Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Are we arguing in quick sand? Don't shift the issue.
The point of that example was to dispute whether or not one could tell whether a person, deemed too inferior to participate in a sport, would provide inspiration to their 13 year old fans if they gained access and could compete.
TM
|
And my point, which I swear to God I will let be after your next reply no mattter how good it will be, is that
presently there's no need to see women's leagues as the inferior ones, any more than it is necessary to say heavyweights are better than bantamweight and anyone who was the world bantamweight champion was only just that if the international boxing sanctioning authorities would have let him fight outside of his weight class. I may know nothing about sports, but allowing the "best" bantamweights to fight the lightweights and featherweights "if they can compete" just relegates all of the competitors in weight classes below heavyweight as second class citizens. So open divisions are good for the best individuals but bad for the newly-"inferior" sex-qualified league. That seems like a value worth putting on the table, no?
But if the board has moved on to the more interesting question of whether an NYT columnist is inappropriately elitist, or just elitist enough, I will leave my argument at that.
