Women and Augusta National Golf Club

[SlowwHand]

Agathon's forced into it.

Oh, wait. You meant Ming.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Agathon's forced into it.

Oh, wait. You meant Ming.

I'm not saying who I meant, that way I can't be accused of flaming a poster.



ACK!

[SlowwHand]

Screw that. Flame them both.
Equal opportunity under the law.
Uh-oh. That concept will set them off again.

[Q Classic]

Agathon, men are pigs to such a great extent, only another pig-headed woman, like Burk, would want to join such a club.

But because Augusta National is filled with pigs, they don't want a woman there. Naturally, the reason why Burk has such difficulty recruiting other women protestors is simply because the other women don't want to play golf with pigs.

[SlowwHand]

Piggy, piggy. Come get yo slop!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Gee whiz - conflating morality with legality. Another fine fallacy to add to your collection.

YOU SAID:

What I was saying was that the determination of what counts as good reasons would be ultimately decided by a court based on the antidiscrimination law which would provide a basis for the decision.

No I'm not - you reconstruct my argument from what's been shown in this thread and you show me where I am committed to silencing racists.

We are only taking away the rights of racists to be racist, that is not very much at all.

THAT'S SILENCING RACISTS!

I may not agree with what you say, but if it's harmless I'll not bother you. But if you start f*cking things up for other people - look out.

Yeah, that called criminal law. KKK isn't ****ing up anything for anyone by protesting. They are practicing their free speech rights.

If you don't have free speech for racists, then you DON'T HAVE FREE SPEECH FOR ANYONE!



Your lies and diversions are incredibly silly and ridiculous and I wonder how anyone could ever argue with you.

I now know what Asher was talking about.

Later, illogician.

[Ben Kenobi]

We are only taking away the rights of racists to be racist, that is not very much at all.

Agathon:

Please examine this argument, to make sure that I am following you correctly.

I hate communists. Their persection of religious people across the globe is an affront to the dignity of persons everywhere.

In order to prevent further pogroms unleashed against religious people, here in this land of Canada, I would like to limit the freedom of communists to spout their bigotry against religious persons.

Therefore, unless you choose to stop preaching communism, you will be out of a job.

Where have I fallen away from your logic, Agathon?



-Let truth and falsehood grapple. Who ever knew truth to be the lesser in a free and open encounter?

-John Milton.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

All I claimed is that different treatment based on race or sex is justifiable when there is a good reason for it.

No, you've argued that this different treatment should be allowed when YOU decide the reason is good, not the people making the decision. I see why you're a communist, you have this overwhelming desire to make everyone else's decisions based on what you value in life. But to masquerade this penchant for totalitarianism as freedom is the height of deceit...

If in fact it was shown to me that there is no good reason for having women only gymnasia, then I would argue that they should be prohibited.

Your reason for allowing this discrimination is that "men are pigs", i.e., the presence of men diminishes the experience for women. Why can't men at a country club decide that the presence of women diminishes their experience and why does their rationale need your approval?

The central point I have been making, which no one has directly addressed is that in this sort of situation rights can conflict.

I've addressed that, rights (freedom) do not conflict. You've created a special "right" for one group you favor to not be discriminated against while hypocritically preserving the right to discriminate for groups you do favor. If rights belong to us all and are equal, and we have this "right" to never face discrimination, then NO group and NO person should ever be allowed to discriminate, but you discriminate every time you buy something.

On the one hand there is the right of freedom of association, on the other the right of people not to be the subject of racist or sexist discrimination.

There is no right to be free from discrimination, you've invented this "right" to attack freedom. But this is the same tactic the left constantly uses to attack freedom, just invent special rights for favored constituents to other people's property and freedom and then claim rights conflict.

If we give the first absolute priority over the second then you will be in the position of allowing anybody to be a racist, of allowing mall owners to ban blacks or jews if they want to. If you don't find anything wrong with this, then I suggest that you don't really care about racism.

One can oppose racism without attacking freedom. If a mall did that, they'd lose the business of those who oppose racism. That's how one uses their freedom of association to counter racism... Since you aren't off in Africa combatting slavery, does that mean you really don't care? Yeah, spare us your hypocritical demagoguery...

All I have suggested is that it be made illegal for private clubs to discriminate on the basis of sex and race without good reason. They can pick and choose on any other grounds they like, but not race or sex.

But you have put yourself in the position of deciding which reasons are good and which are bad.

The only thing this will inhibit is the desires of racists to be racist.

How do we inhibit the desires of communists to be communists? I see no moral high ground for you to decry racists, you commies have a much worse record.

Frankly I think that's a price worth paying for a less racist society.

You aren't paying any price, so naturally it's easy for you to demand others pay the price.

It's certainly a better price to pay than allowing discrimination.

Like virtually everything you've posted, this is inaccurate too. You aren't opposed to discrimination, you just want to decide when discrimination should be allowed.

Why won't somebody take this argument head on?

Ignore what others post and act like no one is responding.

Show me why it produces a better result to respect the rights of racists to be racist rather than the rights of people not to be the subject of racist discrimination.

Why does our position require a better result as defined by you?
Your position doesn't end with a better result as defined by us...

As I said before, unless you can answer this question, you aren't really addressing my argument.

If you have a question, try using punctuation.

Who decides what counts as a good reason? Well I'd say that a democratic government makes law and judges interpret it. That's customary in our society.

What a pathetic argument. So if this majority decided to enslave a minority, you'd accept that as legitimate even if you voted against the proposal?

I'll respond by saying that the right to free association is left largely untouched by my scheme. Only the rights of racists to be racist are restricted. Now please attack my actual position rather than some fictional version of it that you have concocted.

That's BS too, there are employers who've been punished for "racist" hiring practices even when ethnic minorities made up most of their workforce. There was a lampmaker in the Chicago area who employed ~20 hispanics, a couple blacks, and one white. He was put through the ringer when he didn't hire another black, so take your BS to a fact checker before spewing it here.

Rah - I don't know about you, but I make the effort to avoid playing golf on ladies day. If you think there's no difference in how fast men and women play golf, maybe you were on courses catering to transvestites. There's nothing worse than watching 4 old biddies hit 10-20 golpher balls up each fairway before you can tee off.

[Az]

In a perfect world, neither that, or any anti-male discrimination would exist. I am against them both. But justifying anti-male discrimination, and opposing anti-female discrimination at the same time is weird.

[Ming]

Berz...

The regular group Rah and I play with on Saturday morning includes a woman. I always love some of the comments we hear from the group behind us on the first tee if they don't know us. You can hear them whining about how slow they think it's going to be. After we tee off, we never see the group behind us again. Many times, the starter just laughs at them, and tells them that she is the Womans Club Champion, and that she could probably beat them

[rah]

Yes berz, I also avoid playing on Ladies day. But I'm not willing to paint all women as slow players. There are a few groups of men players that I avoid playing behind also. As ming mentioned, it is not uncommon for our foursome to include females. But as with anybody that usually plays in our foursome, it is understood that you play quick or don't get invited back.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Agathon
Duh? My name is Loinburger and I am a moron who sounds off without reading other people's posts.

Classic. Absolutely classic. Perhaps you should go back to elementary school to brush up on your skills by matching wits with the other kids on the playground.

Read and learn. One can treat the sexes and races differently without doing anything wrong, but that doesn't mean that every form of different treatment is permissible. That some forms of different treatment are good doesn't entail that none are bad.

So, in other words, one can treat the races and sexes differently unless one wants to bar somebody of a given race or gender from a golf course because you don't want them to. Nice ad hoc argument there.

Again - this assumes without argument that somehow because an institution is private (whatever that means - a useful and consistent definition is hard to come by) its members can do what they like.

This is false. They can't manufacture crack, sell children, plan terrorist attacks and lots of other things. Assuming that they have the right to racially discriminate as you have done is called begging the question. That club, like other clubs has to obey the law. If there were a law against racial discrimination it would have to obey it too.

I'll post what I said again, with the relevant parts bolded for the benefit of those who should probably take a remedial reading course...

Originally posted by loinburger
I'm not allowed to dictate how somebody runs a business or club within the confines of the law, and neither can you, regardless of how righteously indignant and argumentatively inconsistent you are.

We're not talking about manufacturing crack or selling children. We're talking about freedom of association, which is protected under the law. Augusta is doing nothing worse than the Boy Scouts or the local Jewish synagogue, since Augusta is no less of a private club than the Boy Scouts or the local Jewish synagogue.

"But they make money from golf tournaments!" Sure, and the Boy Scouts and the local Jewish synagogue make money from other forms of fundraising.

"But they make a lot of money from golf tournaments!" I'd be willing to place a small bet that the Boy Scouts make more money annually than Augusta. I'd be willing to put good money on the bet that the Catholic Church makes more money annually than Augusta.

"But I don't like Augusta, and I like the Boy Scouts, so as a representative of God I'm allowed to apply an arbitrary double standard!" Believe what you will.

Originally posted by Agathon
Perhaps you ought to fly off back to libertarian la-la land where everyone can own their own field howitzer and blacks are at the back of the bus where they belong.

This is one of the stupidest strawmen I've ever seen, because a. this thread is not about gun control, and b. as has been explained multiple times to you, public transit systems are public, and Augusta is private. If your tax dollars went to supporting Augusta then it would be one thing, but since you do not support Augusta in any way shape or form the burden of proof lies on your shoulders as to why you have the right to tell Augusta what to do (and, needless to day, you have failed to satisfy this burden, but have instead relied on filling your posts with a righteously indignant tone in the hopes that somebody somewhere will actually care that you are offended). You don't have the right to dictate who I am allowed to let into my treehouse, even if I charge admission into my treehouse, and even if my treehouse club makes money by selling lemonade. By the same token, you are not allowed to dictate who the Boy Scouts let into the Boy Scouts, who the local Jewish synagogue appoints as its Rabbi, or who Augusta National allows to join. If you need to ask "why," then you need to reread the Constitution.

Perhaps you should try constructing arguments that make some kind of a token attempt to adhere to the Constitution, rather than relying on the assumption that the world would be a better place if you were allowed to tell everybody else what to do. The burden of proof lies firmly on your shoulders here -- you must justify why we ought to ignore the Constitution, and you must justify why we ought to take your word as law. You have done neither, but have merely reiterated your pack of idiotic strawmen.

[Berzerker]

Ming & Rah - We also have a woman who plays with us and she even plays skins (that's how good she is). But I'm not talking about the exceptions to the rule, on average, women are slower and Rah's acknowledgement about avoiding ladies day reflects that reality.

Agathon -

Perhaps you ought to fly off back to libertarian la-la land where everyone can own their own field howitzer and blacks are at the back of the bus where they belong.

Now that's funny, blacks were told to sit in the back of the bus by government, not the bus company. I guess since you've established a pattern of being wrong, you'd naturally screw that up too. It was government that told private bus lines (along with other businesses) where blacks could sit. That era is known as JIM CROW where government and the KKK forced businesses to discriminate, they too, like you, were ignoring the property rights of business owners.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming


It's not discrimination... and that's the point. People have the right to pick their own friends. That's the right of association, not discrimination. Your whole argument is that Augusta should be treated differently because it's male only and your ONLY reason is "because men are pigs." But then you say women should be able to have their own club, and that when women do, it's not discrimination. Well guess what... it isn't discrimination for either sex to want their own club.

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY WOMEN SHOULD BE ALLOWED THEIR OWN CLUBS BUT NOT MEN. Your opinion that all men are pigs IS NOT a valid argument. It's discrimination.

First - If men were all pigs then that would be a fact and not a case of discrimination. Discriminating is an action, the piggish status of men is a claim about the way the world is.

I think you are making too much of the gym example. The stated reason for women only gyms is that men behave badly at mixed gyms and disrupt the right of women to exercise without being leered at, harassed, etc. This is the case in my experience, but if you want to disagree it doesn't affect my argument at all since all you must accept to accept my argument is "if men did behave this badly, there would be a case for women only gyms." You seem to think that my argument requires the truth of a categorical to go through when only this hypothetical needs to be true.

If you hold the latter then you are commited to the idea that it's OK to treat the sexes differently when there is a justifiable reason to do so. This sort of argument is aimed at the idiots who immediately jump on every case of differential treatment as wrongful discrimination (this misunderstanding also frequently occurs in arguments about affirmative action.

You say " it isn't discrimination for either sex to want their own club." I would replace this with " it isn't necessarily discrimination for either sex to want their own club. If there is a good reason for having a men's only club then of course there's nothing wrong with it. That golf clubs must fall into this category is something I dispute.

Gee... Augusta's male only policy doesn't stop my from thinking that keeping blacks at the back of the bus is despicable... so what's your point?

Only because you buy into the idea that the fact it's a private club allows you to be racist. I dispute this claim, so there is no point endlessly repeating it as though it were a proof.

Your logic is that it's discrimination if men do it, but not if women do it... please explain the logic here.

That's not my logic at all. This just shows me that you haven't read very carefully. My position is that it is wrongful discrimination if it is done for racist or sexist reasons. A golf club that excludes blacks because they are black is doing so for racist reasons. A medical program that only tests East European Jews and their descendants for Tay-Sachs is not wrong because only these people carry Tay-Sachs. If you could only understand this simple point the argument could proceed.

You also say that private clubs are ok, but not Augusta/Men's golf clubs... again, please explain the logic here.

My claim is that clubs that discriminate on the basis of race or sex without good reason are doing something wrong. There's nothing wrong with a private club having various selection procedures as long as they aren't racist or sexist. In fact there's nothing wrong with a men's only golf club if a good reason for keeping it men only can be found (I can't think of one offhand).

It's a moot point whether Augusta's policy regarding women is sexist or has some other rationale. But given the sexist and racist history of the game of golf and the club the simplest explanation is that they discriminate.

You seem to be the one having problems with the concepts of reason and logic.

From what you've written I don't think so....

So you are the only one the universe that gets to decided if there is a valid reason or not.

So it's only because I think it's wrong that racism is wrong. Interesting...

And since you have no knowledge of Men's Golf Clubs, and therefore can't see a reason, it must be discrimination and not be allowed.

Not what I said.

Well.. that's not a logic argument. That's just a statement showing that when you don't understand something... you don't like it and don't want to allow it. Hmmm, kind of sounds just like discrimination...

Again - you are the one with problems with logic here. I get paid to teach it - I've contributed material to a recently published book on Critical Reasoning - I've also studied moral notions of equality for some years - I know what I'm talking about. Evidently you do not. You don't seem to be bright enough to pick up the subtleties of my argument (which aren't particularly profound - basic stuff actually). That's not my fault. Frankly, the material you've contributed to this debate would at most get you a C- if I was grading it in a first year course.

The funny thing is - even I can think of better arguments for your position than the ones you've offered.

Come on back after you take a class or two on logic.
And if you already did... you might want to take it again.

You are the one that needs the logic class.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Agathon:

Please examine this argument, to make sure that I am following you correctly.

I hate communists. Their persection of religious people across the globe is an affront to the dignity of persons everywhere.

In order to prevent further pogroms unleashed against religious people, here in this land of Canada, I would like to limit the freedom of communists to spout their bigotry against religious persons.

Therefore, unless you choose to stop preaching communism, you will be out of a job.

Where have I fallen away from your logic, Agathon?

In several places. I never said that racists would be silenced (witness Imran's hilarious attempt to find evidence for this above). All I've been talking about is a law that would prevent institutions from wrongful discrimination on the basis of race or sex. The reason for that is that bigotry of this sort is rightfully recognised as unacceptable in today's society.

Nothing I've said in this thread prevents anyone from exercising their religious freedom either. I certainly think it is wrong for people to be denied employment because of their religion or to be discriminated against because of their religion. If Canadian communists did this, I would oppose them.

I would certainly agree that a golf club in which people were banned on the basis of their religion without good reason would be wrong.

However, are you seriously suggesting that Canadian Communists are a clear and present danger to the lives and prospects of religious people? How many Canadian Communists do you know?