Tired of these girls shadowboxing their way to a decision

[Thepaintbucket]

'giancaakos54' considers posts like the TS made 'hate speech'. I said that's nonsense and brought up basketball as an example of a sport that separates the women and men into distinct leagues with no issue or complaints. He acknowledged that WNBA players do not have the talent to compete with men. His definition of hate speech encompasses any statement that offends a particular group. So I asked him whether he considers his own statement to be hateful, since WNBA players might take offense to being told they can't compete with me.

I was calling out the hypocrisy, not arguing against free speech.

It makes sense now. I guess that's what I get for only reading your quote and not reading the rest. Thanks for the info, brah.

 

[Coolidge]

Good job googling Dunning-Kruger. You attacked an argument I was not making (about your 'proposal'). That had nothing to do with my point and was totally superfluous. That is strawman.

I didn't have to Google anything. I'm actually capable of spelling the words and phrases in my vocabulary, unlike some people. You misused 'straw-man' again. I'm not committing a straw-man fallacy by correcting an erroneous premise. You stated that I had made this proposal when I actually did no such thing. If anything, your entire argument was the straw-man.

 

[giancaakos54]

I didn't have to Google anything. I'm actually capable of spelling the words and phrases in my vocabulary, unlike some people. You misused 'straw-man' again. I'm not committing a straw-man fallacy by correcting an erroneous premise. You stated that I had made this proposal when I actually did no such thing. If anything, your entire argument was the straw-man.

You attacked my argument with an irrelevant argument. That is strawman. You didn't previously know of Dunning-Kruger and googled it. You have no concrete understanding of the legal system. You ate an idiot.

 

[Ja Jas]

WMMA is ok, but it's a bit like watching women's tennis. Same shit, but with less speed, power and skill. I'd rather watch a mens match. MMA is a little different thought because styles can make interesting fights which isn't such an issue in tennis, but on the whole I'd rather watch mens as it is clearly a higher level.

 

[Coolidge]

You attacked my argument with an irrelevant argument. That is strawman.

No, moron, I 'attacked' something you said that was inaccurate and corrected you. It's amusing watching you do these mental gymnastics to avoid dealing with the fact that you were simply wrong.

You didn't previously know of Dunning-Kruger and googled it. You have no concrete understanding of the legal system. You ate an idiot.

You're projecting your own intellectual inadequacies onto other people. You couldn't be anymore transparent. If you're going to try and shoehorn a particular word or phrase into a sentence, know what it means and know how to spell it at the very least. Am I asking too much?

 

[giancaakos54]

No, moron, I 'attacked' something you said that was inaccurate and corrected you. It's amusing watching you do these mental gymnastics to avoid dealing with the fact that you were simply wrong.



You're projecting your own intellectual inadequacies onto other people. You couldn't be anymore transparent. If you're going to try and shoehorn a particular word or phrase into a sentence, know what it means and know how to spell it. Am I asking too mcuh?

You are a persistent idiot, that's an interesting quality. I used all terms correctly. Lets get a logic expert in here to judge.

My strawman is your lack of knowledge of the legal system. Totally unrelated argument used to make you look dumber than you already are.

Nonetheless, you are inevitably going to be more persistent than me. I concede the argument. I was wrong about hate speech, 'my' legal definition was horrible and islamofascist, and your arguments were air tight and not fallacious to any degree.
Thank you for the morning cup of coffee.

 

[cshireman4]

"I don't care what you say, but I'm going to start a thread and open this thing up for discussion..."

 

[Coolidge]

So is the US constitution black and white? Is that why there has to be 9 judges arguing the law? Is that why every legal decision involves subjective interpretation? You are an idiot.

Moron, the US constitution is not comparable to modern hate speech laws. America's constitution has to be interpreted broadly because we can't actually consult its writers for a face to face conversation on what they actually meant about every minute detail. 'Hate speech' shouldn't be left to broad interpretation. 'Hate speech' needs to be defined as thinly as possible. That way, we have actual consistency and aren't punishing people for completely innocuous speech.

 

[PutUpYourDux]

There's tension in this thread..

 

[NinjaNiK]

This thread ..

 

[Coolidge]

You are a persistent idiot, that's an interesting quality. I used all terms correctly. Lets get a logic expert in here to judge.

No, you didn't. You misused all three: hate speech, straw-man, and the Dunning-Kruger effect. Trying to appeal to other users for help isn't going to save you.

My strawman is your lack of knowledge of the legal system. Totally unrelated argument used to make you look dumber than you already are.

That's not a straw-man, either. An ad-hominem style attack, perhaps, but not a straw-man. The conversation dealt with law, specifically American jurisprudence. Whether someone actually knows the legal system (and you clearly do not) is obviously pertinent to the conversation. The problem you had is actually substantiating your claim, which requires more effort than the equivalent of saying 'nah-uh, you idiot'.

Nonetheless, you are inevitably going to be more persistent than me. I concede the argument. I was wrong about hate speech, 'my' legal definition was horrible and islamofascist, and your arguments were air tight and not fallacious to any degree.

You live in a fantasy world where merely criticizing specific groups automatically constitutes hate speech. It's actually very fortunate that you don't have the slightest clue about what you're talking about. If your theory on hate speech had even a scintilla of merit, you'd be facing charges for spreading hate speech about the WNBA players.

 

[ChefC]

'giancaakos54' considers posts like the TS made 'hate speech'. I said that's nonsense and brought up basketball as an example of a sport that separates the women and men into distinct leagues with no issue or complaints. He acknowledged that WNBA players do not have the talent to compete with men. His definition of hate speech encompasses any statement that offends a particular group. So I asked him whether he considers his own statement to be hateful, since WNBA players might take offense to being told they can't compete with men.

I was calling out the hypocrisy, not arguing against free speech.

Ignoring all this stuff about hate speech and whatnot, I just want to point out that your comparison of MMA to Basketball isn't fair. Basketball is a team sport, it makes far more sense to compare MMA with something like singles Tennis, in which case there isn't a separation of the sexes for tournaments - of course they don't play men vs women in singles just as they will never have men fighting women in MMA.

Obviously in Tennis (as with all sports) men are more powerful than women, women simply wouldn't be able to compete with men at the top and a males singles match is a very different beast to a women's singles. It's all relative though and the spirit of competition is still there for either sexes.

Ultimately my point is if somebody doesn't like watching women play tennis, they don't petition for them to be removed from Wimbledon and play in their own all female tournament - they just don't watch the women's matches . The same applies here.

 

[kdday]

Those shadowboxers would KO any Sherdogger and leave them lying in a fetal position crying for their Mommies

Maybe they should start doing that to each other

 

[SalvadorAllende]

Then dont watch you crybaby.

 

[Coolidge]

in which case there isn't a separation of the sexes for tournaments - of course they don't play men vs women in singles just as they will never have men fighting women in MMA.

As a matter of fact, there are separate tours and tournaments specifically for women and men, organized by their respective organizations. They are, however, featured on the same broadcast during Grand Slam tournaments and the Olympics. That's accurate.

Ultimately my point is if somebody doesn't like watching women play tennis, they don't petition for them to be removed from Wimbledon and play in their own all female tournament - they just don't watch the women's matches . The same applies here.

I don't disagree. The point I was making is that it's not inherently 'hateful' to want the genders separated into distinct leagues.

 

[fortheo]

they lack skill and yeah at 115 they lack power, don't like johanna but atleast she has enough skill to actually land more than a couple of strikes and do some damage. I watched the co main for a few minutes and karolina's striking is bad, she will get owned by johanna if she can't get the fight to the ground

Karolina has out struck everyone she's faced. Joanna is the better striker for sure, though.

 

[ChefC]

As a matter of fact, there are separate tours and tournaments specifically for women and men, organized by their respective organizations, but you're correct that they have tournaments featuring both.



I don't disagree. The point I was making is that it's not inherently 'hateful' to want the genders separated into distinct leagues.

Perhaps not hateful. It does feel a bit regressive though. It's not as if the UFC is brimming with untapped talent which the women's fights are stealing opportunities of.

 

[hughesfan20]

There are a lot of terrible, non-active male fights... lots of grapple fucking in some of them too..

But the yawn fest is acceptable because it's two men fighting.

Agreed. If men's fights were held to the same standard of WMMA, we'd be back to having PPV's every 2-3 months.

The technique in WMMA is getting better as more money, more attention and more high level camps/training partners are available for females. Men's MMA is at least 10 years ahead of the majority of WMMA and we still get terrible fights like the ones that have been mentioned so far (page 4 w/ max posts per page at the time I'm replying) in this thread.