Does it involving Nicholas Cage doing this?
Not the Bees! My Eyes! My Eyes!
Advertisement
by Benuty » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:38 pm
by Untaroicht » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:39 pm
by Benuty » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:39 pm
by Gauthier » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:39 pm
Benuty wrote:Gauthier wrote:
Wicker Man much?
Does it involving Nicholas Cage doing this?
Not the Bees! My Eyes! My Eyes!
by Avenio » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:42 pm
Untaroicht wrote:The Floating Island of the Sleeping God wrote:We've been over this. Being criticized on twitter is not comparable in any meaningful way to being raped.
Bullshit. If a woman scientist was forced to apologize and was threatened to be fired for a revealing dress she wore at a press event, you hypocrites would be rioting in the streets.
by -The Unified Earth Governments- » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:42 pm
News - 10/27/2558: Deglassing of Reach is going smoother than expected. | First prototype laser rifle is beginning experimentation. | The Sangheili Civil War is officially over, Arbiter Thel'Vadam and his Swords of Sanghelios have successfully eliminated remaining Covenant cells on Sanghelios. | President Ruth Charet to hold press meeting within the hour on the end of the Sangheili Civil War. | The Citadel Council official introduces the Unggoy as a member of the Citadel.
by Untaroicht » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:42 pm
by -The Unified Earth Governments- » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:44 pm
Avenio wrote:Untaroicht wrote:
Bullshit. If a woman scientist was forced to apologize and was threatened to be fired for a revealing dress she wore at a press event, you hypocrites would be rioting in the streets.
Not the same issue. The issue is the objectification of women inherent to that shirt, not the hypothetical revealingness of clothing.
News - 10/27/2558: Deglassing of Reach is going smoother than expected. | First prototype laser rifle is beginning experimentation. | The Sangheili Civil War is officially over, Arbiter Thel'Vadam and his Swords of Sanghelios have successfully eliminated remaining Covenant cells on Sanghelios. | President Ruth Charet to hold press meeting within the hour on the end of the Sangheili Civil War. | The Citadel Council official introduces the Unggoy as a member of the Citadel.
by Gravlen » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:44 pm
Untaroicht wrote:The Floating Island of the Sleeping God wrote:We've been over this. Being criticized on twitter is not comparable in any meaningful way to being raped.
Bullshit. If a woman scientist was forced to apologize and was threatened to be fired for a revealing dress she wore at a press event, you hypocrites would be rioting in the streets.
by The Floating Island of the Sleeping God » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:45 pm
-The Unified Earth Governments- wrote:The Floating Island of the Sleeping God wrote:Not the beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees!
The bear part is fucking funny though.
But come one people here, Unt does have a point, the example is complete trash, but he has a point.
People have an inherent right to dress how they want and they should be looked down upon for their attire.
Of course there are exceptions, but our freedom of speech has exceptions too.
The guy was wearing a shirt that at most wasn't professional, as I have said before I think he would deserve a lot of this if it was say...the rape shirt.
You know, "A Rape is a surprise hug" or whatever....
That I can understand, but imo a lot of this issue is linked to the image Unt posted.
It is a puritan issue, there is nothing wrong with the Human body.
The Blaatschapen wrote:Just to note, liberals are not sheep. Sheep are liberals ;)
by Avenio » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:46 pm
by -The Unified Earth Governments- » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:47 pm
The Floating Island of the Sleeping God wrote:-The Unified Earth Governments- wrote:The bear part is fucking funny though.
But come one people here, Unt does have a point, the example is complete trash, but he has a point.
People have an inherent right to dress how they want and they should be looked down upon for their attire.
Of course there are exceptions, but our freedom of speech has exceptions too.
The guy was wearing a shirt that at most wasn't professional, as I have said before I think he would deserve a lot of this if it was say...the rape shirt.
You know, "A Rape is a surprise hug" or whatever....
That I can understand, but imo a lot of this issue is linked to the image Unt posted.
It is a puritan issue, there is nothing wrong with the Human body.
What is held to be acceptable dress for someone with the eyes of the world on them and what should be held to be acceptable dress are two entirely different issues.
News - 10/27/2558: Deglassing of Reach is going smoother than expected. | First prototype laser rifle is beginning experimentation. | The Sangheili Civil War is officially over, Arbiter Thel'Vadam and his Swords of Sanghelios have successfully eliminated remaining Covenant cells on Sanghelios. | President Ruth Charet to hold press meeting within the hour on the end of the Sangheili Civil War. | The Citadel Council official introduces the Unggoy as a member of the Citadel.
by Tahar Joblis » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:50 pm
by -The Unified Earth Governments- » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:51 pm
Avenio wrote:-The Unified Earth Governments- wrote:There is no objectification of woman in the shirt, the shirt itself is an object, but not women.
The women depicted are objectified by the fact that they're strewn all over the shirt as ornamentation, without any sort of context other than the heterosexual male aesthetic interest in the nearly-nude female body. This is like, a textbook example of what objectification is.
News - 10/27/2558: Deglassing of Reach is going smoother than expected. | First prototype laser rifle is beginning experimentation. | The Sangheili Civil War is officially over, Arbiter Thel'Vadam and his Swords of Sanghelios have successfully eliminated remaining Covenant cells on Sanghelios. | President Ruth Charet to hold press meeting within the hour on the end of the Sangheili Civil War. | The Citadel Council official introduces the Unggoy as a member of the Citadel.
by Avenio » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:56 pm
-The Unified Earth Governments- wrote:Are flowers mere ornamentation? Or the sun?
-The Unified Earth Governments- wrote:You're acting like only heterosexual men like the female body, you don't think a lesbian would find that appealing to have or wear? Again, whats wrong with liking the Human body and having an appreciating for it? Why is it so bad that a guy wants to wear a shirt which interest him?
-The Unified Earth Governments- wrote:Is it because its a man wearing it? Is it because he is heterosexual?
What if the dude was fucking gay but just liked the shirt?
-The Unified Earth Governments- wrote:Is the woman that made the shirt for him objectifying women?
-The Unified Earth Governments- wrote:I have sleeping shorts with Moose on them, what does that say about my opinions of Moose.
by Tahar Joblis » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:58 pm
Avenio wrote:Untaroicht wrote:
Bullshit. If a woman scientist was forced to apologize and was threatened to be fired for a revealing dress she wore at a press event, you hypocrites would be rioting in the streets.
Not the same issue. The issue is the objectification of women inherent to that shirt, not the hypothetical revealingness of clothing.
by Tahar Joblis » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:59 pm
by The Floating Island of the Sleeping God » Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:01 pm
Tahar Joblis wrote:The Floating Island of the Sleeping God wrote:Read their signs.
Some of their signs are about rape. The idea of the SlutWalk is centrally inspired by rape. Nevertheless, it is not inaccurate to say that feminists object to objectification of women based on their choice of attire - or, for that matter, any backlash against women for wearing the "wrong" clothes. This is particularly visible in discussions of dress codes, burqas, slut-shaming of women [though generally not in discussion of slut-shaming of men], etc.
"Objectification" is what the image actually said. Those were the words you were replying to. Which makes you guilty of conflating rape and objectification; and therefore guilty of deploying a strawman.
The Blaatschapen wrote:Just to note, liberals are not sheep. Sheep are liberals ;)
by Avenio » Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:05 pm
Tahar Joblis wrote:The fact that you refuse to recognize a real issue does not mean that it doesn't exist.
He's telling you that feminists are hypocrites because they would, under gender-reversed circumstances, be rallying to the defense of Maddie Taylor. Avoiding even acknowledging that claim and attempting to claim that the only issue under discussion is objectification is inappropriate.
I believe the reason you are refusing to address his claim is that you do not see any method of arguing against it.
Tahar Joblis wrote:So are you saying that the most hard-line Muslim clerics are right about representational art? Because that's the impression I'm getting from your argument at present.
by The Floating Island of the Sleeping God » Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:06 pm
-The Unified Earth Governments- wrote:The Floating Island of the Sleeping God wrote:What is held to be acceptable dress for someone with the eyes of the world on them and what should be held to be acceptable dress are two entirely different issues.
Don't pretend the issue is just that, there have been people claiming he is a misogynist for that shirt.
Its clear with in their intents, now some of them may just be trolls, but still.
People have gone down that line of thought.
The Blaatschapen wrote:Just to note, liberals are not sheep. Sheep are liberals ;)
by Tahar Joblis » Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:06 pm
Gravlen wrote:1) There was never any threat to fire him.
Tahar Joblis wrote:Gravlen wrote:I haven't even seen anyone calling for him to be fired, nor any calls for him to kill himself either.
I didn't make this, I just found it on the Google.
Did you miss the part where I linked you directly to an article that called him a sexist pigdog, said that "not being a sexist pigdog" should be a requirement for scientists, and then issued a call for a letter campaign to his employers? And said he was guilty of harassment? And said he needed to be in "big trouble?"
See, I'd call that calling for him to be fired.
by Occupied Deutschland » Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:14 pm
Avenio wrote:-The Unified Earth Governments- wrote:There is no objectification of woman in the shirt, the shirt itself is an object, but not women.
The women depicted are objectified by the fact that they're strewn all over the shirt as ornamentation, without any sort of context other than the heterosexual male aesthetic interest in the nearly-nude female body. This is like, a textbook example of what objectification is.
by Keyboard Warriors » Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:14 pm
Tahar Joblis wrote:Gravlen wrote:1) There was never any threat to fire him.
Oddly, Gravlen stated this before, and I replied before, and Gravlen didn't see fit to respond to that reply.Tahar Joblis wrote:I didn't make this, I just found it on the Google.
Did you miss the part where I linked you directly to an article that called him a sexist pigdog, said that "not being a sexist pigdog" should be a requirement for scientists, and then issued a call for a letter campaign to his employers? And said he was guilty of harassment? And said he needed to be in "big trouble?"
See, I'd call that calling for him to be fired.
http://smallpondscience.com/2014/11/12/ ... st-pigdog/
by Tahar Joblis » Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:16 pm
Avenio wrote:Tahar Joblis wrote:The fact that you refuse to recognize a real issue does not mean that it doesn't exist.
He's telling you that feminists are hypocrites because they would, under gender-reversed circumstances, be rallying to the defense of Maddie Taylor. Avoiding even acknowledging that claim and attempting to claim that the only issue under discussion is objectification is inappropriate.
I believe the reason you are refusing to address his claim is that you do not see any method of arguing against it.
If Dr. Maddie Taylor had shown up to the press conference in a dress showing her own body and people were criticizing it for being 'too revealing', then sure, there'd probably be people defending her for her choice. And they'd have perfectly sound reasons for doing so.
No. If you had actually gotten to the bottom of my post, you'd note that the issue here is the objectification of humans. Depicting flowers doesn't objectify flowers because they're already objects - they already are 'things', and not 'people'.
by Royal Hindustan » Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:21 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Celritannia, Corporate Collective Salvation, Cyptopir, Duvniask, East Oria, Google [Bot], Great United States, Herador, Ifreann, Imperializt Russia, Nu Elysium, Outer Bratorke, Pale Dawn, Sarduri, Tarsonis, Too Basedland, Valrifall, Vassenor, Washington-Columbia, X3-U, Zurkerx
Advertisement