DotD - July 19 - [General Topic] Sexism, Misogyny, Tattoos, and Promiscuity

Beitrag von Hyperspacerebel

Is it sexist/demeaning to rate/talk about the attractiveness of the other sex?
Kinda don't like how this is very hetero focused <.<

Did you read my post?

The fact that I have less than 100 characters to sum up the question in the title aside, the question is supposed to be a starting point to foster discussion. If, for instance, you think there are pertinent points to be said about trans people's discussions about attraction (which is something I didn't mention), then talk about it! Bring up the points and let people discuss them. Simply calling me out for not being as open as you'd like doesn't really do much. I'm not trying to be inclusive or exclusive; I'm trying to think up interesting discussions that people will want to participate in.

Beitrag von asakawa

It is reductive and objectifying. Objectifying people and reducing them to nothing more than appearance certainly can be problematic but I don't think "sexist" really describes the problem there. We reduce people to physical properties all the time - I read recently that pay for short versus tall people follows the same problematic lines as racial and gender divides.

We're animals and we're tuned to be attracted to certain physical/aesthetic attributes, both sexually and hierarchically. We shouldn't be ashamed of it, but I think we should recognise it and try not to do it.

Beitrag von Adamsm

Is it sexist/demeaning to rate/talk about the attractiveness of the other sex?
Kinda don't like how this is very hetero focused <.<

He did say about homosexual attraction in there too.

Beitrag von Patty

Um, tbh I've never seen it in quite the same way with any of my female friends as guys I know, many of whom (including those in relationships) quite crudely leer at pretty much any girl that they see and will immediately decide a rating out of 10 for them. When I hear them doing it I... side eye, very hard, because frankly, if I were to do the same on them, many wouldn't approach a 5/10. :p

That said, I just hate the whole x/10 system in general, because I do find it demeaning, and incredibly reductive. Another observation I've found is that hetero women are more likely to point out characteristics, like Elhonna pointed out (eg. he has such a nice body, or hair, or something, rather than a critical analysis reduced into one final judgement), whereas het men largely do an overall rating of attractiveness in much more overtly sexual terms. I think part of that would stem from sexist social structures, definitely.

I mean, personally, as a gay guy... I don't know enough gays personally to give an overall impression. Personally, I just find you hot or I don't, and I'm more likely to present it, or think of attractiveness, much more from a stereotypically female perspective, for want of a better phrase, than the straight male point of view that I've more often than not encountered. It also personally makes me feel uncomfortable, because although I'm not the one being objectified, if I were a woman on my own or with a friend, I would feel very vulnerable being leered at and analysed by a gang of men.

Beitrag von Skreeran

On-topic: I think intention is key here. A guy commenting that a woman is attractive is harmless, perhaps even flattering. Posting her picture on "Hot or Not" or saying "7/10, would do" is very much sexist.

Slightly-less-on-topic-but-still-pertinent-to-the-topic: It reminds me of when I was watching Disney's A Goofy Movie with my girlfriend and I had to clumsily explain that when I said that Stacey was cute, I didn't mean that I was expressing sexual attraction to her. :P

Beitrag von gnomerdon

what the heck. this is sopposed to be facesmasher...

but im talking as Sapilas? who the heck is Sapilas.

hmmmm

Beitrag von gnomerdon

Hello FAcesmasher, how are u today?

I miss you very much. What are ur plans for tonight? I'm heading to sleep now, so good night.

:l

that's very kind of you. good night sir, i'll be going to sleep too...

on topic, i dont think it's sexist to rate a beautiful woman. as long as she doesn't know.

Beitrag von Hyperspacerebel

Bit of a rush today, no time to expound on the question.

July 12 - Is morally worse to kill or do serious harm to a child than an adult? On the flip side, is it morally better to save the life of a child than an adult?

Beitrag von Adamsm

Morally no; hurting someone else is god awful no matter what. Emotionally worse? Yes; whenever something bad happens to a child it's always going to hit hard.

As for the saving the life; would depend on the situation, and the type of adult/child I suppose.

Beitrag von gnomerdon

every life has value.
Is morally worse to kill or do serious harm to a child than an adult?

both are human, they are both weighed the same

but for some reason, i would sympathize with the child more than the adult out of misplaced sheer compassion, simply because the child hasn't seen the world. it would suck to deny that right to a child, to not see the world from an adults point of view.

is it morally better to save the life of a child than an adult?

they are weighed the same

Beitrag von Monday

I say yes to both, though I don't really have any logic for it.

Beitrag von Gone

Yes it would be worse, for several reasons, that despite popular opinion are logical ones, not emotional. First of all, a child is less capable of defending him/herself than an adult would be. Children are also more innocent and generally less responsible for their own actions, so it's less likely that the intended victim did anything that might warrant being hurt or killed (in other words you kill or beat up somebody for revenge). Children have more potential ahead of them as well, there is more opportunity ahead of them to do more with their lives.

The only way I could see it being less reprehensible to kill a child would be if they were in the woods or some sort of survival situation, where the child would die on his own anyway, but the adult could go on. And that's more pragmatic than moral, and it assumes a situation where a child and adult are together, and for some reason or another, one of them has to die.

As far as saving the life goes, it again depends on the situation. In ideal circumstances it's more moral to save the child, because they have more time ahead of them, so you're saving more years worth of life.

Beitrag von Hyperspacerebel

July 13 - What level of surveillance should a government be allowed to maintain over its citizens?

Edit: Leaving this up for the weekend

Beitrag von gnomerdon

with a high sample pool of people, and the variation that can happen between each person, beliefs, nationality, and religion (not directed towards islam), there will always be crazy people. and to monitor each and every one to prevent it, would turn us back into the stone ages. instead of surveilance, why not change the education system, so the frequency of these killings are minimized.

if the worst can possibly happen, it will.

~~code red, code red! =)~~

i dont mind if the government spies on me. i have nothing to hide.

on paper, im a full blown christian, no history with the police, never been in county, mostly browse video games and anime, and stream lot's of youtube... and i also pay my taxes.

i got nothing to hide, so they can spy on me all they want. they will soon realize how good my taste is, and change for the better.

what we need to do, is to observe countries that are doing marginally better than us and learn their ways.

it's sad, to hear about a young boy getting bullied after school when he walks home, lunch break, and the community makes fun of him and tells him to stand up for himself, leaving him in the dark and in fear, only to come back, and shoot the entire school and kill himself.

at the very least, we need some sort of reform. yes

or in the case of the colorado case, a medical school drop out, with over 100,000 college debt, losing everything with no recovery, only to shoot an entire movie theatre.

Beitrag von Hyperspacerebel

July 17 - Are "zero tolerance" policies in schools practical or even right?

In many school districts in America, children can get detention or even suspension for things as simple as saying the word "gun", making a gun sign with their fingers, or wearing a shirt to class with a gun on it. Is this an effective measure for decreasing gun violence in schools? Does it go to far? And this often extends to other things as well. Often, children are forbidden from standing up to bullies or defending other students from them, and face severe penalties for doing so. How does that factor in to your view?

Beitrag von Skreeran

Zero Tolerance policies of any sort in any situation are stupid, in my opinion. I think ever case should be addressed individually based on motive, threat, and outcome.

Beitrag von wrlwnd

Zero tolerance policies have a place, BUT most times they seem to go to far.

In the example given of a picture of a gun on a t-shirt, in my opinion that is to far. The example of pointing the hand in the shape of a gun needs to be looked at in its entire context, it may be joking or it may be a threat.

Now there are some things that I believe should have zero tolerance, actual guns in the schools except for trained personal (be it police or specially trained staff). Drugs on school grounds a flat out NO.

these type policies are well meaning, but in practice they way they are written many times there is no room for common sense to be applied.

Beitrag von Rankkor

They're pointless witch-hunts that detract from real threats.

Think about it, real terrorists keep their political views hidden, real psychopaths keep their real intentions camouflaged, the real reason aggressors are able to pull off attacks is their ability to hide in plain sight.

If a stupid kid says in facebook "I'm gonna shoot a school full of children" he's being distasteful, ignorant, and stupid, but other than that, completely harmless in 99% of the time. After all, "Perro que ladra, no muerde" (Old Spanish saying, a rough translation in english is that the dogs that bark the loudest, have the weakest bite)

The more boastful, bragging, and loud the noise is made by a certain individual, the least capable he is of carrying out his threats, since he is using vocalization as a way to vent his frustration. Its the quiet ones you gotta watch out for, the ones who don't say anything, who "always were such a nice kid".

So yeah, Expelling a student from a school just cuz he made a gun out of paper and pointed it at another student is stupid beyond quantification, as its precisely THOSE types of students that are the least capable of committing violence.

Beitrag von 164232

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Beitrag von gnomerdon

Think about it, real terrorists keep their political views hidden, real psychopaths keep their real intentions camouflaged, the real reason aggressors are able to pull off attacks is their ability to hide in plain sight.

:l

Is this an effective measure for decreasing gun violence in schools?

yes, but only a small little margin. guns are everywhere i kids life. in daddy's closet. in modern warfare and call of duty. it's important to acknowledge those kids who died because of gun violence at school. it should be enforced, frowned upon, and never spoken about...

Does it go to far?

i don't believe it goes too far. there are 2 ways to progress. Fear and discipline, or love and free expression. We are going through the FEAR and DISCIPLINE route. we cannot imitate countries like Sweden or better off countries because our demographics are different. different cultures, different STANDARD of living, and especially different media.

Often, children are forbidden from standing up to bullies or defending other students from them, and face severe penalties for doing so.

that's because the system is made to be broken like that, because it's all part of the plan. see, when i say a group of gangbangers, or an group of soldiers will get blown up, nobody panics. because it's all part of the plan. but when i say, one little old mayor will die, then everybody loses their minds!

like i said in my past posts, our whole education system needs a reform. stricter laws, stricter rules, less freedom, and more protection for the innocent ones.

How does that factor in to your view?

i think it's just a scheme so that when something horrible happens, it gets media attention, and everywhere in the world becomes less important for a few months. who would say, "let the bully pick on you. because if you fight back and defend yourself, we'll suspend you for 2 months"

in the back of my mind, i think about home schooling my kids, because some guy, kid, can just bring a semi automatic and shoot down the entire school.

the event at Norway was extremely sad. I still think about it. And oh my gosh, if one of those were my kids... i'd probably spend a little while feeling sad.

DotD - July 19 - [General Topic] Sexism, Misogyny, Tattoos, and Promiscuity

Antwort verfassen