Difference between revisions of "Talk:2012 Summer Olympics"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Same sex marriage and underachievement.)
(Same sex marriage and underachievement.)
Line 69: Line 69:
 
::::Once again, your tired old arguments don't hold any water - obese people - gay or straight are hardly likely to be participating at the games, so trying to make a correlation between a country's political decisions and the performance of individual athletes is - quite frankly - stupid. But I have a feeling that you still can't grasp the idea. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
 
::::Once again, your tired old arguments don't hold any water - obese people - gay or straight are hardly likely to be participating at the games, so trying to make a correlation between a country's political decisions and the performance of individual athletes is - quite frankly - stupid. But I have a feeling that you still can't grasp the idea. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
 
:::::There's a legal precedent - "He Who Asserts Must Prove"... so, let's see your proof that a government passing same-sex marriage laws affects individual sportsmens' performance. Hint: the drivel you wrote above is not proof. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:34, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
 
:::::There's a legal precedent - "He Who Asserts Must Prove"... so, let's see your proof that a government passing same-sex marriage laws affects individual sportsmens' performance. Hint: the drivel you wrote above is not proof. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:34, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
 +
:::::Homosexuality related tourism occurs in this town today. Second, re: lower amount of mental toughness issue: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] Third, the birth rate of heterosexual marriage will always exceed the faux marriages of homosexual "marriages" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:37, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

Revision as of 14:37, 2 July 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)

Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won

Andy, although it is true that Communist/authoritarian countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[1], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[2]

Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate See also: Decline of atheism

In the journal article Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[3][4] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness.[5] Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[6] See also: Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism

Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: Atheism and health and Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism and Atheism and obesity

Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have "fat and sassy" atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism

I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term.

Next, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not.

Summary: Jesus is the winnamon and Christians are on the winning side! Christians are winners and atheists tend to lose again!

Go for the gold America! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! (where atheists are the least trusted group of individuals. See: Views on atheists) :) Conservative 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

One fair way to analyze

In order to give a fair analysis, information needs to be compiled before the Games for the countries/sports listed for both pre/post same-sex marriage/girls playing sports and then add this year's results. As far as I can see, that would be the only way to objectively assess any trend regarding medals/performance. SharonW 10:14, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

Baseball not an Olympic sport in 2012

Baseball is removed from the list, because both baseball and softball have been dropped for the program for the 2012 Olympics. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/sports/08iht-oly.html?_r=1 MaartenG 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

Baseball being removed from list

Maybe baseball (and softball) have been removed because they are not included in the 2012 Olympics. [7] "They'rrre out! Olympics drop baseball, softball: Sports eliminated for 2012 Games, but could win way back in 2016" AP, nbcsports.com, July 9, 2005, retrieved July 2, 2012. SharonW 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

Same sex marriage and underachievement.

While a rationale is given for the relationship between atheism and underperformance, none is given for the relationship between same sex marriage and underperformance. Can somebody who understands the relationship please provide a rationale in the relevant section? Thanks. JeffreyB 12:25, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't. Also, Olympic athletes have to be in top physical condition. See: Homosexuality and health. In addition, mental toughness is important in sports and "Nancy boys" lack this characteristic! Also, there is the issue of Homosexuality and obesity. If you could show us that the town of Ereses on the Greek Island of Lesbos has produced an inordinate amount of Olympic women gymnasts instead of higher incidence of obese lesbians, it would be greatly appreciated (See: Lesbianism and obesity).Conservative 15:16, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
I think the town is called Eresos (Greek: Ερεσός), no? --FrederickT3 15:21, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Thanks! Corrected. Conservative 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
This isn't a good argument against same-sex marriage, you know. It's just not logical. If a marriage is for population growth, then why are marriages that can't/won't produce children permitted? My dad's on his second marriage since my mother passed away - no half-siblings yet. You need to think through your arguments. If these non-productive marriages are permitted, under what reason? Companionship? That can be applied to same-sex couples as well. Tax benefits? Ditto. The argument doesn't stand up very well.
Oh, and there you go - you just can't get away from negatively portraying fat people. SharonW 15:24, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Why an ancient Greek myth should be applicable to today is something only you would know.
As for homosexuals at the Olympics - and "nancy boys" is a very derogatory term, much like using the n-word. One would think a site like this would be above that sort of thing, but obviously not - how about Mark Spitz (7 gold) and Greg Louganis (4 gold), who was also the the most outstanding amateur athlete in the United States in 1984.
Once again, your tired old arguments don't hold any water - obese people - gay or straight are hardly likely to be participating at the games, so trying to make a correlation between a country's political decisions and the performance of individual athletes is - quite frankly - stupid. But I have a feeling that you still can't grasp the idea. MaartenG 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
There's a legal precedent - "He Who Asserts Must Prove"... so, let's see your proof that a government passing same-sex marriage laws affects individual sportsmens' performance. Hint: the drivel you wrote above is not proof. MaartenG 15:34, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Homosexuality related tourism occurs in this town today. Second, re: lower amount of mental toughness issue: Mental Health and Homosexuality Third, the birth rate of heterosexual marriage will always exceed the faux marriages of homosexual "marriages" Conservative 15:37, 2 July 2012 (EDT)