Slashdot Mirror
Arm Wrestling Machine Recalled for Breaking Arms
Lucas123 writes "After three players broke their arms while wrestling with a Japanese arcade machine, the manufacturer promised to remove all 150 of the mechanized appendages. Said game maker Atlus' spokeswoman: "The machine isn't that strong, much less so than a muscular man. Even women should be able to beat it.""
The machine may not be stronger than a human--but it is uncompromising. If you arm-wrestle against a human, they will: (a) get a bit tired, and (b) usually not purposefully break your arm. That is, they will only push as hard as is necessary to beat you, and if they see that you are hurting yourself, they can modify the force and direction of force so as to not hurt you.
If you are going up against a machine, it will just keep pushing back with the same strength, even when your eyes are saying "I give up!"
Shoot, I'm more liberal than most and I think the PC bullshit goes too far.
So the average man is stronger than the average woman... but it's still not OK to acknowledge that?
I took a sociology class with a crazy liberal lesbian instructor (she was nice and earnest, just not a good teacher). Anyhow, we were shown some statistic about women vs. men along the lines of "Men are stronger [taller, something like this] on average". In refuting the (larger) argument, the instructor pointed to this particular statistic and said "It doesn't take into account that some women are stronger [taller, whatever] than some men!"
I just wanted to scream out "YES IT DOES!! DO YOU KNOW WHAT AVERAGE MEANS??" but it was a lost cause; most students were just as gung-ho about being "equal" and "correct", etc. I didn't have the energy to refute every problem in that class.
Really, pointing out facts should not be frowned upon. If, on average, men are stronger than women, why shouldn't one say that? Using said facts to oppress would be a problem, but facts are facts, no matter what happen to be our beliefs or prejudices.
I mean, if I say "People hailing from Western Africa have darker skin than those from Western Europe", is there anything wrong with it? Of course not. It just becomes a problem when I add, "and so we can subjugate them." I leave it up to you to decide who "we" are and who "they" are.
Sure, when I need help lifting a heavy object, I look for the nearest woman. What a load of shit. And when I feel like fucking someone, I go trying to pick up other men. Yeah. Wouldn't want to be "sexist" you know.
Politically correct people should be beaten to a pulp, on sight (by a man). The world will be a much better place.
I mean, look at the bullshit you wrote (paraphrasing):
Even though men are usually stronger than women, it's stupid to say that.
Yeah, I guess FACTS and REALITY are for stupid people. Gotcha.
Because it's _someone else's_ pain and anguish, obviously.
:)
It's funny on many many levels (think: Tough guy reporting to hospital with a broken arm trying to make up a story to pretend his arm didn't snap on 'sissy' level), but obviously unfunny on others.
Obviously you can only see the unfunny levels... poor you.
(Curiously, your post is rated +5 Funny
(Well... it was before I hit 'Preview'. Now it's only rated +4 Funny)
Spend less time failing to understand mathematics and more time in the gym, and maybe you'll be stronger than the average woman. "On average, men are stronger than women" is a fact, if on average, men are indeed (as has been measured) stronger than women. Whether it's a good metric or a relevant argument is an entirely different matter.
Since this is Slashdot, I'll put it in terms you may be able to understand: I have a white sports car. It's decently fast. If someone were to research statistics of cars' top speeds, and find that on average, red cars are faster than white cars, it's irrelevant whether my white car or any other white car is faster than most red cars, because my car isn't an average white car. The statistic says that if you pick a random white car and a random red car, chances are the red car is faster.
Likewise, if it's been shown that on average men are stronger than women, and you pick a random woman and a random man, odds are that the man is physically stronger than the woman. That's not discrimination, it's statistics. Anyone telling you different is wrong.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
To be sure there are exceptions, but in general, men are larger and stronger that women. Life is not a Joss Whedon TV show.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
These are Japanese. It's better to lose arm than face.
Seriously, it's incredible how much pain and suffering some people will endure without admitting it, and in some cultures this is more pronounced than in others. And losing a manhood challenge to a machine implies you're not even as much man as the machine, i.e. less than zero. So you grind your teeth, force a smile, and endure. And endure. Until your arm breaks, if necessary. At least then, it's not your muscles (i.e. manhood) that are inadequate, and people can hardly fault you for stopping at that point.
Adding 'supposing there are weak females who bring the average down below the male average, removing them from the survey would result in females being stronger than males on average' is true but irrelevant. After that you've basically listed a bunch of reasons that women may be considered more physically fit than men, and then, in a non sequitur, conclude that the original statement doesn't stand. That's as nonsensical as your assertion that average is a "subtle concept" and that "typical" is better. If you think mode is a better measure of central tendency than mean, then by all means find some data about modal properties of humans and post that, but please don't try to redefine mean as mode just because you like it better. To be honest, your post sounds like you're trying to impress a feminist friend of yours who doesn't understand statistics.
If you want actual facts, try this. According to this research, on average:
None of this has any bearing on whether an individual will be suitable, successful or competent in any scenario. It's just useful information when dealing with, or predicting future observations about, populations similar to the sampled one. Trying to state otherwise is ingenuous.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
But boxing isn't a strength contest. Nor is fighting in general.
It is demonstrable that at a given body weight the average male will have more upper body muscle mass than the average female. Women also have a higher minimum safe body fat percentage. Among those who specifically train for strength, the difference is magnified. To use the overemphasized metric of flat barbell bench press, 400 lbs is a rarity among women and anything over 300 likely involves genetic freakiness or steroids.
With men, if you aren't benching 700 pounds you really don't stand out from the crowd. And there are multiple guys who are just trying to stay in shape pressing 300 lbs in every gym in the world.
This is why most jobs that require some demonstration of strength (police, firefighters and such) have different standards for men and women. That ultimately makes no sense to me but it must be necessary to meet gender related employment requirements.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State