junkyard – so she wrote that whole article with what aim then?

Just to make them feel bad? To try and damage their sales? Or was it to stop them publishing similar calendars in the future? i.e. self-censorship.

Molgrips – we’ve also done why the calendar itself is not sexist in and of itself. I think we effectively agreed to disagree there.

We’ve done the censorship bit.

She is asking for self-censorship. Which is de-facto censorship. Which is a problem when there are significant minorities who’s voices may not be heard. See sunni/shia tensions in iraq/iran etc for one example.

Molgrips – she and feminists can say whatever she/they like(s)! The language used in the article is as if maxxis tried to force her into a recycled tyre g string and offer her as a trophy at the dunstable downhill cup.

What should someone who disagrees with her opinion say?

Molgrips – i’m arguing against
1. censorship
2. what I perceive as a completely over the top response to a charity calendar which i don’t think the author has even set eyes on

I also seem to be in a running battle with a number of people who have taken offence far too easily (like the author IMO) about god knows what.

Some others I seem to be having a sensible conversation with…

No, again I’m not. If thats whats got your goat then you’ve wasted 29 pages of internet.

I’m not asking her not to say anything. Shes is perfectly entitled to her opinion. I don’t agree with her opinion and thought it was so polemic and OTT that it deserved a bit of a balanced response.

She on the other hand, and I’ll repeat this, again, is asking for for someone to stop doing/saying/publishing something for an indefinite period.

One of my colleagues who I hadn’t met before took a shine to me and decided that we would be the miserable bastards in the corner all night. It took at least an hour to get away then when he found me later on he nearly dragged me into a fight at the bar.

Nice chap. Glad I don’t actually work with him.

As for me the most sensational thing I managed was leaving my secret santa present behind. That could get me into trouble…

I see what you did there. But unfortunately I’m not.

So that strawman you set up just burned down.

Try again.

I honestly don’t know how to react. :lol:

Perhaps you should ask some sort of teacher of logic for some lessons?

Actually grum, your logicalfallacy ‘accusation’ is both incorrect and a strawman.

Bingo.

Do you honestly not see the difference between responding to a published article, writing the article in the first place, and asking for someone to stop doing something legal?

And there we go again. Don’t use those links if you don’t know what they mean.

It’s not special pleading, its actually different.

Grum, no, because its a completely different context. I’m responding to an opinion piece. I’m not saying her opinion is not valid, I’m just saying I disagree. Adele is asking for a permanent hiatus in publication.

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.
Posted

Sent out – No. There was a link to a site which said you might want to buy the calendar as part of a charity fundraising effort which had no wimmin on show – though there were a couple of silhouettes.

Displayed in public? – I doubt it and only if an individual set it up in a public area. So if they did, its not maxxis’ doing and there is plenty of other opportunity to do the same.

So it is private viewing, so far as Maxxis is concerned anyway.

molgrips. Not intentional if i did.

One argument seems to be that having pictures of semi clad women in the world propagates sexist attitudes by their mere existence. The flip side is that allowing a vocal objection to affect what can and cannot be published and effect self censorship somehow isn’t of concern. They seem very similar arguments in structure to me.

Perhaps i’m not explaining it very well.

Do you see what I mean though or not?

And yes, its not just a few pictures but its far less than in the past. As for this calendar, so far as I’m concerned the context is fine. If it was ads in singletrack or other magazines then that would be very different. Its not. Its a specific calendar to raise money for charity and is no different to any number of others.

That had occurred to me rubber features…

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

Thank you cougar. Enjoy your pint.

Right

The so-called typical “attacking a straw man” argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (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.

Hopefully some kind mod can move it to its rightful place!

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. :lol:

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

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

in this instance.

You can have that for class.

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.

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, 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.

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 really don’t know what a strawmen argument is.

Well I’d disagree there.

Not this bit

Because we’ve decided in recent years that sexism and objectification of women is, y’know, bad and all.

because that does seem to be a civilised viewpoint.

This bit I don’t agree with.

except it’s not the ‘loudest’ group, is it? It’s the group with the most reasonable and persuasive argument.

In some cases that will be true in others it wont. My point is made for me if page 3 is back in the Sun, I don’t read that rag though so I couldn’t tell you.

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).

In fact, your version, where the loudest bunch rule, can be worse than ‘real; censorship as it lends credibility to bad situations. Maybe you should speak to a shias and sunnis about this type of thing.

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

The end result and aim is still censorship, self or otherwise.

Whereas a petition or campaign can raise awareness that there’s a group of people who don’t like what you’re saying

– with the intention of making them stop saying/printing whatever ‘it’ is.

That is de facto censorship and preventing a perfectly legal minority opinion to be expressed. I don’t like the connotations of that line of thinking.

Ginger – my posts may sound aggressive, sorry for that, but thats what happens when you’re constantly being attacked! My comment was meant tongue in cheek not seriously.

v8ninety – I’d broadly agree with that post though i would use probably use different language in places and we’d most likely disagree about the proportions in each category

My argument, as before, is that the calendar or similar, doesn’t validate anyones opinions and is innocent. It is the other unreconstructed, mysoginistic mouth breathers, to use your terms, who do the validating.

It needs tackling but I think articles like this, and the stop page 3 stuff, can actually make it worse as it gives them something to rail against.

But you still don’t want them to do it? And you don’t think it should be illegal? And you don’t think possession of such depraved images should be a crime?

To get it straight then, you don’t want them to post pictures of tits, but you want them to be able to post pictures of tits so that they can demonstrate their worthiness by not posting pictures of tits?

Whats the point exactly? And in what way is it different to censorship?

Excellent. Well done.

A campaign with no purpose then. How wonderful.

The first sentence of your link

No More Page 3 was a campaign to stop The Sun from including pictures of topless glamour models on its Page 3; it ended when the topless feature was discontinued

So, self censorship then.

Now were back into semantics!

Abolishment (I had to look it up! It didn’t sound right but is apparently correct), banning, etc – Seriously, what would you call a situation where someone is producing something you don’t like and you want them to stop?

Self censorship seems to be the correct term which in practice would be exactly the same as an enforced ban i.e. censorship.

A lot of feminist writing is ridiculous but then again, lots isn’t. But thats why this thread is so long. All I’ve said in that sentence is that I disagree with some feminist writing, yet it will be leapt on and turned into cumberlanddan hates women.

As for calendars, i don’t think they cause men or women to be sexist. I don’t think this particular imagery is particularly demeaning or outrageous which makes me think the original article was more than a little bit OTT.

The argument against the calendar seems to boil down to the pernicious nature of the image creating an environment for sexism. Well the language used by many defending the abolishment (is that word OK?) of such images is equally pernicious in that it demeans and dismisses without engaging, and some of it demonstrates a quite sexist attitude against men.

Er yes. In your opinion!

Having not been around in the 70’s I really wouldn’t know, though from media references and the rest it seems it wasn’t calendars but an actual attitude of discrimination which was the problem. To me, the imagery and the attitude correlate but theres no causality.

Could it simply be that we’re from different eras so have a different frame of reference?

I used to get something similar when I did fewer miles, though that was the right ankle. I presume you’ve tried shifting the seat around to get a better angle?

Slow down ginger or you’ll end up like binners! Have a look at molgrips last one.

I know there is a problem. I know some horrible sexist and racist people and the worst ones don’t seem to be the ones who make lots of noise about it. They are far more subtle and conniving and that is a real issue.

Just for those who don’t get rhetoric, banishing calendars like this just gives the noisy ones something to get upset about i.e. pc gone mad, censorship arguments (which are not completely untrue in my opinion) and gives the nasty little bastards oxygen to go about their business.

So yes, it is an issue but the calendar and sexual imagery generally is not a symptom of it, in my view (though obviously there are examples where it is such as pornography depicting rape and that sort of thing).

skydragon – has it.

From my seat I’ve been told what I am and am not allowed to think which I find to be less than ideal.

I’ve also been told that I think lots of things which I don’t think and that those things are unacceptable and offensive so I should change what I think even though I don’t think those things in the first place.

Its all very confusing.

Which is a pity really, as the main subject is quite serious

Yes, it is, which is why it deserves a better analysis then tits=sexism.

binners – Member

The reason I get so bloody angry is that I don’t want my daughters, or anyone else for that matter growing up in world with neolithic cockwombles like Dan in it. Where casual sexism is perfectly acceptable, in fact something to be staunchly defended at all costs, celebrated even. As if being a massively offensive, misogynistic dickhead is somehow a basic human right

I could and probably should give a very short answer to that.

It seems you think that

being a massively offensive… …dickhead is somehow a basic human right

Your precious daughters. I hope mine never meet yours. Pillock.

I’d be interested to see you justify half of that tripe. Perhaps you can find another witty picture from the 70’s?

I dunno, it has moments of clarity in-between the rants.

Where are you from edenvalleyboy?

molgrips – I’m not the one getting overexcited here :lol:

I’ve tried to make sensible posts and most of the responses are nitpicked and accusatory beyond belief. People have been taking offence left right and centre over nothing. I might have a had a couple of little digs when provoked but thats all.

As for the point above, it’s a serious point. Its not an accusation and someone has already hinted at it back in the thread.

Beyond the immediate “oh look, some girls in bikinis” reaction, the calendar inspires absolutely no further judgment on women from my part. Its all about context innit.