Yep. In fact washing your hair more than necessary can actually turn you into a filthy, greasy freak.

Today is hairwash day for me.

Fallible wrote:Yep. In fact washing your hair more than necessary can actually turn you into a filthy, greasy freak.

This should be taught in every school. Imagine how many filthy, greasy freaks it would help. Just because they're filthy, greasy freaks doesn't mean they don't need love.

You see, this is the sort of thing women should be doing. Talking about hair. We'll all have an opinion on that. So much more interesting than that ookie stuff about gender bias in sport and sport earnings. What is a gender, anyway? A kind of pony? Oh my goodness, I hope it's a kind of pony! SQUEEEEEE!!!!

Hair and nails, that's the ticket! But don't forget my sammich.

laklak wrote:

Fallible wrote:Yep. In fact washing your hair more than necessary can actually turn you into a filthy, greasy freak.

This should be taught in every school. Imagine how many filthy, greasy freaks it would help. Just because they're filthy, greasy freaks doesn't mean they don't need love.

It is known as the shampoo algorithm, and is a classic example of an algorithm in introductory computer science classes.

Computing 101 for idiots.

laklak wrote:Hair and nails, that's the ticket! But don't forget my sammich.

Make your own goddamned sammich, dude.

But you make it SO much better, mistress.

laklak wrote:But you make it SO much better, mistress.

You people are not taking this discussion seriously.

I did just wash my hair.

Shrunk wrote:You people are not taking this discussion seriously.

Of course we are! It's a very serious subject. I have often lain awake at night, worrying about how the Williams sisters are going to afford to retire. It preys on my mind.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I did just wash my hair.

Once, or twice?

Inquiring minds want to know, y'know.

Once. Is that OK?

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Once. Is that OK?

Just because you're female doesn't mean you aren't allowed to make your own mind up about things, y'know?

Does it feel right to you, and are you happy with the result? Then yeah, it's ok.




Don't mind me. I'm listening to Capricornia for the second time. And the sexism, not to mention the class and racism, still pisses me off.

Shrunk wrote:

If you disagree with me, then tell me what it is that creates the economic interest of the audience in tennis, or golf, and their willingness to pay money to watch, and more money for more merit in each sport (despite variations BETWEEN sports). Similarly economics is the system that sees audiences paying money to people who model clothing, cosmetics and the like to the point that some people are celebrities just on this basis. What 'merit' is it that audiences are paying money to adulate for models and beauty contests?

Gee, I dunno. I guess merit has nothing to do with it.

GOOOOAAAAL!

You have side-stepped, cherry picked and sniped my posts. I am asking a simple question about what is the object of value that spectators pay money for when watching tennis or other sports. Your reply that pay is about economics and not merit logically does not work. If you can offer another reason we watch and pay for tennis in opposition to merit, then do so. If not then get back into the weeds with Fallible and the rest and snipe away. By the way the forum is for rational skeptics, good luck with that.

Yep, here we are. We've abandoned all pretence of addressing arguments now, and are smoothly drifting onto shorter replies while segueing deftly into bitchy comments about other members. Hopefully the final phase will come swiftly.

TMB wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

If you disagree with me, then tell me what it is that creates the economic interest of the audience in tennis, or golf, and their willingness to pay money to watch, and more money for more merit in each sport (despite variations BETWEEN sports). Similarly economics is the system that sees audiences paying money to people who model clothing, cosmetics and the like to the point that some people are celebrities just on this basis. What 'merit' is it that audiences are paying money to adulate for models and beauty contests?

Gee, I dunno. I guess merit has nothing to do with it.

GOOOOAAAAL!

You have side-stepped, cherry picked and sniped my posts. I am asking a simple question about what is the object of value that spectators pay money for when watching tennis or other sports.

Actually, no, you didn't. Read what you wrote above. You asked about the role of "merit" in determining the pay given to models and beauty pageant contestants. Personally, I don't see how "merit" is based on much other than the willingness of people to pay money to those models and beauty pageant contestants.

I have not denied that merit plays a role in how athletes are compensated within the same sport. However, that does not negate my position that pay is based on economics, rather than merit. It just happens that, in that particular instance, merit is easily translated into an economic benefit to those who hold the purse strings and decide how much the athletes are paid. Even within the same sport we see how "merit" is often disconnected from financial compensation. Why are football quarterbacks paid so much more than offensive linemen? Or, in baseball, why is a power hitter typically paid so much more than a light-hitting second baseman who plays strong defense? Is there more "merit" in hitting a home run than turning the double play? Or is it that spectators are more eager to pay money to see home runs than solid defense?

What we are arguing over, since you seem to need reminding, is your claim that relative pay between athletes who do not compete against each other is, or should be, based on "merit." You have yet to offer even the semblance of an argument to support this. In fact, in the post where I outlined my argument against your position, you agreed (often "violently") with pretty well every point I offered in refutation of your position. So I'm not sure why you feel I need to provide any further argument after you have already capitulated so completely. The one point on which you claimed disagreement was actually one I never made, but was simply the result of your failure to comprehend what I wrote.

Your reply that pay is about economics and not merit logically does not work. If you can offer another reason we watch and pay for tennis in opposition to merit, then do so.

I have made no comment whatsoever on why people watch sports. Again, I remind you, our discussion is over why there are differences, often quite large ones, between the amount paid to athletes who do not complete against each other. You say this is because of "merit", but when we discuss some examples of these differences (e.g. hockey vs baseball), you say this is not because of merit. OK, then. So what further response is needed from me after you have admitted you are wrong?