This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Can of Worms: Should young women stop dressing so 'slutty'?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Jubilee
If they DID say that, they would be honest.
I'm having a hard time following the reasoning of this point. People who are saying that it's up to the subject to decide how she wants to dress are not saying that at all.
And I don't really see how your whole argument against semantics is relevant. I hate semantics just as much as you seem to. This isn't semantics however, it just answering the question, by saying the standard of judgment resides not in the observer but the subject. If you're going to call a statement out on semantics, you should do more than just make reference to other semantics.
When people don't want to admit that they stand for something terrible, they make a pro-ability to choose terrible/ anti-morality statement.
That's begging the question. You can't start with the assumption that they believe something wrong or terrible in a discussion.
Case in point:
Q: Should little girls dress !@#$ty?
A: Little girls can do what they want.
How is that case in point?
So, since you take issue with the phrase "They can do what they want" then what phrase would you use to describe the position being proffered? The position specifically that the right and wrong of a person's choice of clothing is determined by the person herself, and not by any external observer. I know you disagree with that position, but that doesn't mean that the concept can't be transcribed into a coherent sentence. So what would you propose?
Post by
MyTie
Example:
Q: Should the Nazi's have murdered 6 million innocent people?
A: They can if they want to.
Your assignment:
Based on the example provided, does the language provided by the answer indicate the entity giving the answer is more than likely supporting the holocaust or deriding it?
(When you realize you can't say anything but the fact that the statement makes an allusion of support, my point is that the statement never blatently supports the holocaust. Thus, the entity issuing the answer is issuing an answer that is very positively leaning toward definately supporting the holocaust, without actually doing it. This is the dishonesty factor. The topic itself is what makes it disgusting. The holocaust, abortion, or little girls displaying their budding cleavage... it's pretty gut wrenchingly nasty business.)
Post by
MyTie
So, since you take issue with the phrase "They can do what they want" then what phrase would you use to describe the position being proffered? The position specifically that the right and wrong of a person's choice of clothing is determined by the person herself, and not by any external observer. I know you disagree with that position, but that doesn't mean that the concept can't be transcribed into a coherent sentence. So what would you propose?
Should a little girl dress #$%^ty?
Affirmative answer should look like this: Yes
Negative answer should look like this: No
Post by
Jubilee
So, since you take issue with the phrase "They can do what they want" then what phrase would you use to describe the position being proffered? The position specifically that the right and wrong of a person's choice of clothing is determined by the person herself, and not by any external observer. I know you disagree with that position, but that doesn't mean that the concept can't be transcribed into a coherent sentence. So what would you propose?
Should a little girl dress #$%^ty?
Affirmative answer should look like this: Yes
Negative answer should look like this: No
1) That's not what I asked.
2) "Little girl" wasn't what was being asked about.
I'd love to have a discussion with you, but it's hard to do if you won't respond to the questions I ask. You're perfectly welcome to make your separate point, but don't shove it in as some sort of response to what I asked. It makes conversation impossible.
Example:
Q: Should the Nazi's have murdered 6 million innocent people?
A: They can if they want to.
Your assignment:
Based on the example provided, does the language provided by the answer indicate the entity giving the answer is more than likely supporting the holocaust or deriding it?
(When you realize you can't say anything but the fact that the statement makes an allusion of support, my point is that the statement never blatently supports the holocaust. Thus, the entity issuing the answer is issuing an answer that is very positively leaning toward definately supporting the holocaust, without actually doing it. This is the dishonesty factor. The topic itself is what makes it disgusting. The holocaust, abortion, or little girls displaying their budding cleavage... it's pretty gut wrenchingly nasty business.)
The answer supports the idea the the morality of murder is subjective and can only be determined by the one committing the act. So it supports the murder's choice to murder or not murder equally.
I don't know many people who believe that, but if someone did believe that, that's what they would answer.
Since you brought the analogy out, I'll bring it back in. To say a person can wear whatever they want is to support the person's choice in the matter to wear %^&*ty clothes or not to wear *!@#ty clothes equally. If they choose to wear #$%^ty clothes, you support them, if they choose not to, you support them, because you believe that it's not your place to decide the morality of another person's clothing choices. That's essentially the point articulated. So, do you understand the position? You don't have to agree with it to understand it, I know I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
See? I answered your question. Would you do me the respect of answering mine? I think it's a perfectly reasonable request.
Here's the deal. I understand that you have firm, solid beliefs about this issue. I understand that you have very clear understandings about what is right and wrong. I understand that. So there is no need for you incorporate all of your responses to me with a condemnation. I understand that you condemn these views already. So if we are going to go beyond simple "I'm right's" and "you're wrong's" we need to work together to discuss the issue. If you're not interested in a discussion and are fine with standing with your beliefs, that's fine too. But at least to me the courtesy of not leading on that you're willing to discuss it with me. It is somewhat inconsiderate.
Based on what people say about you, I really truly am interested in discussing things with you. If you have an interest in discussing things too, then could we step back a little bit and take this slowly so we don't get lost in the words and the generalizations?
Post by
Squishalot
Jubilee, I believe that the issue is that many people think the following:
A) Yes, young women should stop dressing so slutty; but
B) No, young women should be allowed to wear whatever they want.
And then they post a comment along the lines of B, despite the fact it's not actually answering the question directly, nor reflecting their views on the issue. Despite the fact that you can hold both views A and B (which I personally do), saying only B without also acknowledging A implicitly suggests that your viewpoint is the opposite of A, because taken in isolation, their implications are contrary to each other.
If you read:
"Yes, young women should stop dressing so slutty"
by itself, with nothing else, it implies that you may want a restriction on what they should wear.
If you read:
"No, young women should be allowed to wear whatever they want"
by itself, with nothing else, it implies that you're happy with what they're wearing.
That's where the 'dishonesty', as MyTie puts it, arises.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Jubilee
I would actually be surprised if anyone actually thought that because that's either a contradiction or an equivocation. If I want to wear !@#$ty clothes, then according to that I should and I shouldn't, which is a meaningless ethical dilemma. Either those two should's mean different things, or those two things are just contradictions.
I think what you're really describing is "I have no say in the issue, but if I did I'd say yes." The first part is the statement of ethics, the second is a hypothetical, which isn't an ethical statement in itself. There is no dishonesty.
But rather than argue about our interpretations of the phrase, why don't we just ask people who said it?
Post by
Squishalot
I would actually be surprised if anyone actually thought that because that's either a contradiction or an equivocation.
Not really. You probably shouldn't touch a hot stove, but it's entirely up to you whether you want to or not. It shouldn't be my place to dictate whether or not you are allowed to touch it.
But rather than argue about our interpretations of the phrase, why don't we just ask people who said it?
Because they're not partaking in the discussion at the moment.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Jubilee
I would actually be surprised if anyone actually thought that because that's either a contradiction or an equivocation.
Not really.
You probably shouldn't touch a hot stove
, but it's entirely up to you whether you want to or not.
It shouldn't be my place to dictate whether or not you are allowed to touch it
.
That's exactly the equivocation I'm talking about. The bold part interprets should as "it's a good idea", a question of common sense and biology. The italic part interprets should as "being allowed to", a question of ethics or legality or both depending on the context (and what you actually believe ethics is based on).
Maybe I misspoke when I said that people wouldn't actually believe that. I meant to say that people wouldn't believe that if "should" is being used consistently. I hope that clears things up if you misunderstood anything I said.
Post by
Squishalot
And this is my point. The question is 'should' in the 'is it a good idea', and I even go to the extent to specify that it's not about whether a woman should be (in the 'being allowed to' sense) restricted from doing so. (Having said that, it's ok to equivocate. What's wrong with that?)
People aren't answering the right question, or at least, are dodging the question and answering the socially acceptable one.
Edit: To be clear, this is the bit that people miss, because they don't read past the thread name:
Just to note - the question isn't about whether you should be able to tell a girl how to dress, or anything like that. Just whether they ought to or not, in your opinion, noting that they can still do whatever they want if they feel like it.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Jubilee
In your clarification you said "ought" which can be another ethical word. I don't think you should necessarily blame people for answering it as they see it.
Post by
Squishalot
Even if it explicitly states that women can still do whatever they like if they feel like it, and that it's not about whether you are able to tell a girl how to dress? The use of 'ought', in that context, pretty clearly suggests that it's anything BUT the point B above.
And of course it's an ethical point. Whether something is a good idea is still morally driven.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Jubilee
The juxtaposition of ought and can looks to me like an ethical versus legal distinction: "Legally they can do whatever they want, but what do you think they ought they to do?" Someone might very well answer that along the lines of they can do whatever they want. They of course mean it in an ethical sense.
I think you're too quick to judge people as somehow falsifying their answers. Ethics means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, and if you ask a question about "should" or "ought" you're going to get a lot of different answers. If don't believe it's your place to judge something like that, then your answer is going to reflect that.
Should Catholics kneel on their right or left knee when meeting the pope (they do it in pictures at least)? Ought, should, can, may -- it doesn't matter what word you use, I can safely say it's none of my business and the people in charge of deciding that can pick whichever one they want. Clarify all you want, my answer would remain the same.
Should you like country music or 60's pop better? Ought, should, can, may -- it doesn't matter what word you use, I can safely say it's none of my business and you can pick whichever one they want. Clarify all you want, my answer would remain the same.
Should we name the next hurricane Fred or Ford? Ought, should, can, may -- it doesn't matter what word you use, I can safely say it's none of my business and the people in charge of that can pick whichever one they want. Clarify all you want, my answer would remain the same.
I hope the examples can show that people can believe that it's not their place make a judgment.
Perhaps what you want to ask is "If you were (or are) a woman, would you dress #$%^tily or not?"
(Having said that, it's ok to equivocate. What's wrong with that?)
Nothing is better than God. Bread is better than nothing. Therefore bread is better than God.
Equivocation is bad because it can lead to fallacious conclusions.
Post by
Squishalot
Jubilee, to be clear, I don't think they're falsifying their answers. What I do think is that they're answering the wrong question. For example:
Do I think fashion trends should lead away from "%^&*ty" looks? Certainly. Do I think I should be able to tell a girl how to dress? No.
Skreeran voted 'no'. Again - he clearly believes both A and B, but votes B.
Post by
Jubilee
And like I said I think people are treating A as a hypothetical while making B the real-world ethical answer.
Post by
MyTie
Jubilee, in the end "can" is not "should". There are many things I believe people shouldn't do, but shouldn't be prevented from doing: smoking is a good example.
However, I believe that before a girl turns 18, she ought not to be able to wear what she wants. I believe her parents should be the ethical decision makers on her dress and appearance. So when someone says that "they can wear what they want", I think to a degree even that is wrong. Still, many minor girls will do what they want regardless of anything anyone says.
The whole situation is sad. It would be sad to me if one person voted 'No' in this poll. 63 people voted 'No' so far.
Post by
Jubilee
Jubilee, in the end "can" is not "should". There are many things I believe people shouldn't do, but shouldn't be prevented from doing: smoking is a good example.
Exactly so, "can" is not "should". That's the point of answering with "can". Because some people believe it's not their place to answer a should (as an ethical point) in regards to what people wear.
I realize that might be something foreign to someone who has a very objective understanding of morality and ethics, but I don't think that makes it any less of a valid position. Whether they're ultimately right or wrong could be debated, but I don't think they can just be shrugged off as lying or dodging the question.
Post by
MyTie
Jubilee, in the end "can" is not "should". There are many things I believe people shouldn't do, but shouldn't be prevented from doing: smoking is a good example.
Exactly so, "can" is not "should". That's point of answering with "can". Because some people believe it's not their place to answer a should (as an ethical point) in regards to what people wear.
If that be the case, they shouldn't answer at all, or make the point that they cannot answer, or even that other people shouldn't answer. That in itself is an entire debate. However, answering to the tone of 'can' makes a very supportive allusion to the argument of 'should'.
Post by
Jubilee
If that be the case, they shouldn't answer at all, or make the point that they cannot answer, or even that other people shouldn't answer. That in itself is an entire debate. However, answering to the tone of 'can' makes a very supportive allusion to the argument of 'should'.
How does it support "should"? If someone says and means that a person can do what they want, then they would be equally supportive either decision. If I tell you that you can listen to whatever genre of music you want, am I in any way saying you should listen to country? Not in the least. I'll support your choice to listen to country, but I'd also support your choice to listen to something else if you chose that.
Post by
MyTie
If my daughter comes up to me and asks me if she can go smoke some cigarettes, and I tell her 'you can do what you want', would that be irresponsible of me?
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.