4 ms·

You're mixing meanings of discrimination. Barring women from participating in an event is completely separate from how prizes are handed out. Mixing these two s

by sethev 9y ago

You're mixing meanings of discrimination. Barring women from participating in an event is completely separate from how prizes are handed out. Mixing these two senses of the word 'discrimination' like your doing is equivocation. "Isn't it odd how people argue for equal rights but are perfectly willing to only turn left in some cases." No - it's not odd at all. Words can have multiple senses.

jbmorgado 9y ago
You clearly (either willingly because it suits your narrative or because you didn't actually read anything) are accusing me of something I not only clearly didn't do but something that I actually spoke against. Again: I'm all for opening doors for everyone that "doesn't have any unfair external advantage" (i.e. doping) to compete. What I'm questioning is barring the fastest runners from competition and from the prizes just because of their gender. In no way I was asking for barring anyone from anything, so stop mixing everything up just to suit your narrative.
- vidarh 9y ago
  They're not barred from competing. They're split into different subsets to more closely match them with people with similar potential exactly to make the races more competitive. I would have some sympathy for your argument if you argue against womens only races or men only races, but most sports do not arbitrarily deny access to a given group, but split people into groups and try to counter effects beyond competitors control, such as gender, age, so that training plays a bigger role in the results distribution. The point is that we are seeking to give prices to those who have gotten closest to their maximum potential, not for their genetic starting point or circumstances. Yes, we can not counter everything without splitting things up too much, but we can aim to equalise the playing field somewhat. This is not discrimination. This is seeking to reduce "unfair external advantage". It's the opposite of discrimination.
- sethev 9y ago
  You're the one who's muddying the water by using a second sense of the word discrimination when everybody else is talking about the first.

by sethev 9y ago

jbmorgado 9y ago

You clearly (either willingly because it suits your narrative or because you didn't actually read anything) are accusing me of something I not only clearly didn't do but something that I actually spoke against. Again: I'm all for opening doors for everyone that "doesn't have any unfair external advantage" (i.e. doping) to compete. What I'm questioning is barring the fastest runners from competition and from the prizes just because of their gender. In no way I was asking for barring anyone from anything, so stop mixing everything up just to suit your narrative.

vidarh 9y ago
They're not barred from competing. They're split into different subsets to more closely match them with people with similar potential exactly to make the races more competitive. I would have some sympathy for your argument if you argue against womens only races or men only races, but most sports do not arbitrarily deny access to a given group, but split people into groups and try to counter effects beyond competitors control, such as gender, age, so that training plays a bigger role in the results distribution. The point is that we are seeking to give prices to those who have gotten closest to their maximum potential, not for their genetic starting point or circumstances. Yes, we can not counter everything without splitting things up too much, but we can aim to equalise the playing field somewhat. This is not discrimination. This is seeking to reduce "unfair external advantage". It's the opposite of discrimination.
sethev 9y ago
You're the one who's muddying the water by using a second sense of the word discrimination when everybody else is talking about the first.