Women and Augusta National Golf Club

[Q Classic]

aggie, i still fail to see the crux of your argument.

your point is that it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of race or sex.

are you saying that that wrong trumps whether some group has the right to associate with each other or not?

[Q Classic]

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?

are you seriously suggesting that Augusta National is causing a clear and present harm to the people in the community and women in general? How many Augusta National members do you know?

[rah]

Just for grins.
If augusta does open membership for women, it is likely to be quite expensive. They will have to either build or reconfigure a building for the ladies locker room. This is not a public golf course, so using the women's bathroom won't cut it. If I'm paying over 50K as an initiation fee and monthly dues that exceed 1k, I would expect a NICE facility. It will have to be as luxurious as the men's or there will be claims of discrimination. If you've ever seen the Locker room there you would see that it's a multi-million dollar facility.
Even by your definition, this would seem a valid reason to not have any women admitted. Pigs vs probably over 1 million dollars. I doubt the government will volunteer (or Ms Burks) to pay for the new facitilities that would have to be built. The members would have to eat this fee as a special assessment.

[Japher]

Women need to stay where they belong... out of the man's way. Just kidding.

If men really are pigs then they probably be kept separate from the rest of the crowd (women). Can the men help it if their golf clubs (styes) are nicer than the womens?

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.

True. Thus, a MEN'S ONLY CLUB will not let women in. What's wrong with that? The same way the OB/GYN won't give me a papsmere despite all my pleeding. Also, why can't I shower in the womens locker rooms at the gym? And why do I get weird looks when I call a woman a chick? Men need a place to "hang out", as do women... places apart from those of the other sex. Places where I can whine about the wife, sex, or my cute secretary without getting judged... just vent.

That is why these clubs exist, not for the point of exclusion, but for the point of segregation... And we all know that these things are needed every now and then. Granted that segregation based on race is now becoming unaccepted, perhaps one day it will be to with sexes... Yet, as long as I have to lower the seat after I pee, or else!!!!... Women will stay out places made for men, and men will stay out of places made for women...

Don't try and confuse sexism with racism...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by 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.

Um... this isn't a conflation fallacy I'm sorry to inform you. I don't say that discrimination is wrong because it's illegal (that would be a conflation fallacy). All I'm claiming here is that like most laws there would be a fair degree of latitude for the courts to interpret what counts as a good reason if some institution were brought before it and charged under the discrimination law.

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!

If you look at the context the racist practice in question is that of establishing racist institutions. Now last time I looked stopping someone from expressing racist opinions was different from stopping someone engaging in, say, racist hiring practices.

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.

How would you feel if you went out of your house every day, and saw posters everywhere saying that you were an animal and deserved to be lynched?

I'd say that the KKK should be left alone as long as it's harmless. But if it becomes a threat to the well being of others - smash it.

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

A stunningly fallacious inference.

Compare: if racists don't have chocolate, then it follows by the laws of logic (according to the wise Imran) that nobody has any chocolate!

Idiot.

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

Boo hoo.

I now know what Asher was talking about.

Since Asher's style of argument is to endlessy repeat his opinion with "can't you see?" or some similar phrase added to it, I can see how you two would get along.

[Ming]

My comment:
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.

your response:
Not what I said.

But later on in the same post you say...

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).

So which is it? You state in the same post that you can'd think of one offhand... yet you say earlier, that's not what you said...



I'm glad I got taught logic by professors at a University...

Issues brought up already in this thread why there is a good reason.

Men can't act like themselves around women
Slow Play
Cost for expensive additional facilities...

There are three reasons that are a lot better than your defending women gyms by saying, ALL MEN ARE PIGS.



All your long posts say pretty much the same thing... none of which supports your arguments. It's all just a smoke screen for your lack of any logic. You contradict yourself, you still have not made any argument except for "I can't think of a reason, therefore, it's discrimination", and it's all based on your lack of knowledge of Men's Golf Clubs.

Try again when you find a real argument... and don't bother saying all the same things over again. If you haven't noticed, nobody is buying any of it

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
aggie, i still fail to see the crux of your argument.

your point is that it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of race or sex.

are you saying that that wrong trumps whether some group has the right to associate with each other or not?

Finally, someone who gets it.

I'm saying that it does sometimes.

Now I take it that everyone will agree that it would be hopeless to try and force everyone not to be racist in their choice of close friends. The point of the right of freedom of association is that voluntary friendships are necessary for human welfare.

On the other hand, racism is a terrible evil (as is sexism). Black people also have a right not to be discriminated against because they are black. Segregated shopping malls and toilets harm black people by effectively turning them into second class citizens. Discrimination against them by employers directly affects their life prospects.

Now if we understood the right to free association as absolute we would end up allowing racist shopping malls and employment practices, etc. On the other hand, if we understood the right not to be discriminated against as absolute, we would make life unliveable.

The way to resolve this conflict of rights is to determine who's going to come out worst overall if one right takes precedence over the other.

For example, if the state insisted that everyone had to have black friends, clearly everyone would be worse off.

On the other hand, if the state allowed racists to create discriminatory employment practices or racist store owners to exclude blacks from stores black people would be worse off and only the racists would be better off. In other words some limit to freedom of association is required.

Now given that racism is wrong, it's simply not fair to allow blacks to suffer by indulging wrongful prejudices. That's why discriminatory employment practices should be illegal - even if it is a private company.

Things like golf clubs and other clubs fall somewhere between associations of friends and things like companies and stores. Generally you don't have to be close personal friends with the hundreds of people that belong to your golf club - so there is more room for the law here.

So the question is: does the harm inflicted by making it illegal to prevent someone joining a golf club on the basis of race outweight the harm done to black people by the state allowing racist institutions to flourish? I think it's clear it doesn't. Having to let Alan Keyes into your golf club (who's the sort of black guy they'd let in) doesn't harm you as much as living in a racist society does.

Preventing this sort of segregation also may have the future effect of lowering the level of racial prejudice. That is a worthwhile goal for a civilised society.

[Ming]

But again... you use tons of words that really don't say anything the supports your basic argument.

Women can have private gyms because men are pigs...

And men can't have private clubs because you can't see a reason why they should, so it's discrimination.


So all your talk that there is more room for law at Private Golf Clubs doesn't make sense. Are all the women at a private gym best of friends? No... but it's still ok not to allow men. Yet you use this as the ONLY basis for saying the Men's Clubs should be treated differently by law...

And none of the other many words you type address this basic flaw in your not so logical argument

It comes down to the fact that you are discriminating against men's golf clubs shame on you...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming

So which is it? You state in the same post that you can'd think of one offhand... yet you say earlier, that's not what you said...

I find it hard to think of a good reason offhand because there don't seem to be any.

Yours are:

Men can't act like themselves around women

1. Why does this necessitate having men only golf clubs rather than some other men's club?

2. Men who can't act like themselves around women have a problem with women. That's not the fault of women.

Slow Play

This is good grounds for discriminating against slow players only. Not all women are slow players.

Cost for expensive additional facilities...

Yet I guess you don't have a problem with wheelchair ramps.

There are three reasons that are a lot better than your defending women gyms by saying, ALL MEN ARE PIGS.

Three hopeless reasons.

It's a practical matter as to whether there should be women only gyms or not - depending on whether other sanctions work or not (same for slow play by women golfers). I can think of one case in which they failed so there was no alternative. But you've avoided the argument anyway. If these were good reasons, then men only golf clubs would be OK. On the other hand if the real reason for no women or blacks was discriminatory then all your reasons are irrelevant.

All your long posts say pretty much the same thing... none of which supports your arguments. It's all just a smoke screen for your lack of any logic. You contradict yourself, you still have not made any argument except for "I can't think of a reason, therefore, it's discrimination", and it's all based on your lack of knowledge of Men's Golf Clubs.

You can carry on like this all you want, talking about things you know little of, but you would be better to address the actual argument instead of the straw men you've been hacking at. That's why my posts say the same thing - because you just don't get it and respond with facile objections.

I'd be inclined to take you seriously if you could come up with something good. But you can't so what's the point...

[The Emperor Fabulous]

MING IN A FLAME WAR?!?!?!

This is a dark (or is it bright?) day in Apolyton History...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming

So all your talk that there is more room for law at Private Golf Clubs doesn't make sense. Are all the women at a private gym best of friends? No... but it's still ok not to allow men. Yet you use this as the ONLY basis for saying the Men's Clubs should be treated differently by law...

For the umpteenth time - the gym example is only meant to point out that different treatment is sometimes justifiable and sometimes is not.

The fact that women at a gym don't have to be best friends has nothing to do with the reason why men would be banned from such gyms.

I know this might startle you but there can be more than one reason for having a women only gym. One reason could be that it's in someone's house and only her friends use it. Another reason could be that mixed gyms have proved to be hotbeds of sexual harassment. If there aren't such problems then women only gyms should be prohibited.

I don't use this as the only reason why mens clubs should be treated differently. Where did I say it was the only reason? I didn't - this is a flagrant misrepresentation on your part (and a logical confusion).

The fact that your reasons for keeping women out of golf clubs are wanting notwithstanding, nothing you've said entails that it's right for clubs to discriminate for racist or sexist reasons. If there are other reasons (good ones) then that's fine (I've said so repeatedly), but if they are racist or sexist reasons it should be illegal.

You still haven't shown me that golf clubs should be allowed to be sexist or racist.

[Q Classic]

1. Why does this necessitate having men only golf clubs rather than some other men's club?

2. Men who can't act like themselves around women have a problem with women. That's not the fault of women.

the two problems with this point i can see are:
1. how does this preclude having a men's only golf club?

2. occasionally, women engage in something commonly known as "girl talk". this almost never occurs in the presence of males, as it, more often than not, discusses men in general. men too occasionally need this sort of discussive environment--and the pub is not always the best place to have it.

Yet I guess you don't have a problem with wheelchair ramps.

generally, i've found golf (in observation and the one time i've played it) to be a walking sport. i have yet to see a handicapped person without the use of their legs play it.

finally, i find it hard to agree with your claim that any female other than burk is actually being harmed by this policy.
the only harm i can see being done is the fact that augusta national no longer is capable of donating direly needed funds to many a charity in georgia.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
For the umpteenth time - the gym example is only meant to point out that different treatment is sometimes justifiable and sometimes is not.

For the umpteenth time, it's not a valid example. It does nothing to support that different treatment is sometimes justifiable and sometimes is not.

The fact that women at a gym don't have to be best friends has nothing to do with the reason why men would be banned from such gyms.

But the only reason you have given in the past is that men are pigs. That's NOT a valid reason for differentation. I could say that women are ****** with the same authority you use to say that men are pigs, rendering your only reason to date, invalid.

I know this might startle you but there can be more than one reason for having a women only gym. One reason could be that it's in someone's house and only her friends use it.

I know this might startle you, but there are reasons why men should have a men's only club... but you just ignore them...

Another reason could be that mixed gyms have proved to be hotbeds of sexual harassment. prohibited.

Ahhh... so you are really saying that sexual harassment is only important if it happens to a women, and not if it happens to a man. No way, it's a two way street, and Men might want a men's only club to avoid the same thing.

I don't use this as the only reason why mens clubs should be treated differently. Where did I say it was the only reason? I didn't - this is a flagrant misrepresentation on your part (and a logical confusion).

Then why haven't you provided any other examples. Your whole argument basically, "since I can't see a reason for it, it's wrong" Oh, and you have said just that in the past.

Again... your ignorance of Men's Golf Clubs doesn't provide a logical argument that they shouldn't be allowed.

And again, there are legitimate reasons why an all mens golf club is valid. You just choose to ignore them, or see them as not as valid as your men are pigs argument.

Because again... sexual harrasement is a two way street, so if it's a valid reason to allow an all womens club, the same holds true for men...

Because again... the fact that everybody isn't best friends is also not a reason since that isn't the case in all womens club...

So all that leaves you with is your argument that men are pigs.

Try again... You claim it "depends"... yet it seems to only depend if it's in favor of women and not men.

Your whole argument is sexist and pure discrimination.

[rah]

Yes, it would be nice if every relationship, gathering, association or private club, was totally non descriminatory, But that can't be legally mandated since if violates are freedom to associate. No one here is saying anything about an ideal world. They're talking about rights. You seem to be argueing about the ideal world and the rest of us are argueing about rights. When people argue past each other, no resolution will ever be reached.

I'm starting a BRIDGE club and since I plan on drinking lots of beer, eating nuts and smoking stoogies, I expect to FART a lot. Since women are usually disgusted by most of these practices and I hate to be reminded how disgusting it is, I'm not planning on inviting any women to join. I HAVE THAT RIGHT. And so do men's golf clubs where the men like to drink, smoke, swear, and fart, without having to worry about what the women will say. IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH?

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

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

You're a woman or a pig? I've belonged to coed gyms and saw nothing like this happen, sure, there were men and women who took a look at attractive members. Big deal...would you argue in favor of all women clubs banning lesbians?

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."

Then you must accept that if some women behave badly, Augusta would have a good reason (by your own standard) to ban women. Slow play is a good reason...

You seem to think that my argument requires the truth of a categorical to go through when only this hypothetical needs to be true.

Then hypotheticals involving women disrupting Augusta qualify as a good reason to ban them too.

Again - you are the one with problems with logic here. I get paid to teach it

Oh here we go with Agathon's so-called qualifications, he's paid to teach, therefore we are required to overlook his inability to offer a logical and consistent argument in this thread because he's really smart inspite of our inability to detect his intelligence.

I've contributed material to a recently published book on Critical Reasoning

Did you provide the examples of uncritical thinking to highlight the differences between the two?

I've also studied moral notions of equality for some years - I know what I'm talking about.

You forgot to mention your position as Apolyton's resident philosopher on that resume (self-appointed of course).

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).

Yes, those subtleties are your euphemism for the absence of logic.

That's not my fault.

It never is...

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.

And your contribution? "I don't like discrimination, it's bad." And when other forms of discrimination you support are mentioned to expose your hypocrisy, you then claim discrimination is okay when there's a good reason. i.e., a reason you like. Real critical thinking there...

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

Then offer those better arguments and tell us why they still don't qualify as good reasons.

A stunningly fallacious inference.

Compare: if racists don't have chocolate, then it follows by the laws of logic (according to the wise Imran) that nobody has any chocolate!

Idiot.

If racist speech is banned, how do we have the freedom of speech when you've just limited what we can say? In your example with the chocolate, you didn't ban racists from having chocolate, you banned everyone from having chocolate because the chocolate = racist speech. The critical thinker can't even figure out his own analogy.