I would think JSO is not anticipating having anyone here disagree with this so I'm not sure it would count as "trolling".

I'm still laughing at this comment. Are there any topics in the poli forum that we all agree on? I would expect someone here to argue no matter what I posted. I could post that the sun rises in the east, and someone would probably take issue with that.

I think you would find nearly unanimous agreement on this board about marijuana and same-sex marriage. And no one ever seems to quarrel when we talk about energy and discussing that nuclear power should be part of the solution, either. That's not to say that everyone agrees on these issues but just about everyone does. There isn't a lot of PC liberalism or social conservatism on this board. I sincerely doubt that anyone here would really defend what happened in the story in the OP as fighting gender discrimination.

And yeah, you are right that there are more people that are fighting for SSM (including OBama) now that there is a clear majority support and that the issue isn't deciding elections. Do you really think Clinton really cared whether or not gays could get married when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act? With the return of identity politics and all of the insane "war on women" rhetoric there is a high cost to try to change how Title IX affects things like sports.

Pwns wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I'm still laughing at this comment. Are there any topics in the poli forum that we all agree on? I would expect someone here to argue no matter what I posted. I could post that the sun rises in the east, and someone would probably take issue with that.

I think you would find nearly unanimous agreement on this board about marijuana and same-sex marriage. And no one ever seems to quarrel when we talk about energy and discussing that nuclear power should be part of the solution, either. That's not to say that everyone agrees on these issues but just about everyone does. There isn't a lot of PC liberalism or social conservatism on this board. I sincerely doubt that anyone here would really defend what happened in the story in the OP as fighting gender discrimination.

And yeah, you are right that there are more people that are fighting for SSM (including OBama) now that there is a clear majority support and that the issue isn't deciding elections. Do you really think Clinton really cared whether or not gays could get married when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act? With the return of identity politics and all of the insane "war on women" rhetoric there is a high cost to try to change how Title IX affects things like sports.

No, there are posters here that are anti weed and gay marriage. It's not a majority but surely isn't unanimous.

Yeah, next thing you know they'll start making accommodations for the hearing impaired. **** egalitarians…

I just mentioned the handicapped accommodations thing because it was mentioned in a response. But since it was brought up and mentioned hearing impairment:

Yes, I am opposed to the idea of something like the Americans With Disabilities Act even though I have a deaf son. So is my deaf son. He does believes it is his job to overcome his difficulties and adapt. He does not believe others in the society should be forced to accommodate him.

Here is the thing about Title IX, by the way. The applicable language is this:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,

As I've written before, what that says and how it's being "interpreted" are two different things. Just the fact that there are separate athletic programs for females violates that language. If a guy asks to try out for the LSU soccer team, for example, he's going to be told "no." And the reason he's going to be told "no" is that he is a guy and it is a female sports team. He's going to be "…on the basis of sex, excluded from participation…" on the soccer team. VERY clearly a violation of what the language actually says.

To really follow that language, everybody would eliminate the distinction between male and female sports. There would be no sports such that males are excluded from participation. And who made and did not make each team would be based strictly on how good they are. And if a female sprinter went out for the track team and did not make it because she couldn't run a fast enough time she would be being excluded on the basis of not having sufficient ability. It would not be "on the basis of sex."

The law itself? I don't like the whole idea of a bunch of money going to the Federal government then the Federal government re-distributing it with strings attached. But beyond that, if we're going to enforce that law, we ought to enforce what it actually says instead of distorting it through Judicial decisions into something else.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Yeah, next thing you know they'll start making accommodations for the hearing impaired. **** egalitarians…

I just mentioned the handicapped accommodations thing because it was mentioned in a response. But since it was brought up and mentioned hearing impairment:

Yes, I am opposed to the idea of something like the Americans With Disabilities Act even though I have a deaf son. So is my deaf son. He does believes it is his job to overcome his difficulties and adapt. He does not believe others in the society should be forced to accommodate him.

Well if your deaf son says so then I guess it should be repealed.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Yeah, next thing you know they'll start making accommodations for the hearing impaired. **** egalitarians…

I just mentioned the handicapped accommodations thing because it was mentioned in a response. But since it was brought up and mentioned hearing impairment:

Yes, I am opposed to the idea of something like the Americans With Disabilities Act even though I have a deaf son. So is my deaf son. He does believes it is his job to overcome his difficulties and adapt. He does not believe others in the society should be forced to accommodate him.

Not buying it. I think a deaf person would have a real problem functioning in society if there weren't at least some accommodations. The only argument is how much accommodation is needed. To his credit, it seems like your son wants as little accommodation as possible; but it would be really tough for him if he didn't get any.

Not buying it. I think a deaf person would have a real problem functioning in society if there weren't at least some accommodations. The only argument is how much accommodation is needed. To his credit, it seems like your son wants as little accommodation as possible; but it would be really tough for him if he didn't get any.

I think you would be surprised at how well a deaf person can do given today's technology. My son, for instance, lives and socializes in the hearing world pretty normally due to having a Cochlear Implant. He does not need any assistance in communicating with others in his day to day life.

Now, a Cochlear Implant costs a lot of money. But nobody was forced to give him one. I had a job with insurance that covered the procedure and the equipment. And the center we worked with had programs for helping children who do not benefit from such insurance to acquire Cochlear Implants through charity.

I also think that, to a large extent, businesses and institutions will accommodate people on a voluntary basis.

What I'm talking about being opposed to is laws forcing people to accommodate handicapped people.

f that were true he wouldn't have put it in the poli forum and blamed liberals. f that were true he wouldn't have put it in the poli forum and blamed liberals. When are conservatives and the GOP going to put an end to Title IX?

Ideally one would refer to the philosophy and not the individuals holding it. But if attacking political ideas and philosophies is "trolling" then political discussion is going to be trolling. You can't have a political discussion without the possibility of offending some people's sensibilities. Not unless it's a discussion where nobody disagrees with anybody else and there aren't a whole lot of political discussions like that.

The GOP is not going to end Title IX or, more importantly, the way in which it is implemented. But the reason we have what we have in terms of Title IX and the way it is "interpreted" arises from what I referenced as the mindset of Liberals/Progressives. Call it Liberalism. Call is Progressivism. Call it Egalitarianism

But part of it is the approach, as the cliche goes, of saying that "equal opportunity" is desired while demanding that equal results be achieved. And the way Title IX is being implemented is like that. It's not about equal opportunity. It's not about presenting everybody with the same opportunities regardless of sex then letting the chips fall where they may based on peoples' abilities. It's about working toward a situation in which the proportion of women in a University on athletic scholarships is equivalent to the proportion of men in that University on athletic scholarships.

There are many instances, I think, in which policies and programs exist that would never have come to be if the GOP had had its way all along but there is no way the GOP will try to eliminate them now due to political considerations. The Social Security program is a classic example. Would not exist if the Republicans had been in control the whole time. It comes from Liberalism/Progressivism. It's an idea that was spawned by that general philosophical perspective. But there is NO way Republicans are now going to try to eliminate it because the population is addicted to it and it would be political suicide.

And so it is with the way in which Title IX is being implemented. I don't think there's anyway what we see now would have arisen if people of the Conservative mindset would have completely controlled things. But they're not going to stridently oppose it now either because they judge that it would not be politically beneficial.

For some reason I keep getting double posts when I use Safari. Still don't know how to just delete them. So I have to do things like write this.

JohnStOnge wrote:

f that were true he wouldn't have put it in the poli forum and blamed liberals. f that were true he wouldn't have put it in the poli forum and blamed liberals. When are conservatives and the GOP going to put an end to Title IX?

Ideally one would refer to the philosophy and not the individuals holding it. But if attacking political ideas and philosophies is "trolling" then political discussion is going to be trolling. You can't have a political discussion without the possibility of offending some people's sensibilities. Not unless it's a discussion where nobody disagrees with anybody else and there aren't a whole lot of political discussions like that.

The GOP is not going to end Title IX or, more importantly, the way in which it is implemented. But the reason we have what we have in terms of Title IX and the way it is "interpreted" arises from what I referenced as the mindset of Liberals/Progressives. Call it Liberalism. Call is Progressivism. Call it Egalitarianism

But part of it is the approach, as the cliche goes, of saying that "equal opportunity" is desired while demanding that equal results be achieved. And the way Title IX is being implemented is like that. It's not about equal opportunity. It's not about presenting everybody with the same opportunities regardless of sex then letting the chips fall where they may based on peoples' abilities. It's about working toward a situation in which the proportion of women in a University on athletic scholarships is equivalent to the proportion of men in that University on athletic scholarships.

There are many instances, I think, in which policies and programs exist that would never have come to be if the GOP had had its way all along but there is no way the GOP will try to eliminate them now due to political considerations. The Social Security program is a classic example. Would not exist if the Republicans had been in control the whole time. It comes from Liberalism/Progressivism. It's an idea that was spawned by that general philosophical perspective. But there is NO way Republicans are now going to try to eliminate it because the population is addicted to it and it would be political suicide.

And so it is with the way in which Title IX is being implemented. I don't think there's anyway what we see now would have arisen if people of the Conservative mindset would have completely controlled things. But they're not going to stridently oppose it now either because they judge that it would not be politically beneficial.

It's one thing to attack the stupidity of a decision, it's another to incorrectly place blame. Unless, of course, you are trolling for a reaction, in which case "blame away".

JohnStOnge wrote:

Not buying it. I think a deaf person would have a real problem functioning in society if there weren't at least some accommodations. The only argument is how much accommodation is needed. To his credit, it seems like your son wants as little accommodation as possible; but it would be really tough for him if he didn't get any.

I think you would be surprised at how well a deaf person can do given today's technology. My son, for instance, lives and socializes in the hearing world pretty normally due to having a Cochlear Implant. He does not need any assistance in communicating with others in his day to day life.

Now, a Cochlear Implant costs a lot of money. But nobody was forced to give him one. I had a job with insurance that covered the procedure and the equipment. And the center we worked with had programs for helping children who do not benefit from such insurance to acquire Cochlear Implants through charity.

I also think that, to a large extent, businesses and institutions will accommodate people on a voluntary basis.

What I'm talking about being opposed to is laws forcing people to accommodate handicapped people.

Who's to say how things would be if we didn't have those laws. Maybe insurance wouldn't have coverage, maybe things wouldn't be invented, maybe businesses wouldn't hire. You may not be as self sufficient as you think.

t's one thing to attack the stupidity of a decision, it's another to incorrectly place blame.

Whether blame is incorrectly placed or not is a matter of opinion. Also at times it can be a matter of error. I'm sure there have been times when I blamed someone or something for something then later found that I was incorrect to do so.

But I don't think this is going to be one of those cases.

JohnStOnge wrote:

t's one thing to attack the stupidity of a decision, it's another to incorrectly place blame.

Whether blame is incorrectly placed or not is a matter of opinion. Also at times it can be a matter of error. I'm sure there have been times when I blamed someone or something for something then later found that I was incorrect to do so.

But I don't think this is going to be one of those cases.

Of course you don't.

Here's another thing one sees a lot from the Liberal/Progressive mindset: Telling you they're not doing something when they're doing it.

Example from the page at http://www.nwlc.org/resource/debunking- ... -athletics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Myth: Title IX requires quotas.

Fact: Title IX does not require quotas; it simply requires that schools allocate participation opportunities in a nondiscriminatory way. Title IX requires schools receiving federal funds to provide female students with equal opportunities to participate in educational programs, including athletics. Because Title IX allows sports teams to be separated by sex, schools decide how many participation opportunities they will give female students. A school can meet the requirement of providing equal opportunities to play if it can demonstrate any one of the following:

Prong 1: The percentages of male and female athletes are substantially proportionate to the percentages of male and female students enrolled; or
Prong 2: It has a history and continuing practice of expanding athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex; or
Prong 3: Its athletics program fully and effectively accommodates the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

The three-part test is lenient and flexible, allowing schools to comply even if they do not satisfy prong one. Contrary to popular belief, schools do not always choose prong one. For example, between 1994 and 1998, of the 74 OCR Title IX participation cases, only 21 schools, or less than one-third, chose prong one as their means of compliance.

Basically saying "It's not pressuring you to move towards having a proportion of females with athletic scholarships comparable to the proportion of males with athletic scholarships" when the effect of those three prongs is clearly to do that.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4e8iAofnrw[/youtube]

JohnStOnge wrote:Here's another thing one sees a lot from the Liberal/Progressive mindset: Telling you they're not doing something when they're doing it.

If you really believe that only liberals do that then there is no need to read further. You are biased and misguided. Really, you just are.