|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Jan 22, 2018 12:46:27 GMT -5
My pleasure. Now we have the good ole grammar/typo logical fallacy. From the looks of things most far left SJWs haven't taken so much as a rudimentary debate course. So they need all the help that they can get. Betcha can't make your point without employing any of the following:  |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jan 22, 2018 13:02:07 GMT -5
My pleasure. Now we have the good ole grammar/typo logical fallacy. From the looks of things most far left SJWs haven't taken so much as a rudimentary debate course. So they need all the help that they can get. Betcha can't make your point without employing any of the following: Dude you completely mis-applied BOTH of the "fallacious arguments" you originally referenced. 1. Fight On! never claimed X was true because AUTHORITY FIGURES were the source of X. He claimed: the reasoning for AUTHORITY FIGURES beliefs can be found in the previous pages of this thread. 2. He also never claims X was true because the MAJORITY claimed it was true. He claimed: the reasoning for many people's beliefs regarding Super Spike 's statement can also be found in the previous pages of the thread. For either of your attacks to make any sense, they would have to follow the pattern X is true BECAUSE of [insert authority figure as source] or [insert majority as source]. Neither of those claims were made. If you're going to be obnoxious and 1) post quotes around latin discourse theory without any sources and 2) post Google images with irrelevant argumentation "commandments", you should learn to apply your advanced understanding of debate appropriately. P.S. Your "SJW" comment is in direct violation of the #1 commandment. Thanks for playing. |
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Jan 22, 2018 15:33:39 GMT -5
My pleasure. Now we have the good ole grammar/typo logical fallacy. From the looks of things most far left SJWs haven't taken so much as a rudimentary debate course. So they need all the help that they can get. Betcha can't make your point without employing any of the following: Dude you completely mis-applied BOTH of the "fallacious arguments" you originally referenced. 1. Fight On! never claimed X was true because AUTHORITY FIGURES were the source of X. He claimed: the reasoning for AUTHORITY FIGURES beliefs can be found in the previous pages of this thread. 2. He also never claims X was true because the MAJORITY claimed it was true. He claimed: the reasoning for many people's beliefs regarding Super Spike 's statement can also be found in the previous pages of the thread. For either of your attacks to make any sense, they would have to follow the pattern X is true BECAUSE of [insert authority figure as source] or [insert majority as source]. Neither of those claims were made. If you're going to be obnoxious and 1) post quotes around latin discourse theory without any sources and 2) post Google images with irrelevant argumentation "commandments", you should learn to apply your advanced understanding of debate appropriately. P.S. Your "SJW" comment is in direct violation of the #1 commandment. Thanks for playing. But it is easier to copy and paste than to think apparently ... |
|
|
|
Post by Factometer on Jan 22, 2018 22:59:45 GMT -5
So, who will be the first Power 5 coach to recruit one? I'm going to go with Cook first, followed by Elliot who'll bring in two in a transfer. Maybe even this spring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Jan 22, 2018 23:11:49 GMT -5
So, who will be the first Power 5 coach to recruit one? I'm going to go with Cook first, followed by Elliot who'll bring in two in a transfer. Maybe even this spring. No one has since 2011 ... |
|
|
|
Post by sevb on Jan 22, 2018 23:14:50 GMT -5
So, who will be the first Power 5 coach to recruit one? I'm going to go with Cook first, followed by Elliot who'll bring in two in a transfer. Maybe even this spring. Already done-you’re late to the party. Chloe Anderson... UC Santa Cruz (ok-not power 5) |
|
|
|
Post by SuperSpike on Jan 23, 2018 15:59:32 GMT -5
Or maybe, should not have been a male? There are 600 posts or so in this thread, a large proportion of which answer why many people, including the decision-makers who have established the current rules, don’t agree with your statement. Ok so you or someone explained somewhere? (that it's fair to women to have the best be a man who transitioned?) Which page? Or are you being less than honest? If so.. Then again, can you answer? |
|
|
|
Post by volleyball303 on Jan 23, 2018 16:05:28 GMT -5
There are 600 posts or so in this thread, a large proportion of which answer why many people, including the decision-makers who have established the current rules, don’t agree with your statement. Ok so you or someone explained somewhere? (that it's fair to women to have the best be a man who transitioned?) Which page? Or are you being less than honest? If so.. Then again, can you answer? Their argument is that there are thousands of people not born with XX or XY chromosomes so you can’t just say male or female. The rule should be everyone born XX must play women’s sports and XY must play men’s sports. Their other argument is that it’s not a simple test to come up with XX or XY chromosomes. |
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Jan 23, 2018 16:08:50 GMT -5
Ok so you or someone explained somewhere? (that it's fair to women to have the best be a man who transitioned?) Which page? Or are you being less than honest? If so.. Then again, can you answer? Their argument is that there are thousands of people not born with XX or XY chromosomes so you can’t just say male or female. The rule should be everyone born XX must play women’s sports and XY must play men’s sports. Their other argument is that it’s not a simple test to come up with XX or XY chromosomes. If that is what you got out of this discussion, your reading comprehension needs some work. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jan 23, 2018 16:27:26 GMT -5
There are 600 posts or so in this thread, a large proportion of which answer why many people, including the decision-makers who have established the current rules, don’t agree with your statement. Ok so you or someone explained somewhere? (that it's fair to women to have the best be a man who transitioned?) Which page? Or are you being less than honest? If so.. Then again, can you answer? What are you even asking? For the summation/adaption of this thread to the negation of the statement "The #1 female should be born a female/not have been a male?" How about, if you are actually curious, you read through the thread, and pull forward any claims you find confusing? There are SO many angles to attacking this statement. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 23, 2018 17:46:38 GMT -5
This thread will never end as long as the same 3-4 people continue to be outraged that Abreu is allowed to be accepted as being a woman.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Jan 23, 2018 17:49:31 GMT -5
Ok so you or someone explained somewhere? (that it's fair to women to have the best be a man who transitioned?) Which page? Or are you being less than honest? If so.. Then again, can you answer? Their argument is that there are thousands of people not born with XX or XY chromosomes so you can’t just say male or female. The rule should be everyone born XX must play women’s sports and XY must play men’s sports. Their other argument is that it’s not a simple test to come up with XX or XY chromosomes. This is only a smart portion of what is explained. |
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Jan 23, 2018 17:57:09 GMT -5
There are 600 posts or so in this thread, a large proportion of which answer why many people, including the decision-makers who have established the current rules, don’t agree with your statement. Ok so you or someone explained somewhere? (that it's fair to women to have the best be a man who transitioned?) Which page? Or are you being less than honest? If so.. Then again, can you answer? The best? That is a bold claim, with no support. Furthermore, the player is legally considered a woman and is allowed to play in the women’s division. The current logic applied by governing bodies is that with appropriate hormone therapy she competes fairly against other women. The only published study of elite transgender women athletes demonstrates no unfair advantage. No published study offers any proof to the contrary. The only arguments against her playing is that she has an unfair advantage, having lived XX years as a man. Many other women have unfair genetitc advantages, like height, or unfair social advantages, like being born into wealth. I (and others) accept that it is fair for her to compete based on a combination of legal, medical, scientific, and ethical information available to me. It is that simple. You don’t accept that it is fair for whatever reasons you have. Conversation over. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 17:58:55 GMT -5
Ok so you or someone explained somewhere? (that it's fair to women to have the best be a man who transitioned?) Which page? Or are you being less than honest? If so.. Then again, can you answer? The best? That is a bold claim, with no support. Furthermore, the player is legally considered a woman and is allowed to play in the women’s division. The current logic applied by governing bodies is that with appropriate hormone therapy she competes fairly against as a woman. The only published study of elite transgender women athletes demonstrates no unfair advantage. No published study offers any proof to the contrary. The only arguments against her playing is that she has an unfair advantage, having lived XX years as a man. Many other women have unfair genetitc advantages, like height, or unfair social advantages, like being born into wealth. I (and others) accept that it is fair for her to compete based on a combination of legal, medical, scientific, and ethical information available to me. It is that simple. You don’t accept that it is fair for whatever reasons you have. Conversation over. get him daddy |
|
|
|
Post by SuperSpike on Jan 23, 2018 23:28:46 GMT -5
Ok so you or someone explained somewhere? (that it's fair to women to have the best be a man who transitioned?) Which page? Or are you being less than honest? If so.. Then again, can you answer? The best? That is a bold claim, with no support. Furthermore, the player is legally considered a woman and is allowed to play in the women’s division. The current logic applied by governing bodies is that with appropriate hormone therapy she competes fairly against other women. The only published study of elite transgender women athletes demonstrates no unfair advantage. No published study offers any proof to the contrary. The only arguments against her playing is that she has an unfair advantage, having lived XX years as a man. Many other women have unfair genetitc advantages, like height, or unfair social advantages, like being born into wealth. I (and others) accept that it is fair for her to compete based on a combination of legal, medical, scientific, and ethical information available to me. It is that simple. You don’t accept that it is fair for whatever reasons you have. Conversation over. 'The best'. I'm not talking about this athlete. Did you read and understand my first post before pushing it and this aside? I'm guessing the crux of this is people feel ill at ease to say a transitioned elite male in the future (then female) can be the #1 female. 7ft, ect. I'm just wanting to know if people would be okay with a transitioned former elite male player being the number #1 female player? I'm not talking about at birth stuff. But late transition. I guess I have my non-answer from you along with your non-comprehension of what I wrote. |
|
