# Conclusions.. **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [July 18, 2019, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278 "2019-07-18T22:47:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/1 "2019-07-18T22:47:23Z")
One can reach the same conclusions as others by using different reasoning. Arguing against the rationale others use to reach the the same conclusion is not the same as arguing against the conclusion. Pointing out the flaws of other arguments can be done in good faith. Your admonishment was misguided. I don’t care if you don’t like my arguments. They were not game playing no matter what you claim. I was not being a jerk and responded to every question and point raised to me. The people I discussed with would not offer the same courtesy. Just because you misinterpreted my arguments doesn’t mean I was wrong. I’m not claiming I was right. I’m claiming your accusation is wrong. [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21757754&postcount=98](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21757754&postcount=98) ---
**Author:** ![GreysonCarlisle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@GreysonCarlisle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreysonCarlisle)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/2 "2019-07-19T00:47:07Z")
**cmosdes** posted ([Post #96](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21757042&postcount=96)): > [@What about a boy playing on a girls' sports team?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-a-boy-playing-on-a-girls-sports-team/702376/96): > > I really cannot make this any clearer. Creating women’s only leagues is a good idea and I’m 100% in favor of it. **Chronos** responded ([Post#98](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21757754&postcount=98)): > [@What about a boy playing on a girls' sports team?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-a-boy-playing-on-a-girls-sports-team/702376/98): > > **[Moderating]** > Then why have you spent the entire thread arguing against it? Given that you’ve apparently been arguing in bad faith all this time, I’m officially directing you to not post any more in this thread. And in case it’s not clear, this is not a conditional directive. But in [post #37](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21745163&postcount=37), **cmosdes** posted that > [@What about a boy playing on a girls' sports team?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-a-boy-playing-on-a-girls-sports-team/702376/37): > > Yes, you are exactly right which is why **it is great we have leagues dedicated to only women**. It is important we recognize that having opportunities to compete like that are good for the participants, even if they aren’t the best of the best. Bolding mine, of course. I think there’s a miscommunication between the OP and the mod. Given that the thread is little more than the cmosdes-show, though, I’m not sure I disagree with the directive. ---
**Author:** ![Helena330](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/helena330/32/531_2.png) [@Helena330](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helena330)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/3 "2019-07-19T00:48:26Z")
**Chronos** ’ moderation may or may not have been wrong, but it illustrates that your positions are as clear as mud. I still don’t know what you were arguing in that thread. You were all over the place. I can’t make much sense of this post, either, but I think I got the gist, at least. If you want to be understood, you need to work on presenting your positions clearly and in far fewer posts. They’re word soup. IOW, get to the point faster. ---
**Author:** ![GreysonCarlisle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@GreysonCarlisle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreysonCarlisle)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/4 "2019-07-19T00:49:20Z")
> [@Helena330](#): > > **Chronos** ’ moderation may or may not have been wrong, but it illustrates that your positions are as clear as mud. I still don’t know what you were arguing in that thread. You were all over the place. I can’t make much sense of this post, either, but I think I got the gist, at least. If you want to be understood, you need to work on presenting your positions clearly. Your posts are word soup. Yup. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/5 "2019-07-19T01:01:20Z")
His point seems clear but perhaps I’m misreading his posts. I take his posts to mean that women shouldn’t get special accommodations that lesser men don’t. In other words, if in truly open competition you aren’t top tier you can join rec or other types of leagues instead of having a protected sports space solely based on gender. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/6 "2019-07-19T01:04:06Z")
> [@GreysonCarlisle](#): > > Yup. Okay, fair enough. I tried to be clear, but wasn’t. My argument seems simple to me, but this is not the place to hash that. This was just to register disagreement with the moding and not rehash anything. I’ve noted it. Not sure it is fair to admonish me when I was responding to other people who were raising questions about my position and my responses were (mostly) respectful (certainly not a jerk). But I’ve said what I need to say. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/7 "2019-07-19T01:05:12Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > His point seems clear but perhaps I’m misreading his posts. I take his posts to mean that women shouldn’t get special accommodations that lesser men don’t. In other words, if in truly open competition you aren’t top tier you can join rec or other types of leagues instead of having a protected sports space solely based on gender. Obviously I wasn’t clear if that is what you are getting from it! 🙂 Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/8 "2019-07-19T01:40:02Z")
It appears to me that **Chronos** did not officially warn **cmosdes** , nor did **Chronos** even issue a mod note. What **Chronos** did was the message board equivalent of a teacher catching a student smoking in the restroom and saying, “I’m not going to report you this time, but stop smoking in the restroom.” ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/9 "2019-07-19T02:31:25Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > Obviously I wasn’t clear if that is what you are getting from it! 🙂 > > Sorry. Drat! I thought I had it parsed correctly. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/10 "2019-07-19T05:00:46Z")
Then you need to cut out the word salad, and just state things plainly from the beginning. Your arguments may seem clear to YOU, but to the rest of us, it was just a bunch of rambling. Becaue if EVERYONE keeps misinterpreting you, the problem generally isn’t on their end. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/11 "2019-07-19T15:26:10Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Then you need to cut out the word salad, and just state things plainly from the beginning. Your arguments may seem clear to YOU, but to the rest of us, it was just a bunch of rambling. > > Becaue if EVERYONE keeps misinterpreting you, the problem generally isn’t on their end. And trying to explain so they will understand could just make things worse. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/12 "2019-07-19T15:40:44Z")
I disagree that his argument was unclear. He wasn’t arguing for any particular conclusion regarding women’s sports leagues. He was saying, and outright stated multiple times, that his arguments were against one particular \*argument \* that is often given for the creation of women’s sports leagues — that being that allowing a particular subclass of genetically disadvantaged people to be excluded from organized sports is significantly harmful to the people of that subclass. If offered as the sole justification for creating women’s leagues, that argument would also necessarily mean that genetically disadvantaged _men_ are suffering the same harm, as they face the same exclusion. So, he’d like people to quit offering up that argument, as it doesn’t actually lead to the conclusion they ultimately support. Ironically, **RickJay** ’s statements regarding the slew of societal injustices that have affected women throughout human history does more to support **cmosdes** ’ point than refute it. That’s exactly the sort of argument that would lead one to conclude that women as a group are significantly different from other genetically disadvantaged groups, and therefore deserving of different treatment; thus, it’s preferable to the genetics argument for that reason. **cmosdes** , if your experience is anything like mine, you’ll find that that style of debate always goes this way. By and large I don’t think people are being disingenuous; I think the vast majority are just result-focused as all hell, and so even if you’re arguing not against the conclusion but against the process, they assume the fact of your arguing at all must mean you support a different conclusion. They then either demand to know what that conclusion is, or conveniently make one up and assign it to you, as happened to you multiple times in that thread. **Chronos** took this to an extreme by deciding that if you agree with most of the thread’s participants regarding the conclusion, but are arguing anyway, you must be arguing in bad faith — and again, that’s because your objection was to a particular line of reasoning (the process) rather than the result. For whatever reason, I’ve found that most people are not only disinclined to think that way, but seem to genuinely not understand it. As a process-focused person myself, I’m much more interested in attacking poor reasoning used by those whose conclusions I agree with — to ensure that that same reasoning can be used consistently to reach future correct conclusions — than being the x-millionth voice to point out that (e.g.) racism is bad. That approach, however, regularly gets one labeled a concern troll and/or strawmanned to death. This is why I don’t argue on the internet much anymore. But at any rate, assuming I’m right about what you were arguing, know that at least someone got where you were coming from. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/13 "2019-07-19T17:20:51Z")
Seems like pretty lazy modding to just kick a poster out of the thread rather than give them an opportunity to clarify their position. And at least to me, cmosdes wasn’t arguing against the very existence of women’s teams, but more against what he may see as government overreach by legally requiring a platform for one “genetically disadvantaged” group to play while excluding others. The problem I see with that argument is that by not creating a separate league for women you’re effectively excluding like 99% of women who want to play, whereas by excluding the “not quite good enough” men you’re only excluding the small % that actually want to play at that level but aren’t quite good enough. I would also add that as a spectator I think there is public interest in seeing both the best women and the best men play. Probably not so much interest in seeing the 3rd and 4th tier guys play. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/14 "2019-07-19T17:27:08Z")
> [@SmellMyWort](#): > > Seems like pretty lazy modding to just kick a poster out of the thread rather than give them an opportunity to clarify their position. > > And at least to me, cmosdes wasn’t arguing against the very existence of women’s teams, but more against what he may see as government overreach by legally requiring a platform for one “genetically disadvantaged” group to play while excluding others. The problem I see with that argument is that by not creating a separate league for women you’re effectively excluding like 99% of women who want to play, whereas by excluding the “not quite good enough” men you’re only excluding the small % that actually want to play at that level but aren’t quite good enough. > > I would also add that as a spectator I think there is public interest in seeing both the best women and the best men play. Probably not so much interest in seeing the 3rd and 4th tier guys play. Silencing is easier than understanding. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/15 "2019-07-19T17:53:01Z")
OK, I’ll admit it: I missed the statement in post #37. With as much as **cmosdes** was saying in that thread, it’s easy to miss one specific statement… but he did say it. Which changes it from arguing in bad faith, to arguing in good faith but unclearly. But we don’t have any rules against arguing ineffectively, so the directive is revoked: **cmosdes** is hereby now allowed to post in that thread again. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/16 "2019-07-19T21:45:52Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > Okay, fair enough. I tried to be clear, but wasn’t. My argument seems simple to me, but this is not the place to hash that. This was just to register disagreement with the moding and not rehash anything. I’ve noted it. > > Not sure it is fair to admonish me when I was responding to other people who were raising questions about my position and my responses were (mostly) respectful (certainly not a jerk). > > But I’ve said what I need to say. My problem was not with what you said but with what you didn’t say (at least in the posts that I read, I didn’t get through all of them, I have my limits) which was the conclusion you were driving at. Some sentence that starts with “Therefore,” would have been extremely helpful to anyone trying to understand you. In fact, I recommend that to everyone who is arguing about fine points in a relatively complex topic (i.e. most GD threads) – please state your conclusion early and often. If someone reading your post ends up saying “I understand your point, but so what?” then you haven’t succeeded. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/17 "2019-07-19T22:21:14Z")
> [@SmellMyWort](#): > > Seems like pretty lazy modding to just kick a poster out of the thread rather than give them an opportunity to clarify their position. He WAS given opportunities to clarify his position. Over and over and over again. All he managed to do was hijacking the thread further. People were getting sick of it, and just wanted to discuss the original topic. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2019, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/18 "2019-07-20T01:15:36Z")
Shouldn’t make too many conclusions of you’ll end up with CTE. what? ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2019, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/19 "2019-07-20T17:44:46Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > My problem was not with what you said but with what you didn’t say (at least in the posts that I read, I didn’t get through all of them, I have my limits) which was the conclusion you were driving at. Some sentence that starts with “Therefore,” would have been extremely helpful to anyone trying to understand you. I think he did, very clearly, over and over and over again, but the rest of the thread couldn’t get past their own preconceived notions about what his conclusion was. Specifically, they read every post of his to be saying “Women shouldn’t get their own leagues” because of course he’s saying that. Not because of the words he actually wrote. His conclusion is simple, obvious, and correct. Approaching self-evident, even: Don’t cite “exclusion from sports is harmful” as a justification for the existence of women’s sports. Why? Because once you get to the teen and above level of sports, 90%\* of ALL people are excluded from sports simply because they didn’t win the “good at sports” genetic lottery. Further, there is nothing wrong or discriminatory about that fact, and no action needs to (or should) be taken to “fix” it because it’s not a problem. Women’s sports should (continue to) exist, but not because it’s “harmful” to be excluded, because it’s not. (\*Google says there are 8 million high school athletes in the US out of 56 million total students, so more like 85%.) ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2019, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278/20 "2019-07-20T22:35:17Z")
> [@Roland\_Orzabal](#): > > **cmosdes** , if your experience is anything like mine, you’ll find that that style of debate always goes this way. By and large I don’t think people are being disingenuous; I think the vast majority are just result-focused as all hell, and so even if you’re arguing not against the conclusion but against the process, they assume the fact of your arguing at all must mean you support a different conclusion. They then either demand to know what that conclusion is, or conveniently make one up and assign it to you, as happened to you multiple times in that thread. **Chronos** took this to an extreme by deciding that if you agree with most of the thread’s participants regarding the conclusion, but are arguing anyway, you must be arguing in bad faith — and again, that’s because your objection was to a particular line of reasoning (the process) rather than the result. For whatever reason, I’ve found that most people are not only disinclined to think that way, but seem to genuinely not understand it. > > As a process-focused person myself, I’m much more interested in attacking poor reasoning used by those whose conclusions I agree with — to ensure that that same reasoning can be used consistently to reach future correct conclusions — than being the x-millionth voice to point out that (e.g.) racism is bad. That approach, however, regularly gets one labeled a concern troll and/or strawmanned to death. This is why I don’t argue on the internet much anymore. But at any rate, assuming I’m right about what you were arguing, know that at least someone got where you were coming from. 🙂 And I’ve noticed something I think is related but not the same: **People seem convinced that if you describe something, you support it.** For example, see if you can follow this: Company A decides to offer a discount for women. I note that this puts Company A in the position of deciding who qualifies as a “woman” assuming it _won’t_ hand out discounts to people it sees as _not_ being women. Person B attacks me, saying people shouldn’t have to prove their woman-ness and where the fuck do I get off saying they should, anyway! Fucking TERF! I’ve even phrased this a bit differently, calling it the “Is” From “Ought” Fallacy (“You can’t derive how things _are_ from how you _think they ought to be_, no matter how loudly you yell.”) and, when I’m grumpy, Arguing With Reality, for which you should picture someone screaming at the sky to stop raining. If those things aren’t the same, they at least spring from the same impulse. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conclusions/837278.md?page=2)