zapatos

This just in... https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10036136-us-soccer-agrees-to-new-cba-with-top-mens-womens-players-guaranteeing-equal-pay?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

I am shocked to learn that there are so many transgender men who compete at the elite level of all sports who are just waiting in the wings to swoop in and will all the competitions.

Sorry, I was trying to be funny.

I can't tell if you are being ironic or as dense as iron. 😁

Simply quoting your previous statements is not the same as answering the question. Can you say Straw Man? One of us is. I have no idea where you are going with this, but it certainly has nothing to do with mankind uniting in friendship and competition. As you clearly have no intention of staying on topic I'll be leaving this conversation now.

Guess you don't know what it was like to be a black in America in the 1930's. And in what way did mankind unite in friendship and competition after that event? As I said, a bit of a stretch.

Your link mentioned Jesse Owens and Luz Long defying Nazi sentiments. Perfect example of what I am saying. It brought those two athletes together, but shortly afterward the rest of mankind killed 50,000,000 of their own. Hardly an example of "bringing mankind together". I'm also unsure how Titmus beating Ledecky brought mankind together.

Philosophy has always been a bit of a mystery to me so please take what I say with a grain of salt. The way a philosopher speaks about philosophy and the way laymen speak of philosophy makes it seem like they are talking about two completely different fields of study. It is similar to the way QM sounds like two different fields of study depending on whether you are speaking to a scientist or a layperson. When a scientist says 'as it really is' he is generally speaking of a destination that cannot realistically be achieved, and thus philosophy may seem a bit cracked. But when a philosopher says 'as it really is' he seems (to me) to be speaking of a journey of understanding and exploration. So just as a group of laypeople discussing QM can miss subtleties and have misperceptions go unchallenged, I think it is the same way with philosophy. While what the scientists say about philosophy sounds reasonable, by reading the thoughts of our few resident philosophers I get the feeling that the rest of us are missing something when it comes to understanding what philosophy can really do for us.

Like @Peterkin I'd have to also answer 'no' to this one. "Bring mankind together in friendship as well as competition" is very poetic but is a bit of a stretch. A person may find friendship and competition in sport, but the rest of 'mankind' is left out of the picture. I've never found a 'friend in sport' due to someone else competing in the Olympics.

https://news.yahoo.com/rights-violence-problem-184823155.html

While my philosophy class in college bored me to tears, I think everyone would benefit from studying philosophy for ethics, logic, how to critically discuss, and how to argue rationally. I think philosophy gets a bad rap due to its previous position in the 'sciences'.

He was joking.

Again, the fact that women have won olympic medals is not evidence that women can race horses as well as men. I always have high hopes when I start to converse with you and it inevitably leads to disappointment. You always seem to ruin your knowledgeable posts by your refusal to back off one inch from anything you've said, even when it is clear you've misstated some minor thing. You and Trump have that in common. My fault for falling into the old trap.

No. I didn't ask that.

Women have been playing basketball for as long as men. That doesn't mean they are equal to men in that sport. This entire discussion has to do with whether or not men and women are equals as jockeys. Simply stating that women have been racing for 100 years tells us absolutely nothing about their ability to compete against men. I can't believe you are trying to pass that off as evidence that they can compete as equals against men.

Being around for a century doesn't mean they can perform as well as men though. I assume you meant that as an add-on to your answer to my question.

So, sounds like a woman who trains to be a jockey should be able to meet all the physical needs to ride a horse in a race as well as a man. Is that right?

Hydraulic fracturing causes small earth quakes, even up to magnitude 4, and the wastewater disposal from fracking caused a magnitude 5.8 earthquake. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/does-production-oil-and-gas-shales-cause-earthquakes-if-so-how-are-earthquakes-related-these Makes me wonder if tides could indeed affect tectonics.

I assumed you meant strength because you said the sport was very "physical", which is where the males would have the advantage. Height and speed advantages of men shouldn't come into play so I didn't know what other "physical" advantages men had over women other than strength. Other than keeping your body in the best possible position on the horse I cannot think (but don't know as I'm not a rider) where significant strength is required. As the horse is not trying to buck them off it seems likely to me that a rider's strength is not maxed out at any time. I'd certainly be happy to be proved incorrect as this conversation is just an interesting discussion for me.

Sorry if I missed it, but what part of riding the horse in a race do you assume the extra strength of males over females comes into play? The article you linked to talked a lot about the jockey moving well on the horse to help the forward motion, but I didn't see anything (in that article, anyway) about the need for extra strength.

Wasn't the monster named Abby someone?

AFAIK, seeds will not germinate without water (along with the right temperature and sometimes other factors).

It struck me the same way. Back in 4th grade we sprouted seeds on wet paper towels. They also started to look bad after a while.

I understand your position. Society though does not wish opioids to be legal, and there are a limited number of people who wish to make safe spaces legal. Those who do wish safe spaces to be legal are simply being realistic. They know people will do illegal drugs and are simply trying to mitigate the risk that addiction poses to their friends and family. I have had several family members who were addicted to various drugs. No one wanted them to quit doing drugs more than they themselves. I would have allowed them to do drugs in my house if it meant they had a better chance of surviving long enough to finally kick the habit. One of them only lived because his mother was able to get a dose of naloxone for him, no questions asked. I'm not saying your position is not valid, but if your goal is risk reduction, then safe places are a solution that achieves that goal.