WWE & TNA Forum
Wrestling News

Go Back   WrestleZone Forums > The WrestleZone Forum Archives > Non-Wrestling Archives
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Arcade vBookie

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-12-2012, 08:15 AM
Slyfox696's Avatar
Slyfox696 Slyfox696 is offline
Excellence of Execution
Undisputed WWE Champion
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Missouri
Age: 33
Posts: 5,887
Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...

I'll reply to Ba-Bomb when I have more time, but yours is pretty quick. I'm also going to try and start my "less harsh" transition, but it's going to be SOOO hard to do when I get to Ba-Bomb's post.
Originally Posted by PlayTheGame View Post
It is a beauty pageant (a contest, a rule-based competition) for women only. If it weren't, then men could and would be in this competition as well
That is EXACTLY why it is discrimination.

Do you have a VALID reason men can't compete, other than because what hangs between their legs when they were born? Are men not capable of competing, do they not have the talents or the charms to do so? If you feel so, do you have any proof of it, do you have any evidence that a man cannot be beautiful?

There is NOTHING to justify preventing anyone who was not born a female from competing, other than gender. That is EXACTLY the case of discrimination.

Same reason why women aren't in the NFL, NBA, or MLB.
Completely wrong. The reason women aren't in the NFL, NBA or MLB is because they are not good enough to be. Women have played college football (see Katie Hnida). But they are simply not athletic or skilled enough to play in the pros. It has nothing to do with being a woman. If there was a woman who was good enough to play professionally, and could prove she was good enough to play professionally, then a professional team would allow her to play.

Same reason why cats aren't in that Westminister dog competition that Bomb pointed out.
Which might be relevant if we weren't talking about human beings, not entirely different species. A man and a woman are both human beings. A cat and a dog are completely different species.

Your example has absolutely no relevance.

It's just the rules that govern the competition, no different from a rule in the NFL that states steroids can't be used.
Wrong again. NFL rules say steroids cannot be used because they are against the law. Last time I checked, a person who was born with male chromosomes but is a female in every other way was not a crime.

In this case, it is what makes a beauty pageant..... a beauty pageant. The line in order to make it such is that only BORN women can participate.
And what makes my "White Power" restaurant...a "White Power" restaurant is the fact that only WHITE people can participate.

Sure, but a line had to be drawn somewhere, and drawing that line at BORN women makes sense and seems like the obvious and practical answer
Really? Why does that make sense? For what reason does that make sense?

as there's more transexuals (those close to the line) that wouldn't fit than those that would.
And there are far more women who want to compete in the beauty pageant who don't meet the standards of beauty and grace and are told they cannot compete. What's your point?

Just the simple fact that for this competition, in order to have its identity, a line had to be drawn somewhere.
And the simple fact is for my restaurant to make money, I have to draw the line at any black people walking through the doors.

Rules had to be dictated in order to clearly identify the competition, and that's what happened.
Rules have to be dictated in order to clearly identify who is allowed in my restaurant, and that's what happened.

I find it so amusing you keep trying to say this isn't discrimination, and then when given a parallel example, you say it's not the same thing.

To say that discrimination is going on and comparing it to discrimination that a black person would face by not being allowed to eat at a restaurant due to his skin color MAY literally be the same thing due to the textbook definition
No, it IS literally the same thing. You may disagree on how serious the social ramifications of such discrimination are, but it is the same thing.

anyone can see that in one case, you have a contest being offered to a certain group because that's who they're looking for and what the identity-based rules call for
Exactly. NOW you understand why I won't let black people eat in my restaurant. I have food that I'm offering to a certain group because that's who I'm looking for and what my race-based rules call for.

just like the NFL is looking for young, athletic males
Just like MLB used to look for young athletic white men.

and on the other hand you have cold-hearted, bigoted, ill-intenioned discrimination for no logical reason other than the pure dislike and distain for a person's "difference".
That's exactly how I and many others see the contest's initial decision to disqualify Jenna.

What reason did they have for a rule denying her the right to compete, especially since she had already proven she was good enough to be a finalist? It was bigoted, it was completely inconsiderate of her feelings and hard work, and it was discrimination for no logical reason other than pure dislike and ignorance of Jenna's "difference".

It's the exact same thing.

But if you ask if discrimination is really going on here, it's just simply not when you actually consider and weigh the scenario.
No, it IS discrimination. The difference is you've been conditioned all your life not to be racist, but you HAVEN'T been conditioned all your life to accept transgender people for who they are. Transgenders still have a social stigma and are not openly discussed as the men vs. women and white vs. black subjects are. It's still something our society hides from our children and something we don't put on television on a regular basis, primarily because so many in our society consider it a "sex" (fornication) thing, not a gender thing.

THAT'S the difference between these two situations.

In order to illustrate the difference that I was talking about in those previous last few sentences, let's look at a parallel situation. Let's say in one scenario, a person intentionally commits suicide (shoots himself in the head). In another scenario, a person unintentionally kills himself (cleaning his gun, accidentally shoots himself in the head). Intentional suicide and accidental suicide. Both can be loosely deemed "suicide" on the surface, but when you closely look at the scenarios, although the textbook term "suicide" (the killing of one's self) can be arguably applied to both, you can realistically see that suicide can really only be assigned to the first scenario.
Yeah...you need to spend some time studying a dictionary as well. The very definition of suicide includes the INTENTION of self-destruction. If you do not INTEND to kill yourself, it is not considered suicide, by the very definition of the word.

Your example fails, because your understanding of the word suicide is incorrect.
Old 04-12-2012, 09:30 AM
Peoples_Champ's Avatar
Peoples_Champ Peoples_Champ is offline
Bra & Panties match winner & NEW...
WWE Diva's Champion
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 551
Peoples_Champ is looking to come up from OCW...Peoples_Champ is looking to come up from OCW...Peoples_Champ is looking to come up from OCW...Peoples_Champ is looking to come up from OCW...Peoples_Champ is looking to come up from OCW...Peoples_Champ is looking to come up from OCW...Peoples_Champ is looking to come up from OCW...Peoples_Champ is looking to come up from OCW...

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this, but isn't the easy solution to make a Miss Transgender Universe Canada competition and retroactively award this person the award for 2011 / 2012 for "being brave, etc."?

First it would reward the person in question, which, ultimately, is what that person wants. Second, it will prevent it from happening in the future. Third, it will give a partial solution to the problems facing Miss Universe Canada organizers and participants - certain entrants receive extra attention for factors beyond the organization's control. Fourth, it will allow the organizers to claim to be progressive and, accordingly, allow them to encourage tolerance and acceptance of the LGBT community (who admittedly have been subject to a lot of overt and subversive discrimination because of this issue).

It doesn't have to be as well funded as the Miss Universe Canada competition, it doesn't have to be televised or advertised nationally. Have an online feed and charge advertisers to put their banners beside the feed.

I don't know about anyone else, but this seems like a simple solution to an unnecessarily complex problem.

You Can't See Me
Old 04-15-2012, 07:49 PM
Slyfox696's Avatar
Slyfox696 Slyfox696 is offline
Excellence of Execution
Undisputed WWE Champion
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Missouri
Age: 33
Posts: 5,887
Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...Slyfox696 is an ECW Champion...


Originally Posted by Ba-Bomb View Post
From the first line of your first post.

So that was a compliment I take it?
How was that insult? You are actively seeking to prohibit someone from a competition they are qualified for, simply upon the basis of the gender they were born with.

That wasn't an insult, that was a fact.

That's a convenient story, but it doesn't change the fact that you've heavily avoided a lot of what I've responded with as it pointed out your less than flattering conduct and avoidance of making responses to legit arguments.

I've told you TWICE, I believe, to re-post anything you feel you made a valid point about, and that I haven't addressed. If I haven't addressed it, you have only yourself to blame for not re-posting it.

I haven't avoided anything, it's just that I have already replied to most of the things you've said multiple times.

That's great, congratulations for your sister, but that is completely irrelevant to the conversation.
Only because you refuse to admit you completely misunderstood what I said. Once you admit you simply misunderstood, then my example makes a lot more sense.

The point was you made a grossly inaccurate broad generalization about a group of people that you clearly didn't think through.
Completely false. As I have said multiple times.

I might have to ban you if you call me a liar again. Why? Because I can, and I'm not a liar. You misunderstood what I was saying. You still don't seem to understand what I'm saying, even though I have tried to explain it to you multiple times.

I'll try one more time. What stops me from entering a male beauty pageant? I'm not attractive enough. If I was attractive enough, then I could be in a beauty contest. What stops a drag queen from entering the contest (assuming the rule wasn't in place)? Only their looks. If they were attractive enough, AND considered themselves truly a woman (as Jenna does), then I have no problem with them being in the pageant.

This is the last time I'm saying it. I highly suggest you not call me a liar again.

That's discrimination by the way, so it's actually YOU who've condoned the discrimination in this conversation
Even if that had been what I said, it still wouldn't be discrimination. It would be stereotyping, which is different from discrimination.

Oh, what a cheap shot. Trying to insinuate that I am attracted to drag queens, and therein men, also insinuating that I am gay.
I didn't insinuate that at all. If that is what you inferred from my statement, that's a you problem. You said they were physically attractive, and I said good for you.

Anything else you read into that is all on you.

That's the thing, they aren't all that different, you're just too far out of touch to realize that. Take away a couple surgeries and they are the same.
Those surgeries are part of what makes up the difference. That's like saying take away most of Bill Gates money, and he's just like any other person. Well, of course, but you're removing one of the most important aspects of what makes Bill Gates different from the rest of us.

It's funny though that you try to diminish one of the biggest factors here though, the fact that Jenna is actually a man when all is said and done.
Because Jenna is not a man. She may have been born male, but she is not a male now.

I understood what you said just fine, it wasn't that complex. It is a legit issue because of the precedent that is set by allowing a man who looks like a woman to compete in womens only pageants.
Except my position has never been it's just about letting in people who LOOK like women. It's about letting in someone who IS a woman.

I make no contradictions. What happened to Jenna was disqualification, not discrimination.
The two are not exclusive of one another. She was disqualified by a rule which practices discrimination.

Discrimination is not simply limited to race. I'm not exactly sure why you don't understand that gender discrimination is also a type of discrimination, but it is.

The rules are the rules, and if they state "Natural Born Women Only" that's just the way it is.
And I said from the very beginning they have the right to make that rule. Which you have acknowledged me saying. But making that rules doesn't exempt it from being a sexist rule.

It has nothing to do with discrimination
No, it has everything to do with discrimination. If I made a rule that black people couldn't eat in my restaurant, that would be discrimination. Being a rule doesn't mean the rule cannot be discrimination.

It doesn't make sense because for your statement to be true it would have to be discrimination against men in general which it is not.
I'm going to need you to clarify this statement for me.

According to you, for this rule to be discrimination, it would have to be discrimination against men in general. Last time I checked, men are not allowed to compete, simply because they are men. Would that not mean this rule is discrimination? Again, I'm asking you to clarify.

I already understood that had WALTER been born a woman it wouldn't have been an issue.
So if Jenna had been born a woman she could compete, but because she was born male, she can't. If Al Sharpton had been born white, he could eat in my restaurant, but since he was born black, he cannot.

How can you say that's not discrimination?

I agreed that "technically" you could call it that, as you've made the stretch to say it is so, but I've also showed why it is not.
Actually...you haven't.

You've said it's not discrimination, because it prevents men from competing...which is what makes it discrimination in the first place.

Technically you could say that the MLB is discriminatory to women, because they are excluded due to being women and it's a men's league, but we both know that is not so in this case or the latter, it's just rules.
I don't understand your argument.

Because something is a "rule", it cannot be discrimination? Because MLB had a "rule" that only white people could play baseball before Jackie Robinson, MLB wasn't practicing discrimination? When white people made a "rule" that black people couldn't sit in the same place on the bus as white people, that wasn't discrimination?

You seem to be arguing that rules cannot be classified as discrimination. As little credit as I've given your intelligence throughout this debate, even I cannot believe you truly think that. I'll ask you again to clarify your meaning.

Okay, I am tired of this "mentally and emotionally" bullshit.
I'm not surprised, it really hurts your argument.

You can't prove one way or the other.
Agreed. But I'm not calling her a liar. Do you know she DOESN'T think and feel that way? Of course you don't. So unless you're willing to stand up and call her a liar, you're going to have to take her word for it.

What we can prove is that Walter is a man under all that surgery
Not really. It's not like you can remove surgery and make Jenna a man. She is a woman physically, and she claims to be a woman in every other way.

and without those surgeries this wouldn't even be a conversation because Walter would appear as he was born and is, a man.
But she DID have all of those surgeries. She DID choose to become a woman.

You cannot remove the most important part of this discussion to try and win the argument.

The DNA doesn't lie.
But neither does it tell the whole story. That's the point.

Like I said, you want to look at ONE factor, which was completely out of Jenna's control, and say it's the only thing that matters when it comes to determining who Jenna is. And I'd much rather look at the person Jenna currently is, and use that to decide who she is.

No, I've been using facts to support my argument the whole time
Actually...no you haven't. In this entire argument, I believe the ONLY relevant fact you've presented is that Jenna was born a man, which I agreed to a long time ago. Otherwise, your arguments have been to claim Jenna isn't who she currently is, and that even though this is a classic case of discrimination by the definition listed in the dictionary, it isn't REALLY discrimination because this is a rule the pageant had.

When it comes to this debate, you've had only one relevant fact, which I stipulated to in my very first post.

And once again that is a completely different issue not relative to this one.
But it provides an example which is almost EXACTLY the same, with the only difference being the group which is being discriminated against.

Black people never had the option to change their skin color and features to look like and be white people

making them free of the REAL discrimination they faced. They never did anything to put themselves in a situation where they could be discriminated against as Jenna did
What did Jenna do to put herself in a position to be discriminated against? Jenna isn't being discriminated against because she is a transgender, she is being discriminated against because she was born male.

I never said that or suggested that
That's ALL you've done. You've said Jenna shouldn't be able to compete because she was born male. That is EXACTLY what you have done.

"Why does Ba-Bomb think Jenna shouldn't be able to compete?"

"Because she was born a male."

How many times have you said that in this thread?

but what people actually say never stop you from trying to spin it into something else.
Those are your own words.

The truth might be insensitive
Ironic, coming from the person who got so upset about smoking bans in public. When the situation is against you, the world is unfair, even though it is your DECISION to smoke. But when the situation is against someone else, even when they never got to make a decision, it's "just too bad".

I know Jenna is a man. His DNA says so
No, his DNA says he was born male. It does not say he IS a man.

I am not discriminating against anyone, and I'm not dismissing anyone.
What do you call it when you refuse to allow someone competent to compete for a job, based solely upon the way they were born? If Jenna was black, it would be discrimination, why is it not because she was born male?

You have no facts to your support.
Except for...

You know, the fact she looks and claims to think and feel like a woman. The fact she lives like a woman. The fact she was good enough to be a finalist in the pageant. And don't forget the fact the dictionary definition agrees with me.

Those are PLENTY of facts.

I can back it up, you can't.
Backing up with fictitious statements and misunderstanding of word definitions doesn't win an argument.

And it should still be, the only reason it is not is because enough people bitched about it to get it removed. If it were still considered a mental disorder(which it is), we could have continued valuable research to find some definitive answers about it. When you look at it scientifically from unbiased research, it fits the bill to be a mental disorder in every way. That's just not P.C. so we can't go there anymore and actually get to the bottom of it.
I'm stunned...literally stunned. The fact people still believe this saddens me.

I'm not even going to waste my time any further with this "Circular Reasoning" thing
Because you are wrong. You do not understand the fallacy at all, and incorrectly tried to apply one to me.

You tried to turn a simple statement I made into this whole "circular reasoning" thing
Because it was. Your statement failed the logic test. There are actually other fallacies in your posts, but given your inability to understand this one, there's no reason to point out more of them.

probably because I nailed you on the drag queens and you wanted to get me back.
The very fact you committed a logical fallacy disqualifies you from "nailing" someone. You cannot "nail" someone when your statement fails the test of logic.

And that's not even getting into the fact you completely misunderstood what I said about drag queens.

You however did make comments that relied on themselves being true. You continue to say that Jenna is a woman, however, Jenna is a man, and your argument is dependent on Jenna being a woman which you do not prove.
I HAVE supplied arguments to support my thesis. Remember the physical, mental and emotional arguments? Those are argument to support the statement Jenna is a woman.

So you end up with: "Because Jenna is a woman, the pageant directors have discriminated against her for not allowing her to compete in a womens only pageant" Which fits the bill for circular reasoning

God, it is SO hard to continue not insulting your intelligence here. I'm saying the pageant shouldn't discriminate against Jenna, because she IS a woman, even though she was born with male chromosomes. The pageant is not discriminating against Jenna because she is a woman, they are discriminating against her because she was born male.

That is not circular reasoning. At all.

a logical fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises, in this case that premise is that Jenna is a woman.
But that's not why the pageant is discriminating against her. You do understand that right? The pageant isn't discriminating against her because she is a woman, they are discriminating against her because she was born male.

So the statement you are trying to attribute to me and call circular reasoning is false, even before you begin. You are so desperate to try and show you understand this logical fallacy, you seem to have forgotten what actually happened.

I highly suggest you drop this, as you said you were going to do. You clearly do not understand logical fallacies.

Also, a lot of what I said was relevant to the topic as I was busting you out
"Busting" people out is not relevant to a topic. It's a personal discussion, not one related to the topic.

for ducking and dodging arguments by simply making smart ass comments or insults at me.
And as I said earlier in this post, I have given you opportunities to repost the argument you think were valid that I have not responded to.

Going off of your logic then there is no point in there being any distinction, it would be a pageant for anyone men or women.
The fact it excludes men, based solely upon their gender, is what makes it discrimination.

You are MORE than welcome to say you have no problem with this kind of discrimination. If you want to say you want beauty pageants to be for women only, then fine. But it's still a rule which discriminates.

You are beating a dead horse here. It's not discrimination. If you are seriously suggesting that it's gender discrimination, then what you are implying is that men should be able to compete in beauty pageants next to women, and even though the pageant was structured to be women only, that should change to include men, changing the nature of the competition altogether.
Except Jenna is not a man, so your paragraph has no relevance to THIS discussion.

But if we're talking only men and women, and ignoring the large spectrum upon which gender falls, if one gender is allowed to do something, and the other isn't, simply based upon their gender, it is discrimination. By the very definition of the word.

I am beating a dead horse, but I'm beating the CORRECT dead horse.

That's not what science would tell you. Appearances aren't everything, and surgeries can't change what the natural make-up already is, that being, the natural genetic make-up of a man.
I find it amusing how you cling to this, as it is the ONLY leg you have to stand on.

People are their entire life who they are when they were born. That's your position. You refuse to look at the person they become, only who they were when they were born.

No actually, I explained exactly how I feel people are defined, go back and look for yourself.
I've seen you say it many times in this thread. In relation to this instance, you claim people are defined by the genitalia between their legs when they were born. That's it.

If it were an issue of black or white in a pageant where no distinction was made in the rules that would be a completely different situation nor relative to this one, and it would be discrimination.
But what if there was a distinction in the rules? What if the rules said, "Only naturally born white people can compete"? Would that not be discrimination?

However, there are such things as Black Only beauty pageants. So what if a white woman wanted to enter? Would that be discrimination?
Yes, it would.

According to you it would, but according to common sense it wouldn't. Why? Because the parameters were already set for it to be Black Only.
But the parameter is what is doing the discrimination!

Being parameter or a rule doesn't exclude something from being racist or sexist. In fact, it is the rules and parameters which usually DETERMINE if something is racist or sexist.

No it's not. The two comparisons here aren't even relative to each other, but somehow in your mind you've convinced yourself they are. You can't possibly be serious can you? So now you're saying that even with you taking it as fact that Jenna is a man, that is still discrimination? There is no getting through to you. Also, depending on the job it wouldn't be discrimination to not hire a woman. They are called "requirements" or in this case "Rules", if you can't meet either or for any reason, that is not discrimination.

It baffles me how you can think this way. That's all I'll say.

It's not because people are okay with any type of discrimination, it's because people aren't stupid enough to even consider it discrimination.
No, that's not it at all. Just like people in the 1800s were okay with racism against non-whites, people are okay with discrimination against men in beauty pageants.

You're trying to say that men not being allowed to compete in womens only competition is discriminatory, but you can't explain how, you just keep going back to the most literal interpretation of the dictionary definition

How else do you explain something, without referring to the globally accepted fact?

You've got this narrow minded, singularly fixed idea
Says the person who judges a person only by what hangs between their legs when they were born.

And those people are simply humoring Jenna because if they didn't they'd likely find out how much man Walter actually is.
So not only are you claiming Jenna is lying, you're also claiming to know what everyone who supports her is thinking as well.


The whole point is for it to be women only
I understand the point. You're not understanding the point Jenna is a woman, in mind, body and emotions.

This person was just lucky enough to be able to fool them long enough to go that far, and congratulations on being talented and beautiful enough to do so, you made asses out of a lot of people, but the truth caught up to Walter for being what he is, a man, and he had to face the music.
She didn't hide anything. She has competed in transgendered pageants before. And the pageant actually said she can be allowed back in.

I'm not being hypocritical, I am merely the purveyor of justice giving you a taste of your own medicine which you clearly do not like to such an extent that you have resorted to calling me a hypocrite for doing it.
I'm calling you a hypocrite, because that's what you have done. You claim to be upset that I insult people, then you proceed to insult me. That makes you a hypocrite, by the very definition of the word. I know you're not big on taking definitions at the their true meaning, but most people will realize you are being a hypocrite.

Sorry, I'm not the one to be intimidated or bullied by assholes like you, I dish it back.

Oh, I know, you're Mr. Internet Tough Guy.

Obviously you do have quite a problem with it or you wouldn't be trying to call me a hypocrite

You are a hypocrite. That's not an insult, it's an apt characterization of what you have been in this thread. Being a hypocrite has negative connotations because it reflects poorly upon the one being hypocritical, but the word itself is not an insult. I don't call you a "hypocrite" for the same reason I called you "stupid".

Your avoidance of the points and arguments I made was all I needed to show how full of shit you are.
I'm still waiting for you to re-post the point and arguments you feel I have not responded to.

I didn't need to re-post anything, you would just ignore them again, so why waste my time.

I'll say the same thing I've said before...re-post them, and if I have not already responded to them, I will do so. At this point, if you refuse to re-post them, then I will consider that you saying you cannot produce a single valid and relevant statement I have not addressed. And if you do, then I will respond to it.

In any real debate I will crush you.
This IS a real debate, and your argument is basically summed up with, "I know what the definition of the word discrimination is, but that's not really what it means".

If this were an in-person debate, I daresay I would not be the only person laughing at you.

You are asking me to simply concede that you are right on all accounts which you are not, not even close.
No, I'm asking you to admit you don't know what I meant when I posted what I did, and that you're okay with discriminating against those who were not naturally born females, in order to preserve an integrity you feel the pageant deserves.

That's not me asking you to admit I'm right, that's asking you to drop all the statements you're wrong about, and simply admit you feel differently about discrimination in THIS case than I do.

You seem to think trolling me is handing me my ass, but you couldn't be any further off. That's what your whole argument has amounted to. You have no legs to stand on, you have no new argument that you can make, and you have no facts to back you up. Just quit. I am tired of this. This is the second time I've had to type all of this and I will not be responding any more. You can go on and do what you think you must to "Continue ripping me apart" and I'm sure you need to do that to satisfy your own bruised ego, and insecure self. I do not. I have said all I need to say, I know I've got your ass over and over and over, and everyone who reads knows that you have lost this argument too. I'm not going to respond any further anyways so you will be wasting your time. It is over. Just walk away and agree to disagree.
I've tried so hard to be a kinder Slyfox in this post, but do you REALLY believe what you're saying? Honestly? And if so, how is that possible?
Old 04-16-2012, 12:11 PM
LigerBomb LigerBomb is offline
Registered User
WWE Diva's Champion
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Louisville KY by way of nYc NY
Posts: 593
LigerBomb is getting some looks on Smackdown...LigerBomb is getting some looks on Smackdown...LigerBomb is getting some looks on Smackdown...LigerBomb is getting some looks on Smackdown...LigerBomb is getting some looks on Smackdown...LigerBomb is getting some looks on Smackdown...LigerBomb is getting some looks on Smackdown...LigerBomb is getting some looks on Smackdown...LigerBomb is getting some looks on Smackdown...LigerBomb is getting some looks on Smackdown...LigerBomb is getting some looks on Smackdown...

First off, I hate you all, in general yes, but specifically after reading all these redundant posts. So hey, what's one more? Moving on…

Let's be clear, it's an obviously discriminatory practice. But to be fair that's all a beauty pageant is. An opportunity to discriminate based on whatever criteria the presenters see fit. That said, all the other contestants are trying to "cheat the system": Hair straightening/curling/styling/extensions, plucking/tweezing/waxing/, extreme dieting, tanning, skin-lightening, make-up, dermatological procedures, exercising, breast-implants, teeth whitening, laser hair removal, etc., etc., etc. "Nature" has nothing to do with the women presented on that stage. What's wrong with just adding one more procedure to the list? Sex reassignment. Bam! She just took it to the nth degree is all.

If this were to be a contest based purely on the visually observable results of what your chromosomal dependent phenotype declares then I suspect many of these women wouldn't meet the beauty pageant's baseline requirements.

Also, I would like to reserve a table at Sly's restaurant. It sounds like a great place. I think I'd start by ordering some klu klux klams. Maybe play some 8 ball.

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:01 AM.

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"
Contact Us - Clear Cookies - Lost Password - WrestleZone Forums - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Top - AdChoices