[Closed] That Maxxis "babes calendar" article...

Not being permitted to go about your lawful business because of one group who shout louder than the others is different yes.

The end point is the same though i.e. censorship (which you might call a ban).

It isn't, (well, there's technically a page 3, but without bare boobs) according to Wikipedia. Last bare breasts were in that rag on 22 Jan 2015. Ain't google great?

Not being permitted to go about your lawful business because of one group who shout louder than the others is different yes.

Are you [u]really[/u] trying to suggest that feminists having an opinion about how women are objectified in print media is unfair censorship?

Not being permitted to go about your lawful business because of one group who shout louder than the others is different yes.

Now that's just silly.

Maxxis aren't bad people. What we want to do is show them that what they have done can be damaging. If they were to realise that I'm sure they wouldn't want to do it (see Pirelli). That's a totally different thing to what you're suggesting.

So stop the page 3 campaign successfully made the sun see the error of their ways.
After which did they just pack and go home.
As apparently the daily star still features topless models on page 3.
So why not then switch there campaign to this similar red top? Or was there problem only with the sun.

So, a few pictures of tits can be so penicious as to make a large number of men sexist. However, the concept of forcing someone to stop doing something legal through a vocal campaign has no effect and no unwanted impacts on society, however small?

Do you not see the failure in that logic?

Junkyard you [i]really[/i] don't know what a strawmen argument is.

Its a bit of a difference, maybe, but the main reason the sun stopped was because they lost money, no moral epiphany.

I would be very surprised if the main reason they stopped doing it was so that they could figured they could spin it into something that benefited them. They could quite easily relaunch later "bigger, better and boobier than ever!!1!" if their sales fell significantly, assuming they haven't already.

The end point is the same though i.e. censorship (which you might call a ban).

No. No no no, you're projecting your misrepresentations onto everyone else for validation now. The end result is something which [i]you[/i] might call censorship or a ban. No-one else here. You might as well call it a cheese sandwich if we're redefining words on the fly.

I can't work out why you're so absolutely fixated about bans. Either you really, really Just Don't Get It or you're trolling, surely.

the loudest bunch rule

The irony is that they've been the quietest bunch for centuries and that's sort of the problem. Now that people who have spent their lives marginalised are suddenly finding voices on the Internet, a lot of the people who have (often obliviously) enjoyed positions of privilege for years (white cis heterosexual men, basically) are being forced to ask questions and maybe now feeling a little uncomfortable.

Now, we could just make our own minds up in isolation as to what words like "equality" means, or we could actually listen to those people who are feeling marginalised and attempt to find out why. Going "of course I see you as an equal, it's all those other men who are the problem" whilst patting them on the head and telling them to run along and stop being so silly is so very easy to do. Hell, I've been guilty of it myself because for a while I didn't get it either.

Apparently there problem was only with the sun.
[url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_More_Page_3 ]no mote page 3[/url]

So it was more no more page 3 in the sun, than actual no more page 3

However, the concept of forcing someone to stop doing something legal through a vocal campaign has no effect and no unwanted impacts on society, however small?

Do you not see the failure in that logic?

Yes. It's use of the word "forcing."

Junkyard you really don't know what a strawmen argument is.

He really does, I'm afraid.

46 to go! We going to smash this before the day is out at this rate.

I have not read this thread fully. Come on 28 pages?!

Max tyres made a rude calendar?

It's only women?

Make a men's version for women too then.

Or don't buy either.

Where can I look at this calendar for evaluation?

cougar, I've explained enough times why what is being asked for is effectively a ban. The fact that you don't understand the point being made makes me think its deliberate. Perhaps not but it does seem to be you who is 'fixated on bans'.

Apparently you dont know what a strawman is either.

Junkyard you really don't know what a strawmen argument is.

Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:[4]
1.fail to recognize their own lack of skill
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others
3.fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy
4.recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill, after they are exposed to training for that skill

So we have the first three every page but point four is going to be the real struggle
Here is one

So, a few pictures of tits can be so penicious as to make a large number of men sexist. However, the concept of forcing someone to stop doing something legal through a vocal campaign has no effect and no unwanted impacts on society, however small?

Do you not see the failure in that logic?

Just one more baby step...go on you are amongst friends

EDIT: honestly you are embarrassing yourself now and are so ignorant you dont even realise how daft this is making you look

Its not even debatable as your every post its to attack an argument not being made.

I've explained enough times why what is being asked for is effectively a ban. The fact that you don't understand the point being made makes me think its deliberate. Perhaps not but it does seem to be you who is 'fixated on bans'.

As for not understand your argument we do understand it BUT to suggest that not doing somethign through choice is the same as being forced to not do it by it being banned is so so stupid a point its not worth debating though some have actually tried

As for fixated on bans you have been saying it for about 10 pages and ignoring the fact no one has said it....you must be trolling as no one can be this dense.

What we want to do is show them that what they have done can be damaging

well hope you have better luck that you have had with this thread 😉

cougar, I've explained enough times why what is being asked for is effectively a ban.

You have. And do I understand your point. I just believe it's erroneous. If you can't see that we're just going to go round in circles so there's little point in me continuing here.

Apparently you dont know what a strawman is either.

Don't be ludicrous.

I suggest you go through that very clever list point by point.

Irrespective of anything else, would you not agree that if it is possible for you to have fallen into that particular trap as you would be unaware of it by your own logic.

As for whether or not people have said what I claimed, then yes, they have, albeit not in 'exactly' the same words. They might have taught you logic but they didn't teach you to think.

and I quote

honestly you are embarrassing yourself now and are so ignorant you dont even realise how daft this is making you look

Seriously, some sort of consensus was breaking out only a short while ago and now we're reduced to mud slinging again.

cougar - Were not going to change each others minds on the 'ban' issue. I'm pleased at least someone understands basic use of the english language!

To call using the word ban a strawman argument is absolutely ridiculous, though I assume that isn't what you were referring to.

Irrespective of anything else, would you not agree that if it is possible for you to have fallen into that particular trap as you would be unaware of it by your own logic.

As for whether or not people have said what I claimed, then yes, they have, albeit not in 'exactly' the same words.

Were not going to change each others minds on the 'ban' issue. I'm pleased at least someone understands basic use of the english language!

As polite as I can be here you are either very challenged of thinking or trolling the shit out of the forum either way
Good luck getting through to him and mleh

[quote=cumberlanddan ]I suggest you go through that very clever list point by point.
Irrespective of anything else, would you not agree that if it is possible for you to have fallen into that particular trap as you would be unaware of it by your own logic.

Are you now suggesting JY is lying? Because you're surely not so daft as to think that those people employing others to teach at a university are incapable of judging the competence of those they're employing.

As for whether or not people have said what I claimed, then yes, they have, albeit not in 'exactly' the same words.

Priceless. I'm assuming that's in the sense that people are calling for such things to be banned, albeit not in 'exactly' those words?

Apparently Madonna and Beyoncé are in the top 25 feminists according to Harper's bazaar. Now Beyoncé dares to bare while walking round in big knickers and modonna did a coffee table book Called sex of her in the noddy.

So to be a feminist you have to believe in equality but objectification appears to be optional.

[url= http://www.swide.com/celebrities/this-is-why-madonna-is-one-of-the-greatest-feminist-ever/2015/03/08 ]http://www.swide.com/celebrities/this-is-why-madonna-is-one-of-the-greatest-feminist-ever/2015/03/08[/url]

Just think if STW could monetise the quote tag....$$$

You - taught - logic?

Did anyone pass?

How can I be ignorant of a thing i am explaining to you and I have taught at University?

Seriously? If it was the case, you would understand the concept but:

1. fail to recognize their own lack of skill
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others
3. fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy

You can have that for class.

[quote=cumberlanddan ]You - taught - logic?
Did anyone pass?

Well hopefully some were more receptive to logical argument than you.

Can you clarify whether you think JY is lying, or those employing him were incompetent?

[quote=chip ]So to be a feminist you have to believe in equality but objectification appears to be optional.This simple concept seems to have eluded many of the anti-calendarists, some of whom have shown themselves to be the most sexist on the thread.

aracer - Member

Can you clarify whether you think JY is lying, or those employing him were incompetent?

aracer, you know that link about strawmen? Now would be a good time to read it. 😆

edit to get the quote count up - got to fund singletrack!

[img] [/img]

Woo, would you like to explain why that is a strawman?

You do keep claiming that other people don't know what a strawman is, and then suggesting other people's comments are strawmen when they aren't.

It's a free ride when you've already paid.

Right

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition [b]by covertly replacing it with a different proposition[/b] (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

The straw man in this instance would be junkyards employers for employing someone who doesn't understand what a strawman is to teach them.

I suspect they didn't but then they are probably made of straw.

If nowt else it'll give you something to clutch at.

Oh I give up. I'm going for a pint, have fun and play nicely.

Ill take that as an acknowledgement that I'm at least correct about that.

Thank you cougar. Enjoy your pint.

the last few pages of this thread are hilarious! thanks for the laughs - particularly the insane argument about censorship and straw men...lol

I personally would rather maxxis hadn't made the calendar, for similar reasons as Adele....but think they should definitely be allowed to do it if they choose.

Cheng Shin (maxxis)- they are a public company so I expect they will probably end up doing what makes the most short term financial sense to cater to shareholder interets. in the motocross world generally its my understanding that advertising with 'babes' is still massively successful - that's kinda the culture there - check out what other companies in that market do for promo etc. So if that's their biggest market (I'm not 100% sure it is though - they started in bike tires and now listed as an automotive company) then they'll go for marketing campaigns that work there. The babes thing looks like its much more than just a calendar shoot - it looks to be an ongoing feature in their branding. I expect that the market for feminist (male or female) mountain bikers is a fairly small one comparitively so its unlikely they would cater to that with their markerting at the moment by cutting out stuff that works in other markets.

So anyway I only say that to try and explain why I will still be buying maxxis tires and why I would encourage others to do the same ....despite disliking their marketing:

I don't expect a boycott will stop them marketing to mx with 'babes'. I think that a boycott from the people who care about this will only effect their high end MTB tires. I would prefer them to keep making those (and developing new ones).
I would also prefer them to keep marketing to MTB events at grass roots level by providing sponsorship / race prizes etc...cos I like going to races and think there are a lot of positives for MTB created by that kind of support.

So er basically keep complaining but also carry on buying the tires?

[quote=cumberlanddan ]The straw man in this instance would be junkyards employers for employing someone who doesn't understand what a strawman is to teach them.
I suspect they didn't but then they are probably made of straw.

How are JY's employers a strawman?

Sorry I'm struggling to follow your supposed logic here.

You suspect:
1) they don't exist
2) they never employed JY
3) they employed JY despite him not understanding what a strawman is
4) something else

which one is it?

[quote=cumberlanddan ]Ill take that as an acknowledgement that I'm at least correct about that.

He was right, but not in the way you think, definitely clutching.

The straw man in this instance would be junkyards employers for employing someone who doesn't understand what a strawman is to teach them.

FWIW your example would not be a straw man

as for the list you are still failing to recognise your own straw man argument and now claiming that other arguments are straw men when they are not obviously this is still insufficient information for the penny to drop

Ill take that as an acknowledgement that I'm at least correct about that.

[quote=Junkyard ]Got to be trolling.

I'm struggling with Poe's law

So, a few pictures of tits can be so penicious as to make a large number of men sexist

NO

1) It's not specifically the pictures that are turning decent men into sexists.

2) It's not JUST a few pictures. It's centuries of of it.

You're wilfully ignoring my points.

Addendum:

<mod>
Easy on the Ad Hom please guys.
</mod>

BTW my Morissette lyrics seem to have been recognised as expected, but I'm disappointed nobody recognised the Jam lyric I threw in on page 25 (or if they did nobody acknowledged it) 🙁

Considering its a calendar they you have to buy then its a matter of choice, there are plenty of calendars of men semi naked for some on here and there are other calendars with kittens, and whatever you want to look at, I still have my Kylie calendar.
As maxxis is making tyres for all types of motor sport where women are often walking round the pits in tight kit, and on podiums then its up the the manufacturer to target their market.
its choice if you dont like it dont buy it.
But dont claim you are advertising a product if you bought it.

its choice if you dont like it dont buy it.

Did it get sent around as promotional material? Is it going to be displayed in public? If so, it's not the same as private viewing.

NO

1) It's not specifically the pictures that are turning decent men into sexists.

2) It's not JUST a few pictures. It's centuries of of it.

lets not forget about the centuries of painting and sculptures of nude people before photographs. That statue of David is just shocking and objectifying men

[quote=Sancho ]As maxxis is making tyres for all types of motor sport where women are often walking round the pits in tight kit

Which is perfectly acceptable?

[quote=poah ]lets not forget about the centuries of painting and sculptures of nude people before photographs. That statue of David is just shocking and objectifying men

Well it's not at all is it? Which is the point. I thought we'd already done the difference between nudity and objectification? NOBODY (here) is suggesting there is anything at all wrong with nudity in art.

Sancho » As maxxis is making tyres for all types of motor sport where women are often walking round the pits in tight kit

Which is perfectly acceptable?

Totally