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

y DrJ about the Scandinavian countries. Perhaps it shows that as equality increases here, we'll be able to grow up a bit about sexuality and nudity

Is that when he said the men liked looking at naked ladies and the women thought they were just being silly boys.

But that is what I think about it,

It's you who says looking at women is demeaning and supports sexism.

DrJ - she did link the calendar to flashing and groping. So the correct response would have been "yes" as opposed to "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Thanks for the help! And the bonus dose of condescension!!

Is that when he said the men liked looking at naked ladies and the women thought they were just being silly boys.

But that is what I think about it,

It's you who says looking at women is demeaning and supports sexism

I have never said that - you seem determined to reduce the argument to absurd levels and strip it of any nuance [how ironic].

Looking at women isn't sexist. Looking at men isn't sexist. Using either gender to promote a product or brand simply through the use of a person [i]as an object[/i] is sexism.

Treating people like objects = bad. Is that simple enough yet?

No. Its objectification. Which is different, but that's been done already.

everything has been done over and over again because the really hard of thinking cannot comprehend even the simplest of things.

Oh, but if you don't like the way I do it you can * off back to the stone age you *

So you're upset about having been insulted unfairly?

I would be too - I agree that some posters have unfairly maligned you. Calendar is still sexist though 🙂

Treating people like objects = bad. Is that simple enough yet?

We've hit new levels of simple(ton) on this thread Fiona.

I'd cut your losses, and leave it at that. The ones who understand what you're saying, understood well over 1000 posts ago

Those that don't? And are being wilfully obtuse in repeatedly stating it, ad naeseum? Well.... think what you will of them. I'm sure you've already drawn your own conclusions

I agree that some posters have unfairly maligned you

[quote=cumberlanddan ]chip - the complete inability of some on here to follow simple logic is beyond belief.

We did speculate that your posts were symptomatic of trolling rather than incompetence though

Let's try a couple of questions again:

Why no Maxxis hunks calendar?
Why no grid boys and pit blokes?

WHAT - are you gay ?

Treating people like objects = bad. Is that simple enough yet?

I think everyone agrees with that. What about "treating fictional characters like objects = bad" ?

[quote=Junkyard ]Nope it is still a straw man ....jesus how many pages for you to stop making them?

Can I put in a bid of 1,253? (pages, not posts)

Why no Maxxis hunks calendar?

unlikely to sell

Why no grid boys and pit blokes?

[img] [/img]

I still have no understanding of (or much desire to either) this "straw man" thing.

What I do know is that I just popped out at lunch, and there was one of those calendar stalls. It had nearly all one side "hunks" calendars with various men on it in varying states of undress. If I was playing victim I could say I felt oppressed/threatened/part of some objectification/sexism or whatever. I didn't. I have more important stuff to be thinking about. I equally showed my mrs this thread the other night and asked if she felt oppressed/offended etc by it. She said no and she couldn't see why she would need to be. In fact, her words were "why do these kind of people need to keep looking for something to be offended by?".

Life is hard, and it's not fair - and there's nothing wrong with that. Change the things you can by positive action, and quit complaining about the things you can't. This open letter was not positive action. At best it was venting (which is a wholly worthless emotional outpouring), at worst, a cynical plea for self publicity.

We've hit new levels of simple(ton) on this thread Fiona.

I try not to resort to name calling. And it really bothers me not when people call me names. after all it's just the Internet, I can't help it if people find my views offensive, but I never deliberately try to cause offence for causing offenses sake.
I couple of times I thought I may have been short with mole grips but is unintentional as I do tend to be a bit of a blunt instrument.

But the fact the name calling seems to be coming from the very people who claimed to have evolved and to occupy a higher moral ground I find very amusing.

[quote=poah ]Why no Maxxis hunks calendar?
unlikely to sell

Why's that?

Glad you did not vent your feelings on the issue and i am stunned to discover you and your wife share a similar outlook on life

why do these kind of people need to keep looking for something to be offended by?

Life is hard, and it's not fair - and there's nothing wrong with that

I think it would sell.

BAN THIS SICK FILTH
[img] [/img]

Interesting - not something their marketing department seems to agree with, and not likely to the motorsport fanbase which is apparently the target market for this calendar.

[quote=chip ]But the fact the name calling seems to be coming from the very people

Strawman 😆

I know you dont care about a straw man do you have any interest in ad homs?

No idea what one of those is either I'm afraid.

What I do know is that as Chip has alluded to, and just as in real life in fact, the "social justice" types seem very angry and extremely intolerant of opposing views, which is pretty ironic. "I will fight for the right of free speech provided it isn't saying something I don't like".

We should be able to discuss dispassionately and on the basis of logic and mutual respect, and take the time to listen to other viewpoints without resorting to name calling. Sadly, it's the "anti" crowd who seem compelled to use derogatory remarks like "knuckledragger" and emotional language toward anyone who doesn't share their view. That is quite a sad reflection on those who claim to be more enlightened and tolerant.

the "social justice" types seem very angry and extremely intolerant of opposing views

I think you're rolling up a lot of stereotypes there to give you something to dislike!

I'm all for free speech. I'm trying to explain the negative impact of some things that you might not be aware of. What you choose to do with that knowledge is up to you.

We should be able to discuss dispassionately and on the basis of logic and mutual respect, and take the time to listen to other viewpoints without resorting to name calling

That's what I've been trying to do the whole thread. You're stereotyping me with that whole post, I don't like it any more than you do.

No idea what one of those is either I'm afraid.

Simply put,

Straw man = misrepresenting an opposing point of view in order to attack it (ie, you're trying to win an argument by arguing against something else entirely, such as several pages of anti-banning diatribe when no-one's suggested banning anything).

Ad Hom(inem) = attacking the person rather than the argument (ie, name calling etc).

Why's that?

[img] [/img]

the "social justice" types seem very angry and extremely intolerant of opposing views, which is pretty ironic. "I will fight for the right of free speech provided it isn't saying something I don't like".

We should be able to discuss dispassionately and on the basis of logic and mutual respect, and take the time to listen to other viewpoints without resorting to name calling.

Again what is it about this issue that makes folk do the exact thing they just asked us not to. In your case though well done as you did two in one go

Both sides are being rude only one side is getting upset about [ whilst claiming the other side cannot be rational] and denying they are doing it whilst actually doing it

You are right that liberals hate sexists racists and homophobes and challenge them when they speak out. Am i meant to apologise for exercising my free speech to argue with and disagree with a bigot

I on the other hand don't hate racists and sexists, I hate racism and sexism.

Peace out.

Good work, Cougar.

A racist and a sexist is a person who displays sexism and racism

Straw man = misrepresenting an opposing point of view in order to attack it (ie, you're trying to win an argument by arguing against something else entirely, such as several pages of anti-banning diatribe when no-one's suggested banning anything).

Ad Hom(inem) = attacking the person rather than the argument (ie, name calling etc).

Cool, cheers Cougar - mean that seriously as it's something I have never understood properly.

I'm definitely not on the anti-ban thing because as someone else said, it's not been suggested to ban it (I don't think). That said, I do believe that there's a bit too much sensitivity towards this calendar, and Adele has leveraged it to her own advantage to try and raise her profile, rather than directly trying to influence Maxxis if she feels that is the right course of action.

So when drj had no relevant response to my arguement so then chose as a response to infer I was a wife beater.

Was that a strawman, an ad hom or neither.

Adele has leveraged it to her own advantage to try and raise her profile, rather than directly trying to influence Maxxis

You are making stuff and playing the person still.

BS she wanted them to stop it and she has

You are making stuff and playing the person still.

You're doing it again Junkyard. Use of angry language, this is not the way to engage in reasoned and logical debate. Did you need to open a sentence with "BS"? Could you not say "I disagree"?.

I put forward a suggested way that Adele could have influenced in a far more positive way and not only driven Maxxis' marketing department into a direction she was happier with, but also potentially generated goodwill and resultant ad revenue for her bosses at TWC (so making her look good and helping secure her position). Additionally, it would potentially not have killed this calendar at source and cut off the revenue stream to the charity.

Or, she could do a big old "open letter" and over emotionalise the whole thing.

Was that a strawman, an ad hom or neither

it was a loaded question

You can't say playing the person as the arguement ultimately started as what people thought of her writing this article as well as the subject itself being her view it was sexist and made her stupid.

So people have every right to consider her history and what they may perceive her motives behind writing it. And their view of what they feel to be her clear hypocrisy of not calling out wonderful people who stripped to sell lads mags but did this calender.

[quote=andyrm ]What I do know is that I just popped out at lunch, and there was one of those calendar stalls. It had nearly all one side "hunks" calendars with various men on it in varying states of undress. If I was playing victim I could say I felt oppressed/threatened/part of some objectification/sexism or whatever. I didn't

I'm assuming you've not read much of the thread, we've done this one multiple times. I'll try again for you:

Society isn't equal, in general it is women who are oppressed and threatened, not men. Yes some men get groped, but it is largely something which happens to women. Meanwhile such calendars tend to have men in dominant poses and women in submissive. There is no equivalence between hunks calendars and babes calendars.

Oh, and Maxxis haven't done a Maxxis hunks calendar.

Life is hard, and it's not fair - and there's nothing wrong with that.

Of course there is, when it's being unfair to one group of people and not another.

it was a loaded question

So he did neither this,

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[

Or attack me.

What did he wish to achieve by asking such a question if it was not just a roundabout way of calling me a wife beater.

Could....could we hit 2k before Christmas?

[img] [/img]

I put forward a suggested way that Adele could have influenced in a far more positive way and not only driven Maxxis' marketing department into a direction she was happier with, but also potentially generated goodwill and resultant ad revenue for her bosses at TWC (so making her look good and helping secure her position).

erm, okay... She didn't do this.... How does this make her [i]argument[/i] wrong? It's a completely different point albeit similar to the 'okay maybe they were wrong, but they were wrong for charity' one made in various places above. Again, so what?

[url= https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ ]Know your logical fallacy[/url]

[quote=chip ]What did he wish to achieve by asking such a question if it was not just a roundabout way of calling me a wife beater.He was only pointing out that some questions cannot be answered with only a yes or no - however anyone answers that question implies that they are, or were, a wife-beater. It's been used before in other contexts so was NOT a personal attack on you. (though given some of the attacks in this thread I can see how you might think it was)

What did he wish to achieve by asking such a question if it was not just a roundabout way of calling me a wife beater.

probably just to demonstrate another logical fallacy used in argument. There's loads of 'em:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

What did he wish to achieve by asking such a question if it was not just a roundabout way of calling me a wife beater.

not it was another loaded question to demonstrate that the question [i]you[/i] asked was equally as un-nuanced as asking you whether you beat your wife...

see?

ha, not only am I slow, I missed why that one was wheeled out 🙂