Inclusion Goes Off the Rails, AGAIN

@hawkeye10,

Here we see the some problem but the other side of the coin

Quote:

He's "the fastest man on no legs," or -- as his sponsor's high-profile advertising campaign put it -- "the bullet in the chamber."
He is Oscar Pistorius, the "Blade Runner" who is changing the world's perception of what is acceptable on an athletics track.
Born without a fibula bone in each leg, the South African is the first double amputee to run at the world championships, and next year he will be the first to race at the Olympics.
"I think next year's going to be quite a big year, as far as demand on my performances," the 24-year-old told CNN.
"I feel that the condition I'm in and the knowledge I've gained probably will definitely help me in achieving those times in the first half of next season. So I know next year is going to be a big year."
Pistorius qualified for the 400 meters with a time of 45.07 seconds in Italy in July, which is less than two seconds slower than Michael Johnson's 1999 world record and would have given him fifth place in the final of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/sport/olympics-pistorius-london-2012/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

This guy who has no legs is being allowed to "compete" against guys who must carry the weight of legs, and who dont get the same spring in their step that metal gives him. He is not doing the same event as are the rest, he should not be allowed to take up space and collect awards as if he were. Without standards being applied all alleged competitions are not , it is as if we claimed that there was a winner to Monopoly in spite of the fact that there were no rules.

0 Replies

So do you think athletes should be allowed to compete if they have to wear glasses to see the ball? That gives them an edge againtst athletes who have to use only their naked eyes.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

So do you think athletes should be allowed to compete if they have to wear glasses to see the ball? That gives them an edge againtst athletes who have to use only their naked eyes.

correcting vision does not give one better vision than natural vision, so that is fine, there is no technology advantage. We are conditioned by the victim culture to feel sorry for the guy who has no legs, to over look that he has gained a technology advantage. We used to be smarter than this, back during the 1970's no one thought that the Six Million Dollar Man was just like us, that racing him would be a fair race.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Cheerleading does not have the tradition ...

So it's ok to play unqualified players if there is a tradition?? It is cheering! You stand there and encourage the crowd. Even if the other cheerleaders are doing some stunt, there are always some standing around yelling and waving. It sounds like this girl has the prerequisite perkiness. Can she cheer if the game is essentially over?

I think the other point here is that no one is forcing this squad to grant this girl's wish. No school board officials or lawyers are distorting the rules. From the story, it doesn't even appear that the girl asked this squad to intervene. This is a group of girls and their coach deciding to volunteer their time to help another person. I guess no good deed goes unpunished. They decided to help one girl of their choice. Who are we to say their choice is wrong? Everyday people make choices about how they focus their charitable efforts. I don't see any reason to criticize a gift freely given.

0 Replies

Look, all this stuff is bogglewash. Cheerleaders come in all shapes and sizes... she has limited functioning arms (from what I remember) and no legs. Surely they can incorporate her into their routine. Whether they use her as a pom-pom or throw her in the air like a football, surely she can contribute. (sarcasm sign).

What kind of team was this again? Actually, it doesn't matter. If the team in question (the not-home team) was/is willing to have her participate, then who the hell cares what she does/how she contributes, as long as everyone's happy?

Give it a break, Hawk. This is not about you, it's about HER and that SCHOOL. A special circumstance, and I say, Go For It.

1 Reply

@Mame,

Quote:

A special circumstance,

Everybody is special, according to this crowd.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

So do you think athletes should be allowed to compete if they have to wear glasses to see the ball?
That gives them an edge againtst athletes who have to use only their naked eyes.

Use of glasses, at best,
renders the wearer normal, at 20/20; correct me if I 'm rong.

David

1 Reply

Newly composed cheer for Portland High School

GO PORTLAND, you're first-rate,
What you did was really great.
To care for others is way cool,
Success to you and to your school.

RAH, cheerleaders, RAH Coach Fox.
Kids like you really rock!

Feel free to write your own cheer.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

A special circumstance,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Everybody is special,

Is that an oxymoronic contradiction in terms??? ( unless thay mean that everyone is UNIQUE )

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Your' re special you' re the only
one you' re the only one like you
There isn't aonther one in the whole wide world
You can do the things you do

Oh you are special special
Everyone is special
Everyone in his or her own way

Oh you are special special
Everyone is special
Everyone in his or her own way

You' re important so you really are
You' re the only one of you
The world is better just because you are here
you should know that we love you

Oh you are special special
Everyone is special
Everyone in his or her own way

Oh you are special special
Everyone is special
Everyone in his or her own way

0 Replies

i tend to think of special as meaning retarded

so yes, everyone is special

i certainly remember thinking that all the sports teams and cheerleaders at my high school were special

0 Replies

I think the other myth that drives these threads is that the world is a meritocracy. We all know it isn't. 25% of the people admitted to Harvard are their because one of their parents went there and donates generously. Pretty people make more money that competent but less attractive people. The boss's friend gets jumped to the front of the line for promotion. We see life injustices all around us, but demand that cheerleaders of all people be judged solely on merit.

2 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

demand that cheerleaders of all people be judged solely on merit.

Bullshit, I would settle for minimally qualified and able to do the job......

1 Reply

She did the job--got people pepped up.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

She did the job--got people pepped up.

we do love to cheer our victims and put them up on a pedestal, but the point of the football game is the football game, and it should be the game and the players who are the focus of the evening not the feel good politically correct exercise of showing (pretending often times) how charitable we are by putting up with a person on the cheer team who should not be there with a smile on our face and a high five.

This will get old fast, hopefully this girl knows when to take the exit, but it is not likely that she does. I predict problems down the line with morale at this school.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I think the other myth that drives these threads is that the world is a meritocracy. We all know it isn't. 25% of the people admitted to Harvard are their because one of their parents went there and donates generously. Pretty people make more money that competent but less attractive people. The boss's friend gets jumped to the front of the line for promotion.

I think that its nice to live in a world in which we can and DO take care of our friends. I have done it. I hired a lawyer, Elliot,
who I ultimately took into partnership in my law firm. I liked his libertarian philosophy (filosofy) -- almost as libertarian as me.
He was the best informed member of Mensa that I ever met. I knew him socially for several years b4 I hired him;
enjoyed arguing with him.
Its FUN to hire our friends. If thay prove not to be good enuf,
then u must address the consequences.

( Collaterally, qua the wisdom of trusting people [including our friends], I remember a case of young friends for many years,
one of whom began a business. His female friend, with whom he had (admittedly) fooled around sexually for years asked him for a job.
He hired her n continued their accustomed social dynamics. In time, she requested a raise. Thay failed to agree on remuneration,
whereupon she sued him for sexual harassment on the job. )

engineer wrote:

We see life injustices all around us,
but demand that cheerleaders of all people be judged solely on merit.

I have no interest in competitive athletics.
To my mind, cheering is futile, wasteful n foolish,
but if u r judging competitions for cheerleading positions
( or ANYthing else ) u probably need someone who can do
the basic elements of those duties.

I think cheerleaders jump around a lot n wave their arms.

Woud u hire ( or license ) a blind bus driver?

On the other hand,
there is no harm in having someone sit in a chair
and call out cheers, if she wants to.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I guess this describes your expectations of spectator sports, at this level.
The question I see, in all of this, are spectator sports, at this level, to be a performance by those whom are most qualified?
It is obvious that is where school sports have gone.
If that is the case, I've a real problem with my tax dollars supporting such a performance, rather than the educations for which they are intended.

1 Reply

@wayne,

Quote:

The question I see, in all of this, are spectator sports, at this level, to be a performance by those whom are most qualified?

It has always been this way except for some little kids. My boys football team has nearly 40 kids on it, but only 25 play with any regularity, the others go in for a couple of plays a game mostly on special teams where they cant do much damage. I played softball for a minute during the 70's with the Tri-Con league that was damned near heretical because one of the league principles was that everyone plays regardless of ability. It kinda sucked, I only did it because my parents forced me to. This kind of nonsense became more common in later years, back during the "every kid is fabulous" era, but you cant brainwash over lack of talent in sports, those who suck almost always know that they suck.

1 Reply

You really have to ask yourself what motivates this joker's hatefulness. It should be no skin of his nose that this kid had a chance. It should be no skin off his nose if others wanted to help her. What fuels this furious resentment? What an unreconstructed sourpuss he is.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

It really is a tough issue, on the one hand we want to protect our children's feelings, but on the other hand the world is a very competitive place.
I agree that forcing children to compete, in an area which they are not skilled, is counter productive.
In this situation, are we to consider cheerleading as a performance or an exercise in team support? If we consider it as team support, ability to meet a certain standard should take a back seat to heartfelt commitment.

1 Reply

Inclusion Goes Off the Rails, AGAIN

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know