With respect to Females in sports- games such as football are not all about pure physicality. There is a high degree of skill and dexterity- women can be very good footballers and I believe equally competitive with the men- especially given there are multiple positions on a team. Certain positions might suit more speed or more height (e.g. goalies tend to be tall) but when the sport isn't a 1 vs 1 activity, and isn't dominated by power there's little reason to forcibly segregate the sexes (to the point it is inherently enshrined in the rules). As for the east and west becoming more divided, I wholeheartedly disagree. People in the east are steadily developing and becoming more 'westernised'- in China for example they have a fascination with western culture, to the point when I last visited the area I was in (an industrial area, I was visiting a manufacturer), was full of 'around the world' restaurants offering food from everywhere. Just as in the UK we have restaurants from around the globe serving almost anything you can think of. Even many areas in the middle east (known for being highly religious and conservative) are starting to modernise. The news focuses on the negative and I think skews the reality of things- the experiences of people who have visited these places is generally that deep down, people are people. We're not inherently all that different. As for the 'people unintelligent as a group'- large groups are easily swayed. People latch onto a common theme and tend to 'go with the flow'. As individuals we are forced to weigh things up more carefully- having to come to a decision ourselves rather than 'follow the pack'. There are many things throughout history that demonstrate that mentality- large groups will go along with terrible things, that individuals would not.
Even when you're looking at sports that is very much about stuff that man are biologically supposed to be better at there still is no reason to put that into the rules. Any real competitive "thing" will have leagues, rankings, etc by wins and losses that participants have. Let those decide who is the best, not a rule book. Isn't it that in groups the problem that "stupid" people who don't realize they are stupid tend to push the group while more intelligent people who realize they know not enough are too quite? That might be a oversimplification, but I think it's a core problem of large groups of people making decisions.
I agree, 100%. It's a sad fact that 'women can't compete in X' is so widely accepted to the point people either don't question or actively defend it.
My dad is a homophobe and both my parents voted Leave. You don't get to sit there talking about pride and what it's like to feel pride, sorry. We are all human beings that disagree with each other on a wide variety of subjects. Had I felt Vote Leave was appropriate, I wouldn't have that as a disagreement with them. But I didn't, and so I do. The homophobia kinda stands by itself, no? There is nothing wrong with being proud of what we have achieved, but you also have to remember the bigotry, sacrifices, and downright slaughter that made that possible. You can't be like "we didn't fight for WW2 to have immigrants invade our country" without discounting the fact that the British (colonial) Empire made up a not-insignificant part of the country's fighting forces. Foreign fighters, fighting for Britain. Even having the attitude that "immigrants will ultimately distrust and not want to understand our culture" is born from ignorance. What immigrants do you know that that applies to? Are they immigrants, or asylum seekers? Are they first-generation, or are they refugees? These words mean different things, and yet people use them like they're the same thing. They're not. Be proud of who you are if you want, but don't react badly when people end up calling you out on things you're getting wrong. As a final point, no, that isn't what "xenophobia" means. From the Greek, literally, meaning "fear of aliens". It's a fear response, and it tends to lead to outright bigotry. It isn't about an unwillingness to understand their culture. That's a symptom of it, sure . . . but you'll find that it's less likely than you think for people that have moved here simply to get a job. To get a job, you have to assimilate. And they do it better than people think.
I don't feel there is much point in it however. Yes maybe my predecessors managed to do something right and I seem to profit from it. So that's good for me. But why be proud of that? Pride about things one didn't somehow influence themselves is something I don't really understand. I am proud of stuff I achieve by myself. Not of stuff that was given to me for free by birth. Now there is probably a fuzzy line there, as one can argue that I only achieve stuff because I had the luck to be put into the right situation, but still for the matter of "I am proud of that" it makes a difference imho. Better be proud of "I build something" than "my parents build something".
He isn't wrong. It's easy to inherit something earned by one's ancestor's crazy commitment to improvement, such as America's late 1930s to 1950s, or it's 1880s to 1910s. It's hella easy to squander the **** out of it too. It's hard to improve on it though. It's easy to get something and utilize it not half as well, it's hard to get something and improve on it. I haven't seen many countries take a good situation someone before gave them, and improve on it more, without running said system into the ground.
I understand what your saying but where do you see this going. It's just biology. Would you like to see an olympics with all men, except for most of the gymnastics fields and some of the marksmen events? As for chess and any similar sport that relies on brain power I completely agree.
Well the argument of not forcibly banning women isn't quite the same as saying you have to abolish all unisex categories for everything. Many events in the Olympics are pure strength tests, so the separate categories make sense. So many sports this isn't true however. Also I'd argue the Olympics are one of the few sporting events that get equal coverage between women and men. Who in the UK knows who's on the (world cup winning) national women's football team? Who knows the world top female chess players? It's not just the separation, it's the way it's used lower the status of one sex vs the other. The argument is then 'women wouldn't be able to compete with men'... well they sure as hell won't if they're relegated to an also ran position- that means less knowledge about it, less women get involved, it remains a niche.
I mean that guy is one of the main hypocrites in the EU I am talking about here. Yes, he is ABSOLUTELY one of Leave's biggest leaders, but now that the cards are down, we see he wasn't really doing it because he believed in it or whatnot. He was supporting leave as a purely political move to further his own interests. It's a common practice in most indirect democracies these days, but it's also risky as all hell. In this case, the Brits called his bluff and now he's lost all credibility. I'm not surprised the Brits are tired of that BS from politicians in the EU - I'm sick of it from US politicians as it is.
I would like to expand that a bit. Britain's situation is not...unique but it IS special. the UK has always been eursceptic (even their entry into the EU wasn't universally lauded), and since 2000 or so mister Johnson as a reporter has significantly contributed to anti-EU sentiment in the papers. The majority of papers including every owned by billionaire Murdoch (e.g. major newspaper The Sun) is anti-EU. Then there's mister Blair, who's actions have not exactly contributed to the UK's public opinions of politicians with his botched Iraq War. The recent Chilcot report condems it thoroughly, but most britons already felt that way: The establishment misled and lied to them for self-gain. Then there's mister Cameron, who himself is the poster boy of what the UK now dispise: born into the elite, went to an elite school. Then there's the Brexit voter breakdown, which suggests two things: *Regions with the least migration voted out. The UK government failed to reassure it's citizens. *Regions with the most EU benefit (e.g. Wales with billions in financial aid) voted out. The UK government failed to inform it's citizens. Finally, even Cameron, face of Remain himself, has repeatedly been eurosceptic. So i think it's safe to say that they're fed up with politicans in general
So the plot twist is that farange and his friends were actually the spear head in the fight for a united Europe. I see.
Except now Merkel&Crew want to unify the EU into one massive nation - except it's one of the most culturally diverse places on the planet. That's not going to lead to a bully majority, surely....
Not sure where you are getting your information from but it's all hyperbole. Read article which sparked this rumour and you'll understand yourself. I know it's a over generalisation but a lot of Americans seem to just read something in abc or Fox News and take it for gospel. Research a story, look at both sides, try find the source. Don't just splurt out "Merkel and co "without having concrete proof.
They created a minister of Brexit post and an international trade post. So there's not much left for Foreign Relations. Besides, Boris can now daily talk to the people he insulted, and will be gone most of the time. So yea it's definitely a nice joke.
