Nice try Major....sigh NOW's goal in their latest whining spat is to significantly change, and impose their beliefs, on a respected, time honored, golfing institution. They have a right to cry, which they are duly exercising, and I have a right to denounce their crying, which I am duly exercising. What's your point, Kliff? We are debating the merits of their argument, not their right to argue.
My point isnt that I want to protest the Girl Scouts...my point is that there are other organizations, like the girl scouts, that fall in the category of "sexist" by some of your definitions
We are debating the merits of their argument, not their right to argue. It would be nice if that were the case, but that's apparently NOT what we are arguing. The former would be a much more interesting debate. You, certainly, were not arguing the merits of the argument: <I>Who are you, junior, to tell Augusta National what the main purpose of their organization is?</I> You're just saying they shouldn't be talking or that what they say is irrelevant. Or, this ridiculous comment of yours: <I>At the private level, organizations are free and clear to conduct business *as they please* provided it is within the guidelines of the law. To deny this basic right is to restrict individual freedom.</I> Again ignores the right vs. wrong argument that NOW is making. NOW never said they don't have the legal right to do what they are doing - your comments are again irrelevent to the argument and is a sad attempt to try to divert attention from the real issue that NOW is raising. A few people discussed the merits of NOW's argument; the rest are just yelling and screaming at the fact that NOW is even trying to make an argument or that Augusta is not changing their policies.
Major, As a testament to your lack of points on which to argue, you are forced to resort to challenging semantics and intent, rather than actually discussing the true issue at hand. This is a sure sign of a lost argument. My points were highly salient and relevant to the topic at hand. You are continuing to argue the right to argue, as opposed to the actual issue. You are attempting to divert attention away from the argument, which oh by the way -- the vast majority disagrees with you on, including Kliff Kingsbury.
Am I the only one who thought this was funny. Someone claiming a sure sign of a lost argument is to argue about how the argument is argued who goes on for paragraph in general platitudes about the general salience and relevance of his argument and about what was argued, rather than providing a new argument or support for a previous one. To me the intent of this is not very open to debate, rather it is clear. Outsiders of private entities should keep their comments to themselves. Personally, as silly as I think it is I would fully protect the right of Southern fundamentalists to boycott and condemn Disney. The issues are similar here. As far as fundamental issues, I would not support the merits of the fundamentalists in this case because their boycotting as an attempt to make a private entity for EXCLUSIONARY where the boycott of Augusta is an attempt to be INCLUSIONARY. So there are your "merits" right there beyond the fundamental American right to protest, boycott or persuade the public about a private institution or an individual. And TJ--do you really believe a poll on a Rockets Board on a Hang Out forum by people who choose to read and post about Augusta is a good indication of where the American public stands. Further, sense you are concerned with "merits"--what does it matter where the public stands anyway, right?
Whoa, this thread got away on me... but I think the key points here are: a) it is (obviously) legal to discriminate on the basis of sex, thanks to the failure of the ERA b) it is not legal to discriminate on the basis of race (good) c) the goddamned law needs to be changed one way or the other - either you can discriminate against *everyone* or *no one*, but not half and half! That is all. (Isabel: NOW is denounced by most radical feminist groups for being too vanilla and mainstream. I'd say the vast majority of its membership are not lesbian (just as the vast majority of women are not lesbian). And besides, what bloody difference does the sexual orientation of a feminist group make to their argument? That's what I don't get...)
I agree to an extent, but let me go back to what I said earlier. My brother graduated from Stanford. He is a huge UT fan and has had season tickets for a long time now. He would like to participate in some of the events that are for the "Texas Exes" but can not be a part of them b/c he is not an alum. It is not discrimination due to race, sex, religious beliefs or sexual orientaiton, but he is excluded nonetheless. Should he then beat a drum and raise hell about it being unfair? That falls under your "discriminate against *everyone* or *no one*, but not half and half!" rule. What should be done?
In response to your earlier reply, Dimsie: Yes, I do have to take the stance that if a club is private, it should be able to exclude anybody it wants to. (And no, I don't like it) However, because of the history of slavery in this country, it seems that discriminating against people on a basis of race is more repulsive than discriminating by gender. Perhaps that is because there are actually significant quantifiable differences between the genders. I don't think those differences are what is at stake here though. You have a bunch of old boys who like to say what they want and do what they want - they don't believe that a woman would fit in their group and I agree with them. I have to stand by the old stand-by: if a group doesn't want me to join them, I probably wouldn't enjoy being with them. As far as the rights of private groups go, well I really don't believe that the government should tell me what to do, and that goes double for normal people. That means that I have to respect their right to do as they wish.
Well I can see that you really must have a strong argument. That is the most personally offensive thing that has ever been posted in the time I have been on this BBS. If you can't conduct discourse in a more civilized manner than this then maybe you shouldn't do it at all.
Firstly, thanks for calling me an ass. Secondly, it isn't a huge logical leap given the fact that word one hasn't been said about any other clubs over the course of the last several decades that NOW has existed. The same could be said of men's colleges and the Citadel.
RM95... I have seen you throw around the words sexist ******* all over this thread. So if somebody who doesn't make the decisions and is just a member...they're an ******* just for being a member? What about clubs that allow anybody but have a $20,000 initiation fee and $1200 a month in dues? Are they elitist assholes? I don't play golf and really don't care to, but if you carry your argument out to its logical conclusion then anybody who is a member of any golf club anywhere in the US is somehow an ******* in your book.
Yes. I believe if you're a member of a discriminatory organization, then you are an *******. I will never ever be a part of an organization that has a policy of discriminating against anyone like Augusta National is doing. It's one thing to charge a lot of money for something. If you did it because you only want your kind of people in there, then yes, you'd be an elitist *******.
So according to your logic, all boy scouts, girl scouts, fraternity members, sorority members, golfers, etc etc are assholes. This would also encompass many different groups. So you basically think that everybody is an ******* in one way or another.
The people that defend Augusta's policy on this matter, seem to ignore the fact that golf is a girls' sport to begin with.
ok...and MY response earlier was laughable? I ahte to break it to you, but, every organization is discriminatory in one way or another...but it doesnt necessarily make them assholes. Did you go to college? I hope not because colleges and universities are, by your definitions, a group of assholes, being that if you don't meet a certain academic criteria, you cannot attend. Were you ever on any sports team ever in your lifetime? Little league, intramural, local rec league? Again, by your definition, these people are assholes since you have to be a certain age or live in a certain area to be able to play...or in some cases, be a certain gender. Did you ever apply for a job and get it? Guess what? If the answer to that question is "yes", you, my frirend, work for assholes because many other people most likely applied but weren't qualified enough or didnt meet some other criteria. Its becomng more and more apparent that you are like one of those people who won't eat meat but who carries around a leather briefcase, a leather wallet, and wears a snakeskin belt and boots.
Wait a minue...you actually agree with RM95's arguments? I'm not talking about his opinion on whether or not Augusta should let in female members...he (and you) are entitled to that obviously...I'm talking about his "everyone is an *******" speech. You think thats a valid rebuttal?
I apologize b/c I did take your points earlier out of context (b/c I do not read girly sport threads very carefully). But I still agree w/ rm95. I tend to think of the whole in-group/out-group thing as being silly. Granted, I like hanging out w/ the boys and giving myself a package check (the other boys) from time to time. Maybe that's an inappropriate thing to do around women. But I would still feel like a putz in a he-man woman haters club if I actually created a group that excluded women. The fact that the group centers around golfing makes this all the more hilarious. Does the Augusta Knitters Association exclude women too?
