Difference between revisions of "Talk:2012 Summer Olympics"

Revision as of 19:30, July 1, 2012

"1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S."

Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. JeffreyB 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, "Countries with a record of supporting young athletes"/"Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork" or "Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment"/"Countries where fitness is held as an important value"? JeffreyB 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Category 3 is sports-specific in the U.S., so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--Andy Schlafly 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. JeffreyB 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

There is nothing "rhetorical" about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, Christianity, which liberals never want to credit).--Andy Schlafly 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? JeffreyB 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to Olympics 2012 that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--Andy Schlafly 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow "taught a lesson" by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. JeffreyB 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that Tim Tebow, after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's NFL playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--Andy Schlafly 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Euro 2012

Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --FrederickT3 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

The Netherlands is a big same-sex marriage country, so no surprise there. Both Spain and Italy are very liberal, so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--Andy Schlafly 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. JeffreyB 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Deny it all you like, but ideologies do have consequences. Show me a sports team of atheists and I'll show you a team that's not going to win the championship.--Andy Schlafly 15:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

So all of those Soviet medal wins in the Olympics, or in international hockey, all of the medal wins by Chinese teams--they were all believers of one sort or another? JeffreyB 15:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Also, if Spain and Italy are both "very liberal", that means a liberal team is guaranteed to win the championship. Guess it pays to be "very liberal!" JeffreyB 15:30, 1 July 2012 (EDT)