• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Women's Cycling Champion is a Man

JoeMorgue said:
No, but they have to be applied differently because you have to account for the fact that fun is no longer the only factor you have to account for.

There's no... end goal in a sport except the competition. Balls in hoops, runs scored, pucks in nets... these are all arbitrary and manufactured end goals. It's the context and structure of the competition that matter.

Business, finance, industry, government... they have other end goals. Their "competition" is based on real world, not manufactured, end goals.

When Microsoft makes more than Apple in 3rd quarter or Bill gets elected to the Council and not Ted or whatnot that's fundamentally different than one team scoring a point on another team. It represents real world things in a way that friendly competition does not.
Click to expand...

I can't believe we have to explain this to a grown adult.
 
Belz... said:
Well I didn't think it deserved to be considered a serious or genuine point.



See?
Click to expand...

What are you saying? That the suggestions of why the winner of the race should not have run are not based on any principles? Or that they are based on principles but not the ones I suggested above as extrapolated from my reading of multiple posts? Or that whatever principles involved in sports should not or can not be applied outside of sports?

Believe me, I completely get the message that you hold everything I say in contempt. You've made that clear. What you haven't made clear is what about it you disagree with, and why.
 
JoeMorgue said:
No, but they have to be applied differently because you have to account for the fact that fun is no longer the only factor you have to account for.

There's no... end goal in a sport except the competition. Balls in hoops, runs scored, pucks in nets... these are all arbitrary and manufactured end goals. It's the context and structure of the competition that matter.

Business, finance, industry, government... they have other end goals. Their "competition" is based on real world, not manufactured, end goals.

When Microsoft makes more than Apple in 3rd quarter or Bill gets elected to the Council and not Ted or whatnot that's fundamentally different than one team scoring a point on another team. It represents real world things in a way that friendly competition does not.
Click to expand...

I realize this is a shocking proposition, but I actually think the real world things are more important than sports, and therefore deserve more consideration and care, not less.
 
Ziggurat said:
TM wants someone to justify this in broader terms, so I'll go ahead and give a broader justification.

Here's the fundamental question at stake: is it OK to use categories for people? Can these categories be objective, or can they only be subjective?

Rachel McKinnon is basically arguing that you cannot use objective categories for people, only subjective categories are acceptable. At the moment, that view is being applied to something "trivial" and "unimportant". But this is just the camel's nose. It won't end here.
Click to expand...

So if a person orbits within their own barycentre, and clears their own orbital path, they can be classified a planet or woman?

We seem to be having more discussions about classification these days.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I realize this is a shocking proposition, but I actually think the real world things are more important than sports, and therefore deserve more consideration and care, not less.
Click to expand...

I don't... disagree. :confused:

I'm really having a hard time hitting a vein on what you're arguing against.

If we have, as we seem to agree, real world things that matter why we would add arbitrary rules to how they operate?

We do that to sports; weight classes, Minor/Major/AAA leagues, gender breakdowns, etc, for the exact same reasons we don't add them to real life.

In real life the destination is the point; effective government, profitable businesses, whatever.

In sports life the journey is the point. We draw out the conflict, make it more exciting, more visceral, more engaging.
 
TragicMonkey said:
What are you saying?
Click to expand...

Bobbed and bobbed.

That the suggestions of why the winner of the race should not have run are not based on any principles? Or that they are based on principles but not the ones I suggested above as extrapolated from my reading of multiple posts? Or that whatever principles involved in sports should not or can not be applied outside of sports?
Click to expand...

I'm not playing that game. Make an effort to truly understand the points made, before you expect anyone to take you seriously.

Believe me, I completely get the message that you hold everything I say in contempt. You've made that clear.
Click to expand...

None of that is true, TM. Don't play the persecution card. The issue isn't you. It's your over-the-top left-wing rants and positions. Or, what? Did you miss the times where we otherwise agree and interact civilly? Or are those not convenient to you right now?
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
I realize this is a shocking proposition, but I actually think the real world things are more important than sports, and therefore deserve more consideration and care, not less.
Click to expand...

Yeah well, if we all believed this, we'd do nothing but work on reversing climate change. But, and I know this is a shocking proposition (;)), but humans can actually hold more than one thought in their heads, and can both care about real-world, important things AND enjoy sports and other frivolous activities.
 
JoeMorgue said:
In real life the destination is the point; effective government, profitable businesses, whatever.
Click to expand...

Ah. This is the ultimate source of the disagreement. I don't think those are the point of those things. I think the real point of every single human institution is to make people happy. Effective government and profitable businesses are possible means to that end but certainly not ends in themselves.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Ah. This is the ultimate source of the disagreement. I don't think those are the point of those things. I think the real point of every single human institution is to make people happy. Effective government and profitable businesses are possible means to that end but certainly not ends in themselves.
Click to expand...

I doubt you think that way when you go into your local BurgerHut and order a #7 hold the pickles and the cook gives you a #8 with extra relish because that's more fun for him.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I think the real point of every single human institution is to make people happy.
Click to expand...

Watching sport makes a lot of people happy. The feeling that something is unfair about the way sports are organised can quite seriously interfere with that happiness, especially when there's a perception that the organisation of the sport is somehow unfair. I know that's all a matter of perception, but that's what a lot of the business of making people happy is about - arranging it so that they perceive things in a way which satisfies their sensibilities. And if people are unhappy about trans women competing in women's sport, then the institution of sport is not making those people happy, and is failing in a part of its purpose. That doesn't specify the solution, of course, but at least it delineates the problem.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Watching sport makes a lot of people happy. The feeling that something is unfair about the way sports are organised can quite seriously interfere with that happiness, especially when there's a perception that the organisation of the sport is somehow unfair. I know that's all a matter of perception, but that's what a lot of the business of making people happy is about - arranging it so that they perceive things in a way which satisfies their sensibilities. And if people are unhappy about trans women competing in women's sport, then the institution of sport is not making those people happy, and is failing in a part of its purpose. That doesn't specify the solution, of course, but at least it delineates the problem.

Dave
Click to expand...

Rules can be imposed to ensure fairness in order to maximize happiness. I don't see why that principle should apply only to sports.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I doubt you think that way when you go into your local BurgerHut and order a #7 hold the pickles and the cook gives you a #8 with extra relish because that's more fun for him.
Click to expand...

I question whether the fun derived yields greater happiness than successfully holding a job. A momentary pleasure versus longterm satisfaction. And what sort of person can be truly happy while making others unhappy?
 
TragicMonkey said:
Rules can be imposed to ensure fairness in order to maximize happiness. I don't see why that principle should apply only to sports.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant to the question of whether it should apply to sports, which is relevant to the topic of this thread. And, as I said, the solution is unspecified; it's by no means certain that changing the rules will make people happier.

Dave
 
Darat said:
But we 100% know not being able to win does not deter the vast majority of people participating in sports both at an amateur level and professional level.
Click to expand...

Have you ever played amateur or recreational sports? The only worse then being placed in a league/division where you can’t compete is having a higher level team/athlete competing in a lower division so they can “enjoy” decimating lower level competition. Competing against peers who are more or less on the same level as yourself is fundamental, and sport doesn’t work without it.
 
angrysoba said:
It doesn't only have to apply to sports. But why not apply it to sports given that that's the topic of the thread?
Click to expand...

I find it disheartening that people can agree on a principle but decide to apply it only to trivial matters, deliberately and consciously refraining from applying it to important ones. That's hypocrisy. It's like a real-life embezzler complaining when someone else steals money from the bank during a game of Monopoly. If a principle is valid it should apply more strongly to the important matters than it does to the less important.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I find it disheartening that people can agree on a principle but decide to apply it only to trivial matters, deliberately and consciously refraining from applying it to important ones.
Click to expand...

We're not. We're saying adding of bunch of arbitrary extra restrictions on the things that are important isn't warranted, while it is warranted to do it to things we just want to have fun watching.

I don't want us make law makers run a Wipeout Course to pass legislation, as fun as that would be to watch.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Rules can be imposed to ensure fairness in order to maximize happiness. I don't see why that principle should apply only to sports.
Click to expand...


Seems reasonable.

Sports are run by independent bodies, able to enforce their rules on competitors who, in turn, have the option to abide by the rules or not compete.


The rest of the world is run by governments. An attempt to lead to a fairer world by, for instance, banning all fee paying schools and ensuring no child gets a head-start by dint of having an education that costs 20 times more than the state education would cause utter outrage.

(Isn't making a fairer country one of the functions of government?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom