Domino Quartz's Delightfully Quaint Random Banter Thread #248

[Keltest]

It was a bad idea to design society around two ridiculous, commedia dell'arte-esque character archetypes and then just build that into absolutely everything.

Tangential point - I believe the unthinking assumption and expectation for it to be everywhere is a big part of what keeps us from moving foreward on other aspects of how we're handling it. The angry public contention about who is allowed into what institutions could be solved in an instant if people would just step back and ask themselves "do we really need separate institutions?" and "do they need to be separated along these specific lines?". Every time I read about where people are arguing about who's allowed in which sports teams I find myself shouting at the screen "organize the teams by weight class!"; but nobody on either side of the argument ever comes to that conclusion because nobody on either side has bothered to question the underlaying assumption that the division will necessarily be that there will be a men's league and a women's league

Ive said the exact same thing, and the answer has always been uncomfortable mumbling about how its more complicated than that without elaboration.

[Ionathus]

I find myself shouting at the screen "organize the teams by weight class!"

Having seen my highschool buddy alternately gorge himself or starve himself each day to meet the "right" weight bracket for wrestling, I'm not terribly eager to shift to that system But I do see the point you're making

[Rynjin]

Ive said the exact same thing, and the answer has always been uncomfortable mumbling about how its more complicated than that without elaboration.

It's mostly that male and female muscle structure and fat distribution, combined with hormonal differences, even at the same weight class simply aren't the same. A 125 lbs. male and 125 lbs. female are not fundamentally built the same even at the same general level of fitness. So if you throw them both in a Featherweight boxing ring it's not gonna be a fair matchup.

Fat distribution alone makes weight control more of a nightmare for female athletes. You see that even in women's MMA and other combat sports. Male athletes can afford to cut and dehydrate a lot more before a match and maintain a higher muscle volume and lower fat content overall, pass weigh-in, and then rehydrate before the match. Testosterone promotes weight loss and muscle growth on top of that, making it even easier. It still sucks, but if you're only cutting down one weight class it's usually not life threatening.

Female athletes can do the same but it is more grueling and even more life threatening (and it's already incredibly unsafe for male athletes cutting to the next lowest weight class) just because female fat distribution is different and much harder to cut down to the same levels.

Due to this even at the same weight class a male athlete is generally going to have an advantage; they'll punch harder and have more stamina, even before you take into account that the male athlete is probably going to be a bit taller and have more reach as well.

And now someone might come in and say "Well don't let people cut down to a different weight class"...and that causes even more issues. If the weight limit for eg. Middleweight is 155-160 lbs., then someone who is naturally at 155 lbs. is going to struggle a lot. Bulking up by 5 lbs. is arguably harder and less healthy than cutting down by 5 lbs. (especially if half of it is water weight) and still isn't going to offset the disadvantages that people at a natural 160 lbs. or more are usually going to be taller, broader, and have more reach. That's why athletes tend to cut down to the next nearest weight class.

This is pure and simple exercise science. I've approached this primarily from a combat sports angle because that's where "weight classes" are usually a thing, but it applies to all other sports as well. Track and field is a good angle to look at it from as well. You can take a look at how the world record times for eg. the 100 meter dash stack up across male and female athletes. Female athletes don't stack up anywhere close in that regard.

Games of skill tend to be evenly matched, but those games don't tend to have weight classes anyway. There's no reason for there to be a "Men's Open" and "Women's Open" for like...billiards and chess for example and we'd definitely be better doing away with them IMO.

[DataNinja]

Games of skill tend to be evenly matched, but those games don't tend to have weight classes anyway. There's no reason for there to be a "Men's Open" and "Women's Open" for like...billiards and chess for example and we'd definitely be better doing away with them IMO.

The reason for that sort of thing existing is often because environments can be frankly extremely hostile to women attempting these activities, so it's suppose to let people have a healthy environment to participate in, encouraging more people to join up. (Unfortunately, this sort of thing can end up kinda... causing a bit of a feedback loop, where the existence of the separate thing means that the overall environment may not change very much.)

[Peelee]

environments can be frankly extremely hostile to women

Spoiler

Show

[Rynjin]

The reason for that sort of thing existing is often because environments can be frankly extremely hostile to women attempting these activities, so it's suppose to let people have a healthy environment to participate in, encouraging more people to join up. (Unfortunately, this sort of thing can end up kinda... causing a bit of a feedback loop, where the existence of the separate thing means that the overall environment may not change very much.)

Yeah, I'm aware of the intent behind them but IMO it seems pretty clear that it has backfired spectacularly. In providing a safe space, women have essentially been segregated into ONLY participating in that safe space and the optics essentially reinforce misogyny ("Women aren't good enough to play with us, that's why they need their own league").

This becomes sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy where the safe space is generally only used by people just learning the game, which adds to the perception of an inherent skillgap when really it's that true contenders don't really want to participate in the "beginner zone" but find themselves kinda frozen out of the "real" competition as a result.

[Rater202]

Spoiler: I ahve received yet more Fanart from Just_A_Ghost

Show

I don't know what it is about my fanfic that inspires their artistic muse but I'm definitely not complaining.

[Bohandas]

It's mostly that male and female muscle structure and fat distribution, combined with hormonal differences, even at the same weight class simply aren't the same. A 125 lbs. male and 125 lbs. female are not fundamentally built the same even at the same general level of fitness. So if you throw them both in a Featherweight boxing ring it's not gonna be a fair matchup.

Fat distribution alone makes weight control more of a nightmare for female athletes. You see that even in women's MMA and other combat sports. Male athletes can afford to cut and dehydrate a lot more before a match and maintain a higher muscle volume and lower fat content overall, pass weigh-in, and then rehydrate before the match. Testosterone promotes weight loss and muscle growth on top of that, making it even easier. It still sucks, but if you're only cutting down one weight class it's usually not life threatening.

Female athletes can do the same but it is more grueling and even more life threatening (and it's already incredibly unsafe for male athletes cutting to the next lowest weight class) just because female fat distribution is different and much harder to cut down to the same levels.

Due to this even at the same weight class a male athlete is generally going to have an advantage; they'll punch harder and have more stamina, even before you take into account that the male athlete is probably going to be a bit taller and have more reach as well.

And now someone might come in and say "Well don't let people cut down to a different weight class"...and that causes even more issues. If the weight limit for eg. Middleweight is 155-160 lbs., then someone who is naturally at 155 lbs. is going to struggle a lot. Bulking up by 5 lbs. is arguably harder and less healthy than cutting down by 5 lbs. (especially if half of it is water weight) and still isn't going to offset the disadvantages that people at a natural 160 lbs. or more are usually going to be taller, broader, and have more reach. That's why athletes tend to cut down to the next nearest weight class.

This is pure and simple exercise science. I've approached this primarily from a combat sports angle because that's where "weight classes" are usually a thing, but it applies to all other sports as well. Track and field is a good angle to look at it from as well. You can take a look at how the world record times for eg. the 100 meter dash stack up across male and female athletes. Female athletes don't stack up anywhere close in that regard.

I'm talking about doing one or the other you're talking about doing the other or both. Doing both together might not be as accurate due to weight distribution or whatever but I'd bet that doing just weight class would still be more accurate than doing just men or women

[Rynjin]

I'm talking about doing one or the other you're talking about doing the other or both. Doing both together might not be as accurate due to weight distribution or whatever but I'd bet that doing just weight class would still be more accurate than doing just men or women

I'm confused as to what your idea is then. The current paradigm is "both". (Combat) Sports are segregated by sex and weight class. Women's Featherweight is 126 lbs. So is Men's. It's just that 126 lbs. women will be fighting other 126 lbs. women in one division, and men are in the other, because a 126 lbs. woman vs a 126 lbs. man is not a fair matchup.

Other sports aren't segregated by weight class because usually it's...not relevant. Like Football's optimal weight is "as big as you can get while meeting other basic metrics", because there's no limit. Basketball doesn't really care about weight, only height. Baseball doesn't really care about either, with the main factors being hand/eye coordination (largely the same across genders), swing speed/strength (favoring males), pitch speed/strength (favoring males), and footspeed (favoring males). Etc.

So it sounds like your idea would be like adding a bunch of different extra divisions to all of these sports that limit weight to a specific arbitrary class chosen for...no real reason.

Most of these sports aren't even actually formally segregated at all. For example, women are actually allowed to play in the NBA. It's just been decades since any female athlete has stacked up to the standards required to make it in the NBA proper. There might be a bit of gender bias we can whack off but generally it's a matter of performance, not sexism, that holds back female athletes in a lot of team sports.

The underlying issue is that pretty much all team sports rely on three factors: team coordination (gender agnostic), individual technical skill (gender agnostic), and raw athleticism (heavily favoring males). A female athlete in a team sports setting would need to drastically overperform a male athlete in the other two categories to make up for the third. And when you're dealing with professional athletes, theoretically everybody is at a high degree in all three categories.

Adding weight classes to these sports doesn't really solve anything.

[LaZodiac]

I'll also note that the "raw athleticism" part is also gender agnostic, it's just that society treats women like they're less capable, so they have less resources in growing up to gain that same level of athleticism. Women raised to believe they're not as athletic as men are going to end up not working as hard as men, and society won't create as good a system for them to become elite atheletes, leading to a gap that people perceive as "women are inferior athletes". If a woman got all the opportunities a guy did, if they weren't encouraged at birth that they are the "fairer sex", then this gap wouldn't exist. Simple as.

There was this post I saw a bit ago that elaborates on this in a far more technical matter, but I can't find it anymore.

[Anonymouswizard]

....which is why trans women should be allowed to compete in Women's World Domination leagues.

[LaZodiac]

....which is why trans women should be allowed to compete in Women's World Domination leagues.

True! The gender border in sports is inherently stupid but intrinsically ingrained in society, so trans women should get to participate in Women's Sports, but also there shouldn't be a division between gender in sports. Both of these things can be true at the same time.

[Anonymouswizard]

True! The gender border in sports is inherently stupid but intrinsically ingrained in society, so trans women should get to participate in Women's Sports, but also there shouldn't be a division between gender in sports. Both of these things can be true at the same time.

The only valid reason to segregate sports based on gender is the creation of a Pantomime Dames league.

[Manga Shoggoth]

The only valid reason to segregate sports based on gender is the creation of a Pantomime Dames league.

Oh no it isn't!

It's been too long since I watched a good pantomime... I think the last one was a take on that nice Mr Whittington, upon whom the profanity filter shines so kindly.

[Bohandas]

Other sports aren't segregated by weight class because usually it's...not relevant. Like Football's optimal weight is "as big as you can get while meeting other basic metrics", because there's no limit. Basketball doesn't really care about weight, only height. Baseball doesn't really care about either, with the main factors being hand/eye coordination (largely the same across genders), swing speed/strength (favoring males), pitch speed/strength (favoring males), and footspeed (favoring males). Etc.

Isn't weight class intended as an approximate indicator, however flawed, for muscle mass? which is in turn intended as an indicator for strength (which crops up on half the things on your list)?

That was my understanding at any rate.

And my point was that the male vs. female thing was also, in my understanding, intended as a pointer for muscle mass and thus strength. And of the two pointers, weight class seems likely to be the better one that will be more accurate more of the time.

[HalfTangible]

The idea that there's no valid reason for the divide between men and womens' sports is both false {scrubbed}.

[tyckspoon]

Isn't weight class intended as an approximate indicator, however flawed, for muscle mass? which is in turn intended as an indicator for strength (which crops up on half the things on your list)?

For the the things where weight class is most relevant, it's just.. mass. Having more muscle mass than non-muscle mass is preferable for some other things (it would be correlated with generally being in better shape, likely having more stamina, and so on) but for the combat sports where weight class divisions are a thing just Being Bigger is a pretty big advantage. You see some extreme examples of it in like early mixed-martial arts before the organizing groups yielded to the same logic about why boxing and wrestling use weight class divisions, where some beefy dude with a 50 pound advantage on his opponent would force a grapple and just be impossible for the lighter combatant to move him or lay out the squirrely little kung-fu dude with one solid punch.

[Rynjin]

I'll also note that the "raw athleticism" part is also gender agnostic, it's just that society treats women like they're less capable, so they have less resources in growing up to gain that same level of athleticism. Women raised to believe they're not as athletic as men are going to end up not working as hard as men, and society won't create as good a system for them to become elite atheletes, leading to a gap that people perceive as "women are inferior athletes". If a woman got all the opportunities a guy did, if they weren't encouraged at birth that they are the "fairer sex", then this gap wouldn't exist. Simple as.

There was this post I saw a bit ago that elaborates on this in a far more technical matter, but I can't find it anymore.

*waggles hand*

It depends on what we're talking about. When I say "athleticism" I largely mean raw physical stats. Women athletes train just as hard as their male counterparts, but it just comes down to it that they perform less than their male counterparts. I keep going back to track and field sports because those are the areas it's easy to track metrics across categories.

The women's 100 meter dash world record is 10.49 seconds. The men's is 9.48 seconds. I don't think this is because female athletes have less opportunities or train less, at least at the professional level. That, to me, is a lot more dismissive of the efforts of female athletes than looking at the evidence and saying their ceiling is lower in a lot of sports. We are a dimorphic species, if to a lesser extent than some.

Now the more skill a sport requires, the less of an issue this becomes. Like people talk a lot of **** about Venus and Serena Williams and how they'd lose to the average male athlete and that's horse****.

Isn't weight class intended as an approximate indicator, however flawed, for muscle mass? which is in turn intended as an indicator for strength (which crops up on half the things on your list)?

That was my understanding at any rate.

And my point was that the male vs. female thing was also, in my understanding, intended as a pointer for muscle mass and thus strength. And of the two pointers, weight class seems likely to be the better one that will be more accurate more of the time.

Pretty much what tyckspoon said to start:

For the the things where weight class is most relevant, it's just.. mass. Having more muscle mass than non-muscle mass is preferable for some other things (it would be correlated with generally being in better shape, likely having more stamina, and so on) but for the combat sports where weight class divisions are a thing just Being Bigger is a pretty big advantage. You see some extreme examples of it in like early mixed-martial arts before the organizing groups yielded to the same logic about why boxing and wrestling use weight class divisions, where some beefy dude with a 50 pound advantage on his opponent would force a grapple and just be impossible for the lighter combatant to move him or lay out the squirrely little kung-fu dude with one solid punch.

Mass is mass. Even in boxing, at the heavyweight level you'll occasionally find athletes who are built more like a sumo wrestler than what most people conceive of as a heavyweight boxer, like Butterbean. Muscle mass is important, but it's also important to note biomechanics and its place in throwing a punch. A good punch is thrown with your whole body. You rotate your ankles, hips, spine, and shoulders to get that killer hook.

A guy who weighs 180 lbs. and is pure muscle is gonna be able to throw a killer punch. A guy who weighs 220 lbs. and 40 lbs. of it is just fat over the other guy...is throwing a punch with an extra 40 lbs. of mass behind it. It's objectively superior, at least when it comes to punching power.

For other sports, you either run into the issue where "just bigger" is all people care about (like Football) and so people wouldn't bother to build lower weight class teams or sports where it's irrelevant (like Basketball) and weight classes would actively hinder the game. Like are we gonna say Shaq can't play because he's so tall and is in shape instead of severely underweight? Or are you gonna try to field an entire division of basketball players who are the same size as Shaq? 'Cause that ain't gonna happen.

[DataNinja]

Now the more skill a sport requires, the less of an issue this becomes. Like people talk a lot of **** about Venus and Serena Williams and how they'd lose to the average male athlete and that's horse****.

I know one thing that's come up when I've vaguely looked into the (actually genuinely interesting) world of gender dynamics, is that it's not really an accident that activities that most benefit from the Testosterone Cocktail(tm) are often those considered the most valid.

[Bartmanhomer]

Today is my birthday. My older brother gives me Marshmallow Devil Cake.

[BisectedBrioche]

Today is my birthday. My older brother gives me Marshmallow Devil Cake.

Devil's Food Cake I'm familiar with, and I have no idea where marshmallows factor in...but that sounds amazing! o.o

[TaiLiu]

Today is my birthday. My older brother gives me Marshmallow Devil Cake.

Happy birthday, friend! Hope you’ll have lots of fun.

[Rater202]

There exists an episode of th Simpsons wherein Homer gets attacked by an unusually aggressive bear. Worse, the attack was caught on camera and the whole town is laughing at him. Humiliated and traumatized, he crafts a suit of bear-proof armor and goes out into the woods to find the bear who attacked him for revenge, aided by a tracking chip planted ont the bear sometime prior by a local trophy hunter.

Ultimately it turns out that the bear was so aggressive because the tracker was malfunctioning and kept shocking it, and Homer befriends the bear and helps it escape to a nature sanctuary.

But in the middle of the episode, before he actually goes after the bear, Lisa tries to dissuade him by citing Moby ****: "It's wrong to seek revenge on an animal."

To which Homer replies "the point of Moby **** is 'be yourself.'"

Now obviously, the joke here is that Homer's a dumbass, right?

...Except... How many people died because they let themselves get swept up in a charismatic lunatic's quest for vengeance instead of pursuing their own interests? IRC the only one who survives is the narrator, Ismael, who joined the hunt for the white whale because he has a periodic interest in all things related to the ocean and was testing to see if a job on a whaling ship was something he would want.

It's not the intended reading, but Homer kind of has a point.

[LaZodiac]

There exists an episode of th Simpsons wherein Homer gets attacked by an unusually aggressive bear. Worse, the attack was caught on camera and the whole town is laughing at him. Humiliated and traumatized, he crafts a suit of bear-proof armor and goes out into the woods to find the bear who attacked him for revenge, aided by a tracking chip planted ont the bear sometime prior by a local trophy hunter.

Ultimately it turns out that the bear was so aggressive because the tracker was malfunctioning and kept shocking it, and Homer befriends the bear and helps it escape to a nature sanctuary.

But in the middle of the episode, before he actually goes after the bear, Lisa tries to dissuade him by citing Moby ****: "It's wrong to seek revenge on an animal."

To which Homer replies "the point of Moby **** is 'be yourself.'"

Now obviously, the joke here is that Homer's a dumbass, right?

...Except... How many people died because they let themselves get swept up in a charismatic lunatic's quest for vengeance instead of pursuing their own interests? IRC the only one who survives is the narrator, Ismael, who joined the hunt for the white whale because he has a periodic interest in all things related to the ocean and was testing to see if a job on a whaling ship was something he would want.

It's not the intended reading, but Homer kind of has a point.

Yeah, Homer's read is a bit basic but perfectly valid. And given the Simpsons, especially in that particular season, take on a very "shut up Lisa" take on pretty much every stance, one could even argue we're supposed to read it that way- that Homer's desire to fight this bear led to him learning the problem and thus fixing it- which is actually healthy behavior, finding out why a bad thing happened and working to stop the cause of it, not simply lashing out at someone who is suffering as much as you are.

... but on the other hand, Lisa's take is just as basic. It's not "it's wrong to take revenge on an animal" it's "desire for revenge will drive you ****ing insane and kill everyone around you". Ahab had a pretty damn good life slaughtering creatures, but he let obsession over an animal overwhelm him to the point that he killed so, so so so many people. The presentation of The Whale in the book is less animal and more Living Storm, and indulging in your screaming at it will bring your house down around you.

Unrelatedly: I have watched the first two episodes of The Amazing Digital Circus. It was alright. I think you'd all enjoy it more though!

[Rater202]

Yeah, Homer's read is a bit basic but perfectly valid. And given the Simpsons, especially in that particular season, take on a very "shut up Lisa" take on pretty much every stance, one could even argue we're supposed to read it that way- that Homer's desire to fight this bear led to him learning the problem and thus fixing it- which is actually healthy behavior, finding out why a bad thing happened and working to stop the cause of it, not simply lashing out at someone who is suffering as much as you are.

... but on the other hand, Lisa's take is just as basic. It's not "it's wrong to take revenge on an animal" it's "desire for revenge will drive you ****ing insane and kill everyone around you". Ahab had a pretty damn good life slaughtering creatures, but he let obsession over an animal overwhelm him to the point that he killed so, so so so many people. The presentation of The Whale in the book is less animal and more Living Storm, and indulging in your screaming at it will bring your house down around you.

Ummhmm. Whales weren't particularly understood at the time—this was written well before we knew they were intelligent creatures and, honestly, before whaling even became much a problem. Harpoon guns hadn't been invented yet so actually killing the whales was hard and dangerous as all **** putting a natural limit on how many could be killed.

At best, the whale is a particularly large and dangerous animal, uncognizant of and thus uncaring of Ahab's quest for vengeance and doing as it will. At worst, it's an allegory for the ineffable whims of nature, or even an uncaring and indifferent God that acts only when offended... I've also seen a literary argument in favor the whale being a metaphor for Satan but that's a stretch.

Of course, by a modern reading things come across pretty differently: The reason the whale is "white" is because it's a very old sperm whale, which grow paler as they age... And because it's covered in scars from all the times whalers have tried and failed to bring this particular one in.

Given that the white whale of the novel was based on several real cases of older sperm whales attacking whaling vessels, with what we know now of whale intelligence a plausible reading becomes that the whale itself was just as vengeful as Ahab, it was simply more justified and more successful.

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly it can be easy to forget that Homer, like Bart, isn't actually stupid. He's lazy, but this isn't the only time he actually has a legitimate reading of a piece of media. It's more than in character for him to know the story, likely from an adaptation but possibly the original text, and be able to have at least a basic discussion of it.

[LaZodiac]

Ummhmm. Whales weren't particularly understood at the time—this was written well before we knew they were intelligent creatures and, onestly, before whaling even became a problem. Harpoon guns hadn't been invented yet so actually killing the whales was hard and dangerous as all **** putting a natural limit on how many could be killed.

At best, the whale is a particularly large and dangerous animal, cognizant of and thus uncaring of Ahab's quest for vengeance and doing as it will. At worst, it's an allegory for the ineffable whims of nature, or even an uncaring and indifferent God that acts only when offended... I've also seen a literary argument in favor the whale being a metaphor for Satan but that's a stretch.

Of course, by a modern reading things come across pretty differently: The reason the whale is "white" is because it's a very old sperm whale, which grow paler as they age... And because it's covered in scars from all the times whalers have tried and failed to bring this particular one in.

Given that the white whale of the novel was based on several real cases of older sperm whales attacking whaling vessels, with what we know now of whale intelligence a plausible reading becomes that the whale itself was just as vengeful as Ahab, it was simply more justified and more successful.

Yeah!

Also, while the Whale itself is just a living storm of symbolism in the books, the actual confrontation they have with him does a VERY good job of making it truly feel eldritch, imo? Like, when the Whale actually shows up you start to understand why Ahab sees it as some black-hearted demon from the depths of hades. It's fantastically done, and has given me many ideas.

[Rater202]

Yeah!

Also, while the Whale itself is just a living storm of symbolism in the books, the actual confrontation they have with him does a VERY good job of making it truly feel eldritch, imo? Like, when the Whale actually shows up you start to understand why Ahab sees it as some black-hearted demon from the depths of hades. It's fantastically done, and has given me many ideas.

There is a three volume anthology series called Required Reading Remixed which I am gond of... And honeslty need to get back to, I've put off finishing the second and third volume after Android of Green Gables hit a little too close to home. Anyway, the stick is it takes things you would ahve maybe had to read in literature class at school(or topics you may have covered in school otherwise, such as certain historical events) and reimagines them with horror, sci-fi, or fantasy twists.

In the first volume, we have From Hell's Heart, about a group of fur trappers and their native guide in the great white north who have an encounter with a Wendigo.

Or rather, one fo them gets bitten by a strange animal they found in their traps and being infected by the Wendigo curse.

At first the man simply falls very ill, and the narrator goes out to the trading post hoping to get some emergency supplies on credit, where he meets a sailor from the colonies named Ahab who pays for the supplies with some gold and offers his help... And when they get back to their camp to see that the cursed man has turned and killed their other companion (the guide having gotten the hell out of dodge when he realized what was happening) Ahab explains in summary his quest for vengeance on the white whale...

And how after he died the whale itself dragged him to Hell. To escape damnation, Ahab must capture monsters with which to stock the Devil's own hunting ground, one for each good man that Ahab led to their death, and he just happens to be in Canada hunting a wendigo for this assignment.

[Ionathus]

It's not the intended reading, but Homer kind of has a point.

I had a writing professor in college who loved to do a similar thing with Romeo and Juliet. He’d ask the classroom to state the moral of the story and we’d come up with all sorts of answers: “vengeance isn’t worth it?” “Communication is important?” “…true love??” And he’d shoot each answer down with a little impish grin before ultimately giving us the answer:

The moral of Romeo and Juliet is: “Listen to your parents, or you will die.”

[Rater202]

I had a writing professor in college who loved to do a similar thing with Romeo and Juliet. He’d ask the classroom to state the moral of the story and we’d come up with all sorts of answers: “vengeance isn’t worth it?” “Communication is important?” “…true love??” And he’d shoot each answer down with a little impish grin before ultimately giving us the answer:

The moral of Romeo and Juliet is: “Listen to your parents, or you will die.”

I mean that's the intended reading. The Tragedy comes about because Romeo and Juliet were stupid teenagers who were listening to their hormones instead of the advice of older and wiser people...

Though in this case, I'd say the advice of Juliet's Nurse and the Priest telling them to just get over this **** is more important than the advice of their parents, given that the feud itself between the two families is just as stupid as these two kids throwing everything away over a youthful infatuation.