[Skybird]

My grandfather had lost one leg in the war, so I am used to that kind of sight. However, I admit that it violates my natural desire for "normal" sights and paired, balanced limbs, my biologically programmed sense of natural beauty, no matter what the intellect expects me to express in opinion. It will never be a normal sight for me tzo see somebody with one missing eye, I wioll always empotionally react to that breaching of the norm. I will always prefer to see a beautiful womán having two breasts instread of one, and I will allways prefer to see runners running on two legs, not on protheses or using wheelchairs. However, this does not mean I wish to kick them from society or dfiscriminate them. It'S just that the expection from the norm aslways triggers attention and reaction, often an emotionally negative one - and sometimes (though not in this case maybe), such a negativity in empotions is serving vital interests, espoecially from a communal level (think of ancient tribes and primitive people).

I just do not wish to see people with crippled limbs being that obviously displaying themselves to the public. Also, there is an implication, that politically is wanted of course, but to which I object, that is that it does not make a difference whether you have two, one, or no legs. It makes, you can twist and turn that and call "injustice" as long as you want - take away his two items called protheses, and then see what a difference it makes. The lack of difference between being "halthy" and "crippled", is true for other qualkities. Intellectual ones, for example. Loosing a leg does not automatically make oyu dumb, or bright. On empotions, I already would be careful, for loosing a liomb can have an emotional impact on a person for sure that maybe will last and chnage his behaviour or character for the better or worse.

The point is to accept the presence of differences, but not to deny them neither to discriminate against them. If crippled atheletes want to compete, then let them, but I do not wish to see their disability being raised to the level of the design-by-norm, nor their competition being mixed with that of "full-membered", "normal" people.

I said that on the homosexual debate, and I say it again here: accept them, let them fit into normal life and do not discriminate against them - but stop making a hassle over them as if by their special characteristic they had turned into something m ore special than those people that in a natural-statistical understanding simply are normal. The guy in this example went to court for his right to compete with normal atheletes. To me, he could as well sue somebody over that he has no wings to fly with, or that he has had an event in his life that costed him two legs. It is kind of absurd to me.

And the one guy this thread started about, obviously he is a different kind of runner than is somebody with two biological legs. Two artifical legs of the kind he uses, are not what two biological legs are. If you compare two such atheletes to each other, you compare two different things to each other. This of course should be rejected - that is why interest groups make it such a big thing. But if you allow this, you can start to introduce formulas by which to calculate in what way the time swom by an athlete in the bassin compares to the time run by another athlete on the track. Then you can have hurdle runners, mid range runners, sprinters and swimmer all compete with each other in just one race! Great, eh?! In the end it becomes a competition of pocket calculators - and then the background anaylsis, and finally the court proceedings over what analysis and expertise is valid and which ine is not, and why...

No doubt atheletes making it to international competitions have trained formidably and show some formidable physical performances. The guy here probably runs the track much fastetr than I was able to do, ever. But that means nothing. He is better in this, in another discipline I probably am better than he is. He did and trained his thing, I learned and practised other things. So what? Where is the surprise? Leave the audience the choice what it wants to see and what not, and do not start to compare apples with opranges. And the hell, leave political correctness and interest groups' sociological agendas out of it. Want to see wheelchar races and ball games, and runners with one or no legs, then go to such a sporting event. But do not push it down people'S throat that they have to watch it when they go to a normal sporting event, no matter whether they want to see that or not. It is two different things.