I agree with all of this. I think it is a reasonable discussion topic and I think the discussion is fine. I just think the proposed rule is a terrible one, for many reasons.
Yes, that is a good characterization of the OP.
oh snap
Sure it is; from the OP:
People don’t have control over their intelligence and it’s a part of their body.
Hey, if we went with the OP’s suggestion, would this thread be allowed? What’s with this kid’s ears?
Good luck with that line of argument.
I’m not arguing it at all; it’s a straight line argument from the OP.
It seems to me that the board (and the world) already adopts a pretty reasonable standard here. In discussing ideas (and posts), we obviously discuss them on their merits, and calling ideas stupid is always fine. Calling people stupid would not be classy if they are (say) mentally retarded and just trying to live their lives. Whereas if somebody is seeking a job (such as VP) where above-average intelligence would be a requirement; or if somebody persistently chooses to voice dumbass opinions on an issue, then calling them stupid is fair game.
Not according to the OP, is my point which I make in support of my contention that the proposed rule in the OP is stupid.
It’s not the OP who wants to conflate body shaming with intelligence, it’s you. I agree that in other respects it’s extremely difficult to define the scope of body shaming, but I think it’s easy and uncontroversial to exclude intelligence from the definition.
I think that’s absolutely ridiculous, and I think if you took a deep breath and backed away from the thread you’d agree; but when someone is arguing something so ridiculous, there’s precious little chance of using reason to persuade them away from making that argument, so I’ll leave you to it.
That would be a yes, then. Thanks for clarifying your position.
Why just female’s appearances?
I think that remarks about celebrities appearance are perfectly Ok. They are celebrities. In many cases, they make their living off their appearance.
It’d be like not allowing remarks about a singers voice.
I would ask “Yes to what?”, but I would hate to interrupt whatever dialogue you’ve got going on with yourself. Yay, you!!
Because, historically, women have been objectified and marginalized as though their appearance is all that matters. Social history is important in determining what commentary is appropriate, not just the perfect symmetry of abstract concepts.
Seems pretty straightforward to me, and you answered it. I’m unsure why you want to continue on with whatever game you are playing, but here is what I asked:
“If there are alternatives to slamming back with body type insults (such as the example given of ‘fat fuck’) if the politician in question starts it, are you good with doing that or do you feel justified in firing back on the same level since that’s what they did? Yes? No? Depends?”
You answered thus: “If a politician says something that is hypocritical, then it should be permissible to point out how it was hypocritical. This can certainly be done without resorting to crude insults, don’t you think?”
So…yes. Yah me for parsing your ridiculous antics and getting you to finally actually answer a simple question. Feel free to continue whatever antics you seem to be enjoying.
Is this…is this what Snowboarder and I sound like to everyone else?
If so, I am so, so sorry.
This hobbles one party over the other. Look, the Republicans LIE. They create flat out Goebbels like **Lies. ** But it is 100% OK here on this board to lie. One can repeat any of the more outrageous lies the GOP has come up with and be safe from a Warning.
The Democrats *Ridicule. * We make fun of, make jokes about, poke fun at. This includes poking fun about how fat Trump is or calling him President Cheeto or making fun of his terrible toupe.
There is no reason why lying should be OK, but ridiculing should not be.
I concur. Politicians are fair game. They entered the Political circus on purpose.