brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Fri Aug 23 18:16:51 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:ngccmug1jeev23a3b486dapo8olh6rdlac at 4ax.com...
>> johnknight at usa.com (John Knight) wrote:
>> >The POINT is that the only reason the 9 men who outperformed this
>> >fellow officer by more than 30% did NOT get a Gold Medal is *because*
>> >they were MEN.  No other reason.
>>
>> No.  The reason that they did not get a gold medal, is that they did
>> not win their competition.
>
>The little sleight of hand by the jewish media, the one that "confuses"
>women like you,

I'm not the least confused.  You seem to be.

>the reason you get to "think" that "men and women are of
>equal intelligence" or "women are more intelligent than men",

Intelligence is hardly the most important factor in diving.  Otherwise
a lot of nerds would have been diving champions.

>is that it appears on TV that "their competition" was one and the same,

It does?  I guess this shows your nincompoopery because I doubt that
anyone else thought that there was only one competition, especially
since the mens and womens competitions were on separate days.

>that women got Gold Medals because they performed *better* than the men.

Anyone who thought that there was any basis for comparing the men and
women, when they weren't competing against each other, is a
nincompoop.

>These different competitions should be held years and  miles apart so couch
>potatoes like me don't have so much difficulty recognizing the 30-50%
>difference between men and women in ALL human activities, even
>"intellectual" activities.

Yep, I'm sure that you would be 30-50% better at childbearing
(probably pule like the baby).

>The judges are the same, the standards are
>the same, and they are held way too close in geography and time to be
>considered separate events.

They ARE considered separate events.  If you don't like this, take it
up with US Diving.  They'll laugh in your face too.

>But when it's used to denigrate the real Gold Medalists from ALL walks of
>life, all the way from lumberjacking to airline piloting to garabage truck
>driving, it's amoral, unconstitutional, counterproductive, and now ILLegal,
>thanks to Proposition 209.

Most of us know that California is not the world, nincompoop.

>It did not improve the image of women.  It made them look cheap.  It made
>them look like little children next to the men who really broke the records.
>It discredited the spirit of competition and demoralized and trivialized the
>men.

Well, you certainly are trivial.  I'm neither demoralized nor
trivialized.

>> Was the purpose to improve American women?  I don't think so.  The
>> purpose was to award the winner of a competition, one in which the 9
>> men did not compete.
>
>You may be right.  The purpose probably was NOT to "improve American [or any
>other] women".  The purpose may have been to denigrate her by comparing her
>weakness against the strength of men, which is of course all it did.
>
>But for men, the purpose of the Olympics WAS to improve them, in every way,
>not just in athletics.

I think you need to read the Olympic creed
>"The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to
> take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the
> triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have
> conquered but to have fought well." 

And the Olympic Oath:
>"In the name of all competitors , I promise that we shall take part in
> these Olympic Games, respecting and abiding by the rules which govern
> them, in the true spirit of sportsmanship, for the glory of sport and
> the honour of our teams." 

"Glory of sport", "honour of our teams", "not the triumph but the
struggle".  Nothing about "improving men".

>Of course you don't understand it, which is why things like "affirmative
>action" are so abjectly amoral. You cannot give EXACTLY the same award to a
>third class participant that you give to the TOP participant,

Obviously they can, because they do.  It isn't likely to change,
whether you like it or not.  (You'll be chagrined to know that there
are more of what you call "mud" nations in the IOC than "whites".)

>They should not be.  It only propagates the great American myth that "women
>are more intelligent than men".

The Olympics are not an American activity.

>> >Did it enhance or enrich the
>> >Olympic events in some way?  No, if anything, it discredited them.
>>
>> Only to a nincompoop like you.
>
>Deep down inside, even nincompoops like you agree.

Can't even come up with an original insult.  You're losing, silly
child.

>> The benefit, so far as I know, is to promote the love of sport and
>> competition among both men and women.  That is the stated purpose of
>> the Olympics.
>
>If you don't think that men at the Olympics don't resent this double
>standard, then you can't possibly understand what this did to the morale of
>BOTH men and women contestants.

I haven't seen any sign that either men or women have had any morale
problems because they compete in separate events.

>> So far as I know, I haven't heard of any country calling for the
>> elimination of separate mens and women's competitions. I don't expect
>> to, either.
>
>Then we should be the first, shouldn't we?

No.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list