1

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?

« on: Today at 06:18:14 AM »

That might explain why you put zero thought into it.

When people like you appear to attack it just on principle, what is the point?

Demonstrably false.  I’ve been attacking specifics, which you are now complaining about.  You are the one arguing on “principles”.  Or some might say extremism.

But once again you’re veering wildly off topic with dumb analogies.  This has nothing to do with sports.

It isn't off topic or dumb. You not liking it because it shows the stupidity of your objection doesn't make it dumb.
It is a simple comparison to highlight just how stupid your requirement of having all the details is.

I don't need to have all the details to know the current system, discriminating on the basis of sex, is broken.

The correct response would be to admit you were wrong, rather than trying to deflect and dismiss.

It’s clearly massively off topic.

The topic is women’s sports.  Millions of women play competitive sports, from local club level to international level.  Do you want a system where they still get to compete, or are you happy to just let sport be a men’s thing?  If it’s the former, how does it work?

The details you apparently don’t care about could determine whether all those millions and careers and hobbies are sacrificed on the alter of “not being sexist”.

You are the one who is proposing completely overturning the world of sport, so YOU need to show how and why it’s better.  How exactly is it better for all the people in the world who play and watch sport to not have those divisions?

And I have.
It removes the sexism, treating males and females equally, so people will not be unfairly discriminated against based upon their sex.
Are you suggesting sexism makes it better?

I wouldn’t call women’s sports sexist.  At least not in any way that matters.

When most people talk about sexism, they mean the discrimination that has a negative impact on peoples lives.  You call women’s sports sexism because it discriminates between men and women.  That might technically fit the strict definition of the word, but so what?

The important thing is whether it’s better or worse for the millions of people it affects?  So are the men you say are unfairly discriminated against any better off by scrapping it?  Is that enough to justify everything you would happily take away from people?

If you just make all events open, the all the men currently being “discriminated against” who could beat the best women are precisely zero places higher in the open rankings than they were in the mens.  All the men further down are even further from the top.  You’ve ended the “discrimination against men” and no men are better off, while the women loose a great deal.  Awesome.

That’s why you proposed your ability divisions in the first place.  But the problem with that is how fundamentally broken it is.

Here AGAIN, is what I was replying to, when we were talking specifically about qualifying for high level events like the Olympics-

Or you can make different divisions, based upon non sexist terms, And then people would be eligible for at least one division, and getting too good for their current one and moving up to the next, they are still eligible for it, even if they don't have a chance of winning.

You appeared to change your answer

No, I didn't.
Where is the change in answer?
Being eligible for the next division up does not mean they will automatically go to the Olympics for it. They still need to qualify.

And I was specifically talking about qualifying.  So they would have no chance of qualifying.  Thanks for clarifying.

Your proposal for “ability divisions” was based on athletes’ performance.  For boxers that means winning matches, not weight.

And for your objection against that based upon athletes artificially capping their performance so they don't get excluded from that division so it isn't about being the bets, relates directly to boxers capping their weight so they don't get excluded from their division so it is no longer about being the best.

Performance meaning winning matches, races, scoring the most points in gymnastics, etc, etc.  The  point of the sports they are competing in, and how they are ranked. To avoid being excluded from your ridiculous performance based divisions, they would need to avoid winning too often to stay at just the right place in the rankings. 

Not the same at all as trying to be the best of featherweights, or the best of the women.

Heavyweight is very far from the next division from featherweight.  Maybe you should have asked a less stupid question.  Boxers can and do move up a weight class and compete at the same level for the next season.  eg world class boxers who compete internationally in their new class.

My bad, but also partly your bad. I asked how long in direct response to your question, and then asked how long it takes to go from featherweight to heavyweight. You just responded with "quite a while".
But do you have an example of a boxer who won a weight division, then went up to the next and won or came close to winning?

Many of these won a world championship in one class and the next one up the following year:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boxing_quadruple_champions

It’s only at the higher competitive levels where boxers carefully manage their weight because they are looking for any advantage.

So it is only the level where it would get you to things like the Olympics where you are really meant to be trying to find "the best" where the athletes decide to artificially restrict themselves to not be the best?
As opposed to amateurs that don't really care because they know they aren't the best?

People who play anything in their spare time at their local sports center don’t tend to take it as seriously as the people competing internationally.  Who’d have thought?

I’ll remind you again

And I'll remind you again that weight is not a perfect drop in. I have never said it is.
I'm not saying we should switch entirely to weight based divisions. Instead, I am using it to show how your arguments apply equally to an existing system.
And I'll also point out again that you can control your weight, you can't control your sex.

So no, this is not a double standard.

You explicitly claim that any argument based on physiological differences between men and women can only work if EVERY man is faster, stronger or whatever than every woman.  You’ve repeatedly said that several posters are pretending this, when they were very clearly not.  You insist that sex would have to be a “perfect drop in” for performance for their arguments to make logical sense.

See your double standard now?

Neither are more significant factors than being good at the sport.

Then you should have no concern with males competing against females, because those males would need to be good at the sport to have a chance of wining.

Of course they would.  I couldn’t beat professional female athletes in any sport.  Not even close.  Neither I strongly suspect could you.  But the top women would stand no chance against the top men in most sports, no matter how good they are and how hard they train, because of the significant natural advantages that men have.  Not every single man, but men in general.

Not what’s happening now.

Yes what is happening now.
Countries are sending in a mixture of the best and the mediocre.
Some athletes that are better than the mediocre athletes are excluded.

They aren’t excluded because they win too much.  It’s a very simple concept, almost like you are deliberately avoiding the whole point I’ve been making for god knows how many posts.

No one is ever told they can’t go to the Olympics because they ranked too high during qualification

Which is not what that statement was.
But they can be told they are too heavy.

Which is obviously not the same thing, is it? 

So which do you propose?  Do you want to simply abolish women’s sports or are you going to keep flogging the dead horse of your ability division crap?

Again, I propose removing sex based discrimination.
Other than that, I don't have a strong preference either way for just an open competition or multiple divisions.

So you don’t care about what would happen to all the millions of people who play sport under the current system or the people who watch it?

Then explain why that is better.

Because it removes the sexism. It treats people based upon who they are, not what sex they are.
Do you think that is a bad thing? That we should be treating people based upon what sex they are rather than who they are?

I think outcomes matter.  I think destroying sport for women would be a bad thing.  Womens sports exists to allow women to compete in sports, which is a good. It doesn’t detract from mens sports at all. 

You don’t seem to be able to explain why it’s bad for anyone involved or how an alternative would be better. 

It’s bad because it’s sexism and sexism is bad.  You appear to care more about the word sexism than the actual people affected.  I don’t give a crap if you want to call it sexism, I do care about what would happen to the people who play.

I’ve also compared to how it currently works with age grouping in youth games and, wait for it… weight classes in boxing.

i.e. systems of divisions which most of your arguments apply to as well.
But again, if you want to compare it to the current system I am opposing, you need to appeal to sex, because that sexist division is what I am objecting to.

No, you moron.  Systems that obviously don’t work the same way. Because weighing too much isn’t the same as winning too much, and being too old isn’t the same as winning too much.

2

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?

« on: May 14, 2024, 06:07:39 AM »

I remember.  You wanted to claim that “removing the sexism” would still mean women get to play sports competitively. 
So that was just appeasement for “people like me”?

And people who want to see the not the best athletes compete.

That might explain why you put zero thought into it.  It doesn’t explain why you’ve been trying to defend such bollocks for all this time.

YES!  The specifics were defined in a document called The Constitution of the United States of America.

So the document that was created in 1787, more than a year after the declaration of independence was ratified, which itself was more than a year after the war of independence began.
So great job showing you are entirely wrong by appealing to a document made long after they had already decided they were going to break free.

And I suppose none of the American Patriots put any thought into having an elected head of state beforehand?  But once again you’re veering wildly off topic with dumb analogies.  This has nothing to do with sports.

Oh, FFS.  Can you not even keep track of what you say in this sad exchange

I can mostly keep track.
But that doesn't stop people like you misrepresenting what I said, and I don't remember every single statement including any typos I may have made.
If you want to say I literally said something it is much better to back that up with a quote, with appropriate context.

Based upon what was said around it, I think I mistyped something there. Reading it back the most likely thing I meant to say was "So what you are really complaining about is that the Olympics for females, isn't treated as "the most prestigious event", when by your own admission it is for people that aren't good enough to compete with the best?"
Where with the current system, people like you do treat it as the most prestigious event, while in a system of performance/ability based divisions it would not be because those females would be competing in a lower division than the top.

Either way, you are still trying to tell me that I’m “really complaining” about something that’s miles off anything I’ve said.

And still you claim that I’m the one misrepresenting you, despite now having provided the relevant quote for you.  Hilarious.

Now you just need to demonstrate  a better alternative.

I have.
The simplest is to just remove the sex based discrimination entirely.
That way no one is excluded or benefits based upon their sex.

If you wish to disagree, you need to explain why such sex based discrimination is better.
Try to do so without appealing to sex.

You are the one who is proposing completely overturning the world of sport, so YOU need to show how and why it’s better.  How exactly is it better for all the people in the world who play and watch sport to not have those divisions?

For that you need to decide how you want it to work.

So in the example we were discussing, does each country send hundreds of sprinters for the Olympic 100m so that no one get excluded for being too good , or not?  And why does your answer change every fucking time?

My answer doesn't change every time.
I have never proposed anything like that.
YOU proposed that for me, where the UK sends 218 athletes just to get a single female to compete, because the female had a time equal to the 218th man.

Athletes are already being excluded in the current system with less capable athletes going instead.

Here AGAIN, is what I was replying to, when we were talking specifically about qualifying for high level events like the Olympics-

Or you can make different divisions, based upon non sexist terms, And then people would be eligible for at least one division, and getting too good for their current one and moving up to the next, they are still eligible for it, even if they don't have a chance of winning.

You appeared to change your answer after I pointed out how many athletes that would mean for just one country in one event.  I already gave you several chances to clarify this comment, instead you just denied saying it.

Yes, they control their weight, but that’s not the same as performance.

It directly relates to their performance.
By artificially limiting your weight, you are limiting your performance.

Your proposal for “ability divisions” was based on athletes’ performance.  For boxers that means winning matches, not weight.

Apparently you still don’t see any difference between weight and winning matches?

Quite a while.  Why is that relevant?

Because it means if they increase in weight, they can go from being the best, to being nobody.
It then takes quite a while to get to be good enough to compete in the next division up.

Heavyweight is very far from the next division from featherweight.  Maybe you should have asked a less stupid question.  Boxers can and do move up a weight class and compete at the same level for the next season.  eg world class boxers who compete internationally in their new class.

No, a professional boxer could beat the shit out of a much heavier person who is shit at boxing.  But between boxers of comparable skill and level of training, the heavier boxer has a considerable  advantage.

I would say that depends upon what that weight is and how much weight difference it is. If it is just fat, then they would likely lose. But if it was muscle, they would have a decent chance.

Could be fat, could be muscle in the wrong places, could just be lack of boxing training and skill.  None of which is accounted for in your “weight is a proxy for ability” nonsense.

Your ridiculous argument is that weight divisions works the same way same as performance divisions would.

And if it was nonsense, then no boxer would ever try to cap their weight. Instead, they would simply train and compete in whatever weight division they were in.

That’s what happens at amateur level.  It’s only at the higher competitive levels where boxers carefully manage their weight because they are looking for any advantage.  Note the difference between level and weight class.

Being heavier does not win boxing matches.  Beating your opponent in the ring wins matches.

The question is what enables them to beat their opponent in the ring, and weight is a big factor. Again, otherwise there wouldn't be weight based divisions.

I’ll remind you again that you’ve dismissed any arguments based on males vs female physiology, because according to you that only works if EVERY man is better than EVERY woman.  So unless every burger munching, beer swilling fatso can beat every professional boxer who weighs less than them, you have an enormous and hilarious double standard.

Weight is a factor in boxing, just as sex is for most sports.  Neither are more significant factors than being good at the sport.

But that’s not the point.  You have repeatedly claimed that your performance divisions would work just like boxing and that would be fine.  You claim that weight is a “proxy” for performance to justify this.    Yet you also claim that divisions based on sex would only be fair if every man was better than every woman.  So your argument falls apart unless every fat fuck is better at boxing than everyone lighter than them.

Again, a fundamental difference between weight and sex is that you can change your weight, you can't change your sex.
And yes, I said weight is a proxy, not that it perfectly aligns with. I recognise it is limited.

Then all the crap about your ability divisions working exactly the same way as weight in boxing is bullshit, as I’ve said.  An athlete’s ability is how well they compete against other athletes. 

You said to make divisions based on their performance, so base your arguments on what you actually fucking proposed, not deflections to something that works very differently.

Nope.  The basic point is the same

If the basic point is the same, then the point is that with these divisions countries are not sending the best athletes and instead a sending a mix of good and bad athletes, with some athletes that are better than the bad athletes being excluded.
i.e. what is happening now.

Not what’s happening now.  No one is ever told they can’t go to the Olympics because they ranked too high during qualification, and all the problems that come with it.

THAT is my point.  The thing that ONLY happens when you specifically use their performance as an upper limit for the divisions.  The point you have no answer for, hence all your bullshit and all your telling me I’m “really” saying something else.

Either way, it’s replacing one system with another.  Don’t give me the semantics bullshit.  If you want to claim that “removing the sexism” is better, you have to demonstrate it.

And again, the simple way to do that is to just remove it, no divisions at all. That is better because it is not discriminating on the basis of sex, just like removing raced based segregation was better because it meant you don't discriminate on the basis of race. You then need to try to justify why having sexism is better.

So which do you propose?  Do you want to simply abolish women’s sports or are you going to keep flogging the dead horse of your ability division crap?

Then explain why that is better.

You’ve been claiming your ability divisions would be a better alternative for dozens of posts over months.  That’s what I can argue against without appealing to sex, only your inability to understand the most basic things about sport.

But you can't. Because you need to compare it to the current system, which you can only possibly defend by appealing to sex.

I’ve also compared to how it currently works with age grouping in youth games and, wait for it… weight classes in boxing.

3

Flat Earth General / Re: to day solar storm

« on: May 11, 2024, 01:46:17 PM »

I’d heard it could be visible in Scotland and maybe Northern England, and then I forgot all about it.

Turns out even friends in London could clearly see it through all the light pollution.

Fuck. 

4

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?

« on: May 09, 2024, 01:14:31 PM »

You proposed these performance based divisions

To appease people like you who want people who aren't the best to compete at such an event.

I remember.  You wanted to claim that “removing the sexism” would still mean women get to play sports competitively. 

So that was just appeasement for “people like me”? 

You certainly can’t claim it’s an improvement on the sports we have now.

Sure I can.
Removing the sex based division, even leaving it as just a single division for all, makes it better.
But even going for performance based divisions, I don't need all the specifics to demonstrate it is better.

Did the US need all the specifics of how a republic would work before deciding it was better than a monarchy? No.

YES!  The specifics were defined in a document called The Constitution of the United States of America.  Perhaps you’ve heard of it?  If your country decides to ditch his majesty Charlie, I’d expect some thought to go into what comes next, even if you don’t.

Details matter.

You literally told me

Care to provide a direct quote?

Oh, FFS.  Can you not even keep track of what you say in this sad exchange, or do you just think it’s fun to fuck about and waste my time?  Here!

So what you are really complaining about is that the Olympics for females, is treated as "the most prestigious event", when by your own admission it is for people that aren't good enough to compete with the best?

Any system is only as good as how well it works in reality.

And a system that actively discriminates on the basis of sex, especially one where you can have 2 athletes of equal ability and performance, where one is permitted to compete in a particular division on the basis of their sex while the other is excluded from that division on the basis of their sex is a horrible system.

Now you just need to demonstrate  a better alternative.  Which you have spectacularly failed to do. 

You said that any athletes who were too good for a lower division could compete in the next level up.  Then apparently changed your mind.

No, I didn't.
They are excluded from that division, and compete in the next one up.
Kind of like how it works now with sex, but not arbitrarily using their sex to determine what division they belong in.

So in the example we were discussing, does each country send hundreds of sprinters for the Olympic 100m so that no one get excluded for being too good , or not?  And why does your answer change every fucking time?

You are the one hiding behind “weight as a proxy for ability” to justify your ability divisions.

What am I hiding behind?
Boxers, and other sports with similar weight based divisions.
Weight, corresponds to muscle mass, which corresponds to performance.
It isn't a perfect correlation, but it does correlate.

Then athletes competing in these divisions are incentivised to artificially cap their weight rather than improve to be the best they can be.
Exceptions to this does negate this fact.

Yes, they control their weight, but that’s not the same as performance.  A boxer’s performance is how well they compete in the ring.   The whole point of the sport is to get into the ring and fight an opponent.

Do you really not see the difference between stepping on a set of scales and winning a boxing match? 

Boxers do change weight classes, and then compete at the same level in the new class.

After how long?

How long does it take to go from being the best in a featherweight division to being the best in a heavyweight division?

Quite a while.  Why is that relevant? 

Because weight is only one factor.  By far the most important factor is BEING A GOOD BOXER.

If being a good boxer was the most important factor then there wouldn't be weight divisions as there would be no need for them.

No, a professional boxer could beat the shit out of a much heavier person who is shit at boxing.  But between boxers of comparable skill and level of training, the heavier boxer has a considerable  advantage. 

Because boxing matches are settled in the ring, not on a set of scales.  The point is to win matches by being the better boxer.

You mean by being the better boxer in that class. Where you artificially cap how good you can be, to stay in that class.

Yes!  Note the difference between controlling their weight and artificially capping based on their performance, ie winning fights.  Your ridiculous argument is that weight divisions works the same way same as performance divisions would.  Just nonsense.

Being heavier does not win boxing matches.  Beating your opponent in the ring wins matches.

Funny how you claim that accounting for physiological differences between men and women only works if every man is  better than every woman.  Yet you’re happy to claim than “weight is a proxy for ability” in boxing.

Funny how you object to a multitude of divisions being needed to allow females to compete in performance based divisions, but are happy with the multitude of divisions for weights.

Do you know a big difference between sex and weight?
If I want to, I can gain weight, growing muscles to compete at the heavyweight division.
If I want to, I can lose weight, cutting it down to a quite low limit (not sure I would make it down to featherweight territory).
But no matter how much someone wants to, they can't change their sex.
We also see this in various legislation, where sex is a protected characteristic which it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of; but weight is not.

I'm not saying using weight is perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than sex; and more importantly, your arguments against performance based divisions work equally against weight based divisions.

That’s right.  No matter how hard a woman trains, in many sports even the most exceptional will never be able to compete with the top men.

But that’s not the point.  You have repeatedly claimed that your performance divisions would work just like boxing and that would be fine.  You claim that weight is a “proxy” for performance to justify this.    Yet you also claim that divisions based on sex would only be fair if every man was better than every woman.  So your argument falls apart unless every fat fuck is better at boxing than everyone lighter than them. 

You can’t have it both ways.

Wow.  So clarifying an argument equals “reframing” it now?

I wouldn't call it clarifying.
It is more akin to moving the goalposts.
It is not clarifying it, it is completely changing it, introducing a sexist double standard, so you can pretend your objects don't work equally well against the current system.

Nope.  The basic point is the same, I just didn’t think I’d need to explain in so much tedious detail WHY it’s such a stupid idea and for you to still not get it.  I thought it should be fucking obvious.

That was my plan

Then stick to it.

Like you are sticking to your performance based division idea?  Or maybe not…

But I’m not going to try to debate you trying to have all possible positions simultaneously.  This isn’t quantum physics.  Decide on one system to replace women's sports.

And I'm not having all possible positions simultaneously.
I am objecting to the idea of sex based divisions.
It isn't about replacing women's sport, it is about removing sex based divisions.
The simplest way to do this is to simply remove the division. But people like you want females to compete at the Olympics, so alternative ideas which would allow that are proposed.

You want to try claiming you can show my idea is bad without appealing to sex, while ignoring the fact the primary reason for such divisions is because of sex, because of people like you wanting people of a certain sex to compete; and because of the current system divided based upon sex.

Even now, you say to decide on a system to replace women's sport. That is again appealing to sex.
Remember, this isn't being done in a vacuum. There is NO WAY at all to defend the current system without appealing to sex, because it segregates based upon sex.

So if you want to pretend you can do it without appealing to sex, then do the simplest system first, and show how that would be so much worse than the current system.
And that simplest system is one where there are no divisions. You simply have people compete to find the best.
Can you show any fault with that without appealing to sex?

Either way, it’s replacing one system with another.  Don’t give me the semantics bullshit.  If you want to claim that “removing the sexism” is better, you have to demonstrate it.

You’ve been claiming your ability divisions would be a better alternative for dozens of posts over months.  That’s what I can argue against without appealing to sex, only your inability to understand the most basic things about sport.

Obviously if you want to abandon that disaster and propose something different, my responses will be completely different.  One proposal at a time though.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: War

« on: May 08, 2024, 08:33:13 AM »

UK gives Ukraine green light to use British weapons inside Russia.

This gives Russia the right to allow Russian weapons to be used against Britain by Britain's enemies.

For example, Russia could donate some of its Russian nuclear submarines to the Houthis, and these ships could easily send London to the other side of the doomsday calendar. I condemn David Cameron for risking Jura's life and the whole people living in entire NATO.

By that logic, we could vapourise Tehran for supplying weapons used to murder Ukrainians.  Of course no one would suggest anything like that, because there’s only one country that waves their nuclear dick around whilst crying that they are the victim.  The country that started this war, and could finish it today if they just told their troops to come home and rescinded their claims on Ukraine.

Russia has no right to the territories it claims to have annexed.  Ukraine does have the right to fight back, and other countries have the right to aid them.

Cameron didn’t need to actually say this of course.  It’s the usual clumsy shit from a government trying to sound tough for the home crowd after getting their arse handed to them in local elections.

Nothing’s really changed though.

6

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?

« on: May 05, 2024, 02:19:37 PM »

He's nuts.  I don't know why you guys even bother engaging with him.

I wonder what problem he even thinks he's trying to solve here?

I didn’t join the flat earth society forum to talk to normal people.

7

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?

« on: May 03, 2024, 06:11:15 AM »

No shit, Sherlock.  So how about an example of how many divisions you suggest for just one event in one competition?

Again, my objection is to the sexist divisions.
I don't mind how many performance based divisions there are.

You proposed these performance based divisions, but can’t be fucked to put a single bit of thought into how they might work in reality?

If you can’t even explain your idea properly for a single simple example, you basically have nothing.  You certainly can’t claim it’s an improvement on the sports we have now.

I know that’s what you think.

It isn't merely what I think, it is based upon what you have said.

If you want to account for differences in physiology without being sexist, you do it based upon the individual, not their sex.
Doing it based upon their sex, unless it is a case of sex actually being able to correctly divide so all males fall into the "male" category and all females would fall into the "female" category, is nothing more than sexism.
So if you want it to be that women aren't fast enough to compete with men, you need it to be all men being faster.

Haha.  Says the man who claims that “weight is a proxy for performance” in boxing. 

But you told me that when I’m complaining about your nonsensical idea, I’m “really” complaining about the system as it is now.

No, I point out that these issues you are complaining about already exist in the current system which you ignore because you are happy with that sexism.

You literally told me I’m “really” complaining about the system now.   I’ve explained how they are fundamentally different.  If you disagree, then debate the points I made like a normal honest person and stop telling me my argument is anything other than what I write.

Yes.  You claim to have better system, so you should be able to describe a system coherently that stands up to scrutiny.

No, I claim removing the discrimination based upon sex is inherently a better system due to removing that sexism.

Spoken like a true ideologue.  Any system is only as good as how well it works in reality.

So what the hell did you mean by the bit I was replying to, pasted back in above?

I mean what I said.
If you want the divisions you can have multiple divisions and send in the best for that division, while those in that division that are not the best are excluded.

You said that any athletes who were too good for a lower division could compete in the next level up.  Then apparently changed your mind. 

Hilarious that you’re telling me you mean what you said, though.  I acknowledge the things you say and don’t pretend you mean something else entirely.  Try it.

But no, it’s not the same at all.  They send the best boxers and weight lifters they can for each class.

As they would with this.
Class vs division is just semantics.

And hiding behind weight, being used as a proxy for ability, doesn't help you either.
If the featherweight wants to get stronger, by building more muscle mass, they get excluded.

You are the one hiding behind “weight as a proxy for ability” to justify your ability divisions.  That’s your argument.

Boxers do change weight classes, and then compete at the same level in the new class.  There’s even a special title for boxers who manage get world champion in FOUR weight classes, a Quadruple Champion.  That’s not just competing, but beating everyone else in the new class- 3 times.  Hardly excluded are they?

Because weight is only one factor.  By far the most important factor is BEING A GOOD BOXER.

It’s not semantics, it’s how sports works.

The athletes would no longer just try to be as good as they can, but moderate their performance to try and hit the exact arbitrary window that someone needs to set.

Yes, as they already do in boxing.
This shouldn't be surprising.

With boxing, if they just cared about being as good as they can be, they wouldn't care about weight. But instead, they train and do whatever they can to remain just below the entirely arbitrary threshold.

So if this wrecks the entire nature of competitive sport, then it is already wrecked.

Because boxing matches are settled in the ring, not on a set of scales.  The point is to win matches by being the better boxer.  Weight classes account for a general advantage for heavier boxers, to allow lighter people to compete.  Many people prefer the lighter weight classes anyway, because it’s more about speed and maneuvering than just slogging each other as hard as possible. 

Funny how you claim that accounting for physiological differences between men and women only works if every man is  better than every woman.  Yet you’re happy to claim than “weight is a proxy for ability” in boxing.  As if a pro boxer half your size wouldn’t kick your sorry arse.

Who has the double standard now?

Had to search back a bit to cherry pick a quote where I didn’t quite explain it properly, didn’t you?

No, I just decided to go for one near the start of the thread, to avoid issues of you claiming it is out of context.
You then try to reframe it in a way where you can pretend you aren't objecting to that so you can pretend that sending women and finding the best woman, even though they aren't the best overall is fine.

Wow.  So clarifying an argument equals “reframing” it now?  So you cherry pick a quote and decide that this is my entire argument, and nothing I can possibly say will make any difference? 

No.  Deal with with the arguments presented to you and stop saying  I’m pretending anything.  I am not.

I haven’t even gotten round to team sports before, which would be an even bigger clusterfuck.

So why not stick to individual sports until that is settled?

That was my plan, but you can’t even acknowledge my basic point, and refuse to consider details for even the simplest event (see top of post). You aren’t trying to settle it.

Team sports highlight the problems even more.  So if you really can’t get my points for individual sports, then maybe this will help you understand what I mean? 

 
I can pull your stupid idea apart for being stupid without even mentioning sex, which shows that I don’t use sexist BS.

Including against the simple one where there are no divisions at all? Where the objection then is that people of a particular sex wont be able to compete?
Where the divisions would only be necessary to keep those people of a particular sex being able to compete?

So how about that, entirely forget about the divisions for now, which is really just a way to appease people like you, and instead try arguing against just removing divisions entirely so there is just the event and you find the best. Try arguing against that without mentioning sex or even implicitly linking to it.
What is wrong with a such a system?

For example, at the olympics, for running, there is a 100 m sprint, a 200 m sprint, a 400 m sprint, a 50 km marathon and so on; as well as high jump, pole vault, boxing, long jump, discus, shot put, weightlifting, etc.
Where each event (e.g. the 100 m sprint) is open to all, without division.
And then you find the best athlete at that event. (And in the case of events where the athletes make a number, also the 2nd and 3rd. For knockout events, just the first.)

We’ve argued specifically about your ability division nonsense for dozens of posts over months.  If you want to drop it for being the unworkable mess I’ve always said it was, then sure.  We can talk about something else.

But I’m not going to try to debate you trying to have all possible positions simultaneously.  This isn’t quantum physics.  Decide on one system to replace womens sports.

I have NEVER pretended that the best women are anything but the best of the women.

Which is just continuing with the sexism.
They key part is that they are not the best athlete, so complaining about not having the best compete applies to the current system.

You cannot object to countries sending in the "mediocre" or complaining about people being excluded for being too good or better athletes not being able to go while worse athletes can go to represent their country.

Why do keep saying this? Stop telling me I can’t object to your shitty idea.  I can and do, for the reasons explained AGAIN in this post.

8

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?

« on: May 02, 2024, 08:45:42 AM »

Not when you have such a large performance gap between what the top male and female athletes can achieve.

That performance gap just relates to how many divisions you have, and what the boundaries are.

No shit, Sherlock.  So how about an example of how many divisions you suggest for just one event in one competition?   Maybe try the one I repeatedly asked about, the Olympic 100m sprint.  Arguably the simplest of all sports- just run really fast.

No, that's what YOU complain about. I'm OK with it, to account for the substantial differences in male and female physiology.

You mean you are OK with blatant sexism.

Again, it isn't a case of male and female physiology. It is physiology of an individual, which on average typically results in greater athletic performance for males.
Again, for it to really be male vs female physiology, you need all males to be better than all females.

I know that’s what you think.  You don’t need to keep repeating it.  But you told me that when I’m complaining about your nonsensical idea, I’m “really” complaining about the system as it is now.  I am not.  Deal with the fucking arguments I make.

We've been talking about YOUR PROPOSAL to introduce lower ability divisions of existing events, so no.  No multiple fucking options.

So you want to focus on one option, rather than all.
From the start, the issue was the sexism. But considering sexists people like you are so desperate to get lower ranked athletes into a "prestigious" competition, then separate divisions based upon ability would be the answer.

Yes.  You claim to have better system, so you should be able to describe a system coherently that stands up to scrutiny. 

For example, when I question how the divisions that YOU PROPOSE should work in practice, don’t then tell me that maybe there shouldn’t be any divisions at all.  As you have so many times.

Repeatedly calling me sexist does not address my argument. 

Or you can make different divisions, based upon non sexist terms, And then people would be eligible for at least one division, and getting too good for their current one and moving up to the next, they are still eligible for it, even if they don't have a chance of winning.

So now the UK needs to send 218 athletes just to compete in the dozens of new Olympic 100m sprint events for every ability level just to fit in the fastest woman?

No.
Just like they don't for boxing and weight lifting.

The Olympics would be several divisions where the best from those divisions get to compete.
Yes, there will be people who are better than those in lower divisions that are excluded, just like now. The difference is they wont be excluded on the basis of sex.

No? So what the hell did you mean by the bit I was replying to, pasted back in above?

But no, it’s not the same at all.  They send the best boxers and weight lifters they can for each class.  The featherweight qualifies by beating all the other featherweights and gets the honour of representing their country.  No boxer is excluded for winning too many fights, because that would be nonsense.

But that’s exactly the kind of nonsense you’d get introducing lower ability divisions in major tournaments.  Win too many matches, races, games etc. and miss the chance to represent your country.  The athletes would no longer just try to be as good as they can, but moderate their performance to try and hit the exact arbitrary window that someone needs to set.  Similar things would happen at lower level events.

And thus the entire nature of competitive sports is wrecked.

Wrong.

Not wrong.
You have repeatedly complained about it.
Here is one example:

In your total disaster of an idea, you want to split each event into multiple ability tiers.  So countries no longer just send their best for each event, but a mixture of the best, the quite good, the average, the mediocre…

You are acting like my idea is a disaster because they aren't just sending the best, instead they are also sending lower tiers including the mediocre.
But to pretend this isn't the case now, you use dishonest sexist BS, with a massive double standard, where such different divisions would be the same event, but a male and female division would be different events, so you can dishonestly pretend that they currently send the best and only the best.

LOL.

Had to search back a bit to cherry pick a quote where I didn’t quite explain it properly, didn’t you? Deliberately ignoring the dozens of times since when I’ve gone into much more detail.  Which I have again above.

I haven’t even gotten round to team sports before, which would be an even bigger clusterfuck. 

How exactly do you pick and train a lower ability national football team?  There’s no simple metric to rate an individual player’s ability.  Normally it’s the managers job to put a team together based on individual talent and their ability to play well together.  It’s entirely based on the manager’s judgement, but the goal is simple- put the best team together that they can.

How the hell are managers supposed to put together a team that’s intentionally not too good while still trying to win matches?  Who decides if they are breaking the rules by fielding a better than they should?  What criteria do they use to determine that? How would fans feel about their star players being axed because they played too well?

The fact that these are even relevant questions shows how fundamentally different your ridiculous idea is.  None of the those issues apply to sports now, which shows I am not using a double standard.  I can pull your stupid idea apart for being stupid without even mentioning sex, which shows that I don’t use sexist BS.

The only dishonesty here is yours, in trying to my claim argument is something that it isn’t.   I have NEVER pretended that the best women are anything but the best of the women.  I’ve explained my position so many times there’s no excuse for this pathetic lie.   Who the fuck do you think you’re fooling anyway?  I know what my argument is and no one else cares about our crappy conversation.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: final experiment YT? Oh thiiiis gonna be hype

« on: April 26, 2024, 11:02:37 AM »

What kind of beautiful solitude do you think you'll find in Antarctica? The frozen kind!

I can achieve beautiful solitude on my front porch.

Sitting in a rocking chair with a shotgun on your lap, I assume?

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Origin of All Religions

« on: April 26, 2024, 10:40:18 AM »

I used to think that the idea of an afterlife, divine judgement, heaven and hell, etc was driven mainly by fear of death.

Recently I’ve been wondering if it was more about giving hope to the peasantry that no matter how untouchable the arseholes in charge seem, they’ll get theirs in the end.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: final experiment YT? Oh thiiiis gonna be hype

« on: April 25, 2024, 01:21:45 PM »

Recently a Youtube channel by the name The final experiment, just joined this year, invited 24 champions of famous FE and Globers channels for a trip to Arcantica.

Check it out, bet most of selected FE will chicken out like grift cowards as usual but ill be surprised if willing. A few Globers might not likely go reasonably.

This will be a major offensive.

Type in YT conspiracy toonz channel for a review vid of it and search the actual experiment channel itself

Yeah, I was seeing this video. But the location choice itself is flawed. Flat earthers will refuse to acknowledge at any cost that the location they are in is actually Antarctica. They believe that the Antarctica is covered by giant walls. So when they go to Antarctica, what do they see? It's sort of like the devil's proof, really.

They would see 24 hour daylight, in December.  Which shouldn’t be possible anywhere on earth according to the silly model they peddle on their YouTube channels.

Of course you don’t have to go all the way to Antarctica to see that falling apart.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: War

« on: April 25, 2024, 12:35:27 PM »

This is so bizarre.  The universities suspend protesters for unspecified reasons then have arrested for trespassing.  Now the same people going on and on about free speech and cancel culture are demanding the national guard to break up these protests.  The MSM on the left and the right are sliming it as antisemitic but I can't find any evidence of this.

Criticizing Israel is automatically antisemitic, for some reason.  So if you're pro-palastine, you're anti-Israel and thus... Antisemitic.  Which makes no sense but that's America.

Maybe the Jews DO own all Media?

Interesting.  That’s not how it’s being reported here.  At least not from generally sensible news sources.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68895250.amp

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/columbia-protests-jewish-students-antisemitism-b2534817.html

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump

« on: April 21, 2024, 01:21:17 PM »

Very sad anyone could do that to themselves.

Just as well we steer clear of bonkers conspiracy theories around here.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Hate Monster

« on: April 06, 2024, 10:44:03 AM »

Well I wouldn't be surprised if they taught the Twilight series. Some universities have Harry Potter courses! The Harry Potter books were for teenagers, so of course they're a bit "mediocre" for adults. You probably didn't sneer at them this way a few years ago.

Anyway, I don't know what her mediocre book series has to do with it, but she's amazing. Women are extremely grateful that she is standing up for sanity. Only a dishonest person thinks she has said anything "phobic".  Whether you agree with her or not doesn't matter, she is exercising her speech rights and daring the police to enforce a wacky law.

On being sent a video of trans newsreader and TV presenter:

"You've sent me the wrong video. There isn't a lady in this one, just a man revelling in his misogynistic performance of what he thinks 'woman' means: narcissistic, shallow and exhibitionist."

You don’t think that sounds even a tad transphobic?

Especially as that the person in question is living under police protection having received credible death threats from a neo Nazi group.

Few people would have a problem with Rowling for defending women’s rights to separate changing rooms, prisons and all that if she didn’t get stuck into the shit fight that the debate has turned into.  Her arguments would probably carry more weight if she showed just a little compassion and understanding towards trans people.

She could have said that gender critical views do not equal inciting hatred, and that doing so would obviously be wrong.  Instead of daring the police to arrest her for it.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Hate Monster

« on: April 01, 2024, 09:29:26 PM »

What is JK Rowling doing?

Does she think she is inciting hatred against trans people?  If so, she might want to reflect on why, and maybe stop.

If she is "stating simple facts on biology" as Sunak puts it as he blunders into into this, there shouldn't be a problem.

Defending women's rights, safe spaces, etc can surely be done without whipping up hatred against trans people.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: Geocentric Keplerianism?

« on: April 01, 2024, 09:21:12 AM »

Seems to me there are other problems, besides not having gravity as an explanation.

As I understand it, distances to the sun, planets and other nearby objects can be calculated from basic geometry.  Instead of the earth orbiting the the sun once a year, the sun has to cover that distance in a day.  The outer planets would need to be moving at absurd speeds.  IIRC, Neptune would need to break light speed, and nearby stars would need to cover dozens of light years in 24 hours.  Warp speed, Mr Sulu! 

And it only gets worse the further out you look of course.

Also to account for seasons, the orbits of the sun, planets and stars have to move up and down relative to your latitude.  So not only is the entire universe wizzing around the earth, the orbits of everything are tilting up and down in unison.

It’s all kinds of bonkers.

17

Flat Earth General / Re: FE is a sad little world.

« on: April 01, 2024, 08:54:59 AM »

Some FEers might think humans are causing climate change, but the firmament is trapping the greenhouse gasses, or the dome. That's what I was trying to say to Unconvinced. They aren't denying human responsibility. Obviously, there will be FE who think it's part of earth's natural cycle and fit the "climate change denier" definition.

Anyway, I think the penguins are responsible!

Yeah I get what you’ve saying.  Probably a bit harsh to lump people who still agree with the man made drivers in with those who don’t.  But I do find it strange if many flat earthers accept what climate scientists are saying about it while rejecting a very key part of all the (round) earth sciences it’s based on- meteorology, geology, atmospheric physics, etc, etc.

18

Flat Earth General / Re: FE is a sad little world.

« on: March 27, 2024, 10:26:00 AM »

If two globularist climate scientists disagree about the how and why of climate change, which one is  the climate change denier?

If one is ignoring the simply vast amount of evidence we have for how and why it’s happening, they would be the denier. 

I doubt you’d find such a person these days though.  Even the well known Climate Contrarians, like Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen (who took the oil barons’ shill money) never disputed the basic mechanisms.

I never said FE should have their own special definition. I said the ones who believe in climate change will have different reasons for why and how it is happening.

And that would fit the normal definition of climate change denial.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: FE is a sad little world.

« on: March 25, 2024, 03:59:58 AM »

Yes, according to angry globularists, if you don't agree with them in every way on every thing you are a conspiracy quack. But, we are on the FES forums, and we're allowed to think outside their box.

According to what the term climate change denial means. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

It’s your claim that more “glorbularists” than flat earthers fit  that description, but now you’re saying flat earthers should have their own special definition?

Sounds like cheating to me.

Not all conspiracy theories are quackery.  Some turn out to be absolutely real, including the decades of deliberate undermining of climate science to prevent or delay action that would affect certain companies’ bottom line.

20

Flat Earth General / Re: FE is a sad little world.

« on: March 22, 2024, 04:57:46 AM »

Anyway, I imagine that FE are just as likely to believe or not believe in anything the same as everyone else. You can believe the climate is changing, but disagree about how. Just like there many FETs, there could be many climate change theories. For example, the dome would be great for trapping heat. Satellites don't exist! My favorite meteorologist was Gary England (RIP). I imagine round earth general circulation models are out of the question.

I have noticed that it's difficult to find things I used to be able to look up quickly on Google. I think they are suppressing anything "conspiracy theory".

Well disagreeing about the how or why falls under the normal definition of climate change denial, I’m afraid. 

21

Flat Earth General / Re: FE is a sad little world.

« on: March 21, 2024, 08:16:24 AM »

Not all climate change deniers are flat earthers, but are any flat earther not climate change deniers?

Most climate change deniers are angry globularists.

Is that just because flat earthers are very outnumbered?  Us angry globularists probably have more of everyone.  More lefties, more righties, more hairdressers, more rock fans, more people who hate Marvel films, etc. 

I cant find any estimates about proportion of flat earthers who are climate change deniers compared to everyone else, but did find confirmation that not all are.  So now I wonder how does that work?

What parts of climate science are actually compatible with flat earth beliefs?  The greenhouse effect, which is all about how much heat is radiated from earth into space?  The satellite data collected by agencies such as NASA and ESA?  Anything about modern meteorology?  The geological record including Antarctica ice cores?  The round earth General Circulation Models?

Sorry if getting off topic.  Feel free to move post.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The sun

« on: March 19, 2024, 01:47:24 PM »

FYI

This place is pretty dead.  Flat earth had it’s time in the sun (pun intended) about a decade ago and I think most have moved on.

There’s a handful of flat earthers who still post here, but they don’t generally like talking about things they don’t want to.  And there are a handful of others who can still be bothered arguing with them.

It’s now more a place for a few people to chat about politics and current events.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: FE is a sad little world.

« on: March 19, 2024, 01:20:36 PM »

To the original poster.

It is in fact much more sad to live in the world of a globularist. For you to think that eventually, everything will cease to exist in the universe due to it's uncontrollable expansion must be immensely depressing.

Everything that you've ever done, that has ever happened, that has ever existed will be gone without any trace. Everything about you and your existence is pointless and heading towards a cold future where nothing happens.

The life of a globularist is therefore meaningless. Take comfort in your false religion while flat earthers live with purpose.

The eventual heat death of the universe (if that turns out to be the case) is not depressing at all.  It’s a really long way off and humanity probably won’t be around to see it.

I’m far more concerned with what we are doing to the planet right now.    Tough times ahead for members of my family and friends’ kids.

Not helped by anti science cretins who do everything they can to cast doubt on what’s happening and what needs to be done about it.

Not all climate change deniers are flat earthers, but are any flat earther not climate change deniers?

How about you?  You speak of purpose, but where do you stand on stuff that actually matters?  Things that will affect the lives of people I care about?

24

Flat Earth General / Re: Astronomy live and Spacecraft observation

« on: March 17, 2024, 02:33:56 PM »

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

Hahahaha!

A prestigious journal specializing in something you claim is all fake.

25

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: How Old Is The Earth

« on: March 15, 2024, 11:53:04 AM »

Surely it can't be millions of years old

Billions. 

26

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?

« on: March 14, 2024, 09:12:17 AM »

Yeah, I’m aware of the scandal, and it is bad.  I’m really just whinging about how it was portrayed in your link, and a excuse to vent about GB News.  Sorry.

On the culture war, of course the left get stuck in.  The distinction I’d make is not left vs right, but between regular members of the public and the people actually in charge. I can complain about people who disagree with me as much as I like, because no one cares.  Governments or serious political parties should not.  They have a responsibility to the country as a whole and should not be throwing fuel on the fire.  I’ll apply the same standards to the next government when the Tories get the long overdue arsekicking they deserve.

27

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?

« on: March 14, 2024, 02:33:00 AM »

UK news and (serious) current affairs programs are supposed to be under pretty strict rules for balance and political impartiality.  Very different from our papers, btw.

They are not allowed to present one sided political arguments unchallenged.  On every other news channel and program, there’s always someone giving an alternative viewpoint, and interviewers are expected to ask difficult questions (a bit harder to enforce).  GB News somehow gets away with actual sitting Tory members of parliament presenting programs (as if they didn’t have another job to do), always interviewing their own colleagues, where they are in full agreement and with no other perspectives given.

It’s a completely new type of TV “news” for us and not one that’s supposed to be allowed.  What’s really shocking is that it started up after your whole stolen election business.  ie just as everyone should have thinking very carefully about the effects of partisan news coverage.

Sorry for the digression.  Onto the trans thing, as far as I’m aware, the practice has always supposed to have been counseling, counseling and more counseling, before any medical treatment is even considered, even for adults.  I’m sure you could find of examples of it going wrong, but the claim that children would be “immediately believed and fast tracked for medication”?   That sounds like a vast exaggeration.  If that ever happened it would never  have been general practice as implied here. 

Also I wasn’t just referring to trans rights with the culture war.  The right wing strategists and think tanks try to make everything a culture war.  Education, the legal system, the civil service, businesses, even banks have all apparently been infected by left wing “woke ideology”, thwarting the government’s plans at every turn.  That’s the reason everything is falling apart.  Not the 15 years of their own incompetence and terrible decisions.

28

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?

« on: March 13, 2024, 12:09:22 PM »

People are strange, when you're a stranger (thanks a lot that will be stuck in my head now).



I like Andrew Doyle, I'm sure people call him a right wing extremist now.

If you want to read the files they are all here https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/wpath-files

No, I wouldn’t call him a right wing extremist.  But joining a blatant right wing propaganda channel is highly questionable.  GB News is a total disgrace and should have had it’s license revoked long ago.  It’s a clear attempt to make a UK equivalent of Fox News.  I guess it’s backers and the Tory government looked at what hyper partisan broadcast news has done in the US and decided they want that for us too.

Ofcom (the regulator, not a character from the Handmaid’s Tale), apparently are unwilling or don’t have the stones to slap them down hard enough for their constant violations.

What’s wrong with this piece is right at the beginning:

The claim that “leading paediatric specialists” are saying that children with gender dysphoria should be “immediately believed and fast tracked towards medicalisation”.  Who says this exactly? 

Now compare to what actually happens:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

That’s not to say these latest revelations aren’t bad, but you see what they are doing here, right?  They try to bring everything into their damn culture war, because it’s about all they have left.  Real world issues are complicated though.

The general line from all but the most hardcore trans activists is that children’s feelings on their gender identity should be respected and not just dismissed.  It might be different in the US to be fair, and that might explain why you are partial to accept such shit stiring.

29

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ramadan

« on: March 11, 2024, 04:45:19 PM »

Just like he raises the dead but we don't need to do that.

Speak for yourself.  My program for low cost manual labour is coming along nicely.  They are a little bitey, but I’m sure that’s nothing that proper safety procedures can’t manage.

30

Flat Earth General / Re: Celebrities and Athletes are quietly FE proponents

« on: March 10, 2024, 04:11:36 PM »

The trap of noticing what’s actually wrong with what he posted?

Sure.