ADVERTISEMENT

Olympics

mikalalas said:
Your being just like TRUMP TARDS that say the say damn thing, when the Jan 6 riot thing was ALL OVER THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEWS AND THE TRUMP TARDS STILL DENY IT.

IT WAS ALL OVER THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEWS THAT COVERING OLYMPICS, KHALIF, THE IBA XY CHROMOSOME TEST THAT KHALIF FAILED, MEANING THAT KHALIF HAS XY MALE CHROMOSOMES.

YOU EVEN ADMITTED, CITED THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT, HAVE SEEN, ETC, THE IBA TEST, AND THINK THE TEST IS CORRUPT WITHOUT PROOF.

SO YOUR BEING DISINGENIOUS, DISHONEST, A DUMBAZZ, ETC.

GO WATCH THE NEWS.

BUT YOU DONT NEED TO, AS YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT THE IBA TEST FOUND XY MALE CHROMOSOMES IN KHALIF, ETC, AND YOU KNOW THE TRUTH, FACTS OF EVERYTHING I SAID.

YOUR JUST BEING A DUMBAZZ D BAG.
Click to expand...
Aren't you the nasty one these days. And here I thought everyone was going to tone down the personal insults and attacks, or risk being banned.

In my always humble yet esteemed opinion, it's pretty simple. If you were born with a pussy, you are a woman. If you were born with a dick, even if you had it cut off, you are a man. A simple pelvic exam by a woman doctor would be able to determine this.

I agree this "chick" looks like a guy. But does she have, and was she born with, a pussy? If yes, end of controversy.
 
mikalalas said:
It's been all over the news EVERYWHERE DUMBAZZ WOKE TARD LIBTARD.

GET OUT OF YOU WOKE TARD, LIBTARD CAVE.

Doesn't matter what the birth certificate says, as Khalif has XY Chromosomes, high testosterone, and looks like the, a INCREDIBLE HULK MALE.

There are a lot of pictures. It's BLOODY DAMN FCKING OBVIOUS ACCORDING TO THE PICTURES THAT KHALIF IS A MALE.

You don't look like that if your a female.

Ok so since you don't condone Males fighting females, then your not a WOKE tard, libtard, but instead are a ILLOGICAL, IGNORAMUS, DUMBAZZ.

WATCH THE NEWS ON CABLE, SATELITE, INTERNET, ETC.

THERE IS PRIMETIME, NON STOP COVERAGE THAT IS TALKING ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE POSTED, PROVING EVERYHING THAT I HAVE POSTED, ETC.

YOUR ABLE TO WATCH THE NEWS, SO GO WATCH THE NEWS, ETC.

AND IF YOU WONT EITHER WATCH THE NEWS OR BELIEVE THE NEWS THEN YOUR A JUST AS MUCH A DUMBAZZ AS THOSE WHO DONT THINK THAT TRUMP USED FIERY RHETORIC THAT INCITED THE JAN 6 RIOTS.

KHALIF WAS BORN MALE, WITH XY CHROMOSOMES. THATS WHAT THE IBA TEST SAY, THAT BANNED, DISQUALIFIED KHALIF FROM IBA COMPETITION, ACCORDING TO THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEWS.

KHALIF DIDNT FIGHT, CONTEST THAT, AND JUST KEPT QUIET, ACCEPTED THAT.

IF THE IBA WERE WRONG KHALIF WOULD HAVE CHALLENGED THE IBA RULING, BUT KHALIF DIDNT BECAUSE KHALIF KNEW THE IBA WAS RIGHT.

KHALIF WAS BORN MALE WITH XY MALE CHROMOSOMES, HIGH TESTOSTERONE, AND BORN WITH FEMALE GENITALIA. HE WAS BORN MALE, WITH XY CHROMOSOMES, ETC, BUT MIS IDENTIFIED BECAUSE OF FEMALE GENITALIA, AND RAISED AS FEMALE.

AND THEN THE MIS IDENTIFICATION WAS COMPOUNDED BY PUTTING FEMALE ON ID CARD, PASSPORTE.

THE IOC, IOC PRESIDENT SAID THAT THEY JUST WENT BY WHAT THE ID, PASSPORTE CARD SAID, AND DIDNT BOTHER TESTING, OR DOING BACKGROUND CHECK, OR USING ANY PAST TEST, LIKE THE IBA TEST.

THATS WHAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEWS HAS BEEN SAYING A LOT YOU DUMBAZZ.

AS SPOCK WOULD SAY, YOU ARE ILLOGICAL, DONT COMPUTE, DONT ACCEPT FACTS, ARE UNINFORMED, DONT WATCH NEWS, ETC.
Click to expand...
First, settle down there. You seem a little excited. Yes, the STORY has been all over the news but NOT the total BS (I'll call it that until you link a credible source) you are claiming as facts.

Again, the IBA president alledged that. They have never provided proof. As a juror would that kind of allegations and evidence be enough for you.

She was NOT born a male. Unless you can show otherwise (giving you another chance - TAKE IT) her birth certificate by all accounts listed her as a she.

She's nowhere near a "hulk". She listed at 5'10" and 145 lbs. Have you seen womens volleyball players? Some don't look quite as feminine as others. You are really showing yourself to being quite ignorant of the broad variety of the human condition.

What is your source for your claim she was born male and misidentified as female because of female genitalia and the xy chromosome thing? If that is An actual verified fact, then I'm more likely to agree with you. But you've ready conceded that "she" doesn't have a dick and has "female genitalia" which - I thought by your previous statements - would indeed make her a "she".

Give a source or simply shut up! Taihtsat
 
KRUSTYtheCOUG said:
First, settle down there. You seem a little excited. Yes, the STORY has been all over the news but NOT the total BS (I'll call it that until you link a credible source) you are claiming as facts.

Again, the IBA president alledged that. They have never provided proof. As a juror would that kind of allegations and evidence be enough for you.

She was NOT born a male. Unless you can show otherwise (giving you another chance - TAKE IT) her birth certificate by all accounts listed her as a she.

She's nowhere near a "hulk". She listed at 5'10" and 145 lbs. Have you seen womens volleyball players? Some don't look quite as feminine as others. You are really showing yourself to being quite ignorant of the broad variety of the human condition.

What is your source for your claim she was born male and misidentified as female because of female genitalia and the xy chromosome thing? If that is An actual verified fact, then I'm more likely to agree with you. But you've ready conceded that "she" doesn't have a dick and has "female genitalia" which - I thought by your previous statements - would indeed make her a "she".

Give a source or simply shut up! Taihtsat
Click to expand...
Upon further review I don’t think the XY chromosome thing has been verified yet, but it’s widely believed that’s the scenario FWIW
 
Coug90 said:
Upon further review I don’t think the XY chromosome thing has been verified yet, but it’s widely believed that’s the scenario FWIW
Click to expand...
Right, but the only source I've seen on that is the questionable IBA which has refused (so far) to produce the results.

The genetic thing is complicated. There are xy women walking around that would have no idea they are xy. Amongst many many other bizarre genetic circumstances. All biological "sex/gender" criteria break down on some level. Ther is no ONE SINGLE characteristic that is absolute. At least not yet. Taihtsat
 
Coug90 said:
Mik just say Laura Loomer, Uber says that’s all you need.
Click to expand...

Laura Loomer, I dont even know who that is, and sounds like either a liberal, or conservative columnist, talking head, etc, not a news source
 
COUGinNCW said:
Anyone see the pole vault today? WR at 6.25 meters which is 20’6” according to Siri.
Unbelievable a human can do that.
Click to expand...
Armand Duplantis (SWE) vaults on a different level. He was so far above the pole on his first WR attempt, just came down on the bar. In terms of clearance he could go significantly higher.

Really cool Kendrics of the US was able to get the silver and a Greek for bronze.

The women's 5K was crazy good as well.
 
KRUSTYtheCOUG said:
Right, but the only source I've seen on that is the questionable IBA which has refused (so far) to produce the results.

The genetic thing is complicated. There are xy women walking around that would have no idea they are xy. Amongst many many other bizarre genetic circumstances. All biological "sex/gender" criteria break down on some level. Ther is no ONE SINGLE characteristic that is absolute. At least not yet. Taihtsat
Click to expand...
I am not going to be taking one side or the other, but here is a link from the IBA dealing with the chronology of their testing. Seems to me the key takeaway is their stance that the test results are private medical information and cannot be shared without the patient's permission. That being the case, it appears that the only way for you to get the information you are looking for is for someone to illegally leak the test results or for the athlete in question to share the results.

It does seem to come down to a chromosome issue to me, speculating from what was provided.

Ignore the source, look at the actual information provided.

redstate.com

We Now Have Answers About Testing Done on Olympic Boxers Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-Ting

redstate.com redstate.com
 
Within the olympic topic, how in the hell does China win the "shooting" gold so easily without the uSA even placing?

Seems we have lots of history and a lot of guns and A LOT of experience in this category!

NRA fail! Taihtsat
 
Stretch 74 said:
I am not going to be taking one side or the other, but here is a link from the IBA dealing with the chronology of their testing. Seems to me the key takeaway is their stance that the test results are private medical information and cannot be shared without the patient's permission. That being the case, it appears that the only way for you to get the information you are looking for is for someone to illegally leak the test results or for the athlete in question to share the results.

It does seem to come down to a chromosome issue to me, speculating from what was provided.

Ignore the source, look at the actual information provided.

redstate.com

We Now Have Answers About Testing Done on Olympic Boxers Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-Ting

redstate.com redstate.com
Click to expand...
I appreciate the link. I do think eventually we will know a lot more and come to an agreeable consensus on this complicated issue.

The last paragraph, however, about the "transgender agenda" being in conflict with reality seems a bit ideological.

I guess we'd have to dig into just what that "agenda" is and whether transgender is a completely "made up" condition. Taihtsat
 
Stretch 74 said:
I am not going to be taking one side or the other, but here is a link from the IBA dealing with the chronology of their testing. Seems to me the key takeaway is their stance that the test results are private medical information and cannot be shared without the patient's permission. That being the case, it appears that the only way for you to get the information you are looking for is for someone to illegally leak the test results or for the athlete in question to share the results.

It does seem to come down to a chromosome issue to me, speculating from what was provided.

Ignore the source, look at the actual information provided.

redstate.com

We Now Have Answers About Testing Done on Olympic Boxers Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-Ting

redstate.com redstate.com
Click to expand...

So the IOC tested Khalif and the other boxer, and the IOC test confirmed the IBA test, that Khalif and the other boxer both have XY MALE chromosomes.

And even tho it's a conservative news source, they provided source, documentation, citation of sources, figures, facts, data, etc.

And the IOC ignored their own test results saying Kalif and the other boxer has XY MALE chromosomes, too high testosterone, etc, and are still letting males fight females.

Time for all govts, media news sources to either put a asterisk next to Khalif winning a gold medal, or to say that Khalif did not win a gold medal, strip Khalif of gold medal, put IOC in place, flip the bird to the IOC, and give a gold medal to the female who lost to the male Khalif, etc.

I will never recognize or give credit to Khalif for winning a gold medal, and neither should anybody else, and everybody should just flip the bird at, tell the IOC to FCK OFF.
 
mikalalas said:
So the IOC tested Khalif and the other boxer, and the IOC test confirmed the IBA test, that Khalif and the other boxer both have XY MALE chromosomes.

And even tho it's a conservative news source, they provided source, documentation, citation of sources, figures, facts, data, etc.

And the IOC ignored their own test results saying Kalif and the other boxer has XY MALE chromosomes, too high testosterone, etc, and are still letting males fight females.

Time for all govts, media news sources to either put a asterisk next to Khalif winning a gold medal, or to say that Khalif did not win a gold medal, strip Khalif of gold medal, put IOC in place, flip the bird to the IOC, and give a gold medal to the female who lost to the male Khalif, etc.

I will never recognize or give credit to Khalif for winning a gold medal, and neither should anybody else, and everybody should just flip the bird at, tell the IOC to FCK OFF.
Click to expand...

And everybody at the gold medal match should just chant XY XY XY all match long
 
mikalalas said:
So the IOC tested Khalif and the other boxer, and the IOC test confirmed the IBA test, that Khalif and the other boxer both have XY MALE chromosomes.

And even tho it's a conservative news source, they provided source, documentation, citation of sources, figures, facts, data, etc.

And the IOC ignored their own test results saying Kalif and the other boxer has XY MALE chromosomes, too high testosterone, etc, and are still letting males fight females.

Time for all govts, media news sources to either put a asterisk next to Khalif winning a gold medal, or to say that Khalif did not win a gold medal, strip Khalif of gold medal, put IOC in place, flip the bird to the IOC, and give a gold medal to the female who lost to the male Khalif, etc.

I will never recognize or give credit to Khalif for winning a gold medal, and neither should anybody else, and everybody should just flip the bird at, tell the IOC to FCK OFF.
Click to expand...

mikalalas said:
And everybody at the gold medal match should just chant XY XY XY all match long
Click to expand...
Your ignorance is on display. Xy isn't the sole indicator.

Here's a clue for you: there isn't a SOLE indicator (yet) to determine whether one is male or female. They ALL break down at some level! ALL OF THEM!
 
mikalalas said:
Laura Loomer, I dont even know who that is, and sounds like either a liberal, or conservative columnist, talking head, etc, not a news source
Click to expand...
I’m just making fun of Uber because…well…he’s easy to make fun of.
 
SaveFerris said:
Armand Duplantis (SWE) vaults on a different level. He was so far above the pole on his first WR attempt, just came down on the bar. In terms of clearance he could go significantly higher.

Really cool Kendrics of the US was able to get the silver and a Greek for bronze.

The women's 5K was crazy good as well.
Click to expand...
He can only do that because he doesn’t have a banana stuffed in his pants that knocks the bar off.

What I’ve learned in this Olympics is that you shouldn’t be boxing women if you have an XY chromosome even if you have a vag, and you are at a disadvantage pole vaulting if you have a huge schlong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UberCougars and mikalalas
KRUSTYtheCOUG said:
Right, but the only source I've seen on that is the questionable IBA which has refused (so far) to produce the results.

The genetic thing is complicated. There are xy women walking around that would have no idea they are xy. Amongst many many other bizarre genetic circumstances. All biological "sex/gender" criteria break down on some level. Ther is no ONE SINGLE characteristic that is absolute. At least not yet. Taihtsat
Click to expand...
Yeah. As is par for the course in the country though everyone has to be an outraged expert by reading a few social media posts.
 
Coug90 said:
One things for certain. The IOC has always been good at F’ing up what’s supposed to be a pure competition and global unity. Corrupt judges, doping, etc. this issue is not a surprise.

I feel bad for the athletes, even the Algerian one. They are playing by the IOCs rules and just want to compete.
Click to expand...
Here, here!

Good post!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikalalas
Coug90 said:
Yeah. As is par for the course in the country though everyone has to be an outraged expert by reading a few social media posts.
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for “everyone” but, I don’t get outraged about anything.

We may disagree on a few personal observations about the world around us but, so what?

Trump wins? Kamala wins? RFK? Other? Might not be who I wanted but, so what?

Ever go on a beach vacation and it rained? Did you find a way to have fun anyway?

Boldly go and live your life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikalalas and anon_1nb5kgc7kwlls
Loyal Coug1 said:
Must say that I really don't give a s#it about the Olympics. They just won't quit adding stupid events. Ping Pong? Artistic Diving? Rhythmic Gymnastics? 3 on 3 Basketball? Breaking (WTF is that?). No thanks.

I did check on Australia's first Men's BB game, hoping that I'd see Baynes in the box score. Apparently he has hung it up for good. :( Patty Mills and Delladova are still out there.
Click to expand...
If you like T&F -
1500 - Cole Hocker
400 - Quincy Hall
Wow!
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaveFerris
COUGinNCW said:
If you like T&F -
1500 - Cole Hocker
400 - Quincy Hall
Wow!
Click to expand...
Those 2 were definitely wow momets! Kenneth Rooks silver in the steeple was pretty special as well and from Walla Walla no less.

T&F hasn't disappointed in this Olympics. Great finishes, world records, and a lot of surprises.
 
KRUSTYtheCOUG said:
sciencebasedmedicine.org

The Science of Biological Sex

What does the science actually say about biological sex?
sciencebasedmedicine.org

A great breakdown of this very complicated issue that goes beyond simple xx and xy
Click to expand...
Science basedmedicine.org has some interesting points, but their entire premise is flawed, I think. They advocate for being guided by the current science, rather than by research-based evidence.

The problem is that current science is constantly being altered and updated - often because of research evidence. Clinging to the known science rather than acknowledging what evidence is telling you is, well….unscientific.
 
95coug said:
Science basedmedicine.org has some interesting points, but their entire premise is flawed, I think. They advocate for being guided by the current science, rather than by research-based evidence.

The problem is that current science is constantly being altered and updated - often because of research evidence. Clinging to the known science rather than acknowledging what evidence is telling you is, well….unscientific.
Click to expand...
Not sure where you get the idea they aren't fully invested in research- based science. All of their contributors are either researchers, doctors and/or science educators.

I guess my question would be on THIS specific topic addressed in that link, what do you think is flawed? What are they missing?

Edit to add: additionally if one is not "guided by the current science", what's the better alternative?
 
Last edited:
KRUSTYtheCOUG said:
Not sure where you get the idea they aren't fully invested in research- based science. All of their contributors are either researchers, doctors and/or science educators.

I guess my question would be on THIS specific topic addressed in that link, what do you think is flawed? What are they missing?

Edit to add: additionally if one is not "guided by the current science", what's the better alternative?
Click to expand...
From their website:

"Science-Based Medicine is dedicated to evaluating medical treatments and products of interest to the public in a scientific light, and promoting the highest standards and traditions of science in health care...Good science is the best and only way to determine which treatments and products are truly safe and effective...EBM is a vital and positive influence on the practice of medicine, but it has limitations and problems in practice: it often overemphasizes the value of evidence from clinical trials alone, with some unintended consequences, such as taxpayer dollars spent on “more research” of questionable value. The idea of SBM is not to compete with EBM, but a call to enhance it with a broader view: to answer the question “what works?” we must give more importance to our cumulative scientific knowledge from all relevant disciplines."

On its surface, that sounds OK. But it's vague, and it's the kind of thinking that leads to people using veterinary anti-fungal medications to treat respiratory diseases....even when it's been demonstrated that it's ineffective at safe doses.

The better alternative to current science is evidence. If the evidence that shows that the science is wrong...then the science needs to be updated, not followed.
 
95coug said:
From their website:

"Science-Based Medicine is dedicated to evaluating medical treatments and products of interest to the public in a scientific light, and promoting the highest standards and traditions of science in health care...Good science is the best and only way to determine which treatments and products are truly safe and effective...EBM is a vital and positive influence on the practice of medicine, but it has limitations and problems in practice: it often overemphasizes the value of evidence from clinical trials alone, with some unintended consequences, such as taxpayer dollars spent on “more research” of questionable value. The idea of SBM is not to compete with EBM, but a call to enhance it with a broader view: to answer the question “what works?” we must give more importance to our cumulative scientific knowledge from all relevant disciplines."

On its surface, that sounds OK. But it's vague, and it's the kind of thinking that leads to people using veterinary anti-fungal medications to treat respiratory diseases....even when it's been demonstrated that it's ineffective at safe doses.

The better alternative to current science is evidence. If the evidence that shows that the science is wrong...then the science needs to be updated, not followed.
Click to expand...
They are explicitly making a distinction between *evidence based medicine" and "science based medicine". Their statement notes that EBM can be instructive but isn't as complete or useful as SBM which incorporates the proper actual and practical implementation of the process of science in studies and research.

Any old study could find "evidence" that acupuncture, esp and chiropractor manipulations work but not so much when held up to a strict scientifically based method.

In short, you can find evidence for almost anything as "one-off" solo trials and a single study could seem to show. Popular media fall for this all the time.

Your example of ivermectin to treat COVID is exactly an example of what SBM does NOT advocate due to poor trial samples and methodology. In fact if you do a search of their site you'll find dozens of articles demonstrating that very thing.

By definition, "current science" IS supported by evidence. The current science of the biology and genetics of sex and gender is expressed in that link I provided. Many on this board are completely ignorant of that, as I was also at one time. Taihtsat
 
95coug said:
Science basedmedicine.org has some interesting points, but their entire premise is flawed, I think. They advocate for being guided by the current science, rather than by research-based evidence.

The problem is that current science is constantly being altered and updated - often because of research evidence. Clinging to the known science rather than acknowledging what evidence is telling you is, well….unscientific.
Click to expand...
You’d have to believe in science. Plenty of folks don’t.
 
KRUSTYtheCOUG said:
They are explicitly making a distinction between *evidence based medicine" and "science based medicine". Their statement notes that EBM can be instructive but isn't as complete or useful as SBM which incorporates the proper actual and practical implementation of the process of science in studies and research.

Any old study could find "evidence" that acupuncture, esp and chiropractor manipulations work but not so much when held up to a strict scientifically based method.

In short, you can find evidence for almost anything as "one-off" solo trials and a single study could seem to show. Popular media fall for this all the time.

Your example of ivermectin to treat COVID is exactly an example of what SBM does NOT advocate due to poor trial samples and methodology. In fact if you do a search of their site you'll find dozens of articles demonstrating that very thing.

By definition, "current science" IS supported by evidence. The current science of the biology and genetics of sex and gender is expressed in that link I provided. Many on this board are completely ignorant of that, as I was also at one time. Taihtsat
Click to expand...
I think you are misunderstanding what SBMs basic premise is and it’s simply this - that the conclusions of evidence based medicine must be backed by scientifically plausible explanations.
Evidence based medicine which relies on clinical trials can often lead to flawed conclusions due to a number of factors not the least of which is human bias. Think of it as an enhancement to evidence based medicine as a way of further validating conclusions drawn from clinical trials… or as a means of discrediting incorrect conclusions drawn from flawed/fraudulent clinical trials.
 
WillieThePimp said:
I think you are misunderstanding what SBMs basic premise is and it’s simply this - that the conclusions of evidence based medicine must be backed by scientifically plausible explanations.
Evidence based medicine which relies on clinical trials can often lead to flawed conclusions due to a number of factors not the least of which is human bias. Think of it as an enhancement to evidence based medicine as a way of further validating conclusions drawn from clinical trials… or as a means of discrediting incorrect conclusions drawn from flawed/fraudulent clinical trials.
Click to expand...
Like I said….on the surface it sounds good that “the conclusions of evidence based medicine must be backed by scientifically plausible explanations.” The problem is that “scientifically plausible” is limited by our ability to understand, explain, and accept. This limitation is why we’re barely 100 years removed from doctors believing a bloody lab coat was prestigious, and that draining blood was the best way to treat illness.

As an example outside of medicine, look at the everyday bumblebee. Until pretty recently, physics could not explain why bees could fly. Our understanding of aerodynamics said that it wasn’t possible….but fly they did, even though science couldn’t explain it. We needed high speed cameras to develop to the point where we could see just how fast the bee’s undersized wings moved, and to visualize/model how that speed and the angle & rotation of the wings produced air currents that create lift.

Bottom line is, even if something isn’t “scientifically plausible,” it may work. We don’t need to be able to explain it to make that true. Sometimes the evidence outweighs the explanation.
 
WillieThePimp said:
I think you are misunderstanding what SBMs basic premise is and it’s simply this - that the conclusions of evidence based medicine must be backed by scientifically plausible explanations.
Evidence based medicine which relies on clinical trials can often lead to flawed conclusions due to a number of factors not the least of which is human bias. Think of it as an enhancement to evidence based medicine as a way of further validating conclusions drawn from clinical trials… or as a means of discrediting incorrect conclusions drawn from flawed/fraudulent clinical trials.
Click to expand...
You are stating exactly the meaning of what I wrote. I'm misunderstanding SBM?
 
Last edited:
Olympics -
Steph Curry wins the Gold
He was unconscious the last 2 games when it counted.
 
Why are the women's sprinters objectively prettier than any of the other groups of female sport participants?

And not just by a little...by a lot! Taihtsat
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coug90
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back