IOC President Thomas Bach said the “hate speech” directed at boxers Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting at the Paris Olympics is “totally unacceptable.”
“We will not take part in a politically motivated … cultural war,” Bach said at a news briefing Saturday at the midway point of the Paris Games, where he wanted to draw a line under days of global scrutiny about the female boxers’ gender.
And more dishonesty. I told you multiple times and you pasted from the press release that they did not test for testosterone. They also never claimed that she was doping.
You know this and I know this. So why are you trying to lie about it?
Seriously, I’m starting to think you are confusing ‘dishonesty’ for ‘speak words too good’. I expressly used the example that didn’t apply so you would have to apply it once you actually read the data.
The thing is that, unlike you obviously, I read the document you provided which is why I know that there is nothing in there about only disallowing someone to compete in the women’s division.
Which is why I know you’re being dishonest.
But hey, feel free to prove me wrong and show me the rule that is not there. I’m sure it will be like the appendix regarding doping which has nothing to do with the discussion, which you admitted you were wrong about, then went back to claiming it’s relevant.
See there you go again. I asked you previously to improve your critical thinking skills but it is clearly beyond you. Being hostile just because you refuse to put the smallest of efforts into seeing how reality works isn’t working though it is clearly your default MO. Don’t get angry at others just because you’re wrong and you know it, or don’t know it but can’t figure out why. It isn’t going to help you in the long run.
Again, I read the document. You clearly did not. Saying I’m wrong without showing the rule which only excludes people from competing with women is just more dishonesty because there is no rule.
I have no idea why you’re trying to gaslight me into this, but it won’t work because, yet again, I read the document you gave me to read.
If read, did not understand (a continuing theme with you). I led the horse to water. I’m not going to try forcing it to drink. The answer to your incomprehension is obvious if you literally listen to what I’ve already told you a few posts back. At this point you don’t want to think about it and that isn’t my problem no matter how hard you try to make that the case.
Cool. There is still no rule in that book that only excludes a boxer from competing with women. That is a fact.
That’s just a fact.
You can try to weasel around that fact, you can pretend it isn’t a fact without actually showing the rule, you can gaslight, you can be condescending like you are and flaunt your intelligence, you can tell me I just don’t comprehend, but it is still a fact.
I read the document you told me to read. There is no rule. That is a fact.
No no. It’s all in there. I’m not going to hold your hand anymore. The sky is blue no matter how hard you argue it isn’t.
Once again, gaslighting me won’t change the fact that there is no such rule.
The only way this is going to work for you is to show the rule. Which you can’t, because there is no such rule.
Yes, I know, you’ll claim you already showed me the rule. Cool. I have a bad memory. Show me again. Give me the page number of the rule that bars someone from competing with women only, but they can still compete with men.