Turn on thread page Beta

Banning The Sun/Lads Mags from Sale at LSE watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I hadn't responded to anyone's argument at all. I hadn't even referred to a general argument that I was against. There was no 'premise' for me to undermine. I stated that I found it amusing that the boys seemed to need their porn. Nothing to do with the argument they were proposing or the argument I was proposing. SIGH. Goodbye now, I hope I've made you a more educated person.
    Right, a remark which was clearly aimed to belittle those who criticise the LSE feminists as 'boys who need their porn'. (BTW, you know girls can enjoy porn too right? )

    Your general condescending tone just adds weight to my assumption that you're a silly, arrogant, little girl. Ooops, did I make an ad hominem?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Stop quoting and obliterating her piss poor arguments you big bully:goaway:


    I must have clicked on the wrong forum, i wanted to debate and discuss thin-.. oh wait. :confused:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Since when is society purely made up of men? That's such a typically sexist view- that society=men. She didn't once mention it was men's fault.
    You are aware of what the word patriarchal means aren't you?

    I assume not:
    Patriarchal - characteristic of a form of social organization in which the male is the family head and title is traced through the male line

    She claimed we live in a patriarchal society and blamed some of the more negative aspects of female nature on that, I refuted it.
    Own goal there, missy. :p:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    :curious: You're an anonymous user on a public forum who seems to think others will remember her or her opinions from past threads. Bearing in mind the amount of users as stupid as you which exist on this site im not sure why you are so surprised i forgot you "didn't want me to quote you". This is the internet sweetheart. I think maybe you should get over yourself and stop making strawmen because you are incapable of arguing my points. If you don't want to be challenged by other users on your opinions then don't post. :ta:
    Except we both know that the issue isn't that you 'forgot' that I didn't want to debate with you. I've reminded you at least 3 times in the last week, which is what makes it particularly creepy.

    I have no problem with being challenged civilly and adultly by others on my views, as has been made clear in this thread and in others. However, we both know that you're completely incapable of being civil and grown up, don't we?

    Anyway, I'm putting you on ignore, l8erz.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TShadow383)
    You are aware of what the word patriarchal means aren't you?

    I assume not:
    Patriarchal - characteristic of a form of social organization in which the male is the family head and title is traced through the male line

    She claimed we live in a patriarchal society and blamed some of the more negative aspects of female nature on that, I refuted it.
    Own goal there, missy. :p:
    Er, not really, I don't get your point. Women are still 50% of a society, whether it's patriarchal or not. She's blaming society, not men specifically. It may very well be the case that it is specifically the men in the patriarchal society to are to blame, but nothing in that post justified you jumping to that conclusion.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I say if we ban The Sun , The Star , Zoo , Nuts etc then it's only really fair that we also get rid of OK , Hello , Closer and the likes - both of them are as bad as each other quite frankly in terms of the utter dross in them.

    Deal?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Except we both know that the issue isn't that you 'forgot' that I didn't want to debate with you. I've reminded you at least 3 times in the last week, which is what makes it particularly creepy.

    I have no problem with being challenged civilly and adultly by others on my views, as has been made clear in this thread and in others. However, we both know that you're completely incapable of being civil and grown up, don't we?

    Anyway, I'm putting you on ignore, l8erz.
    Is it supposed to be ironic that you are attacking him for being uncivil and childish yet it is you who is putting him on ignore? Or did that just fly over your head?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    no they havnt.
    The argument is in the thread somewhere, possibly in the original post.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Er, not really, I don't get your point. Women are still 50% of a society, whether it's patriarchal or not. She's blaming society, not men specifically. It may very well be the case that it is specifically the men in the patriarchal society to are to blame, but nothing in that post justified you jumping to that conclusion.
    She's blaming the fact that society is "patriarchal" (ie, the cause of the problem is that men run things)

    How is that not blaming men?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Except we both know that the issue isn't that you 'forgot' that I didn't want to debate with you. I've reminded you at least 3 times in the last week, which is what makes it particularly creepy.

    I have no problem with being challenged civilly and adultly by others on my views, as has been made clear in this thread and in others. However, we both know that you're completely incapable of being civil and grown up, don't we?

    Anyway, I'm putting you on ignore, l8erz.


    OH NOEZZ!! :cry2:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Have to be honest I didn't even realise there were nuts/zoo magazines for sale at LSE lol! Although I wouldn't buy one anyway, the principle alone makes me absolutely furious. These are, I assume, the same *****es who ruined everyones fun at Miss LSE last year...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Keep them I say!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Is it supposed to be ironic that you are attacking him for being uncivil and childish yet it is you who is putting him on ignore? Or did that just fly over your head?
    Putting him on ignore is probably the most mature thing for me to do at the moment, since politely asking him to stop trying to talk to me hasn't worked. It's certainly more mature than continuing to bicker with him. That's what the option's there for.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Glamour is probably as harmful to women as your average lads mag. And unlike the latter, it's actually aimed at women.

    This is completely pointless, and will not make any men into good little feminists with feelings.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TShadow383)
    She's blaming the fact that society is "patriarchal" (ie, the cause of the problem is that men run things)

    How is that not blaming men?
    How is it blaming men? She stated several times she's blaming society. Men do not equal society. 50% of society is female. I don't understand where the confusion is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Putting him on ignore is probably the most mature thing for me to do at the moment, since politely asking him to stop trying to talk to me hasn't worked. It's certainly more mature than continuing to bicker with him. That's what the option's there for.
    From where i'm sitting he was just debating with you, yet he trounced you and you got uppity. If you really wanted to take the moral highground you would have just put him on ignore without ever letting him know, but because you were being petty and childish you told him you were doing it and why.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think freedom is great personally.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeonflux)
    Right, a remark which was clearly aimed to belittle those who criticise the LSE feminists as 'boys who need their porn'. (BTW, you know girls can enjoy porn too right? )
    Yeah, me and my girl mates buy The Sun all the time.


    (Original post by aeonflux)
    Your general condescending tone just adds weight to my assumption that you're a silly, arrogant, little girl. Ooops, did I make an ad hominem?
    No, you didn't. You insulted me, but it wasn't an ad hom. Insult =/= ad hominem. Deary me, I see we'll have to work at this concept
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Now im being immature. :sly:

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Putting him on ignore is probably the most mature thing for me to do at the moment, since politely asking him to stop trying to talk to me hasn't worked. It's certainly more mature than continuing to bicker with him. That's what the option's there for.
    Because simply ignoring your opponents in a debate is a tremendously mature thing to do. It just shows you don't have an answer really.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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: April 17, 2010
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.