What's new
By:

Sign Jason Collins

jimmy eat jazz said:
I repeat, which 12th-13th players is a difference maker. Collins is only, at most, marginally worse than the average 12th-13th bench player, and in some cases probably better.

I don't get why so many people are so concerned about signing someone whose primary role will be to plant his backside on the bench for 99% of playing time.
Click to expand...

I don't care. We don't need to waste a roster spot on someone just to make a statement. The point is that he sucks. That's all that matters. I would rather we take a chance on a guy who might potentially bring something to the table like a DeMarre Carrol rather than giving a roster spot to a guy who doesn't deserve it.
 
Beantown said:
But America is not a society where we walk around nude, yes if you did walk around naked all day long you would get used to it. I'm really amazed that you seem to have such difficulty grasping such a simple concept.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about walking around all day long nude but specifically about locker room nudity. The example of the nude beach demonstrates, and reinforces the simple point made repeatedly here, which for some reason you fail to grasp, is that being constantly exposed to nudity within a particular context desensitizes one to it and removes the sexual aspect from it. You seem like a reasonably intelligent person in your other posts, but you are just making yourself look silly here by your inability, or refusal, to acknowledge this simple and obvious point.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
It's the 12th or 13th player. Which 12th-13th player would you consider a game changer on the court? It's a throw away roster spot there to soak up garbage time or to fill in for extreme, extreme emergencies. All 12th-13th players suck. What the hell difference does it make from a basketball perspective?
Click to expand...

So the only reason you want to sign him is that he's gay?
 
Beantown said:
Let me explain this more simply you idiots. Its 3.8% of the ENTIRE AMERICAN POPULATION....I repeat THE ENTIRE AMERICAN POPULATION.Do you retards get it now?
Click to expand...

Yes. That you don't is amusing.

To keep that math easy, let's say we have 1,000,000 people in a city. If 3.8% are gay, that's 38,000.

Let's say 80% of these people are 16 or over. That's 800,000. It would also be 80% of the 38,000 that are gay. That would be 30,400. 30,400/800,000 = 3.8%.

Of course, only half of those 800,000 will be men, so 400,000. Similarly, half of those 30,400 will be men, so 15,200. 15,200/400,000 = 3.8%

Now, because they use different measurements for what it means to be gay, or measure groups differently, or because of simple chance, different researchers will estimate the percentage of gays differently (low of 1.5% to a high of about 10%). However, it have nothing to do with looking as a subset of the population.
 
Beantown said:
Again my original point is I don't think we are showering with a bunch of gay dudes everyday like One Brow stated. It would be extremely rare.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you don't shower with some 25 other random men every day, so I agree it would not be every day. Even if the percentage of gay men is a low as 1%, and there are typically four other men in the gym shower, and this is only once a week, it will still happen a couple of times a year. That's not rare, much less extremely rare.

Beantown said:
Example, a guy from my mission who came out of the closet was allowed to shower privately in the MTC. The MTC knew he had gay feelings and the guy feared he would be turned on during the shower. He didn't want to put himself in that position.
Click to expand...

Yes, fear of gay men runs quite strong in cultures. However, this doesn't do anything to make your point.
 
Beantown said:
I'm not speaking for gay guys. All I said is you stick me in a shower with hot girls I will get a boner. Ive been showering with my wife since we have been married. I still get woody every time.
Click to expand...

So, you bet excited at the prospect of physical intimacy with a prospective partner, and that's supposed to carry over to situations were there is no prospect of physical intimacy and no prospective partners?
 
Catchall said:
My issue with Jason Collins is that he's not one of the top 300 players in the league, and we don't really need him.
Click to expand...

30 teams, 13 players minimum each = 390. We may or may not sign Collins, but there will be worse players playing in the NBA.
 
Scat said:
So the only reason you want to sign him is that he's gay?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not sure where you think I said that. I would applaud a team, however who signs him as the 12th-13th player IN PART because he's gay for the purpose of establishing a positive role model and to demonstrate to the world that having an openly gay teammate does not cause the Armageddon that homophobes claim it will. I'd consider that a very admirable act inspired by an equally admirable motivation.

I don't get why people think this is such a huge deal. There is no culture on earth that's a more macho, testosterone driven culture than the military, particularly among combat troops. Yet a number of studies have now found that integrating homosexuals openly into the military has had NO negative impact on things such as troop morale, cohesiveness or performance. Yet for decades we heard from the establishment how integrating openly gay soldiers into the ranks would cause all of the above. IT HASN'T HAPPENED.

One reason researchers have found is that it is not 'social cohesion' but 'task cohesion' that matters to troop performance. There's no reason not to believe that this is true in team sports as well.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
No, I'm not sure where you think I said that. I would applaud a team, however who signs him as the 12th-13th player IN PART because he's gay for the purpose of establishing a positive role model and to demonstrate to the world that having an openly gay teammate does not cause the Armageddon that homophobes claim it will. I'd consider that a very admirable act inspired by an equally admirable motivation.

I don't get why people think this is such a huge deal. There is no culture on earth that's a more macho, testosterone driven culture than the military, particularly among combat troops. Yet a number of studies have now found that integrating homosexuals openly into the military has had NO negative impact on things such as troop morale, cohesiveness or performance. Yet for decades we heard from the establishment how integrating openly gay soldiers into the ranks would cause all of the above. IT HASN'T HAPPENED.

One reason researchers have found is that it is not 'social cohesion' but 'task cohesion' that matters to troop performance. There's no reason not to believe that this is true in team sports as well.
Click to expand...

NOBODY cares that he is gay.

He has seriously been the worst NBA player in the league for years now.

Have you ever watched him play?



posted from my htc one using tapaBONGO
 
One Brow said:
So, you bet excited at the prospect of physical intimacy with a prospective partner, and that's supposed to carry over to situations were there is no prospect of physical intimacy and no prospective partners?
Click to expand...
Let's compare this to showering in a health club. Assume all the people are pretty fit and most are fairly attractive and, with rare exception, between 19 and 35 (the general parameters of the NBA). I'm a male and I know I would get turned on by showering with a group of women, even KNOWING I have ZERO chance with any of them. Right or wrong, I think at the very least, teams would need to give players private showers and dressing areas for either those who are gay - and have come out of the closet - and those who are not, but simply don't want to shower or be naked in front of a gay teammate. And I don't think that's necessarily homophobic.
 
MoTown16 said:
Let's compare this to showering in a health club. Assume all the people are pretty fit and most are fairly attractive and, with rare exception, between 19 and 35 (the general parameters of the NBA). I'm a male and I know I would get turned on by showering with a group of women, even KNOWING I have ZERO chance with any of them. Right or wrong, I think at the very least, teams would need to give players private showers and dressing areas for either those who are gay - and have come out of the closet - and those who are not, but simply don't want to shower or be naked in front of a gay teammate. And I don't think that's necessarily homophobic.
Click to expand...

I am ok with separation. Yes, separate the gay showers from the non gay showers. Make them equal though. Separate, but equal.
 
b_line said:
I am ok with separation. Yes, separate the gay showers from the non gay showers. Make them equal though. Separate, but equal.
Click to expand...
If you're comparing this to the "separate, but equal" civil rights issue, it isn't even CLOSE. I go to a health club that has shower stalls with small dressing areas in front. Pull the curtain and you have privacy. If you want to dress in front of your locker, no problem...no one is stopping you. If you'd rather shower and dress in privacy, you have that choice. To carry your analogy to the extreme would require coed locker rooms and bathrooms. I get so damn mad when I hear about how plush some women's facilities are. Some even have comfortable chairs or sofas in the entry way. How come men can't have separate but equal amenities?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top