Yeah, like Hillan said, your counter argument is essentially victim blaming. Rewording, your last post could read 'woman are only offended by sexual objectification because they are insecure in who they are." But there's further flaws than that because I'm sure there are women out there every bit as confident as you who aren't offended by sexual objectification. The thing is, they're a minority and in a democratic society the majority rules. When a man is sexual objectified it promotes a healthy well maintained body, why should any guy get offended by that? It's achieveable for anyone willing to put the work into it. But when a woman is objectified, she's layered with makeup, has breast implants, photoshopped to have unattainable curves. It's hardly a fair standard, it's a completely unachievable image that society tells women men want. Sure, society also says women want a guy with six pack abs but look at the popularity of shows such as 'The Big Bang' theory and other media which presents the 'nerd that gets the girl'. Even if a show presents a female nerd she'll likely undergo a makeover before getting the guy she wants. A woman is rarely ever accepted for who she is and that's why sexual objectification is a problem.I don't watch the Big Bang Theory so I can't comment about it, but my counter argument is not victim blaming, my counter argument is about having confidence ones self. I'm not in support of beauty products and do prefer natural beauty over all of the cosmetics, but I don't believe that promotion of such things is very harmful. From what I have seen, it is personal acquaintances and people that a person encounters in real life that have the biggest effect on how they view themselves. People need support from people they know, they most definitely don't need the help of moral crusaders to censor everything
The Patriarch Member
The Champion of Men
- Last Seen: 5 yrs ago
- Joined: 10 yrs ago
- Posts: 984 (0.27 / day)
- VMs: 0
-
Username history
- The Patriarch 10 yrs ago
-
Latest 10 profile visitors:
-
Most recent →
Festive
Status
User has no status, yet
Bio
User has no bio, yet
Most Recent Posts
How is that a flaw in the argument? Is your point that it's one's own fault for getting insulted, or hurt by something? And men are just straight up 'better' than women?` Do you also believe that rape victims are to blame for getting raped for having one too many drinks, or wearing tight clothing, or acting provocatively? Or that assault victims should be blamed for taking "That alley", or not carrying a gun?And just like I suspected it got heated and now you seem angry. Can you explain to me how those questions are relevant? When did I say men are better than women? I said I don't take it personally when a man gets objectified and I talk to other guys who don't seem to take it personally. If I was insulted by seeing a gay couple show affection in public then technically by your logic It's perfectly fine for me to go on a crusade against that.
But here's the flaw in the argument, I have been exposed to these imagery and yet I have never felt insignificant or less than and do you know why? It's because I know that what I see in the media doesn't reflect who I am. I have talked with plenty of men who agree that even though men are sexually objectified, they don't care because they aren't insecure about themselves or their appearance.Your mistake there is assuming I meant only women get sexually objectified. Both genders are sexually objectified however the majority of it happens to women. Look at the magazines lined up by a checkout in a grocery store. Covers for magazines such as Cosmo or a fashion or fitness magazine have objectified models on them, generally skimply clad and photoshopped to fit an 'ideal' figure. The porn industry thrives on sexual objectification and media in general. The world isn't exactly lacking in examples.What do you mean by the sexual objectification argument? There's not much to argue there, sexual objectification is very real and consistently happens in media everyday.Some of the claims are debatable and then there's the flaw in the argument that only women get sexually objectified. I would like an example please
Although I have views on this matter I'll refrain from voicing them. However I see this turning sour very fast so ideally could you two take it to a PM or drop it before we get unnecessary drama in the OOC.i warned Sam that it would
What do you mean by the sexual objectification argument? There's not much to argue there, sexual objectification is very real and consistently happens in media everyday.Some of the claims are debatable and then there's the flaw in the argument that only women get sexually objectified. I would like an example please
Such as the sexual objectification argument and pretty much all of the points that Anita Sarkessian brought up in her videosSuch as?Life's hard when you argue for the wrong side lol.Not really, I just already spend a lot of time exposing people and debunking things, it's pretty easy most of the time lol
Life's hard when you argue for the wrong side lol.Not really, I just already spend a lot of time exposing people and debunking things, it's pretty easy most of the time lol
What I mean by moderate is that the government wouldn't be full of extremists and nut jobs who turn political debates into childish shouting fests. And what I mean by philosophically minded is that the leaders would always be asking questions and having civil debates on how a proper society should be run. Political debates would basically be like a philosophy class. In my government you can still choose what you where you want to live and work, but political choices are handled by the government. I just feel like anarchism would have worked before we became so advanced and the world became smaller. Independence just seems like a false hood to me and has plaid a big part in the divide between people. I just don't believe the masses can rule themselvesSpeaking as a Jew, which is to say as part of a minority, a culture that definitely prizes discourse (argument) and as a person with ancestors pushed around because of their faith, I'm rather fine with the idea of a country that has to argue before it arrives at a decision, where no decision is necessarily final. (Alexis de Tocqueville even commented on this phenomenon -- 'This ceaseless agitation which democratic government has introduced into the political world, influences all social intercourse. I am not sure that upon the whole this is not the greatest advantage of democracy; and I am much less inclined to applaud it for what it does, than for what it causes to be done.'*) Why do I like that? Because I don't have any faith whatsoever in the infallible judgment of one person to make the right call, especially given the aforementioned diversity. While untidy and often unsatisfying, I much prefer the rule of law that gives people a recourse, as well as a society that allows people to argue, and I can live with the fallible elements of the system. So the trains don't run on time, boo-hoo, but at least those trains aren't carting people off to showers in Poland. It takes time to get anything done and it never gets done completely, but attempts to expedite the process by throwing more power at one guy seem to have backfired thus far. Standoffs between branches of the government, long-running legal disputes, filibustering in legislatures? All part of the package deal, I suppose.This homie knows what's upI think you have confused authoritarian with a dictatorship. My ideal government would be run by several people of varying ethnicity but all have to be moderate and philosophical minded. So it's not one person running the country it's several. As for crime, in a philosophical controlled government the leaders would try to find solutions to crimes and why criminals create them.Right but what IS "moderate and philosophical minded?" That's such a vague and subjective standard to choose a council that runs everything-- you could have a group of hedonists who bankrupt the country and bathe in golden ambrosia and just as easily a group of moderate nihilists who either do literally nothing or just decide that the continuing of life is useless and try to kill everyone.My view on the war on drugs is that we need to hit the real distributors and we also need to fix Mexico. If we spent more time focusing on Mexico's problems than with our wars in the middle east then we would be able to solve the emigration problems in our country.The government doesn't want to 'hit the real distributors,' starting in the 80's, the government profits off the sale of drugs, be it through direct profit made from confiscated drugs and money, and all the free labor earned from imprisoning the offenders.In my government people have rights which include freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, but ruling the country is not one of them, they would still be allowed to make petitions and bring issues to the leaders. Also I think it would be good for the leaders to meet regularly and discuss policies and solutions to problems.We won't agree on this, I think. I think I, as a person, have a right to decide how I should live, directly, not through suggestions made to a group of supreme leaders.If the government goes bad then people have their guns to fight back.Damn str8, m8.I forgot to say this, but I don't believe duel citizenship and find it unfair that people with it are at more of an advantage than people with only one form of citizenshipWe agree on this, but for different reasons-- I don't think citizenship should even be a thing.
Before they do anything, wait for Adam to get back with John
Also I just don't feel like getting into those kinds of debates right now because I already do that a lot on Facebook and YouTubeTrust me when ever an argument about sexism comes up on the internet it almost always gets heatedLol welcome to the internet pal. Here even the slightest of disagreements can threaten to turn into a full on flame war. Be it sexism, religion, Marvel vs DC, favorite gaming console or preferred font type.
© 2007-2024