NATION

PASSWORD

Women objectify women too

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Cannot think of a name
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28104
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cannot think of a name » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:11 pm

Des-Bal wrote:
Cannot think of a name wrote:Tell you what, why don't you answer my question...what do you think a yes or no answer is going to prove? Why do you think that idea matters in the slightest?


Because if you agree with me there's not much point in arguing with you? There is literally no reason for you to refuse to take a side like this.

Ah, see...that is not an answer. What I'm asking you is why you think the distinction matters, not why you want me to agree to it or not. Different thing.
Everything for the cat.

User avatar
Des-Bal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28830
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:15 pm

Cannot think of a name wrote:Ah, see...that is not an answer. What I'm asking you is why you think the distinction matters, not why you want me to agree to it or not. Different thing.

Because the suggestion that looking at women is damaging, intimidating, and beasically the root of all things that are wrong in the world isn't one that I agree with and it does not fit into my views. If you have my views I would like to know because arguing against you wouldn't make much sense.
Welcome to the internet, our men are men, our women are men, our children are FBI agents.

Founding Member The Sovereign League

Red Eclipse Executive Slave Traders: Anonymity Guarantee

User avatar
Cannot think of a name
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28104
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cannot think of a name » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:18 pm

Des-Bal wrote:
Cannot think of a name wrote:Ah, see...that is not an answer. What I'm asking you is why you think the distinction matters, not why you want me to agree to it or not. Different thing.

Because the suggestion that looking at women is damaging, intimidating, and beasically the root of all things that are wrong in the world isn't one that I agree with and it does not fit into my views.

This is neither what you have been asking nor what is being discussed. You continue to see what you want to see.
Des-Bal wrote: If you have my views I would like to know because arguing against you wouldn't make much sense.

You have known all along.
Everything for the cat.

User avatar
Nadkor
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12114
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Nadkor » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:22 pm

Dempublicents1 wrote:
Des-Bal wrote:
You asked me if we could assume Sarah Palin and Jessica Mills were wearing their clothes for the same reason, doesn't that imply we can determine why they are wearing what they're wearing? You conceded that somethings were worn to invite attention. Combine those two ideas. You can assume that some women are wearing what they are to invite attention.


You can reasonably state that some people choose their mode of dress to attract attention. You cannot reasonably assume that any given person has dressed the way they have to attract attention.


This works.
economic left/right: -7.38, social libertarian/authoritarian: -7.59
thekidswhopoptodaywillrocktomorrow

I think we need more post-coital and less post-rock
Feels like the build-up takes forever but you never get me off

User avatar
Dempublicents1
Senator
 
Posts: 3963
Founded: Mar 28, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Dempublicents1 » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:22 pm

Des-Bal wrote:
Dempublicents1 wrote:[

I think glitter is fun. And can look good.

Why are you so stuck on glittered breasts specifically anyway? I've covered my arms in glitter before. I've put glitter in my hair. I use glitter eyeshadow sometimes. I've even contemplated getting glitter lipstick. The last time I wore glitter, it was white glittery stuff that a bunch of us put on because we were going somewhere with UV lights and glow-in-the-dark stuff and we thought it might look cool (it actually did nothing, but my black and white converse looked awesome!)
I do it because it's fun and I like the way it looks (although the hair thing is a pain in the ass to clean up after).


Because when you make your breasts sparkle you can't really complain when someone looks at them.


I don't complain when someone looks at me. How could I? I have no way to know where every single person's eyes are at any given time. I do complain when someone leers at me or makes inappropriate comments or thinks it's ok to grab or otherwise touch me without my permission.

See the difference?

Meanwhile, you could say the same thing about anything glittered. I can't expect to put glitter in my hair without the eye being at least momentarily drawn to it. Sparkly tends to draw the eye. I can't expect to put glitter on my arms without expecting people to look at my arms. I can't put glitter around my eyes without expecting people to notice it there. And so on. So, once again, why are you so stuck on the idea of women putting glitter on one specific portion of the body as if that action has to be all about you?
"If I poke you with a needle, you feel pain. If I hit you repeatedly in the testicles with a brick, you feel pain. Ergo, the appropriate response to being vaccinated is to testicle-punch your doctor with a brick. It all makes perfect sense now!" -The Norwegian Blue

"In fact, the post was blended with four delicious flavors of sarcasm, then dipped in an insincerity sauce, breaded with mock seriousness, then deep fried in scalding, trans-fat-free-sarcasm oil." - Flameswroth

User avatar
Des-Bal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28830
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:24 pm

Cannot think of a name wrote:This is neither what you have been asking nor what is being discussed. You continue to see what you want to see.
You have known all along.


Great, just to clarify Yes or No. Answer the question.
Welcome to the internet, our men are men, our women are men, our children are FBI agents.

Founding Member The Sovereign League

Red Eclipse Executive Slave Traders: Anonymity Guarantee

User avatar
Boonified
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Aug 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Boonified » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:29 pm

This discussion is worthless, women are supposed to look good when they arn't in the kitchen making me a sandwich. They exist only for my temporary ammusement until I can feast my eyes and other body parts on someone more appealing. It is almost insulting to see women on this forum who arn't illeiterate because that is how they should be. Your biggest worry ladies should be how you can prepare a better meal with less apparel on. You are only objects not only to me but to other women because your thoughts get all jumbled up in your irrational emotions. Love you ladies :) :hug:
Of course I'm right, I'm soverign arn't I?

User avatar
Transhuman Proteus
Senator
 
Posts: 3788
Founded: Mar 24, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Transhuman Proteus » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:31 pm

Des-Bal wrote:
Cannot think of a name wrote:=
Moving on...

A man can sometimes assume that a woman is wearing clothes because she desires to be looked at.

Yes or no.


Of course you can "assume" a women (or man) has chosen the clothes they are wearing because they wish to be looked at - anybody can assume anything after all.

Sometimes that assumption would be correct. Sometimes it wouldn't be.

The problem is knowing if that assumption is correct. Far to many take that assumption as a set in stone truth and lack enough respect for the other person (as a person) to consider the option it doesn't mean that. Far to many who might consider the alternative still tend to think "nah, still far more likely they're attention seekers wanting us to look" - it becomes a problem with the unfortunate number of people that subscribe to the "anybody that dresses like that obviously wants me leering or doing even more" crowd.

It doesn't automatically mean anything of the sort.

Because when you make your breasts sparkle you can't really complain when someone looks at them.


An appreciative/curious glance or a stare?

Because yeah, you can complain when you encounter a specimen who apparently evolved to have their brains shut down at the mere sight of glittery breast.
Last edited by Transhuman Proteus on Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Cannot think of a name
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28104
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cannot think of a name » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:35 pm

Des-Bal wrote:
Cannot think of a name wrote:This is neither what you have been asking nor what is being discussed. You continue to see what you want to see.
You have known all along.


Great, just to clarify Yes or No. Answer the question.

You apparently don't even understand the question you're asking. I am asking relevance and you cannot provide it. Until you can...
Everything for the cat.

User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:37 pm

Boonified wrote:This discussion is worthless, women are supposed to look good when they arn't in the kitchen making me a sandwich. They exist only for my temporary ammusement until I can feast my eyes and other body parts on someone more appealing. It is almost insulting to see women on this forum who arn't illeiterate because that is how they should be. Your biggest worry ladies should be how you can prepare a better meal with less apparel on. You are only objects not only to me but to other women because your thoughts get all jumbled up in your irrational emotions. Love you ladies :) :hug:


Not sure if serious or troll...
Glorious puppet of Highfort

User avatar
Cannot think of a name
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28104
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cannot think of a name » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:41 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Boonified wrote:This discussion is worthless, women are supposed to look good when they arn't in the kitchen making me a sandwich. They exist only for my temporary ammusement until I can feast my eyes and other body parts on someone more appealing. It is almost insulting to see women on this forum who arn't illeiterate because that is how they should be. Your biggest worry ladies should be how you can prepare a better meal with less apparel on. You are only objects not only to me but to other women because your thoughts get all jumbled up in your irrational emotions. Love you ladies :) :hug:


Not sure if serious or troll...

It is a nation that was created today and this is the first post. Evidence seems pretty lopsided.
Everything for the cat.

User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:45 pm

Cannot think of a name wrote:
Agymnum wrote:
Not sure if serious or troll...

It is a nation that was created today and this is the first post. Evidence seems pretty lopsided.

Could be he's trying to make his splash as an ignorant chauvinist, so he is serious.
Glorious puppet of Highfort

User avatar
Des-Bal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28830
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:53 pm

Cannot think of a name wrote:You apparently don't even understand the question you're asking. I am asking relevance and you cannot provide it. Until you can...


I have stated and restated my position and clarified it several times, I can only assume that you've either suffered some sort of head injury and don't really understand what you're actually talking about or you recognize your position as indefensible so you're backing away from it.
Welcome to the internet, our men are men, our women are men, our children are FBI agents.

Founding Member The Sovereign League

Red Eclipse Executive Slave Traders: Anonymity Guarantee

User avatar
Aeronos
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1948
Founded: Jun 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Aeronos » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:57 pm

I don't objectify other women... :(

Likewise, I've just kinda accepted being objectified as part of life. I just object (derpderppun) to having my looks, whether perceived as good or bad, put ahead of my personality and humanity.

Lol... Did some experiments with others. My male friends apparently only get a cursory glance, whereas me and my other female friend (alas computer science) get an eye-down and then a small and brief smile - and this doesn't change with the gender. I see the science explains these results o.O
My Political Compass
Economic: Left/Right (2.18)
Social: Libertarian/Authoritarian (-9.71)

Note: I am female, so please get the pronoun right!

User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:00 pm

Aeronos wrote:I don't objectify other women... :(

Likewise, I've just kinda accepted being objectified as part of life. I just object (derpderppun) to having my looks, whether perceived as good or bad, put ahead of my personality and humanity.

Lol... Did some experiments with others. My male friends apparently only get a cursory glance, whereas me and my other female friend (alas computer science) get an eye-down and then a small and brief smile - and this doesn't change with the gender. I see the science explains these results o.O


Objectification is bound to occur when you don't get to know someone.

Half the men and women I've met I've judged based on cursory glances because I've never seen them again. Admittedly, that's fairly bad (discrimination, possibly), but I do it unconsciously. When I see a guy who's grouchy, I assume he's of bad character. Same with a woman. Conversely, a woman or a man who looks relaxed, at-ease, and speaks kindly is bound to get a better evaluation from me regardless of how they look.

Objectification is only bad if it extends into the realm of people you get to know, because then you have no excuse for making snap-judgements (you have time to get to know the person, so use it).
Glorious puppet of Highfort

User avatar
Cannot think of a name
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28104
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cannot think of a name » Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:13 pm

Des-Bal wrote:
Cannot think of a name wrote:You apparently don't even understand the question you're asking. I am asking relevance and you cannot provide it. Until you can...


I have stated and restated my position and clarified it several times, I can only assume that you've either suffered some sort of head injury and don't really understand what you're actually talking about or you recognize your position as indefensible so you're backing away from it.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.
But this:
Des-Bal wrote:Because the suggestion that looking at women is damaging, intimidating, and beasically the root of all things that are wrong in the world isn't one that I agree with and it does not fit into my views.

is not this:
Des-Bal wrote:So what your saying is that what a woman is wearing may in fact suggest she desires to be looked at?



Nor is it, as you seem to think, something I have endorsed.

I addressed this ad naseum in the previous posts, I gave you an example that you completely missed the point of. And now you want me to agree to a poorly worded and largely inconsistent premise that you yourself cannot articulate the ramifications of.

In fact, you want to believe, contrary to the volumes of text already written addressing this very flawed line of thought, that the existence of women that do want attention validates attention on any woman who meets your rather slippery and ill-defined by nature notion of skimpy or 'looking for attention.'

This is the argument you want to make. This is what you cannot articulate because you know this is not something I would agree with because I have in fact said as much. So you are trying to reduce it down to this one pinpoint idea and then try to rebuild your argument hoping I won't notice...or something.

But it remains bullshit for all the reasons that have already been stated. The fact that you ignored Dempulbicants response which more or less echos the sentiment that you excised from my argument really underlines the whole deal.

Now. Do you have anything substantive?
Last edited by Cannot think of a name on Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Everything for the cat.

User avatar
Weslyria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 828
Founded: Aug 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Weslyria » Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:19 pm

Olthar wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Everyone like nice tits.

Well, they are completely awesome. ;)


hence the word nice. If everyone hated them then you could hardly call them nice, now could you?
Captain of the Pinafore, Self-proclaimed Emperor of Puerto Rico, Not a Walrus (or so I've been told)

I am constantly being sarcastic. I have a dry and often quite dark sense of humour. If what I'm saying insults or disturbs you then I am more than likely joking. If, under such circumstances where I am forced to be serious I will let you know. I am an aspiring comedian, a brony, a teenager, and an Englishman. Philosophically speaking, I am an Absurdist. Google it if you don't know what it is. I promise it is a real thing. Politically I am a Constitutional Monarchist and a Nordic-style Social Democrat.

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:19 pm

Norstal wrote:
Olthar wrote:Well, they are completely awesome. ;)

I like them nice tits. Here's a picture of a completely nude tit:

Image

On topic, this clearly means we don't have to respect women since women don't respect themselves. Right OP?


That's nothing. Check out these set of hooters:
Image
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Zaras
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7415
Founded: Nov 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zaras » Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:57 am

Euronion wrote:
I would also like to point out that somehow women find it 'creepy and uncomfortable' when a man who they do not want to attract (an overweight man, or a teenager) looks at them, but find it flattering and good when the guy they were trying to attract (a 'nice guy' with a six-pack or something). In regards to what Nadkor was saying, you can't expect to wear something revealing to attract ONLY the guy that you want, if he has a penis, so do other men, and men with penises who are 100% homosexual will find something revealing on a woman attractive. Unless he has some kind of arm fetish or way that you can attract him specifically in a room full of men, you cannot expect what you wear to only attract one person out of all the people you meet, it's simply not going to happen, we are males, we are heterosexual, we like women and what we like even better than women are naked women; the closer you get to being naked, the more we stare, It is in our genetics, and if it is not then it is instilled by society. By wearing revealing clothing to get the guy you wish to look at you to look at you, you are purposefully objectifying yourself to him, and not just him, but the wide spectrum of men from him to the most unattractive man you can imagine. When we see a naked woman, or a very revealing woman, we look, odds are most of us haven't seen a naked woman in a while or haven't seen one at all and are interested as to what a woman looks like, the same as women like looking at men who they classify as attractive with their shirts off, I happen to also know from female friends that women also like looking at the male posterior. If a man with a six pack is running down the street in gym shorts (another alternative for women to wear that is rather comfortable and not skin tight when wishing to cool off) or running down the beach in a speedo or swim trunks, and girls stare at him and he turns to the girls and tells them that he doesn't like people staring at him because it makes him feel uncomfortable, doesn't that seem a bit odd? why would you be wearing such little clothing if your purpose was to not attract people? I do not like people objectifying me because I exercise yet I look overweight even though my BMI is normal, as someone who was obese I know how people think very well, everyone views you as someone who eats twinkies everyday and pigs out at McDonalds in their free-time, women wish nothing to do with you and if you try to exercise you are made fun of for doing so. I bought a treadmill and dumbbells and exercise in my garage every day, this way I avoid any kind of awkward stares, or worrying about how people view my appearance. I do not expect to run around on the street while Obese and expect people to think of me as a person rather than what I look like if they have no basis to project a personal life on. I would rather someone make false assumptions about my appearance and give me awkward stares than someone to barely look at me a weave a life story that has no factual evidence what-so-ever. What would you rather have? someone judging you by the way you look as in attractive or unattractive, the former being a very good thing, or someone making assumptions about your personality based on nothing and possibly spreading a false image of you to others?


So, are you done with your stupid "I'm A Man, I Can't Help It" argument?

The fact that you keep resorting to arguments about how men are idiotic brutes who have no control over their penises just shows how untenable your position is. You're supposed to be better than to have a one-track mind, or sound like you're reenacting Ice Cube's "I'm Only Out for One Thang".

Euronion wrote:I'd really hate to do this to yah, but even though 'The Amazing Atheist' is someone I disagree with vehemently, I think he does have a point on this one particular video in this one particular case (DISCLAIMER: I do not think that what he says in other cases is justified nor right nor anything such as that, again merely this one particular case I think HE HAS A POINT, this does not mean that I agree with every single word he said it means he has a point)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eCnmeaoGMA&feature=plcp


Fuck TJ, he's a monster who mocked a rape victim. Your argument is invalid, and the fact that you cited a psycho like him makes you look worse than that wallotext nonsense.
Last edited by Zaras on Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
Bythyrona wrote:
Zaras wrote:Democratic People's Republic of Glorious Misty Mountain Hop.
The bat in the middle commemmorates their crushing victory in the bloody Battle of Evermore, where the Communists were saved at the last minute by General "Black Dog" Bonham of the Rock 'n Roll Brigade detonating a levee armed with only four sticks and flooding the enemy encampment. He later retired with honours and went to live in California for the rest of his life before ascending to heaven.

Best post I've seen on NS since I've been here. :clap:
Factbook
RP 1, RP 2, RP 3, RP 4, RP 5
ADS, UDL, GFN member
Political compass (old), Political compass (new)
Bottle, telling it like it is.
Risottia, on lolbertarianism.

User avatar
Zaras
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7415
Founded: Nov 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zaras » Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:00 am

Des-Bal wrote:If your objective is to get peoples attention you don't get to complain when you get attention from different people.


Fuck that shit. Musicians and artists in general have constantly complained about the drooling idiots that ended up in their fanbase and their wish to get attention from the right people, so why shouldn't women?

If Roger Waters can spit on fans and be disgusted at the idiots who spend the entire set yelling for "Money", women have an equal right to be disgusted at having to deal with the men who give their entire gender a bad name.
Last edited by Zaras on Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bythyrona wrote:
Zaras wrote:Democratic People's Republic of Glorious Misty Mountain Hop.
The bat in the middle commemmorates their crushing victory in the bloody Battle of Evermore, where the Communists were saved at the last minute by General "Black Dog" Bonham of the Rock 'n Roll Brigade detonating a levee armed with only four sticks and flooding the enemy encampment. He later retired with honours and went to live in California for the rest of his life before ascending to heaven.

Best post I've seen on NS since I've been here. :clap:
Factbook
RP 1, RP 2, RP 3, RP 4, RP 5
ADS, UDL, GFN member
Political compass (old), Political compass (new)
Bottle, telling it like it is.
Risottia, on lolbertarianism.

User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 23497
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Archregimancy » Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:55 am

Boonified wrote:This discussion is worthless, women are supposed to look good when they arn't in the kitchen making me a sandwich. They exist only for my temporary ammusement until I can feast my eyes and other body parts on someone more appealing. It is almost insulting to see women on this forum who arn't illeiterate because that is how they should be. Your biggest worry ladies should be how you can prepare a better meal with less apparel on. You are only objects not only to me but to other women because your thoughts get all jumbled up in your irrational emotions. Love you ladies :) :hug:


Since this was your very first post in the forums, I'll spare you a formal warning - but please be advised that the above is a classic example of trolling, and would normally find you being formally warned for behaviour counter to the forum rules.

Please familiarise yourself with the site rules here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=74486


Everyone else...

Please spoiler the pictures
Last edited by The Archregimancy on Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Forsher
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16753
Founded: Jan 30, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Forsher » Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:59 am

Meridiani Planum wrote:The results are in...

Women objectify women too.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/bo ... 09076.html

A new scientific study has confirmed a generally assumed truth: Women are objectified far more than men. But in a surprising development, the study also found that men and women are both equally guilty of looking at women as a "collection of parts."

Comments?


To be honest I wouldn't call it surprising. After all I once saw Brad Pitt described as Angelina Jolie's accessory... which was written by a woman for women.
That it Could be What it Is, Is What it Is

On hiatus. Stop making shit up, though. Links, or it's a God-damn lie and you know it.

User avatar
Des-Bal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28830
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:03 am

Cannot think of a name wrote:Whatever helps you sleep at night.
But this:
Des-Bal wrote:Because the suggestion that looking at women is damaging, intimidating, and beasically the root of all things that are wrong in the world isn't one that I agree with and it does not fit into my views.
1
is not this:
Des-Bal wrote:So what your saying is that what a woman is wearing may in fact suggest she desires to be looked at? 2



Nor is it, as you seem to think, something I have endorsed.

I addressed this ad naseum in the previous posts, I gave you an example that you completely missed the point of. And now you want me to agree to a poorly worded and largely inconsistent premise that you yourself cannot articulate the ramifications of.

3In fact, you want to believe, contrary to the volumes of text already written addressing this very flawed line of thought, that the existence of women that do want attention validates attention on any woman who meets your rather slippery and ill-defined by nature notion of skimpy or 'looking for attention.'

This is the argument you want to make. This is what you cannot articulate because you know this is not something I would agree with because I have in fact said as much. So you are trying to reduce it down to this one pinpoint idea and then try to rebuild your argument hoping I won't notice...or something.

But it remains bullshit for all the reasons that have already been stated. The fact that you ignored Dempulbicants 4response which more or less echos the sentiment that you excised from my argument really underlines the whole deal.

Now. Do you have anything substantive?


1. This is what I've been arguing against.

2. This has been my position.

3. This is not what I'm doing.

I have stripped away all the bullshit and reduced my position to one simple idea to see which parts exactly you aren't agreeing with. The only idea your adding here is that it's possible to make a misjudgement about someones motives. The fact that you still refuse to identify a part of my argument that you don't agree with leads me to the conclusion you're just trying to be contrary.
4.
You cannot reasonably assume that any given person has dressed the way they have to attract attention.
This is not what I'm arguing, I'm not going to bother defending an argument I never made.

Now, do you have an answer?
Last edited by Des-Bal on Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Welcome to the internet, our men are men, our women are men, our children are FBI agents.

Founding Member The Sovereign League

Red Eclipse Executive Slave Traders: Anonymity Guarantee

User avatar
Chinese Regions
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16326
Founded: Apr 24, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Chinese Regions » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:07 am

Euronion wrote:I'd really hate to do this to yah, but even though 'The Amazing Atheist' is someone I disagree with vehemently, I think he does have a point on this one particular video in this one particular case (DISCLAIMER: I do not think that what he says in other cases is justified nor right nor anything such as that, again merely this one particular case I think HE HAS A POINT, this does not mean that I agree with every single word he said it means he has a point)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eCnmeaoGMA&feature=plcp

Agreed.
Does he challenge religion at all? I prefer the cool Youtube Atheists that do :lol:
Fan of Transformers?|Fan of Star Trek?|你会说中文吗?
Geopolitics: Internationalist, Pan-Asian, Pan-African, Pan-Arab, Pan-Slavic, Eurofederalist,
  • For the promotion of closer ties between Europe and Russia but without Dugin's anti-intellectual quackery.
  • Against NATO, the Anglo-American "special relationship", Israel and Wahhabism.

Sociopolitics: Pro-Intellectual, Pro-Science, Secular, Strictly Anti-Theocractic, for the liberation of PoCs in Western Hemisphere without the hegemony of white liberals
Economics: Indifferent

User avatar
Zaras
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7415
Founded: Nov 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zaras » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:09 am

Chinese Regions wrote:
Euronion wrote:I'd really hate to do this to yah, but even though 'The Amazing Atheist' is someone I disagree with vehemently, I think he does have a point on this one particular video in this one particular case (DISCLAIMER: I do not think that what he says in other cases is justified nor right nor anything such as that, again merely this one particular case I think HE HAS A POINT, this does not mean that I agree with every single word he said it means he has a point)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eCnmeaoGMA&feature=plcp

Agreed.
Does he challenge religion at all? I prefer the cool Youtube Atheists that do :lol:


I prefer YouTube atheists that don't tell rape victims that they admire their rapists and wish they would drown in rape semen.
Bythyrona wrote:
Zaras wrote:Democratic People's Republic of Glorious Misty Mountain Hop.
The bat in the middle commemmorates their crushing victory in the bloody Battle of Evermore, where the Communists were saved at the last minute by General "Black Dog" Bonham of the Rock 'n Roll Brigade detonating a levee armed with only four sticks and flooding the enemy encampment. He later retired with honours and went to live in California for the rest of his life before ascending to heaven.

Best post I've seen on NS since I've been here. :clap:
Factbook
RP 1, RP 2, RP 3, RP 4, RP 5
ADS, UDL, GFN member
Political compass (old), Political compass (new)
Bottle, telling it like it is.
Risottia, on lolbertarianism.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Dooom35796821595, Ethel mermania, Kubra, Liecthenbourg, Telconi, Vassenor

Advertisement

Remove ads