How Long Until

[Capital H]

The Sun Dolls and USF Cheerleaders are removed from the games?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/grid-girls-speak-against-formula-1s-decision-ban-231803061--abc-news-topstories.html

[charsibb]

As soon as someone sues, I guess.

F1 is not doing this because the love women, they're doing it because they FEAR them. When identity politics makes "women" as a class more important than "woman" as an individual, and uses PCism as a weapon, we all lose - men AND women.

You have to wonder - is exploitation still bad if the "victims" are WILLINGLY exploited? For rich, western liberals to pressure companies to take away "exploitation" jobs from poor people in other countries seems to me to be the height of hypocrisy (thinking now of the brouhaha over Nike's sweatshops and other such incidents)

Riz posted a great video in the 'cow the other day, an interview of Jordan Peterson by a Canadian TV station. Watch it, then watch some of the analysis vids people have posted of it. Very enlightening.

 

 

Moving to the 'cow in 3.. 2.. 1..

 

 

[Bull Dozer]

Probably never because they're actually competition Squads as well as game day spirit squads and not just there to look pretty. They aren't even comparable to grid girls..... 

[Bull Matrix]

Some are saying that the game of football is endangered. 

[Capital H]

23 hours ago, Bull Dozer said:

Probably never because they're actually competition Squads as well as game day spirit squads and not just there to look pretty. They aren't even comparable to grid girls..... 

I'm sorry where is the scoreboard for what the cheerleaders do at football games? 29 years of football and I must have been missing an integral part of the game.

 

 

 

 

 

[Capital H]

On 2/3/2018 at 10:36 AM, charsibb said:

As soon as someone sues, I guess.

F1 is not doing this because the love women, they're doing it because they FEAR them. When identity politics makes "women" as a class more important than "woman" as an individual, and uses PCism as a weapon, we all lose - men AND women.

You have to wonder - is exploitation still bad if the "victims" are WILLINGLY exploited? For rich, western liberals to pressure companies to take away "exploitation" jobs from poor people in other countries seems to me to be the height of hypocrisy (thinking now of the brouhaha over Nike's sweatshops and other such incidents)

Riz posted a great video in the 'cow the other day, an interview of Jordan Peterson by a Canadian TV station. Watch it, then watch some of the analysis vids people have posted of it. Very enlightening.

 

 

Moving to the 'cow in 3.. 2.. 1..

 

 

Yeah Peterson is the man. Two years ago he said all of this nonsense would happen in Canada and people called him a loon. 

He can get too reliant on the Bible and is more of a pure Capitalist than I prefer but he brings a reasoned and intelligent discussion to just about every topic. 

[Brad]

Currently reading:

 

Fascinating.

[Brad]

46 minutes ago, Capital H said:

is exploitation still bad if the "victims" are WILLINGLY exploited

There are a lot of #metoos that are in that category.  Chicks that used that million dollar asset of theirs to their own favor, then later feel exploited or used.

Anyway, I hope cheerleaders never go away.  They seem to enjoy it.  I personally could do without them.

[charsibb]

1 hour ago, Capital H said:

Yeah Peterson is the man. Two years ago he said all of this nonsense would happen in Canada and people called him a loon. 

He can get too reliant on the Bible and is more of a pure Capitalist than I prefer but he brings a reasoned and intelligent discussion to just about every topic. 

Interesting that he would be willing to allow a mystic text to usurp logic and rationalism - doesn't seem to fit with his persona. I read on wikipedia hat he doesn't really believe in god all that much, more that he's afraid god exists, lol.

What's wrong with "pure" capitalism?

Granted, it's never been tried, but it would be interesting to see it happen. This is the main premise of Atlas Shrugged.

Fundamental Principle One: You were born free. You are free to do anything you wish to do - as long as - you don't interfere with anyone else's freedom to do the same. The corollary of this is that you must accept responsibility for your actions. If by mis-, mal-, or non-feasance, you hurt another, you must make it up to them.

Fundamental Principle Two: You must use logic, reason, or emotion to convince others of your case, force and fraud are forbidden to you. As is the threat of force. You may never initiate forceful action, nor may you intentionally deceive another.

Fundamental Principle Three: In order to mediate disputes between free individuals, humans have agreed to limit some of their freedom to act. These limitations began as informal agreements, and have morphed over time into rules, mores, customs, and even laws enforced at gunpoint. For example, speed limits. If I drive near kids, I should slow down, so as to not interfere with their freedom to play. If kids play where I drive, they should stay out of the road, so as to not interfere with my transit. To mediate, we put up stop signs, crossings, speed bumps, etc, and enact speed limits, jaywalking laws, and so on, and hire, elect, or appoint third-party enforcers with authority to use force if necessary. Fraud is still forbidden to them, however.

 

So the real discussion here is what limitations should be voluntarily agreed to, and which should carry the force of law with penalties enforced at gunpoint by third-parties?

If everyone acted responsibly, we wouldn't need the third parties. But those of us who act responsibly need justice from those of us who don't.

In "pure" capitalism, the market will automatically punish those who act irresponsibly by removing their source of income. If I sell bad products, you buy from someone else.

The only way for an irresponsible actor to flourish is if they are somehow protected by the third-parties. Tax breaks, licensing requirements, rent-control, artificial monopolies, regulations all protect one set of firms against their own actions, and actually work to dis-incentivize responsible action.

In the name of "protecting" consumers, far more laws are passed to protect firms' profits. This is decidedly NOT pure capitalism. It's crony capitalism, fraud of the worst kind, since it's fraud enforced at gunpoint.

 

Another interesting discussion revolves around whether we allow the third-parties to be reactive or proactive. IMO, the third-parties should always be re-active, never pro-active, since therein lies the slippery slope to tyranny, but many disagree.

It's a very different statement to say "I'm allowed to prevent you from acting" v. "I'm allowed to force you to make restitution for your actions"

The former leads to irresponsible behaviour, the latter to responsible behaviour.

 

[Bull Dozer]

2 hours ago, Capital H said:

I'm sorry where is the scoreboard for what the cheerleaders do at football games? 29 years of football and I must have been missing an integral part of the game.

 

 

 

 

 

They compete at national competitions on addition to their game day responsibilities. They are also engaging the fan base during the games directly. They aren't comparable to grid girls at all. Save your fake outrage for something else.