Craig Telfer is setting NCAA track and field records

PFD

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
16,221
18,830
0
Dallas
It’s the most woke movement of the day, that biological men, in the day and age of everything being sexist and some sort of appropriation, should compete against biological females.
Yep.

I can think of few things that advance feminism more than forcing biological women to compete against biological men.

And, remember, we shouldn't assume that biological men have physical advantages over biological women.

Progressivism is one big game of pretend.
 

Hiphopster

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Mar 12, 2012
15,491
1,865
0
Yep.

I can think of few things that advance feminism more than forcing biological women to compete against biological men.

And, remember, we shouldn't assume that biological men have physical advantages over biological women.

Progressivism is one big game of pretend.
This is asinine. Thankfully, the affected population will remain miniscule so it's not worth getting worked up over.

Male biological birth ought to prevent competition with biological females in such events. Males are obviously endowed generally with larger muscle mass and thus have a natural advantage even if hormone supplementation would diminish that somewhat. It's clearly not fair.

I'm all about having your surgeries if that's what you feel is necessary for your happiness but do not expect to compete with others and then claim victory if you have an inherent advantage.

But one point of contention: lumping the two that this person ought to have the right to alter their physical anatomy with having a right to compete against people of their new gender is not progressivism. It's authoritarian. Theres quite a leap in logic between the two.
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
6,988
12,678
0
It’s the most woke movement of the day, that biological men, in the day and age of everything being sexist and some sort of appropriation, should compete against biological females.
Well here's Rapper Zuby being very woke as he self identifies as a woman and breaks the British womens deadlift record

https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/1100348562041462784

https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/1100350944095678465

he then went ahead and broke the bench press record as well

https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/1100348562041462784

https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/1100379186160697344

He was questioned by some and had the perfect response in return.

https://twitter.com/HighOnHill1/status/1100388023890530305
 
  • Like
Reactions: mister serious

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
6,988
12,678
0
Yep.

I can think of few things that advance feminism more than forcing biological women to compete against biological men.

And, remember, we shouldn't assume that biological men have physical advantages over biological women.

Progressivism is one big game of pretend.
I just know that I want The Donald to proclaim himself to be a lesbian woman for at least one day. This will simultaneously cement his legacy as being the first gay female President married to an immigrant woman and put the dem party, lbtquesr community, progressive, SJWs and everyone else on the defensive. They can either get behind it or confirm its not real. Their choice.
 
Last edited:

TexasPalladin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Nov 30, 2008
7,799
12,057
0
I just know that I want The Donald to proclaim himself to be a lesbian woman for at least one day. This will simultaneously cement his legacy as being the first gay female President married to an immigrant woman and put the dem party, lbtquesr community, progressive, SJWs and everyone else on the defensive. The can either get behind it or confirm its not real. Their choice.
Small hands as confirmation?


Semper Fi
 

bilbo t baggins

Member Who Talks
Aug 13, 2018
524
1,018
0
This is asinine. Thankfully, the affected population will remain miniscule so it's not worth getting worked up over.

Male biological birth ought to prevent competition with biological females in such events. Males are obviously endowed generally with larger muscle mass and thus have a natural advantage even if hormone supplementation would diminish that somewhat. It's clearly not fair.

I'm all about having your surgeries if that's what you feel is necessary for your happiness but do not expect to compete with others and then claim victory if you have an inherent advantage.

But one point of contention: lumping the two that this person ought to have the right to alter their physical anatomy with having a right to compete against people of their new gender is not progressivism. It's authoritarian. Theres quite a leap in logic between the two.
You're the first person I've seen make that correlation
 

Hiphopster

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Mar 12, 2012
15,491
1,865
0
As if transgenders themselves, who make up such a miniscule percentage of the population, are in any position to foist this notion that biological men should compete with females.
Correct. I'm saying it may be being done under the banner of progressivism. But it's not.

You've never seen me state progressivism is pure. Sometimes it's spread its wings too far or too fast. It's not perfect. Certainly no political philosophy is. But its the belief system that allows the most people the opportunity to live in equality. And to have equal opportunity. This is not equality though. This is advantageous which defeats the basic premise of progressivism. Somebody took it too far. It just needs to be checked better from time to time.
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
6,988
12,678
0
Correct. I'm saying it may be being done under the banner of progressivism. But it's not.

You've never seen me state progressivism is pure. Sometimes it's spread its wings too far or too fast. It's not perfect. Certainly no political philosophy is. But its the belief system that allows the most people the opportunity to live in equality. And to have equal opportunity. This is not equality though. This is advantageous which defeats the basic premise of progressivism. Somebody took it too far. It just needs to be checked better from time to time.
Wrong. I might have gone along had you said, "a" belief system but I doubt it.
 

Horns05

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
13,814
7,904
0
AXE CAP
So what happens to the women’s teams in college if they are all he/she’s??? Do they form another league?
 

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,135
4,236
0
Texas
Correct. I'm saying it may be being done under the banner of progressivism. But it's not.

You've never seen me state progressivism is pure. Sometimes it's spread its wings too far or too fast. It's not perfect. Certainly no political philosophy is. But its the belief system that allows the most people the opportunity to live in equality. And to have equal opportunity. This is not equality though. This is advantageous which defeats the basic premise of progressivism. Somebody took it too far. It just needs to be checked better from time to time.
Have you thought of emigrating?

The Gini index is the most widely used measure of financial equality. It's been criticized for not handling the extremes well. The Palma index focuses on the differences between the extremes. The top five (Gini) are 1. Ukraine, 2. Slovenia, 3. Norway, 4. Slovak Republic, 5. Czech Republic. The Palma index isn't that different: 1. Ukraine, 2. Norway, 3. Slovenia, 4.Slovakia 5. Kazakhstan

Huh, who knew The Ukraine and Kazakhstan were so progressive? For that matter, who can tell me (without looking it up) what the difference between the Slovak Republic and Slovenia is? Actually, of course, in the case of Ukraine and Kazakhstan (I don't know a damn thing about Slovenia or the Slovak Republic, and don't really want to), it's mostly that just about everyone is poor. Afghanistan is very probably very near the top of the list, but God alone really knows, since there simply aren't any data. (If you want to move there, I think there are several people on this forum who can tell you what it's like from first-hand experience.) Using the GINI index, everyone being dirt poor except the ruling elite is by far the easiest way to achieve income and wealth equality. Thus the success of Venezuela allowing the great majority of their citizens who haven't fled to starve equally.

I assume you'd choose Norway, but it's kind of a special case in that they have a small, homogeneous population and perhaps most importantly, North Sea Oil. Not very Green that, but they can pretend they don't have anything to do with that nasty oil money since all the production is well offshore and out of sight. But it's declining fast. They've saved up a lot for when it does, but by the same token, they really don't want the average say, American, to move and become a citizen. Unless you have a special skill and a job waiting, family there, or you are a refugee, you better forget emigrating there. Maybe you could move to Syria first, establish citizenship there and then flee for your life. That would probably be your best bet.

The other Scandinavian countries do pretty well by being capitalist, free market economies with a welfare state on top of that to provide for more equality of income. Even the refugees do pretty well; every country needs people to do the really nasty work, or be nannies. Again though, unless you have family there, or a special skill allowing you to get a work visa, you'd better find a way to become a refugee.

Unless you're really rich, of course, then you just live pretty much anywhere you like on a tourist visa and don't work or draw those benefits. Well, I think you'd have free health care. Just don't get really sick and need treatment in a hurry. I'm sure there's a requirement come back to the U.S. every 6 months (or whatever their requirement is) and renew your tourist visa, but of course for the very rich, lots of things are easy. Which, I suppose, is why so many of them like progressivism.
 
Last edited:

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
6,988
12,678
0
Have you thought of emigrating?

The Gini index is the most widely used measure of financial equality. It's been criticized for not handling the extremes well. The Palma index focuses on the differences between the extremes. The top five (Gini) are 1. Ukraine, 2. Slovenia, 3. Norway, 4. Slovak Republic, 5. Czech Republic. The Palma index isn't that different: 1. Ukraine, 2. Norway, 3. Slovenia, 4.Slovakia 5. Kazakhstan

Huh, who knew The Ukraine and Kazakhstan were so progressive? For that matter, who can tell me (without looking it up) what the difference between the Slovak Republic and Slovenia is? Actually, of course, in the case of Ukraine and Kazakhstan (I don't know a damn thing about Slovenia or the Slovak Republic, and don't really want to), it's mostly that just about everyone is poor. Afghanistan is very probably very near the top of the list, but God alone really knows, since there simply aren't any data. (If you want to move there, I think there are several people on this forum who can tell you what it's like from first-hand experience.) Using the GINI index, everyone being dirt poor except the ruling elite is by far the easiest way to achieve income and wealth equality. Thus the success of Venezuela allowing the great majority of their citizens who haven't fled to starve equally.

I assume you'd choose Norway, but it's kind of a special case in that they have a small, homogeneous population and perhaps most importantly, North Sea Oil. Not very Green that, but they can pretend they don't have anything to do with that nasty oil money since all the production is well offshore and out of sight. But it's declining fast. They've saved up a lot for when it does, but by the same token, they really don't want the average say, American, to move and become a citizen. Unless you have a special skill and a job waiting, family there, or you are a refugee, you better forget emigrating there. Maybe you could move to Syria first, establish citizenship there and then flee for your life. That would probably be your best bet.

The other Scandinavian countries do pretty well by being capitalist, free market economies with a welfare state on top of that to provide for more equality of income. Even the refugees do pretty well; every country needs people to do the really nasty work, or be nannies. Again though, unless you have family there, or a special skill allowing you to get a work visa, you'd better find a way to become a refugee.


Unless you're really rich, of course, then you just live pretty much anywhere you like on a tourist visa and don't work or draw those benefits. Well, I think you'd have free health care. Just don't get really sick and need treatment in a hurry. I'm sure there's a requirement come back to the U.S. every 6 months (or whatever their requirement is) and renew your tourist visa, but of course for the very rich, lots of things are easy. Which, I suppose, is why so many of them like progressivism.

That's good stuff.

If you haven't already read it you might enjoy, "Scandinavian Unexceptionalism: Culture, Markets and the Failure of Third Way Socialism (Readings in Political Economy) by Nima Sanandaji. It covers a lot of the bold and more.

It actually spells out exactly what you said about Norway including declining oil reserves that prop up their economy and support the free stuff. It also goes into detail about the history of the other Nordic countries and their move from a capitalist country from roughly the late 1800's to roughly the 1960's. The switch to a social democracy welfare country was in the late 60's early 70's. It goes into detail how this happened, why it happened and the result of it. Pretty fascinating stuff. It also dismantles the idea that the people of the Nordic countries are always at the top of those surveys/poll/studies as the happiest, healthiest etc. because they live in a socialist country. (HINT: They were at the top of those same surveys/polls/studies prior to the 70s. Its a culture thing not a socialist thing).
 

Eric Nahlin

Recruiting Editor
Staff member
Dec 19, 2011
57,516
281,414
0
Thoreau'd on Walden
That's good stuff.

If you haven't already read it you might enjoy, "Scandinavian Unexceptionalism: Culture, Markets and the Failure of Third Way Socialism (Readings in Political Economy) by Nima Sanandaji. It covers a lot of the bold and more.

It actually spells out exactly what you said about Norway including declining oil reserves that prop up their economy and support the free stuff. It also goes into detail about the history of the other Nordic countries and their move from a capitalist country from roughly the late 1800's to roughly the 1960's. The switch to a social democracy welfare country was in the late 60's early 70's. It goes into detail how this happened, why it happened and the result of it. Pretty fascinating stuff. It also dismantles the idea that the people of the Nordic countries are always at the top of those surveys/poll/studies as the happiest, healthiest etc. because they live in a socialist country. (HINT: They were at the top of those same surveys/polls/studies prior to the 70s. Its a culture thing not a socialist thing).
Yeah, Sweden was broke, had a huge boom for 100 years or so, then decided to quit doing what was working. My dad bailed in ‘72 and tells everyone he was born in the wrong country.

“But in one century, everything was changed. Sweden had the fastest economic and social development that its people had ever experienced, and one of the fastest the world had ever seen. Between 1850 and 1950 the average Swedish income multiplied eightfold, while population doubled. Infant mortality fell from 15 to 2 per cent, and average life expectancy rose an incredible 28 years. A poor peasant nation had become one of the world’s richest countries.

Many people abroad think that this was the triumph of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which somehow found the perfect middle way, managing to tax, spend, and regulate Sweden into a more equitable distribution of wealth—without hurting its productive capacity. And so Sweden—a small country of nine million inhabitants in the north of Europe—became a source of inspiration for people around the world who believe in government-led development and distribution.

But there is something wrong with this interpretation. In 1950, when Sweden was known worldwide as the great success story, taxes in Sweden were lower and the public sector smaller than in the rest of Europe and the United States. It was not until then that Swedish politicians started levying taxes and disbursing handouts on a large scale, that is, redistributing the wealth that businesses and workers had already created. Sweden’s biggest social and economic successes took place when Sweden had a laissez-faire economy, and widely distributed wealth preceded the welfare state.”

Basically a bunch of **** Bernie and his fellow socialists fail to mention.

https://www.nassauinstitute.org/article1372/
 

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,135
4,236
0
Texas
That's good stuff.

If you haven't already read it you might enjoy, "Scandinavian Unexceptionalism: Culture, Markets and the Failure of Third Way Socialism (Readings in Political Economy) by Nima Sanandaji. It covers a lot of the bold and more.

It actually spells out exactly what you said about Norway including declining oil reserves that prop up their economy and support the free stuff
Hey, you think I make up everything I post? ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: calvin farquhar

Eric Nahlin

Recruiting Editor
Staff member
Dec 19, 2011
57,516
281,414
0
Thoreau'd on Walden
So you've got family there? You think any of them will adopt HippityHop?
I have way more family over there than here.

I have an uncle who was in parliament and the Secretary General of the Swedish Moderate Party when they surprisingly swept to power in 1979.

Funny story, the first time I met him was 1984. Sweden sent some reps to each of the conventions. He told his buddy he should go to Dallas because Reagan was going to win in a landslide and he’d go to San Francisco to see the losing team. But really he just wanted to come see us (we’re from the Bay Area).

He has some great stories:

Said Jacques Chirac was the biggest asshole he ever met in politics. “And I shared a limo with Nicolae Ceaușescu and his equally awful wife.”

Also had to basically be snuck out of Israel during one of their many conflicts. My aunt was with him and pregnant with my cousin.

But to answer your question, most of my family would be to the left over here but to the right of Hip.