Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

So a pair of t***ies is offensive and worth censoring? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    So you think a "pair of t***ies" is worth censoring sometimes, but not always?
    Yes in a student forum. No in a low class publication that barely counts as a newspaper. As a member of the student room I can give my opinion regarding what should and shouldn't be allowed. How many of the anti-page 3 people read the Sun?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladymusiclover)
    The reason why women are insecure and lack confidence in their bodies is because of the constant bombardment of photoshopped and airbrushed women who do not represent "real women".
    So are you going to start campaigning against all those gossip magazines and other magazines for women which show semi nude men who are well trimmed? After all that may make average men lack confidence and feel insecure.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=thunder_chunky;53161691]So are you going to start campaigning against all those gossip magazines and other magazines for women which show semi nude men who are well trimmed? After all that may make average men lack confidence and feel insecure.[/QUOT

    I'm against the sexual objectification of humans (men and women).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladymusiclover)
    So are you going to start campaigning against all those gossip magazines and other magazines for women which show semi nude men who are well trimmed? After all that may make average men lack confidence and feel insecure.[/QUOT

    I'm against the sexual objectification of humans (men and women).
    I look forward to seeing you campaigning against all such things.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    I look forward to seeing you campaigning against all such things.
    Unless she's actively supporting the continued (limited) objectification of men, I don't see how you can think this is an argument.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronove)
    Unless she's actively supporting the continued (limited) objectification of men, I don't see how you can think this is an argument.
    I don't see how. It's your typical double standards type argument. The type of people who campaign against page 3 saying it makes them insecure and lack confidence in their bodies because of the constant bombardment of photoshopped and airbrushed women who do not represent "real women" are probably the same sort of women who buy those ridiculous gossip magazines full of topless men.

    The campaigners against Page Three strike me as your average cherry pickers.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    I don't see how. It's your typical double standards type argument. The type of people who campaign against page 3 saying it makes them insecure and lack confidence in their bodies because of the constant bombardment of photoshopped and airbrushed women who do not represent "real women" are probably the same sort of women who buy those ridiculous gossip magazines full of topless men.

    The campaigners against Page Three strike me as your average cherry pickers.
    Your argument:

    The people who campaign against page 3 because of Y reason do X

    The fact that the people who campaign against page 3 because of Y do X means they are engaging in double standards

    These double standards negate their problem with page 3

    ...

    What's your basis for claiming these people do X?

    What's your basis for saying that these double standards would invalidate their issues with page 3, if they did indeed engage in double standards?

    You set them up as cherry pickers with no substantiation, and then complained that they're cherry pickers as if it's a fact.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronove)
    Your argument:

    The people who campaign against page 3 because of Y reason do X

    The fact that the people who campaign against page 3 because of Y do X means they are engaging in double standards

    These double standards negate their problem with page 3

    ...

    What's your basis for claiming these people do X?

    What's your basis for saying that these double standards would invalidate their issues with page 3, if they did indeed engage in double standards?

    You set them up as cherry pickers with no substantiation, and then complained that they're cherry pickers as if it's a fact.
    I am not comparing two wholly different things, they are two quite similar things that compare well. The feminists and social justice warriors who campaign against page three are your typical cherry pickers. Against page three, but less focused on other quite similar examples.
    By the way, I'm not saying these things negate their issue with page 3.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    I look forward to seeing you campaigning against all such things.
    One step at a time.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 25, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.