One Hour One Life Forums

Cogito

Member

Registered: 2020-03-09

Posts: 192

Re: Men and Boys Routinely Are Under Recognized for Sporting Ability

Another round, here we go!

  To spell it out: under what authority or argument do you seek to stop people spectating all-women sports, through the removal of all-women sports?

I don't expect any such thing.  I haven't called for any such thing.

You called for all-women sports to be abolished, to be integrated with the men's competition.
Abolishing all-women sports means that people can no longer spectate all-women sports.
Hence, you have called for people to no longer be able to watch all-women sports.

Again I ask, who are you to tell people they can't enjoy watching all-women sports?

This was a Spoonwood trap! If you have an extremely small sample from an extremely large population, that sample is statistically insignificant. When I say that the person has achieved more than everyone else who has ever lived it is of course not a literal statement, but an exaggeration.

Statistics involves literal statements.  It doesn't involve exaggerations.

You want to exaggerate?  Then I don't think you want to have an honest discussion here.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life! You are seriously claiming that the only honest discussion is one devoid of all exaggeration? Not only is it ridiculous, it's simply not true; exaggeration is one of many literary techniques that can be employed to highlight a point. Calling someone dishonest because they employed exaggeraion is an example of you arguing in bad faith - and yes I know you didn't literally say I'm dishonest, but that is the direct implication of saying someone doesn't want to have an honest discussion.

Also, "statistics involves literal statements"? What? That is a meaningless statement, at best a non-sequiteur. "It doesn't involve exaggerations"???? The exaggeration was the statement that "the person has achieved more than everyone else who has ever lived", nothing to do with the statistics.

In any case, it is a term of art to say that something is 'statistically' greater, or less, than 'everything' else if the set of counter examples is statistically insignificant.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates … population on the order of 100,000,000,000 people have ever lived on this planet.

According to https://www.whereig.com/olympics/number … pants.html there have been 145,298 participants in the summer olympics since they restarted in 1986 - let's round up to 200,000.

This means that by simply competing in the olympics you have achieved more than 99.9998% of people who have ever lived (at least in a sporting sense!) or in other words, everyone.

Your persistence in quibbling over these patently incorrect interpretations of language and grammar continues to paint you as someone unable to develop their comprehension skills.

You said you were exaggerating.  Exaggeration is taking things out of proportion when engaging in serious speech, since serious speech is exact as it can be, and thus literal.  Thus you were using language incorrectly by any rational standard.

You are free to think of me however you like as are others with respect to my development of my comprehension skills.  But, I am not under any burden to you or others that I can develop those skills.  And I am simply not interested in playing some game to prove to you that I can "understand" you, since that understanding seems vastly contingent on me agreeing with you it seems to me.

You are making some completely unfound jumps in your reasoning here, and to what end? Are you just trying to score points here, or is there a point you actually want to make, or an argument you actually want to refute?

Exaggeration is NOT taking things out of proportion when engaging in serious speech, and we are not engaging in serious speech! Further, serious speech is NOT as exact as it can be, nor is it literal! It is extremely common for serious speech to include allegory and metaphor, exaggeration and satire. Maybe you mean something else by 'serious speech', where all forms of interesting and effective communication are excluded, but I have no idea why you would use such a meaning nor why you would try and hold this conversation to that standard.

Of all the people on this forum, you Spoonwood are the only one who consistently misinterprets what other people say. You don't get to say we all use language incorrectly, or aren't being rational in our speech - these are tired arguments that are unconvincing and extremely arrogant. Time and time again you make it clear that your hubris is more important than whatever point you're trying to make. It's ok to say, "oh, THAT'S what you mean, in that case here is my objection" but instead you say "you were using language incorrectly by any rational standard". It is (almost) the most juvenile form of debate possible - don't engage with the subject, but instead relentlessly attack the form in which it was expressed.

  If you don't want to appear that way, then as many here have suggested you should ask yourself "what is the main point this person is trying to make" and then argue against that.

If you want to try to make a point, the burden of communication is on you as the speaker to get your message across.

Did you not read what I wrote? "People who have, as a group, decided to compete with each other."

Not that closely.  It makes less sense the more closely I read what you said.  People don't make decisions *as a group* to compete with each other in at least some instances.  They make decisions as individuals to enter into competitions for say community running events.  Those individuals agree to the rules of the competitions.  They don't all get together and then decide to compete against each other.

The group of people is bigger here than you seem to be realising. The organisers of an event decide the rules for that event, and the competitors assent to those rules by choosing to participate. Thus, all of them together have decided to compete under those rules. If an organiser implements rules that people don't agree with then those rules will be changed (eventually) - either by a political process within the existing group, or by creating a new event without those rules.

School students have less political capital than most sport participants ...

I find this very strange to believe.  School students have an enormous amount of political capital in terms of how things can shake out.  There exist more school students than sports participants.  If a large enough group of school students were to protest a school having a sport or they demanded a particular sport, the school administration would soon have all sorts of interactions with parents.  The political capital in terms of school students is potentially very large.  It's just often not activated, or there exists a fair amount of disagreement, and oftentimes students haven't developed the ability to think for their own selves or take political action.

The administration in school is simply not more powerful than the students and the parents combined from what I've seen of school districts.  A largely unified student body with parents behind them isn't something an administration can ignore now, is it?

What's your argument here, that the students can enact change to the sports they play or they cannot?

How do you respond for all other sports?

For other sports, students decided to try out for sports teams at the individual level and then made the team (same thing happens for cross-country).  The competitors I would say thus make decisions to compete as individuals.  The coaches and athletic directors who decide on leagues and when games will play against I would say do make decisions as a group.

Reread what I said, we are carving all student based competition out as an exception to the idea that participants choose to compete together. So excluding student sports, how do you respond? I think you have responded to this earlier up thread, so will leave for now.

In Scenario A we take the Spoonwood forced mixing of competitors approach.

The nature of sport is such that it doesn't care about any sort of sex differences, only the quality of play of the competitors.  Thus, sports leagues are forced to get segregated by sex and other categories.  It would thus be natural to have all participants in the same category, because the nature of sport is such that everyone is equal with respect to their performance objectively.

Are you making some point about the fact I used the word forced? I used forced for two reasons - they exist separately now, so must be forced together, and people want to participate separately, so you would have to force them to play together.

Due to the inherent difference in running speed between men and women ...

Um what?  Running speed isn't an inherent different between men and women.  Running speed depends on how fast the body moved, not the sex of the participants.  You clearly lost your sense of physics here Cogito.  It seems predictable since the division of leagues in sports by the same organization on the basis of sex encourages losing a sense of physics.

Um what? It IS an inherent difference between men and women. How fast your body moves is determined, in part, by if you are male or female. When a competition is based on a skill with no clear gender discrepency, like poker, it makes total sense for men and women to compete together - even if they may choose to compete separately which would be fine too.

In almost all physical activities men have a distinct advantage. There are many reasons for this, as others have pointed out, but it mostly comes down to have more muscle and being larger.

these 10 competitors are all men, and as expected the top 10 fastest people are given millions of dollars of cash each, and fame that lasts thousands of years, ensuring that the best runners are appropriately compensated for their efforts.

If you or I were setting up sports leagues a priori that were integrated, if we were rational, we wouldn't presuppose who will win or lose.

Thousands of years of fame and millions of dollars?

I really don't think you're taking that thought experiment seriously.

I was showing how focusing on the awards is ridiculous when asking if men and women should compete against each other. Also there was no presupposition of who will win or lose, but statistically if you pick the fastest 10 people from 1000, those 10 people will be men.

I checked race times for the 2020 running season, specifically the 100m run: https://www.worldathletics.org/records/ … sOnly=true

These records don't include everyone, they have a cutoff time you have to get under in order to be listed in the results. Those cutoffs are 11s for men (3337 results), and 12.5s for women (1307 results). If you included the women in the men's competition, 4 of them achieved a speed of under 11 seconds, and the fastest woman would appear at position 1934 in the men's ranking.

In Scenario B it is every single person again, but in Secnario A none of the women compete because there is no chance they can ever win.  Hence, Scenario B has more competition (1000 people competing) than Scenario A (500 people competing)

So basically women will only compete if their necessarily will exist some female winner or top performer?  Women in sports are that sexist that they will do so only if some member of their sex is assured a chance of a success?

It's not that there has to be a woman at the top, per se, it's that if they compete against men they will always lose (statistically speaking). Sure there may be some women who enjoy losing constantly simply because their bodies make less testosterone, but the majority will go compete in their own competition.

For some sports it can make sense, but the physical differences between men and women (just like between children and adults, and man and machine) necessitates that competition is segregated.

The physical differences between men and women is not a causative factor of the sex segregation of sports.  So, no, it does not necessitate that competition is segregated.

This is entirely unsubstantiated, and goes against what everyone believes. Why are they segregated, if not for physical reasons?

You're cherry picking your evidence, at best.

I'd have to know of examples which contradict my position to cherry pick.

Your evidence that physical attributes play no part in success at sport seems to come down to "I was in a mixed cross country squad and it was fun". You're either cherry picking that example, or you have never even tried to validate your position with any reseasrch. I'm not sure which is better.

Forcing different levels of skill and ability to compete together will reduce the number of people who participate in your sport, and those people will just go play by themselves without your silly rules.

It is very strange to me to think that everyone playing by literally the same rules as in any way silly.  An organization which sets up an event where everyone plays by the same rules involves treating people equally and also having people's performances evaluated solely on the basis of merit.  Both of those encourage objectivity for anyone thinking about the rules and the competition.  There would be no silly "I ran well... for a girl" or "you ran well... for a woman." for anyone.

Just because two people compete under the exact same rules it does not mean that their competition is fair, or solely on the basis of merit. Golf is a perfect example of this. Two people with different skill levels will play with different handicaps, so that the person who plays better on the day of the tournament (compared to how they normally play) will be the winner. This incentivises everyone to play well, even if they know they are not as good as the person they are competing against.

Golf is a highly skilled game, but at the elite levels in particular physical attributes still play a big role. In particular, men are able to drive the ball a lot farther, and so consistently beat women on the same course and with the same rules. It is not the woman's fault that she can't hit the ball as far, and nothing she can do can change that. There is no merit in losing simply because your body makes less testosterone.

You'll note that putt-putt golf tournaments are not segregated by men and women, precisely because the only thing that matters is skill.

DiscardedSlinky

DubiousSlinker

From: Discord

Registered: 2019-05-06

Posts: 689

Re: Men and Boys Routinely Are Under Recognized for Sporting Ability

Who gives a fuck about sports? we're gamers

Everyone shut the hell up

---

I'm Slinky and I hate it here.
I also /blush.

DestinyCall

Member

Registered: 2018-12-08

Posts: 4,563

Re: Men and Boys Routinely Are Under Recognized for Sporting Ability

But if we stopped responding to his garbage posts, the troll would go hungry.   He might starve!    Do you really want a dead forum troll on your conscience?

Have a heart, do your part, contribute some outrage.