Annie Duke Interview Controversy regarding Ladies WSOP event.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: The existence of WoEs in an activity where women can compete as equals is degrating.

[/ QUOTE ]
no
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: They only have WoEs so that they can "have women winning bracelets" at the WSOP. In that sense, it is an insidious kind of affirmative action.


[/ QUOTE ]
no

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, isn't this a brilliant discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not brilliant at all. Even most idiots know subjective opinions can't be facts.

[PokeReader]

In actuality, legally these events are discriminatory. Any man who wanted to could compete and they wouldn't turn him away because they are aware that it wouldn't pass constitutional muster - you cannot be open to the public as an event but then discriminate on the basis of gender. You may have two separate equivalent events, but that is not what we have now.

I used to support this with some discomfort as a way to get more women into the game. After watching that abominable final women's table, where the two best players played so much worse than normal from the effects of the terribly slow, passive, and tight play of the rest of the table, I have decided that female players will be much better off if they are forced to compete at a higher level. After all, that is the only thing that makes one improve.

Believe me, I am no fan of Annie's. She derides female players generally, not just those playing WOE's, but was always perfectly happy to play herself as "the only poker playing Mom" for her endorsement deals, earning income mostly from women. I have heard her make very negative statements about women who choose not to have children. Her choices are her business, they do not seem particularly philantropic, and I could care less what she thinks of anyone else's life. However, she is right though that players who regularly seek out weaker competition for whatever reason will not learn as much as a player that challenges themselves.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
In actuality, legally these events are discriminatory. Any man who wanted to could compete and they wouldn't turn him away because they are aware that it wouldn't pass constitutional muster

[/ QUOTE ]
Legality isn't the final say on what's right and wrong. Either way there's a clause for "bonafide" reasons. The owners wanting to help get more women into poker would probably qualify, although it's no guarentee.

[Moose]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: The existence of WoEs in an activity where women can compete as equals is degrating.

[/ QUOTE ]
no
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: They only have WoEs so that they can "have women winning bracelets" at the WSOP. In that sense, it is an insidious kind of affirmative action.


[/ QUOTE ]
no

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, isn't this a brilliant discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not brilliant at all. Even most idiots know subjective opinions can't be facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

But fortunately, you aren't like most idiots.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: The existence of WoEs in an activity where women can compete as equals is degrating.

[/ QUOTE ]
no
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: They only have WoEs so that they can "have women winning bracelets" at the WSOP. In that sense, it is an insidious kind of affirmative action.


[/ QUOTE ]
no

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, isn't this a brilliant discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not brilliant at all. Even most idiots know subjective opinions can't be facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

But fortunately, you aren't like most idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, lacking a counter argument, you instead go for insults? Not suprised.

[Moose]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: The existence of WoEs in an activity where women can compete as equals is degrating.

[/ QUOTE ]
no
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: They only have WoEs so that they can "have women winning bracelets" at the WSOP. In that sense, it is an insidious kind of affirmative action.


[/ QUOTE ]
no

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, isn't this a brilliant discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not brilliant at all. Even most idiots know subjective opinions can't be facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

But fortunately, you aren't like most idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, lacking a counter argument, you instead go for insults? Not suprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a second.. you make a backhanded insinuation that I'm an idiot, I make a better backhanded insinutation, and I'm resorting to insults?

After all, I didn't insult you in the least. Albert Einstein is also "not like most idiots". But if you're so defensive that you choose to parse that as an insult, I can't be responsible for your low self esteem.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: The existence of WoEs in an activity where women can compete as equals is degrating.

[/ QUOTE ]
no
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: They only have WoEs so that they can "have women winning bracelets" at the WSOP. In that sense, it is an insidious kind of affirmative action.


[/ QUOTE ]
no

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, isn't this a brilliant discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not brilliant at all. Even most idiots know subjective opinions can't be facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

But fortunately, you aren't like most idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, lacking a counter argument, you instead go for insults? Not suprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a second.. you make a backhanded insinuation that I'm an idiot, I make a better backhanded insinutation, and I'm resorting to insults?

After all, I didn't insult you in the least. Albert Einstein is also "not like most idiots". But if you're so defensive that you choose to parse that as an insult, I can't be responsible for your low self esteem.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes yes we all know. However you still have no argument other then you don't like it.

[Moose]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: The existence of WoEs in an activity where women can compete as equals is degrating.

[/ QUOTE ]
no
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: They only have WoEs so that they can "have women winning bracelets" at the WSOP. In that sense, it is an insidious kind of affirmative action.


[/ QUOTE ]
no

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, isn't this a brilliant discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not brilliant at all. Even most idiots know subjective opinions can't be facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

But fortunately, you aren't like most idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, lacking a counter argument, you instead go for insults? Not suprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a second.. you make a backhanded insinuation that I'm an idiot, I make a better backhanded insinutation, and I'm resorting to insults?

After all, I didn't insult you in the least. Albert Einstein is also "not like most idiots". But if you're so defensive that you choose to parse that as an insult, I can't be responsible for your low self esteem.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes yes we all know. However you still have no argument other then you don't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol.. get caught chewing me out for doing the exact same thing you were trying to do, which shouldn't be a surprise since your entire counterargument was "no".

At any rate.

Fact: Women want equality.
Fact: Segregation by gender is contrary to the notion of equality.
Fact: Segregation by gender, therefore, is only appropriate as a necessary evil.
Fact: Having a championship event segregated by gender implies that it is a necessary evil, therefore it implies that women are biologically inferior at poker.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Fact: Women want equality.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol! Then why do women always play these events? You must not know what a fact is.
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: Having a championship event segregated by gender implies that it is a necessary evil, therefore it implies that women are biologically inferior at poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's not a fact, it's an opinion. Do you get it yet?