Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Peter Lloyd: 'Why I'm suing my gym over their sexist women-only hours' Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    what is ITT?

    my posts are fairly easy to understand, they may not be perfect (nor do i care if it is perfect) but the point still comes across... if you couldnt understand the quote you posted then you may have learning difficulties...
    In this thread
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hes right, they are in the wrong.

    Reduce the membership fee for men or get rid of the hours.

    Case solved.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    At the gym I go to there are men's only hours and women's only hours... I wasn't aware that some gyms have just women's only. If they charge the same they ought to reduce the fees for men to make it fairer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    on its own, no, but its frivolous compared to discrimination... discrimination is cold, your personality doesnt even weigh in to how people treat you, youre treated solely on something you cant easily change... with cheating, if youre an absolute prick, you cant say you werent expecting it... so yes, it is frivolous...

    is that really countering me or is it just changing subject...

    they dont have different membersips.... they should be paying to get the same access to the same stuff... in what way are they different memberships? if a girlish man or manish woman come into the gym, do the staff fight over which card they should give them? the man membership card or the woman membership card? no.... everyone has the same membership...

    in case you havent realised, i have countered all your arguments, you have yet to counter mine, rather you have been weaseling your way out with random reasons to justify yourself... look at your dopey property reasoning and how they collapsed fairly easily... you havent provided any signficant point that shows me that companies should get away with discrimination...

    show me why discrimination should be as legal as cheating is... ive already explained why the latter is frivolous while the former is not
    I'd say it would be the other way round. Surely having a person who means the world to you, *insert more nauseating love clichés here* , etc. betray you - maybe through no fault of your own - would hit you harder than not being allowed into a gym at certain times of the week.

    Technically they have the same membership, but effectively they have different memberships as they get different services (ie. men get less opening hours) for their money.
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the second half of the second paragraph. Are you trying to argue that they shouldn't treat men and women differently because the staff might be unable to immediately recognise whether someone's male or female?

    Like I said before we're still arguing. You've put out counters to my arguments, and in turn I'm trying to counter them.

    As you're innocent before proven guilty, instead of me trying to show discrimination isn't necessarily always wrong, maybe you should be 'proving' that discrimination is always wrong. So far the only argument you've put forward for that is that it's morally wrong to discriminate (I agree with that), discrimination is never 'frivolous' (I dispute that) and that all morally wrong acts that aren't 'frivolous' should be illegal. We both agree that adultery is morally wrong, and shouldn't be illegal - and then if we could agree that adultery can be more damaging than discrimination then it would follow that your argument is invalid (as if adultery can be worse than discrimination and is legal, then discrimination should also be legal in some circumstances as well).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danehill897)
    I'd say it would be the other way round. Surely having a person who means the world to you, *insert more nauseating love clichés here* , etc. betray you - maybe through no fault of your own - would hit you harder than not being allowed into a gym at certain times of the week.

    Technically they have the same membership, but effectively they have different memberships as they get different services (ie. men get less opening hours) for their money.
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the second half of the second paragraph. Are you trying to argue that they shouldn't treat men and women differently because the staff might be unable to immediately recognise whether someone's male or female?

    Like I said before we're still arguing. You've put out counters to my arguments, and in turn I'm trying to counter them.

    As you're innocent before proven guilty, instead of me trying to show discrimination isn't necessarily always wrong, maybe you should be 'proving' that discrimination is always wrong. So far the only argument you've put forward for that is that it's morally wrong to discriminate (I agree with that), discrimination is never 'frivolous' (I dispute that) and that all morally wrong acts that aren't 'frivolous' should be illegal. We both agree that adultery is morally wrong, and shouldn't be illegal - and then if we could agree that adultery can be more damaging than discrimination then it would follow that your argument is invalid (as if adultery can be worse than discrimination and is legal, then discrimination should also be legal in some circumstances as well).
    regardless, your betrayal point is still frivolous... you can fall in and out of love... you can love people many times during the span of your life... these things are easier to do than changing something inherently intrinsic to you like your sex... youre adding in emotional bias here ...

    what im saying is, they should have the same membership AND be open to the same services, i already know the men have less hours... thats what this damn thread is about...

    to rephrase, giving men and women different memberships is moronic. what if a person who loooks both feminine and maculine (i.e. you couldnt tell whether they were a man or woman), wanted membership but didnt want to disclose what sex they were... what if a transexual wanted to join too? what then? this giving different sexes, different membership crap is *******s and you know it...

    discrimination is always wrong... the law partially represents our moral views... why should i treat you different for something you cant change? this is called sympathising, putting myself in other peoples shoes... i dont want some jackass to treat me different because or something that is a part of who i am (like my sex), so why should treat other people different for the same stupid reason?... its unfair to treat someone different based on such a stupid thing like sex... this is bloody obvious, why you feel the need to ask me to show this is beyond me....

    and NO... dont try to weasel out of this... answer my question:

    "show me why discrimination should be as legal as cheating is... ive already explained why the latter is frivolous while the former is not"

    i havent said discrimination is always frivolous, show me where i have said that? ive even given examples where small forms can be frivolous.... but that changes when you discriminate in a business... if you treat me any different to someone else despite both of us paying you the same thing, i WILL sue the crap out of you... if you share your chocolates with everyone in class except me, you are a douche, but i wouldnt be able to sue you as it is frivolous...

    show me times when a relationship is not frivolous...the act of being betrayed is not significant enough not to call it frivolous...

    whatever is more damaging is not the point here, youre unnecessarily bringing in emotional bias here... the fact is, it should be illegal to discriminate against me in your place of business, and being cheated on should not... i can fall in and out of love, i can love multiple people in my lifetime, but i cant simply change my sex like that... i still have yet to see how my argument is invalid compared to yours...

    no, youre comparing two different things, like comparing a car to a boat... and you have yet to show me why cheating on someone should be as illegal as discriminating... or that discrimination should be as legal as cheating on a person...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    regardless, your betrayal point is still frivolous... you can fall in and out of love... you can love people many times during the span of your life... these things are easier to do than changing something inherently intrinsic to you like your sex... youre adding in emotional bias here ...

    what im saying is, they should have the same membership AND be open to the same services, i already know the men have less hours... thats what this damn thread is about...

    to rephrase, giving men and women different memberships is moronic. what if a person who loooks both feminine and maculine (i.e. you couldnt tell whether they were a man or woman), wanted membership but didnt want to disclose what sex they were... what if a transexual wanted to join too? what then? this giving different sexes, different membership crap is *******s and you know it...

    discrimination is always wrong... the law partially represents our moral views... why should i treat you different for something you cant change? this is called sympathising, putting myself in other peoples shoes... i dont want some jackass to treat me different because or something that is a part of who i am (like my sex), so why should treat other people different for the same stupid reason?... its unfair to treat someone different based on such a stupid thing like sex... this is bloody obvious, why you feel the need to ask me to show this is beyond me....

    and NO... dont try to weasel out of this... answer my question:

    "show me why discrimination should be as legal as cheating is... ive already explained why the latter is frivolous while the former is not"

    i havent said discrimination is always frivolous, show me where i have said that? ive even given examples where small forms can be frivolous.... but that changes when you discriminate in a business... if you treat me any different to someone else despite both of us paying you the same thing, i WILL sue the crap out of you... if you share your chocolates with everyone in class except me, you are a douche, but i wouldnt be able to sue you as it is frivolous...

    show me times when a relationship is not frivolous...the act of being betrayed is not significant enough not to call it frivolous...

    whatever is more damaging is not the point here, youre unnecessarily bringing in emotional bias here... the fact is, it should be illegal to discriminate against me in your place of business, and being cheated on should not... i can fall in and out of love, i can love multiple people in my lifetime, but i cant simply change my sex like that... i still have yet to see how my argument is invalid compared to yours...

    no, youre comparing two different things, like comparing a car to a boat... and you have yet to show me why cheating on someone should be as illegal as discriminating... or that discrimination should be as legal as cheating on a person...
    Peter Lloyd doesn't have to change his gender, he can just change which gym he goes to.

    Normally when you sign a gym contract you have to show an ID, so that would tell you what gender they are.

    I agree that being discriminatory makes you a 'jackass', but (like you agreed earlier) something being morally wrong doesn't mean it should be illegal.

    Are you quoting me there? I haven't said that.

    I don't see why discrimination should always be illegal in businesses when it's legally tolerated on other private property (ie. I could stop someone from entering my house for any arbitrary reason whatsoever). Your argument for this seems to be that discrimination in business is never frivolous and so should never be tolerated. We're still debating whether or not morally bad actions that aren't frivolous should always be illegal (ie. our argument whether or not adultery is frivolous or not), however I would also argue that discrimination in business can be frivolous. For example there was a news agent who didn't let students from my secondary school in. That was discriminatory, but it was frivolous as everyone just went to the news agent a little further down the street.

    'Show me times when a relationship is not frivolous' - are you a sociopath?

    If we could agree that adultery can be worse then discrimination then I hopefully I could conclude my argument.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danehill897)
    Peter Lloyd doesn't have to change his gender, he can just change which gym he goes to.

    Normally when you sign a gym contract you have to show an ID, so that would tell you what gender they are.

    I agree that being discriminatory makes you a 'jackass', but (like you agreed earlier) something being morally wrong doesn't mean it should be illegal.

    Are you quoting me there? I haven't said that.

    I don't see why discrimination should always be illegal in businesses when it's legally tolerated on other private property (ie. I could stop someone from entering my house for any arbitrary reason whatsoever). Your argument for this seems to be that discrimination in business is never frivolous and so should never be tolerated. We're still debating whether or not morally bad actions that aren't frivolous should always be illegal (ie. our argument whether or not adultery is frivolous or not), however I would also argue that discrimination in business can be frivolous. For example there was a news agent who didn't let students from my secondary school in. That was discriminatory, but it was frivolous as everyone just went to the news agent a little further down the street.

    'Show me times when a relationship is not frivolous' - are you a sociopath?

    If we could agree that adultery can be worse then discrimination then I hopefully I could conclude my argument.
    this is becoming annoying now... :facepalm:
    i told you why a person should should have to go to another gym... dont repeat arguments already countered...
    irrelevant. my gym ID doesnt have my sex on it, nor is there any reason for the gym to know that information...

    because 1) those are two different things, and 2) thats frivolous...

    1) not every business based discrimination is not frivolous, but generally, when a business is involved, it would usually be more important than if someone cheated on you :lolwut: 2) there is a difference between not tolerating frivolous court cases and tolerating discrimination... the latter is not happening with regards to the property... its the former.....why do you find it so hard to understand? when you thought this up, did you not think to yourself whether one is more important than the other?

    it should never be tolerated... the issue here is whether it is worth the law being involved... your love problems are not, discrimination from the gym is...

    this 'debating' would go a lot better if you replied properly to all my points rather than going off on a tangent and posting whatever comes into your mind... that quote isnt yours, im just quoting myself.... you keep avoiding the question so i copy and pasted it back

    clearly youre just posting nonsense now... answer the damn question:
    "show me why discrimination should be as legal as cheating is... ive already explained why the latter is frivolous while the former is not"
    stop dodging the damn question and answer it.. youre just adding in your own emotional bias and using that as justification... the law isnt about resolving your damn emotions, its about what is the fair thing to do.... the fact that you could be cheated on in the eyes of the law IS FRIVOLOUS whether you can accept it or not... the law wasnt formed to resolve your love problems jheeeeze :lolwut:

    you have nothing to conclude... youve shown me no adequate reason why the gym should be allowed to do what it does. all youre doing is weaselling out of arguments with bullcrap... look at your arguments justifying it because it is not "physical", or argument condoning discrimination except only in extraordinarily extreme circumstances... now your newest one is this bullcrap relationship argument. youre just wasting both of our times, due to your inability to differentiate what is frivolous and what is not :facepalm:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    this is becoming annoying now... :facepalm:
    i told you why a person should should have to go to another gym... dont repeat arguments already countered...
    irrelevant. my gym ID doesnt have my sex on it, nor is there any reason for the gym to know that information...

    because 1) those are two different things, and 2) thats frivolous...

    1) not every business based discrimination is not frivolous, but generally, when a business is involved, it would usually be more important than if someone cheated on you :lolwut: 2) there is a difference between not tolerating frivolous court cases and tolerating discrimination... the latter is not happening with regards to the property... its the former.....why do you find it so hard to understand? when you thought this up, did you not think to yourself whether one is more important than the other?

    it should never be tolerated... the issue here is whether it is worth the law being involved... your love problems are not, discrimination from the gym is...

    this 'debating' would go a lot better if you replied properly to all my points rather than going off on a tangent and posting whatever comes into your mind... that quote isnt yours, im just quoting myself.... you keep avoiding the question so i copy and pasted it back

    clearly youre just posting nonsense now... answer the damn question:
    "show me why discrimination should be as legal as cheating is... ive already explained why the latter is frivolous while the former is not"
    stop dodging the damn question and answer it.. youre just adding in your own emotional bias and using that as justification... the law isnt about resolving your damn emotions, its about what is the fair thing to do.... the fact that you could be cheated on in the eyes of the law IS FRIVOLOUS whether you can accept it or not... the law wasnt formed to resolve your love problems jheeeeze :lolwut:

    you have nothing to conclude... youve shown me no adequate reason why the gym should be allowed to do what it does. all youre doing is weaselling out of arguments with bullcrap... look at your arguments justifying it because it is not "physical", or argument condoning discrimination except only in extraordinarily extreme circumstances... now your newest one is this bullcrap relationship argument. youre just wasting both of our times, due to your inability to differentiate what is frivolous and what is not :facepalm:
    I thought your argument why Lloyd shouldn't go to another gym was that he shouldn't have to. I responded that he doesn't have a sacred right to use their private property.You responded ' thats not exactly private property if its treated as a businessis it now? letting in random people and whatnot...'. I didn’t respond to this at the time, but I don't know why you think letting in visitors means it's no longer your property.

    Your gym ID may not say your gender on, but usually whenyou sign up for membership you have to show an ID such as a driving license, so they would learn your gender that way.

    I accept discrimination isn’t always frivolous, so I agree with your point 1) in the third paragraph. By making point1) though, you’re saying that some business based discrimination can be frivolous – contradicting point 2) where you imply that discrimination cases are never frivolous in court.
    I’m arguing that adultery isn’t always frivolous. Your argument that adultery is always frivolous seems to be that it happens in private (which makes it ok?) and that by caring about relationships you’re caring about your ‘damm emotions’ (so human emotions such as love don’t matter?).

    Basically my viewpoint is that adultery can be just asfrivolous or just as important as discrimination – so there shouldn’t be such a contrast in how the state approaches them (ie. why is it ‘worth’ the law almost always get involved in one, but not even interning in the other).

    I can’t answer your ‘dammed question’ because we haven’tagreed yet whether or not adultery can be just as important as discrimination(see paragraph 3 above).

    I never attempted to argue that actions are ok becausethey don’t physically harm someone else, you just misunderstood my argument.
    My extreme circumstances argument is meant to part ofwhat I’m arguing now (ie. It’s not an extreme circumstance as Lloyd can just go to another gym; therefore although it may be unpleasant for him (although he’s not having any of his property stolen), it’s frivolous; therefore refusing him access to the gym because of his gender is like some cases of adultery in that although it’s unpleasant, the state shouldn’t intervene.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 27, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.