Supreme Court rules against LGBTQ

#251
#251
hog88 said:
Dude I hope you come up with better arguments in court than "It doesn't matter because everyone still knows the girl lost to a guy but she's still a winner" and that is what your argument boils down to. Asinine.
Click to expand...
Just remember that “some of my dumbest work” was still too advanced for you to respond with anything of substance.
 
#252
#252
Watching a little Wimbledon, and the flashing between the women's and men's matches reminded me of this thread. These dudes can really kill a tennis ball. I don't think I could get to a single one of Djokovic's returns.
 
#253
#253
RockyTop85 said:
Try not being an idiot and I believe it will make much more sense. Luther will make more sense sometimes, too.

They run the same path at the same time under the same conditions, the only reason they don’t “compete” with each other and the reason the woman’s achievement is not diminished is because it is universally understood that male and female competitors are not physically equivalent and therefore it does not diminish the achievement, even if a 4th place man who ran as a man were to claim “beating all the women” as an achievement.

The marginal difference between “I won among women but finished behind 10 men” and “I won among women but got beat by one transgender person who has a male anatomy” should approach 0 because it is only opinion of the organization that the competition was an accurate test.

As an analog, loom at the Heisman trophy. Do you think it’s fair that Hendon Hooker didn’t get an invite to the ceremony? Does that change the season that he had? Does it decrease his passing yards or touchdowns? Does it increase the number of interceptions? Do you consider his season a disappointment because the Heisman voters didn’t give him that recognition? Or do you just consider the selection process flawed and stupid?
Click to expand...

There’s only one person looking like an idiot in here, and it’s you. Are you actually saying that hendon not getting invited to the heisman ceremony is “unfair” in the same way as a man who is physically superior to women dominating women’s sports is “unfair”? So the women who had to swim against that dude calling himself Leah, all of their years of hard work/training/dedication doesn’t matter. They lost out on championships/records/etc, but in your words their achievements “aren’t diminished”… you’re embarrassing yourself, take a nap. Or maybe use what little bit of a brain you have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Behr, Vol since 77, kiddiedoc and 3 others
#255
#255
RockyTop85 said:
Just remember that “some of my dumbest work” was still too advanced for you to respond with anything of substance.
Click to expand...

You think awfully highly of yourself but I doubt there’s anything to back it up. Did you get someone’s son who committed a felony a pretrial intervention plea? Sorry to burst your bubble but you had nothing to do with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#256
#256
615vols said:
There’s only one person looking like an idiot in here, and it’s you. Are you actually saying that hendon not getting invited to the heisman ceremony is “unfair” in the same way as a man who is physically superior to women dominating women’s sports is “unfair”? So the women who had to swim against that dude calling himself Leah, all of their years of hard work/training/dedication doesn’t matter. They lost out on championships/records/etc, but in your words their achievements “aren’t diminished”… you’re embarrassing yourself, take a nap. Or maybe use what little bit of a brain you have.
Click to expand...
Stated like the dad who drunkenly tries to body slam the umpire in little league.

They lost out on records? What records? Thomas wasn’t some amazing swimmer who shattered record times.

If female athletes’ hard work only matters to you if they can beat biological men then are you advocating for doing away with women’s sports altogether?
 
#258
#258
RockyTop85 said:
Stated like the dad who drunkenly tries to body slam the umpire in little league.

They lost out on records? What records? Thomas wasn’t some amazing swimmer who shattered record times.

If female athletes’ hard work only matters to you if they can beat biological men then are you advocating for doing away with women’s sports altogether?
Click to expand...

My god you need some serious help. The Bolded is about the most moronic thing you have said. They added women sports so they wouldn’t have to compete with dudes. I can only assume you’re a tranny nutjob yourself at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#259
#259
RockyTop85 said:
Stated like the dad who drunkenly tries to body slam the umpire in little league.

They lost out on records? What records? Thomas wasn’t some amazing swimmer who shattered record times.

If female athletes’ hard work only matters to you if they can beat biological men then are you advocating for doing away with women’s sports altogether?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Thomas has broken several women’s records. Are you capable of research? Takes 30 seconds or so to google and read, but here’s a few:

“The University of Pennsylvania announced on its website that Thomas had finished “best in the country” in the 500m freestyle on the event’s first day. On the second she “delivered another record-breaking performance” with the 200m freestyle.
Thomas previously broke two University of Pennsylvania records in the same races, 200m and 500m freestyle, at an event in November.”

“Thomas broke several records at the pool, which is in Boston, across the river from Harvard’s Cambridge campus. Her 500 free time of 4:37.32 on Thursday was a pool best; her 1:43.12 time in the 200 free on Friday shattered the previous pool record, as well as the Ivy League’s meet record. And on Saturday she smashed another pool and Ivy League record, coming in at 47.63 in the 100 free.”

And you’re right about one thing, he wasn’t some amazing swimmer. Until he started competing against women, and won the division 1 national championship and broke several women’s records 😂

And no, I’m not advocating for doing away with women’s sports. I’m saying men should compete against men, women should compete against women. Like I said, embarrassing yourself.
 
#260
#260
I really DGAF if a female professional sports organization or Olympic regulatory body decides to allow biological males to compete against women. Those women who participate can vote with their feet and boycott should they not agree. My problem is with allowing biological males to compete against females at the collegiate level and below, those girls/women don't deserve to have their opportunities cut because a male decides he is a female and wants to play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill, Behr, CobbVol and 3 others
#261
#261
615vols said:
Yeah, Thomas has broken several women’s records. Are you capable of research? Takes 30 seconds or so to google and read, but here’s a few:

“The University of Pennsylvania announced on its website that Thomas had finished “best in the country” in the 500m freestyle on the event’s first day. On the second she “delivered another record-breaking performance” with the 200m freestyle.
Thomas previously broke two University of Pennsylvania records in the same races, 200m and 500m freestyle, at an event in November.”

“Thomas broke several records at the pool, which is in Boston, across the river from Harvard’s Cambridge campus. Her 500 free time of 4:37.32 on Thursday was a pool best; her 1:43.12 time in the 200 free on Friday shattered the previous pool record, as well as the Ivy League’s meet record. And on Saturday she smashed another pool and Ivy League record, coming in at 47.63 in the 100 free.”

And you’re right about one thing, he wasn’t some amazing swimmer. Until he started competing against women, and won the division 1 national championship and broke several women’s records 😂

And no, I’m not advocating for doing away with women’s sports. I’m saying men should compete against men, women should compete against women. Like I said, embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...
Oh an individual pool record and a UPenn record. Okay, well that definitely justifies the outrage.

I’m sure I’d be a lot more embarrassed if you could explain how “the women who had to swim against that dude calling himself Leah, all of their years of hard work/training/dedication doesn’t matter” makes sense without expecting women to beat male competitors.
 
#262
#262
RockyTop85 said:
Oh an individual pool record and a UPenn record. Okay, well that definitely justifies the outrage.

I’m sure I’d be a lot more embarrassed if you could explain how “the women who had to swim against that dude calling himself Leah, all of their years of hard work/training/dedication doesn’t matter” makes sense without expecting women to beat male competitors.
Click to expand...

You forgot the Ivy League records and division one national championship, wonder why you left that out? Gotta do what you can to make your point look a little better huh?
And do I really need to break that down for you? It’s quite simple, group of women athletes/swimmers train and put in the work, diet, etc nonstop to become the best at their sport, win a national championship. Male pretending to be a woman steps in and breaks school records, Ivy League records, and wins national championship because he is competing against women, not men. All of the women’s hard work and dedication that they put in for years and years is now somewhat squandered. Their shot at being a national champ, or holding the Ivy League record was taken away because they have to compete against a physically superior man. Are you getting tired of getting your a** kicked all up and down this thread yet?
 
  • Like
Reactions: OL SMOKEY and allvol123
#263
#263
615vols said:
You forgot the Ivy League records and division one national championship, wonder why you left that out? Gotta do what you can to make your point look a little better huh?
And do I really need to break that down for you? It’s quite simple, group of women athletes/swimmers train and put in the work, diet, etc nonstop to become the best at their sport, win a national championship. Male pretending to be a woman steps in and breaks school records, Ivy League records, and wins national championship because he is competing against women, not men. All of the women’s hard work and dedication that they put in for years and years is now somewhat squandered. Their shot at being a national champ, or holding the Ivy League record was taken away because they have to compete against a physically superior man. Are you getting tired of getting your a** kicked all up and down this thread yet?
Click to expand...
I left those records out because it wasn’t apparent from your post that those records were involved (I see it now, I did not see them before) and I thought the national championship was basically what we’re discussing.

You’re saying that the only thing standing between women and these achievements is a man who was allowed to compete against them (due to the poor judgement of the organizing body) and that means their achievement “means nothing.”

But you’re also saying that women don’t have to be able to beat men for their sports to have meaning.

Yes, I need that explained. It is inherently contradictory and saying you’re “kicking my ass up and down the thread” without being able to reconcile the contradiction is just meaningless **** talk.

I appreciate that your response was still substantive. I’m not complaining about the **** talk. But why the hell would I concede that I’m getting my ass kicked when you appear to be using rank emotional hyperbole in an argument where I’m saying that the level of outrage is overblown?
 
Last edited:
#264
#264
kiddiedoc said:
Watching a little Wimbledon, and the flashing between the women's and men's matches reminded me of this thread. These dudes can really kill a tennis ball. I don't think I could get to a single one of Djokovic's returns.
Click to expand...
If you don't watch the video portion, and just listen to the sounds of women's tennis, you'd swear you were watching a porno.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and tbwhhs
#266
#266
SpaceCoastVol said:
If you don't watch the video portion, and just listen to the sounds of women's tennis, you'd swear you were watching a porno.
Click to expand...

Women’s tennis is literally the only sport I can watch women play and enjoy it. Being serious, not just playing on the outfits and noises.
 
#267
#267
RockyTop85 said:
I left those records out because it wasn’t apparent from your post that those records were involved (I see it now, I did not see them before) and I thought the national championship was basically what we’re discussing.

You’re saying that the only thing standing between women and these achievements is a man who was allowed to compete against them (due to the poor judgement of the organizing body) and that means their achievement “means nothing.”

But you’re also saying that women don’t have to be able to beat men for their sports to have meaning.

Yes, I need that explained. It is inherently contradictory and saying you’re “kicking my ass up and down the thread” without being able to reconcile the contradiction is just meaningless **** talk.

I appreciate that your response was still substantive. I’m not complaining about the **** talk. But why the hell would I concede that I’m getting my ass kicked when you appear to be using rank emotional hyperbole in an argument where I’m saying that the level of outrage is overblown?
Click to expand...

I’m not saying what they have achieved, for example earning a scholarship and competing at the collegiate level, means nothing. Getting to that level is quite an accomplishment. However, they put in years of hard work and dedication, follow strict diets, etc in order to be the best/win championships/set records, and that opportunity was taken away from them by a man pretending to be a woman. So all those years of training, all of their aspirations of being the best were deemed irrelevant/worthless because a physically superior man was allowed to step in and take that from them. Thats not right, and it shouldn’t just be accepted. It isn’t a difficult concept, and I certainly see no contradiction. Men should compete against men, women against women.
 
#269
#269
kiddiedoc said:
Watching a little Wimbledon, and the flashing between the women's and men's matches reminded me of this thread. These dudes can really kill a tennis ball. I don't think I could get to a single one of Djokovic's returns.
Click to expand...
You ever read how the like 200th ranked men's player beat the living garbage out of both Venus AND Serena back to back?
 
#271
#271
RockyTop85 said:
Try not being an idiot and I believe it will make much more sense. Luther will make more sense sometimes, too.

They run the same path at the same time under the same conditions, the only reason they don’t “compete” with each other and the reason the woman’s achievement is not diminished is because it is universally understood that male and female competitors are not physically equivalent and therefore it does not diminish the achievement, even if a 4th place man who ran as a man were to claim “beating all the women” as an achievement.

The marginal difference between “I won among women but finished behind 10 men” and “I won among women but got beat by one transgender person who has a male anatomy” should approach 0 because it is only opinion of the organization that the competition was an accurate test.

As an analog, loom at the Heisman trophy. Do you think it’s fair that Hendon Hooker didn’t get an invite to the ceremony? Does that change the season that he had? Does it decrease his passing yards or touchdowns? Does it increase the number of interceptions? Do you consider his season a disappointment because the Heisman voters didn’t give him that recognition? Or do you just consider the selection process flawed and stupid?
Click to expand...
By that analogy Thomas can compete with women but wouldn't be eligible for the women's championship. Even though men and women run the marathon together, the results are separate. A woman who finishes well back in the overall field will win the women's championship because she was the fastest woman. That didn't happen in swimming, hence the discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and hog88
#272
#272
RockyTop85 said:
The discussion is whether the outrage at transgender participation in women’s sports is overblown.

I say that it is because:
1. The level of outrage is generally very high.
2. It is a relatively trivial matter. (Relative Insignificance of sports, Lack of interest among even those with strong opinions, everyone already accepts that men are superior athletes, the harm is mitigated by choice of competition governing bodies).
3. There is not a similar level of outrage at other trivial sport “unfairness.” (Insert every sport ever).

I think that fits basically everything into three broad categories, but I may have overlooked some.
Click to expand...
Is there an appropriate level of outrage over Lia in the pool with girls? And I’m not trying to be snide here.

Is the problem in your view the disagreement with it, or the level of disagreement with it?
 
#273
#273
allvol123 said:
Women’s tennis is literally the only sport I can watch women play and enjoy it. Being serious, not just playing on the outfits and noises.
Click to expand...
I can watch women’s softball for hours. I’ll watch a random SEC game when our LVs aren’t even playing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123
#275
#275
EasternVol said:
In that those refused, potentially whole demographics, wouldn't have access to the same goods and services as those not refused.
Click to expand...

Not from that particular vendor. But could you provide a single example of goods or services to which anyone would not have access?

Which brings us to the heart ofthe issue. The spurned customer is demanding that the particular business owner serve that customer. The owner cannot demand that the customer patronize his/her business. The customer thus enjoys a freedom of commerce not afforded to the owner.

One would think that enterprising entrepreneurs would rush to fill any hypothetical void left by the recalcitrant owner, taking advantage of the opportunity.

In the highly unlikely event that a truly essential service was not being provided, the sympathetic taxpayers would gladly suggest tax increases to open public, government funded- and -operated florists, bakeries, catering businesses, wedding planning services, etc. After all, taxpayers (including those who homeschool or send their kids to private schools) support public school systems open to all. We have public health clinics funded by taxes, public housing, state and local parks, etc. Why wouldn't we do the same for all goods and services instead of forcing others to do what we won't? The latter seems hypocritical. Besides, we can always open our own business open to all if we are truly concerned.

A win-win for freedom for all!

Right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: C-south
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top