|
Eat This Glob posted:It's the Iowa state tournament, though. She had won or finished second in sectionals, then won or finished second in districts. They don't invite all comers. It's the 16 best in the state at that weight in your class. She earned her spot. kenny powerzzz has a new favorite as of 21:27 on Mar 31, 2014 |
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 09:40 |
|
|
Aren't girls generally a little taller and stronger than boys up to a certain age anyway?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
kenny powerzzz posted:He is right though. There is nothing to be gained from girls wrestling boys. It's lose, lose. It's unfortunate but there are not enough girls to have a girls team. I'm active in youth wrestling and our general rule is to wrestle every kid the same regardless of gender. It sucks watching our kids get boos from the crowd when they dominate a girl and it sucks watching a little girl cry because she just got slammed by a tough little boy. At a middle school tourney, this kid from a local powerhouse team got pinned by a girl. He walked off the mat crying with a giant boner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Raimundus posted:Aren't girls generally a little taller and stronger than boys up to a certain age anyway?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
kenny powerzzz posted:I typed a much longer response earlier but lost it when I went to add a picture and didn't retype it. Long story short I see young kids and their peers are much more immature so it makes it worse on them. Also the things we want our kids to take away from the program are fundamental wrestling and ethics in sports and life. The girl thing is a tough spot for that. But as you've pointed out at that level she has more than earned her spot and I would be proud of any kid who wrestled at that level regardless of the results or who they wrestled. And I would never forfeit a match on any level because of gender. It's just one of those things in life that doesn't have a perfect answer. I think the perfect answer is to let kids play whatever sports they want instead of being a giant baby about girls wanting to wrestle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Eat This Glob posted:It's the Iowa state tournament, though. She had won or finished second in sectionals, then won or finished second in districts. They don't invite all comers. It's the 16 best in the state at that weight in your class. She earned her spot. And then he lost to a dude who was too tubby to be slammed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 03:39
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:And then he lost to a dude who was too tubby to be slammed. I think Rulon Gardner had a little more going for him than just tubbiness.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:I think Rulon Gardner had a little more going for him than just tubbiness. This is true. He was also very ugly, and stunk
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Gourd of Taste posted:This is true. He was also very ugly, and stunk You have first hand knowledge of said funk? Or is his funk legendary?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Never been to central park...or New York for that matter. What's that big building center left next to the baseball fields and lake?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Dear Prudence posted:Never been to central park...or New York for that matter. What's that big building center left next to the baseball fields and lake?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
hirvox posted:Google Maps says Metropolitan Museum of Art. That's my favorite place in the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
Dear Prudence posted:Never been to central park...or New York for that matter. What's that big building center left next to the baseball fields and lake? When I was there last, I found that taking the subway from one end of the park to the other was a perfectly reasonable expenditure. That's how loving big it is. I'm healthy enough to walk it, but my time was limited. Fake edit: Google search says its 2.5 miles long.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
And those buildings on the right? On that small green square? I bet it's pretty expensive to live there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
beedeebee posted:And those buildings on the right? On that small green square? I bet it's pretty expensive to live there. Natural History Museum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
beedeebee posted:And those buildings on the right? On that small green square? I bet it's pretty expensive to live there. Not expensive, but you have to have been dead for a few million years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Istari posted:Not expensive, but you have to have been dead for a few million years. So you're saying there's a chance?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Octavion posted:What is that? A fleet for babies?  
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
threeskin posted:So you're saying there's a chance? Only if you stay in school, eat your vegetables, and don't do drugs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Istari posted:Only if you stay in school, eat your vegetables, and don't do drugs. Don't listen to this guy, they'll let any old bag of bones in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
kenny powerzzz posted:Also the things we want our kids to take away from the program are fundamental wrestling and ethics in sports and life. The girl thing is a tough spot for that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Boys and girls aren't different enough physiologically for there to be any reason to segregate outside of simple social norms. Which aren't that bad, really. It's not a travesty to separate boys and girls in wrestling, especially since it gets pretty intimate in there and there's an unfortunately massive risk of shame from retards about losing to a girl, as well as winning against a girl. Blame the shamers all you want, talk poo poo, but they exist and are the majority. I wouldn't want my son or daughter to have to wrestle the opposite gender-- it's just not worth the headache. Especially since kids are awful, terrible creatures and as ignorant and retarded as it seems to us, kids will bully relentlessly for wrestling a girl, whether you win or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
WHAT A GOOD DOG posted:Especially since kids are awful, terrible creatures and as ignorant and retarded as it seems to us, kids will bully relentlessly for wrestling a girl, whether you win or not. That's because you (along with the help of mainstream media, I'm sure) have raised your kids to think that girls are inferior.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
WHAT A GOOD DOG posted:Boys and girls aren't different enough physiologically for there to be any reason to segregate outside of simple social norms. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3529284 http://drjamesdobson.org/Solid-Answers/Answers?a=ff773023-2693-410d-b9e1-662f6985be4e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology Sorry it's not true. I get what you mean though. If a girl is physically able to compete, she should be allowed to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Istari posted:That's because you (along with the help of mainstream media, I'm sure) have raised your kids to think that girls are inferior. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
InediblePenguin posted:I think "a girl is a human who should be treated equally, especially in this sporting event for which she has proven herself equally qualified" is a really good fundamental ethic for life to instill in children, personally Even when the equal treatment involves inflicting physical domination and the direct intent to cause pain in front of an audience and both kids peers, I don't think so. It's a hosed up situation. But just because you don't want your son to wrestle a girl doesn't mean that you don't teach him how to be a good human. Woman and men are equal and should be treated as such. That's exactly what we instill. We also instill the need to protect people who may be weaker than you in that specific area. I try to make the kids who are long term wrestlers understand that judging some one based on gender/race/sexual preference is not only wrong but also a horrible thing to judge on and will come back to bite you when you underestimate someone. If you think that just letting girls and boys wrestle each other is the perfect answer I suggest you attend a post season wrestling tournament and watch the sport and the wrestlers. In a perfect world yes, but that's not reality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
JDAMS CURE PASHTUN posted:I'll bet you were so happy when you got your first participation ribbon. You are a winner, too! Actually, it says 'I ran in a race', and it's still hanging on my wall.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Istari posted:'I ran in a race' Oh good, someone played the race card, now we can cover that too 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
WHAT A GOOD DOG posted:Boys and girls aren't different enough physiologically for there to be any reason to segregate outside of simple social norms. MadMattH posted:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3529284 "Boys and Girls", not "Men and Women". I'm pretty sure WHAT A GOOD DOG is fully aware that this doesn't hold true past the onset of puberty, but in children there really isn't much if any difference.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Turks posted:"Boys and Girls", not "Men and Women". I'm pretty sure WHAT A GOOD DOG is fully aware that this doesn't hold true past the onset of puberty, but in children there really isn't much if any difference. There are many of them that are present from birth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Octavion posted:What is that? A fleet for babies? I'd be interested to see a comparison of what all those ships could do together compared against a modern carrier battlegroup. Istari posted:That's because you (along with the help of mainstream media, I'm sure) have raised your kids to think that girls are inferior. You misread his post. He's saying his kid would get bullied by the other kids he has no control over because they were raised by assholes. He's saying other people's bullshit would make him not want his boy to wrestle a girl because of the headaches. Blue Footed Booby has a new favorite as of 03:17 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Could we perhaps quit with the worthless  /social justice war/whatever the gently caress it is y'all think you're doing and get back to posting badass pics, please? Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:I'd be interested to see a comparison of what all those ships could do together compared against a modern carrier battlegroup. If they were less than 10 miles from the carrier group then the carrier group would be screwed. If they were further than 10 miles away then there would be absolutely nothing they could do to stop from all being bombed by the much faster task force.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
/\ Dammit!Blue Footed Booby posted:I'd be interested to see a comparison of what all those ships could do together compared against a modern carrier battlegroup. Assuming you're talking about a theoretical engagement between the two, a modern carrier battlegroup would maintain distance until they had expended all bombs and air-launched anti-ship missiles. After that, they would switch to ship-launched missiles, then steam home. Given the number of bombs and missiles a carrier battle group would have, and assuming no misses, it's likely they would be able to sink the entire fleet pictured (59 battleships alone). Should they inexplicably decided to close the distance and engage because they forgot to bring bombs or missiles, the Battleships would be firing their main batteries before the Destroyers/Frigates could engage with their 5" guns. Given that you're dealing with two very different firing systems, it's likely that evasive manoeuvres could spare the carrier group until they closed the distance enough to use their main guns and torpedoes. The HMS Dreadnought, a revolutionary, but by this time antiquated ship could fire a maximum distance of 22km. The rest of the BB fleet could match that and in most cases do better. Now assuming they waited until 15km, and were specifically told that they didn't have to worry about fighting after this engagement, and were allowed to expend their entire magazines, even at this distance, a fast and nimble USN vessel is going to need a degree of luck to avoid anywhere from 590-1180 (depending on enemy profile) 12-15" shells landing in your general area per minute. Now a single hit from one of these shells is quite likely to be fatal. Remember the USS Cole? Imagine that that small craft exploded inside the ship, below the water line. Even if the shell was a dud, you now have a 12-15" hole straight through your ship from deck to keel, destroying anything in its way and causing massive amounts of spalling damage. At around the same range that the US carrier group would be opening up with their 5" guns and torps, the battleship's secondary armament and their escorts (cruisers and destroyers) would also begin firing as well, meaning that that paltry 1180 shells landing per minute has now turned into tens of thousands of shells landing per minute against ships that have pretty much no armour whatsoever. The US destroyers/frigates/cruisers carry on average 500-680 rounds of 5" shells each, so 20 RPM (radar controlled) could mean that some of those vintage British destroyers/cruisers could be reduced to flaming wrecks in short order. The battleships I'm not so sure of as they did have pretty thick armour around their guns and vitals. Around the same range that the carrier group would be opening up with their 5" guns, they would also be firing their torpedoes, which would probably be 1 shot=1 kill even against the battleships. If for some reason the carrier(s) decided to close with the group for shits and giggles, it's likely it(they) would have been sunk or reduced to flaming wrecks by this point as a carrier is a huge target, it can't turn like a frigate/cruiser/destroyer, and 12-14" shells would be exploding in the avgas tanks and engine room. Keeping distance: US Carrier Group would come out on top. Closing distance: British Grand Fleet would come out on top. There is obviously room for debate, (but to me at least) it would seem that the numbers speaks for themselves. Blistex has a new favorite as of 04:18 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:I'd be interested to see a comparison of what all those ships could do together compared against a modern carrier battlegroup. This hypothetical is only okay if all the ships are "she"s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
JHomer722 posted:This hypothetical is only okay if all the ships are "she"s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
JDAMS CURE PASHTUN posted:As a male, I take offense to this on the grounds that the ships are inanimate objects without the corresponding genitalia required for use of "she". Don't genitalia-shame. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0S642NtHtE
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
There is actually no difference between male and female ships at that age.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 09:40 |
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:There is actually no difference between male and female ships at that age. I love you all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:12
|
|
