reply to post by charles1952
If I was a better writer I wouldn't have caused the confusion I obviously did. That is not intended to be a self-deprecating comment, but a realistic
Well thats the internet for you. It seems to lend to a sarcastic reading. It is "impossible" to read, my "exalted" heights. You can't blame me for
thinking you were being sardonic.
Anyways, I can get bitter pretty quickly, so I apologize for any malice that may have seeped through into my post.
. I guess I should have
considered your genteelism.
Then what does the headline of the thread mean when he is described as an "active player?"
An NBA roster has 12 active players, but only 8-10 guys get nightly play. Jason's a bench warmer. He's there for practices, and only due to injuries
to other players would he be getting playing time.
I am not saying that Collins will be hired, in part, because of his preferences, but it is not impossible.
You'd be surprised how little interest this would create for fans. Jackie Robinson, btw, was an amazing baseball player. Regardless of wanting to
break down the racial barrier, the GM must have understood that this guy had actual talent and thus could elevate the level of play for his team.
Could this generate interest? There's always a possibility. I don't outright exclude from possibility that an NBA team (with clear political
interests) might pick him up. I personally don't think, at age 34 (which is old by NBA standards) that Jason Collins will be wanting to play anymore
in the league. Every year a new influx of talent enters, which means every year the probability that an older player will be phased out increases. In
this years draft, for example (I'm a big basketball fan) you got a few really good bigmen coming in. That means some older guys will lose their roster
spots i.e. they will be released by their teams.
It would be downright wasteful, both financially, and practically, to give a roster spot to a player when there are 3 or 4 other players who would be
more helpful, whether in practices, or on the floor.
That there can be no gay men in Basketball? I've never heard of that one.
As you mentioned 2-5 % of the population is homosexual. That means 2-5 % of active NBA, NHL, MLB and NFL players are gay. Yet only 1 person is 4
leagues has come out. To put this into perspective, there are 450 active NBA players. Statistically speaking, there should 9 to 22 gay NBA athletes..
In major league baseball, there are 750 players, 0 have come out as gay. 690 NHL players. 0 have come out as gay. 1696 NFL players, 0 have come out as
gay. All together, that is 3696 athletes. There is a statistical probability that 73 to 184 of these players should be gay, but only 1 has come out.
It is simply statistically impossible that there aren't many more gay athletes in these leagues.
What does this data suggest about cultural barriers? It means that players who are gay aren't comfortable about broadcasting it.
As I said before, I don't think it is relevant or matters. The idea that we should wear on our sleeve our sexual orientation is balderdash. That
sexual orientation is even treated by our media as "immutable' is annoying to the extreme.
I love studying neuroscience. The brains plasticity has been demonstrated in damn near every area: the motor cortex can rearrange itself; the sensory
cortex can rearrange itself; the visual cortex can rearrange itself. EVERY part of the brain is mutable to some degree. So why, pray tell, does our
media shovel this crap into our hearts about people being immutable? Why do they demonize those doctors who try to help individuals who want to
correct their sexual feelings? As if it couldn't be corrected?
I have PTSD and OCD (or did have, they are manageable now), and both are in my control. My PET scan before and after show dramatic change in the
brain. The before scan shows a strong network connection between the amygdala (stress centre), the striatum-right caudate nucleus (which deals with
our ability to shift from one thought to another) and the orbitofronal cortex (attentive mind). The after scan shows a normalized brain, where the Rcd
is separate from the orbit frontal cortex, and the activity in the amygdala is minimal.
The main part of the brain which deals with sexual orientation is the hypothalamus. Under a brain scan, the homosexual brain appears one way, while
the heterosexual brain appears another way. What exactly is occurring scientists don't yet understand. It is far too complex for our science to figure
out at this point. Nevertheless, it has been shown that through cognitive therapy someone who had a homosexual before scan can normalize his brain to
have a heterosexual after scan. In effect, he changed his brain, he changed the way he felt about his feelings. Now, this individual feel attracted to
the opposite sex.
The implications of this discovery relative to the claims made by our media only shows how an agenda is being carried out to radically change the way
we understand our world. Not only does sexuality not matter - but seemingly everything is being deconstructed. Social psychologists, evolutionary
psychologists, are keen to break down the barrier between man and animal. Philosophers and psychologists want to break down our sense of an objective
morality. This is tactical and strategic: were finding it every place we look.
Philosophy is philosophy and science is science. The science shows that someone who is experiencing homosexual feelings is merely in a homosexual
state of mind, due to a feeling he may have been predisposed to by his brains original biology, or through early life experiences. But through
rigorous cognitive therapy, the brain can be taught to think and feel differently. Therefore, sexuality is as plastic as plastic can be. Freud noticed
this when he claimed that man was inherently bisexual. Although that is going too far - evolutionarily speaking, the propagation of our species
requires the predominance of heterosexual feelings.
In any case, sexual preference is a moral question, which in turn is based on your metaphysics and epistemology.
edit on 30-4-2013 by
dontreally because: (no reason given)