Women and Augusta National Golf Club

[SlowwHand]

Private club???

[rah]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Private club???

After a little vodka at the turn and a few beers on the back side, I'm sure I've looked worse than that.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by rah

Ok, I'll concede you have some experience but still classify you as a novice. In a court of law, we look for expert witnesses, not novice witnesses.

Whether or not one plays golf, or how much, or for how long has nothing to do with arguing this case.

If your arguements in this thread are indication of your expertise in logic and cirtical reasoning, calling you a novice might be an overstatement.

Since both you and Ming have spent half the thread misrepresenting my view, posting irrelevancies and failing to counter the actual argument, I think I win on this one.

My schooling and 25 years of dealing with contract law, labor laws, and vendor contracts is nothing to sneaze at. Those that can do, those that can't teach.

Oh yeah, that's a great argument. They obviously didn't teach you to spell correctly. I thought lawyers were supposed to be good at isolating the issue from irrelevancies - I guess I was wrong.

And finally, thank god we live in the good ole USA were we can count on that fact that any law similar to the one you suggest has absolutely zero chance of being passed.

And here's another logical howler. The prospects of a law being passed are irrelevant to the question of whether there should be such a law (the law I described, not your strange take on it). After all civil rights legislation had no prospect of being passed for years, but that doesn't entail that it should have been passed.

I've argued that there should be such a law. Nothing you or Ming have said has even come close to providing a refutation of this claim (the best either of you has done is say "it's a private club they can do what they like"); probably because you spent half the thread accusing me of taking positions that I don't take. If you would attempt to attack my actual position instead of some fictional construct you've made out of it, we might actually get somewhere.

[rah]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's an equivalent argument. The same arguments against racist practices can be used against sexist practices.

Correct. But the courts have still confirmed the right to free association for private clubs. And it's not likely to change. Of course, only if you believe the experts (judges) and not novices.

And the only reason Augusta caved on letting in blacks was they were afraid of the negative publicity, and the fact they were afraid to piss off Tiger too much. They didn't do it because they HAD to (or for any altruistic reason) , they bowed to the pressure. Fortunately the latest example shows that the pressure to allow women isn't that great so they can ignore it.

The funny thing is that they have considered it but since Burk has started her campaign, they don't want to appear to cave in to her. They still have some pride.
And even if they let in a token women, it really changes nothing. They will still be biased to blacks and women.

BUT the have that right.

RAH

[rah]

Originally posted by Agathon
I've argued that there should be such a law. Nothing you or Ming have said has even come close to providing a refutation of this claim (the best either of you has done is say "it's a private club they can do what they like"); probably because you spent half the thread accusing me of taking positions that I don't take. If you would attempt to attack my actual position instead of some fictional construct you've made out of it, we might actually get somewhere.

There is no refuting you. You say that there should be a law. That law would be unconstitutional. So your whole arguement is based soley on your OPINION. You have your opinion and we have ours. (which seems to be shared by almost every poster in this thread)

We can't refute an opinion, because obviously whatever we say will have no effect on you. DOH And whatever you say is not going to change our opinion. (thank god, our opinion is the law of the land and your's isn't)

So I am done trying.

RAH

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
Sure - but it's not a solely female problem

True... However, in MOST cases, women are slower than men. Yes, there are exceptions.

The percentage of women who are slow players is far higher than the percentage of men who are pigs

Yes it is. Are men sexually harassed in mixed golf clubs? If they were then that would be a good reason.

Yes... so it's another legitimate reason.

It's an equivalent argument. The same arguments against racist practices can be used against sexist practices.

Augusta allows all races... so again, not relevent to their no women policy.

Because you and others were defending the rights of private clubs to be racist on the same grounds that you were defending their rights to be sexist.

A smoke screen... and also not true.
Find me an example where I say racisim is ok
You will of course try to find some quote and take it out of context, or imply what my intent was. Don't waste your time. Just find an example where I say racism is ok. Stating the fact that clubs have the right to determine their own membership is not saying that racism is Ok... just stating a fact

That would be for a court to decide. But even if you were right this doesn't refute my claim that there should be a law to punish racist and sexist organisations. You still haven't come up with a decent argument why such a law would be wrong.

And you haven't come with any logical arguments on why Augusta's no women policy is discrimination. Your own logic states that if there is good reason, it's not sexist. And many legitimate reasons have been mentioned.

Slow Play... the number one proven problem with golf today.

Economics... The cost of building female facilities

Harassement... Men should have the same right as women to avoid harassment

You yourself stated that you aren't an expert... so your opinion on whether these issures are Pathetic or not mean nothing...

You are the one that keeps changing the issue every time you get beaten down because of your total lack of logic... as any reasonable person can see as they look through this thread.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Agathon
They obviously didn't teach you to spell correctly.

What does spelling have to do with anything? Or is this just another red herring?

Shouldn't a self-proclaimed expert in logic be able to understand what is germane to the discussion and what is not?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by rah


There is no refuting you. You say that there should be a law. That law would be unconstitutional. So your whole arguement is based soley on your OPINION. You have your opinion and we have ours. (which seems to be shared by almost every poster in this thread)

We can't refute an opinion, because obviously whatever we say will have no effect on you. DOH And whatever you say is not going to change our opinion. (thank god, our opinion is the law of the land and your's isn't)

This strikes me as plain old relativism. Of course back in the good old days when Jim Crow was in force people who disagreed with it merely had an opinion. Other people had different opinions. No one was right of course - at least according to you.

Give me a break.

And for the record, if you could come up with a decent argument, I'd happily concede. But you haven't.

[Ming]

We have... you just ignore them and start talking about racism again.

This thread was about whether Augusta should allow women... And many real and legitimate reasons have been given. You ask, you get them, you dismiss them with no knowledge, just your opinion.

[rah]

You just keep throwing up smoke.

I don't agree with racism. That isn't and hasn't been the point with me at all.

I believe in the right to free association at a personal level. I also believe that Private clubs are at a personal level.

I don't think that it extends to business or other professional organizations. So we agree there.

You don't believe I have the right to free association. That's the crux of your whole arguement.

I don't see either one of us changing our beliefs.
So we agree to disagree. It doesn't make either one right or wrong, good or evil. We just have different beliefs. This country was made on allowing us that privilege.

And all I said was I'm happy that the courts agree with me. Because if they didn't, I'm afraid it would be worse than pandora's box.

RAH
and mentioning my spelling was even lower than my crack at teaching.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming

True... However, in MOST cases, women are slower than men. Yes, there are exceptions.

Then there shouldn't be a general rule against women, unless it becomes a severe problem. Look, Ming, I've already said that I agree that it is possible that there could be good reasons for keeping women out. I've maintained this position since the beginning (that it is possible that there could be reasons, but I couldn't think of any good ones).

But this criticism bypasses my argument entirely. My argument is that it is wrong to keep women out for sexist reasons, even if it is a private club.

As I've been pointing out over the last few pages, the issue of whether there are good reasons to have men only clubs, or women only gyms is a red herring. My arguments are only directed at racists and sexists.

Yes... so it's another legitimate reason.

What does this "sexual harassment" consist of?

Augusta allows all races... so again, not relevent to their no women policy.

It is relevant in the sense that a general argument against wrongful discrimination is an argument against all types of wrongful discrimination.

Anyway, Rah seems to think they are still bigots.

A smoke screen... and also not true.
Find me an example where I say racisim is ok
You will of course try to find some quote and take it out of context, or imply what my intent was. Don't waste your time. Just find an example where I say racism is ok. Stating the fact that clubs have the right to determine their own membership is not saying that racism is Ok... just stating a fact

I'm not saying that you say racism is OK (I'm not going to quote stuff out of context - what's the point?). I'm saying that you defended the right of clubs to have racist and sexist admission policies. That is what I disagree with. I don't think they should have that right, because the right of freedom of association conflicts with other rights.

If you are going to say "the law doesn't allow for that" then I'm not going to disagree. The argument is about whether the law should be changed.

And you haven't come with any logical arguments on why Augusta's no women policy is discrimination. Your own logic states that if there is good reason, it's not sexist. And many legitimate reasons have been mentioned.

If Augusta's no women policy is based on purely sexist reasons, then that is a fact about the club; it isn't something that is amenable to logical demonstration any more than the fact that the club members wear green jackets.

My position is: if it is in fact a policy based on purely sexist reasons, then it is wrong. I've consistently been arguing the general point that it is wrong for private clubs to practice wrongful discrimination. Either you think it is or you think it isn't. That is what the argument has been about - Augusta is a candidate case. Even if Augusta turned out to be non-sexist that would not settle the dispute over whether it is alright for any similar club to practice discrimination for racist or sexist reasons.

You are the one that keeps changing the issue every time you get beaten down because of your total lack of logic... as any reasonable person can see as they look through this thread.

Bullsh*t. I haven't changed the issue at all. I've never said that there could never be a good reason for having a men only club - that's something you harped on about because you didn't understand what I was getting at. The issue is still whether or not it is justifiable for clubs to practice wrongful discrimination. It has taken you an eternity to realise that I didn't mean that they couldn't discriminate for good reasons, despite my saying so every other post.

You have yet to demonstrate any lack of logic in my position. So far you have attempted to demonstrate a lack of logic in a position which you took to be mine, while I was trying to point out to you that it wasn't mine at all. You still haven't provided a decent refutation of my actual position, which is, again, that it is wrong for clubs to discriminate for racist or sexist reasons (f*ck the other reasons - I'm interested in these ones - I couldn't really care less about the other stuff - it is irrelevant to my argument).

Any reasonable person could see that objecting to discrimination on racist or sexist grounds and not objecting to it on other grounds is not contradictory. Yet you kept accusing me of contradicting myself, when I had done no such thing.

So if you still believe that it is right for clubs to discriminate for sexist or racist reasons (putting aside all the other stuff) then say why. I've already pointed out that your "private club" argument is wanting. So you have to do better.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Agathon
I've consistently been arguing the general point that it is wrong for private clubs to practice wrongful discrimination.

It's odd that a self-proclaimed expert in logic would fail to realize that this is a clear case of begging the question.

[rah]

Enough of this circular cluster F***

Let's try something slightly different. But along the same line.

Moral question based on the following TRUE case study.

My father was one of the founders of a PRIVATE golf club in Florida. He served as the first president and had great influence on the charter. Having been a member of an all gentile club, he made sure the CHARTER included the phrase that the club would strive towards having a DIVERSE membership. They have been very successful and every time I visit, it is obvious that it is a diverse membership. Gentiles, Jews, Blacks, Women, etc.

Now turnover is pretty good at clubs in Florida due to death by old age, so the membership changes quickly.

Now there was a very similar club close by with the same type of wording about diversity in it's charter. What happened there, was that a few Jews were real aggressive getting all their friends to join, As the Jewish % climbed it started to snowball. It is now an almost all Jewish club and non-Jews don't even bother applying because everyone considers it a Jewish club.

This has happened at a few other clubs in the area.

Now at my father's club, the Jewish % is also starting to climb, and the members fear the same thing might happen. They are considering limiting the number of Jewish members. These men made sure that their charter had a diversity clause. They are not bigots. They are good men. But now they feel dirty because they fell they must quasi discriminate to ensure a diverse membership.


Are they bigots or are they legitimately discriminating to guarantee diversity?
What do you think?

RAH

[Agathon]

Originally posted by loinburger

It's odd that a self-proclaimed expert in logic would fail to realize that this is a clear case of begging the question.

Oh God...

Let's make peace for a minute. I actually did give an argument for this. About 2 pages ago.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by rah
Enough of this circular cluster F***

Let's try something slightly different. But along the same line.

Moral question based on the following TRUE case study.

My father was one of the founders of a PRIVATE golf club in Florida. He served as the first president and had great influence on the charter. Having been a member of an all gentile club, he made sure the CHARTER included the phrase that the club would strive towards having a DIVERSE membership. They have been very successful and every time I visit, it is obvious that it is a diverse membership. Gentiles, Jews, Blacks, Women, etc.

Now turnover is pretty good at clubs in Florida due to death by old age, so the membership changes quickly.

Now there was a very similar club close by with the same type of wording about diversity in it's charter. What happened there, was that a few Jews were real aggressive getting all their friends to join, As the Jewish % climbed it started to snowball. It is now an almost all Jewish club and non-Jews don't even bother applying because everyone considers it a Jewish club.

This has happened at a few other clubs in the area.

Now at my father's club, the Jewish % is also starting to climb, and the members fear the same thing might happen. They are considering limiting the number of Jewish members. These men made sure that their charter had a diversity clause. They are not bigots. They are good men. But now they feel dirty because they fell they must quasi discriminate to ensure a diverse membership.


Are they bigots or are they legitimately discriminating to guarantee diversity?
What do you think?

RAH

Overdoing the capitals aren't you?

Do only Jewish folks play golf in your city?

I don't think they should feel dirty. I'm going to hedge my bets here.

If there is good reason to think that enforcing the diversity clause will lower the overall amount of bigotry in your area then they shouldn't feel bad.

If they don't think it will make a difference they shouldn't do it - personally I think that they should be very explicit about advertising that it isn't a Jewish Golf Club.

Generally, the less racism the better. If sometimes we have to discriminate on the basis of race to lower the overall amount of racism in society then it is worth doing (less is always better). In this case I think your father is discriminating for a good reason rather than a racist reason (It seems obvious that he isn't an anti-semite so he isn't subject to my old argument). It's the same situation as occurs in universities with affirmative action - the goal is to lower the overall amount of racism in society by avoiding ghettoisation (an unfortunate choice of words, but I can't think of a synonym).