In other words, if I were to try to convince you that the sun were not hot, I wouldn't begin by claiming that all scientific and nonscientific measurements were lies because that's not a belief that you hold. A slightly less absurd example. If I were to try to convince you that Manchester United were the most successful sports team in the world, I would begin by attempting to convince you of the standards that ought to be used to measure 'success'. If you believed that success was measured by revenue, I would have a relatively easy time convincing you. If, however, you felt that success was measured by total number of trophies won, then I would have a harder time convincing you because I would need to first dislodge this particular belief. If your commitment to this belief was sufficiently strong, I wouldn't be able to convince you that Manchester United were the most successful team.
What that manchester united debate is lacking is a premise from which you can start that has to be objective. There are arguments that can be solved because of a strong premise and arguments which cannot. The problem you have posed with manchaster cannot be solved because, as you said someone can measure success by the ammount of money it recieves....the matches it has played, hell even it's eurogoals. Debating with that premise in mind would just go back and forth and back and forth and back and...... Which i am pretty sure it already does ( i am not a sports fan but i think i realise that there is not a unanimous decision of sports fans that MU is the best team in the world).
Therefore the MU problem cannot be resolved with that premise. What premise would be needed? hell if i know, as i said, dunno much about sports. Let's take it to the sun now. The "sun is hot" problem can be solved by using the premise "it is hot if it has high temperature". The sun has high temperature, therefore it is hot. A premise with which the problem could not be solved is "the rounder the sun is, the hotter it is" since it will not prove or disprove anything, just like in the MU debate.
Ok this is getting slightly out of hand here. What I was trying to say is that women that don't like being discriminated or looked down on ( and let's face it, nobody likes that ) have no need to fear nydus vaginas and orgasming zergs.
Now, unless people on this forum agree that protoss structures are giant penises and that the zerg Overmind is just acting according to some woman's orgasm, then the author's conclusion that starcraft is derrogatory towards women is wrong. That means that either her arguments or her premise is false. I have tried to prove that her premise was false, but apparenty i tottaly missed it. All i know is, that she tried to prove something and she failed (thus so many facepalms on this thread).
I'm not saying that the issue of women being demeaned is not a real one. Just that it is not present here. Ah...well there you go. That's her premise, i think i finally found it. Starcraft is demeaning towards women. She is basing this on the nydus vaginas and the fact that women are sexy in this game. I simply cannot fathom how on earth does having good looking women ( well, good looking pixels, it's a videogame ffs so there are NO REAL WOMEN!!!) that are very good at the roles they fill and that humorously flirt with the player mean that the game is sexist???
Look, I would have had nothing against this article if it was registered as a "fun fact". I was actually very intrested. I never thought of the zerg that way, and was both amused and really into it. But then she declared a sort of crusade against this. And there is simply NO foundation for it. That is what i was trying to say. No foundation for her conclusion. If you find one, please point it out.
Ok, i hope you got what i was trying to do here. So judging by the way she wrote her article, the huge number of facepalms on this thread, the nydus vaginas and the nexus penises.... the point the article was trying to make has FAILED.