Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 537

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

You know, I’m starting to think this thread was a better idea than y’all said it was.

Because it somehow helped?

Not that I can see.

It could have helped.

By getting more diverse people to join the forum?

The thread could have diagnosed the problems that are getting more diverse people to not join the forum, and therefore, put the structures in place that would help more of them join the forum.

And as I said, discussions about diversity are useful. It raises awareness about the issue, which is important.

Warbler is saying women’s bodies are not treated differently than men’s, in that women and men both have to cover up their private parts. What Warbler is implying, that you aren’t acknowledging, Frink, is that women have additional private parts that men do not have. He is classifying women’s breasts as private parts.

I do side with Warbler, but not because I believe women’s breast should be considered as private parts. They already are (albeit less private), and for objective reasons. My argument is against arbitrary argument.

TV’s Frink said:

Men can walk around without a shirt, women can’t.

Yes. To which I say, “So what?”

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Men can walk around without a shirt, women can’t.

Yes. So what?

It’s just stupid to have that inequality. All people should be treated equally.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Men can walk around without a shirt, women can’t.

Yes. So what?

It’s just stupid to have that inequality.

Says you. Again, this is equally as subjective as Warbler’s argument.

All people should be treated equally.

People are not equal. Women and men are biologically different. Women are not inferior, but telling women to cover their breasts does not assume or imply this.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Men can walk around without a shirt, women can’t.

Yes. To which I say, “So what?”

So their bodies are treated as more obscene than men’s. That’s all I’ve been saying the whole time, which was in direct response to Warb saying they aren’t, and I cannot understand how he (or you, apparently?) doesn’t understand or agree.

My point earlier, in comparing his position to yours, was I think your and his arguments have different underlying assumptions that don’t match. You are making an argument against a position he didn’t make, because you inferred information he didn’t communicate.

Warbler, in classifying women’s breasts as private parts, is equating all private parts, women’s and men’s, as equally obscene. Meanwhile, you are saying that women, because they have more private parts, are on the whole considered more obscene. I think these are arguing two different things entirely rather than directly opposing each other.

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

All people should be treated equally.

People are not equal. Women and men are biologically different. Women are not inferior, but telling women to cover their breasts does not assume or imply this.

So we should cover up every part of a woman that’s different from a man? Why not cover up every part of a man that’s different from a woman? What if a woman doesn’t have the typical female form?

There is a particular male-centered-ness to Warbler’s and chyron’s arguments. Why does the male body have to be the standard that we measure women against?

I don’t know. I’m not saying it should be. Really what I’m only saying is that progressives are just as subjective to their views as conservatives are; that things are what they are; and that this argument doesn’t address why, besides “we think it should”, that change is needed.

Citing equality doesn’t really fit, because they are not equal. Saying a woman should be paid as much as a man because a woman’s ability or intelligence is equal is not the same thing as saying women’s bodies, which are not identical to men’s, should be treated identically. Having a woman cover her breasts does not lower her social standing or make her to be inferior to a man.

To move on to another note for a bit, here’s some YouTube videos on why you should care about net neutrality and the issue in general:

• Video 1
• Video 2
• Video 3
• Video 4

chyron8472 said:

Citing equality doesn’t really fit, because they are not equal. Saying a woman should be paid as much as a man because a woman’s ability or intelligence is equal is not the same thing as saying women’s bodies, which are not identical to men’s, should be treated identically. Having a woman cover her breasts does not lower her social standing or make her to be inferior to a man.

Let’s turn the tables. Is the argument that a certain part of a man’s body should be censored because it’s different from that part on a woman a valid argument to you?

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

To move on to another note for a bit, here’s some YouTube videos

No.

They’re good videos, Frank.

Watch in order.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

Citing equality doesn’t really fit, because they are not equal. Saying a woman should be paid as much as a man because a woman’s ability or intelligence is equal is not the same thing as saying women’s bodies, which are not identical to men’s, should be treated identically. Having a woman cover her breasts does not lower her social standing or make her to be inferior to a man.

Let’s turn the tables. Is the argument that a certain part of a man’s body should be censored because it’s different from that part on a woman a valid argument to you?

But I don’t think it is censored because it is different. I think there are reasons other than simply it being different as to why it is censored, and those reasons are potentially sound.

Women’s breasts aren’t just different-and-that’s-it. Men have sexual responses to them. Women have clothing that accentuates them. Women and men both treat women’s physical bodies differently than women and men both treat men’s bodies. Women have different attractions to men than men do to women, and so arguing that men’s bodies and women’s bodies should be treated equally (or identically) “because” isn’t reason enough to not treat the differently.

I don’t think turning the tables like that works, because you’d have to turn the tables on other contributing factors, several of which I have no experience with (like the psychology and sexuality of women).