LaserBuddha
Member
ZephyrFate said:
Do you know what discrimination means?
EDIT: I'm not taking a stance in whatever silly argument you're having with that other poster, but your logic in that post is completely moronic.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
HS Wrestler refuses to hit a Girl, forfeits match
- Thread starter Lunchbox
- Start date
- Status
Do you know what discrimination means?
EDIT: I'm not taking a stance in whatever silly argument you're having with that other poster, but your logic in that post is completely moronic.
ZephyrFate
Banned
Oh, I know what it means, but does anyone honestly care when a man, who generally gets the most positive benefits out of society/what have you... can't do something? Like fucking FIELD HOCKEY?LaserBuddha said:
Next up we'll get people complaining that white people have it rough in America.
ZephyrFate
Banned
Nah, what I'm saying is that men generally have it awesome like all the time throughout history, so when they can't play a middling sport like field hockey why the hell should people raise hell?Satyamdas said:
White man's burden is almost exactly the same damn thing.
Dude Abides
Banned
eznark said:
A girl wrestling boys her same size = a boy playing against girls he dwarfs.
You can do better.
What the fuck does ANY of this have to do with white man's burden or history?? The point is simple. If girls should be allowed into boys sports so that we can attempt to bring about equality, why the fuck does it not work the other way? What is equal about barring boys from girls teams but letting girls on boys teams? This has fuck all to do with men "having it awesome", and everything to do with consistency and equality.ZephyrFate said:
Your repeated references to white people are sweet though. Your white guilt is so tangible I can almost grab it through the monitor.
ZephyrFate
Banned
So... if we're going to keep things consistent, we should let men do everything, and women do nothing... instead of mixing the two.Satyamdas said:
I have absolutely no white guilt. I bring up 'white man's burden' because complaining about white people having it so rough is absolutely as ridiculous as complaining about men not being able to play one sport.
LaserBuddha
Member
ZephyrFate said:
Saying something isn't discrimination =/= thinking it isn't worth complaining about.
But still, your logic is stupid.
I don't give a fuck about men not playing field hockey. Most who would say otherwise in this discussion probably don't actually care.
That said, what if I really loved field hockey? How is it relevant at all that I am allowed to play football, if I have no interest in football?
Hell, I also have the exclusively male "benefit" of sticking my penis into another man's ass if I want. Being a heterosexual, how is that a benefit?
Citing the "privileges" of the target demographic is probably the most classic justification for bigotry, you know. Just want to remind you of the kind of people you're standing with when you use that logic.
ZephyrFate
Banned
I'm stating that the privileges are there and are unfortunately inherent, I do not agree with them (which is why I think it was fucking retarded this idiot refused to wrestle a girl), but to say that suddenly these 'rights' or 'privileges' are being infringed upon because the unfortunately dominant gender can't play field hockey or whatever is hilarious to me.
THIS TOPIC is about discrimination, men not being able to play field hockey isn't. Plain and simple.
As for your weird sexuality point, sex is for more than just reproduction so it could still be a benefit.
THIS TOPIC is about discrimination, men not being able to play field hockey isn't. Plain and simple.
As for your weird sexuality point, sex is for more than just reproduction so it could still be a benefit.
LaserBuddha
Member
ZephyrFate said:
I don't even understand what kind of failed logic led to this statement.
You have GOT to be a troll. There are some dumb people around but no one is this dumb.
If we're to assume that boys on average are physically superior to girls and thus enjoy an enormous advantage in the realm of sport, then letting boys compete in girls' sports effectively leave girls unable to compete in their own sports. That simply doesn't happen in the opposite case.Satyamdas said:
Also what the fuck does white man's burden have to do with boys playing field hockey.
ZephyrFate
Banned
You have absolutely no idea what I'm getting at, so I'll just ignore you from now on.LaserBuddha said:
How do you come to this ridiculous conclusion? If girls are allowed to compete with boys (they should), then boys should also be allowed to compete with girls (they should). This scenario best exemplifies the gender equality everyone gives so much lip service to. Or is being equal not really that important after all?ZephyrFate said:
I think you have plenty of white guilt. Because you rush to mention white man's burden and the "privilege" of white people in a case where no one is complaining about anything. For fucks sake the article about the boy playing field hockey basically shit on the parents of the boy for letting him play with the girls, even though he has the constitutional right to do so. I don't think anyone would give two shits if a boy wasn't allowed to play field hockey, but you can bet the pitchforks would be brought out in an instant if this girl wasn't allowed to wrestle with boys.ZephyrFate said:
So discrimination is cool as long as ZephyrFate feels that the people being discriminated against are white, male, or privileged. Oh, and heterosexual. Your persecution complex is the stuff of legends.
ZephyrFate
Banned
You have COMPLETELY misunderstood what I have said. Seriously, that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I was talking about. In fact, I'm even confused as to how you came to read what I said the complete opposite way.
I said it can't be discrimination when the people who are discriminated against already have everything. And I'm not just sugarcoating it or trying to empower myself, that's pretty fucking stone cold truth. If you're white, male, heterosexual, and preferably religious, you probably have it well off in most of the world.
If anything, these are the type of people discriminating against everyone else.
But go ahead, twist them around ENTIRELY. God, you are ridiculous. Women have spent all history being oppressed by absolutely everyone around them. Heaven forbid people raise a fire and go into mob craziness if a woman was not given an equal opportunity. Wait, that should apply to men, too, who have NEVER been discriminated against EVER!
I said it can't be discrimination when the people who are discriminated against already have everything. And I'm not just sugarcoating it or trying to empower myself, that's pretty fucking stone cold truth. If you're white, male, heterosexual, and preferably religious, you probably have it well off in most of the world.
If anything, these are the type of people discriminating against everyone else.
But go ahead, twist them around ENTIRELY. God, you are ridiculous. Women have spent all history being oppressed by absolutely everyone around them. Heaven forbid people raise a fire and go into mob craziness if a woman was not given an equal opportunity. Wait, that should apply to men, too, who have NEVER been discriminated against EVER!
LaserBuddha
Member
ZephyrFate said:
You're right, I don't, and no one else does either. Because it's illogical nonsense. It's also offensive.
ZephyrFate
Banned
It's only offensive because you didn't understand a single goddamn word.LaserBuddha said:
Dude Abides
Banned
eznark said:
Fair enough. Reilly 2011 would never slam a high-schooler.
LaserBuddha
Member
tiff said:
He's right. It's either gender-equal or it isn't. There isn't a gray area. If you want the gender integration thing to be a one-way street then you're not actually in favor of equality at all.
If you agree that you aren't for gender equality, then that's fine. If that's the case though, then what cause are you fighting for?
I say all of this as someone who favors gender segregation in most sports.
krypt0nian
Banned
tiff said:
He doesn't get It and likely never will. He's too blinded by "LolZ, you wanted equally, I'll give you equality" to see the giant difference smacking him the face like a giant dick.
If a boy wanted in a girl's activity that girls normally excelled in over most boys, then they should be allowed in. That would be equity obviously.
LaserBuddha
Member
ZephyrFate said:
No, I did understand the part where you asserted that white men deserve discrimination as some kind of reparations for whatever beef you have. The logic you used in every point you tried to argue is what didn't make sense.
Note: by "didn't make sense", I mean in the "2+2=5" way.
I don't know what offends me more though:
-your overt sexism/racism,
-the ridiculous notion that freedom and equality is a zero-sum game, where everything (no matter how irrelevant) that generally comes with being a certain gender/race is a factor in deciding whether it is okay to discriminate against someone. YOU DO NOT FUCKING KNOW, MUCH LESS APPRECIATE, WHAT DISCRIMINATION MEANS. This is made further aggravating by the pretense that an individual's entire identity and experiences can even come close to being determined solely by their race and/or gender.
Wow, hyperventilate much? The white male guilt you are carrying around has to be weighed in the gigaton range. It's probably visible from space.ZephyrFate said:
I won't bother addressing anything except the bolded, because it clearly shows that you don't know what the word discrimination means if you think that the race, sex, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation of a person in any way prevents them from being discriminated against.
I'm not talking about historical privilege, which I agree has existed. But if you think that because someone is white, male, religious, and heterosexual that they are magically immune to all form of exclusion and discrimination, you are batshit. But I knew that already.
triplestation
Member
What a sexist.
And I agree with that. My only point was that people crying about making things "equal" don't really know what they are asking for. When things are equal we don't discriminate at all.tiff said:
If it's ok for girls to wrestle but not for boys to play field hockey, then we are asking for accommodations to be made for one group, which is not equality. And I'm fine with that.
I probably don't see that as the same thing you see it as... but, I will say that it isn't so much an ethical equality issue as it is a practical, reality issue.Satyamdas said:
There are Men's Lacrosse and Field Hockey leagues set up at high schools across the country. They won't be as prevalent as football or basketball, but they'll definitely dwarf girl's wrestling leagues in comparison.
I don't think that there will ever be a sufficient solution for that particular problem other than allowing the girls to participate with the guys should they accept the fact that it'll likely be an uphill fight most of the time.
You don't see what the same as I see it as? I agree that it's more of a practical issue than a pure equality one. I don't have any problem at all with accommodating girls with respect to sports integration.DY_nasty said:
But to start going batshit about white man's burden and the privilege of the white male throughout history? Or to insist that white males who are religious and heterosexual can't be discriminated against? How the fuck is any of that relevant?
But you'd be wrong. You'd be twisting the definition of equality in order to make it fit where it actually doesn't.tiff said:
By excluding boys from playing field hockey, but allowing girls to wrestle, you are discriminating against one group but not the other. Now this is fine because it is a practical solution to the problem of the difference in physicality between boys and girls, but it is not an example of pure equality. Equality would mean that boys and girls could all play any sport they wanted. When it comes to sports, I don't think shooting for pure gender equality is a worthwhile endeavor. It is better to make concessions and accommodations where they make the most sense.
Hmmmm, let's take a look, shall we?DY_nasty said:
ZephyFate said:
I'm not twisting anything, I'm just looking at it from a different perspective. You're talking about the equality of the means themselves. I'm more concerned with the equality of the outcome.Satyamdas said:
If the "equal" solution produces a decidedly unequal outcome (as is the case here) then I couldn't tell you that the solution was truly equal. The means themselves may have been based upon the concept of equality, but it certainly couldn't be called "pure equality."
timetokill
Banned
But would you want to argue the ends justfies the means?
I think that what you want is an equal opportunity for people to play the sports they like. If that means there are no women's wrestling tournaments and she wants to play with the men, so be it. If that means there are no men's field hockey teams and he wants to play with the women, so be it.
I think that what you want is an equal opportunity for people to play the sports they like. If that means there are no women's wrestling tournaments and she wants to play with the men, so be it. If that means there are no men's field hockey teams and he wants to play with the women, so be it.
LaserBuddha
Member
tiff said:
Yes, the men in a mixed field hockey league would have an unfair advantage over the women. The men in a mixed wrestling league would also have an unfair advantage over the women.
Do you see the important point you're missing here?
Look, I understand the desire for an equitable outcome where no one is dominated or left out of the sport they wish to play, be it boy or girl. That would be great.tiff said:
Reality dictates that this is not the case, and so what people do is exclude boys, or provide concessions to girls in order to forge a semblance of this ideal we wish was present in reality already. This solution is not perfectly balanced. As such, the outcome is not equal either. There will be some kid who is excluded from the sport he wants to play, so why is his desire to play less worthy than someone else's? This inherent inequality of the sexes can't be erased by any amount of inclusion or exclusion. Someone will always get screwed.
Discrimination and exclusion for one group and accommodations for another group is not equality in practice, nor does it bring about an equitable outcome. All it provides is the illusion of one. It's just not possible for there to be a solution which is fair to all. All I'm saying is that the word "equal" doesn't really fit in any of these scenarios, because everything we are doing is in acknowledgment of the basic inequality of male and female physiology. It's a crude way to "fix" the discrepancy and while it might be the best we've got, it's not equality in any form or fashion.
But what if there was no male equivalent league for him to play in? You can't say that the outcome is equal if he is left in the cold but the girls get to play what they want.tiff said:
I was about 5'8. The closest I came to exaggerating is that I probably weighed closer to between 135 and 140. I don't see why you consider the claims "extraordinary". I was likely pound for pound the strongest in my school (on bench at least), but the buddies I weight lifted with were all no more than 155 and could all bench about 300 if not just under.Bungalow Bob said:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked