551 réponses à ce sujet

[Agamemnon2589]

Just_mike wrote...

FALCON PUNCH!

Comment WIN! 2

[Agamemnon2589]

I LOVE this thread! YEAH!

[GnusmasTHX]

Agamemnon2589 wrote...

ZennExile wrote...

You know assuming that just because she's a woman that she can't take a punch in the mouth is extremely sexist and while you think you are Captain-Save-A-Hoe, mister OP, you are actually perpetuating sexism and the oppression of woman by making this post and crying about a woman being punched in the mouth.

It's 2010. The sexes are equal now. Woman deserve a punch in the mouth when they ****** on people just like men do. Because men and woman are equal.

Comment WIN!

Definitely. This guy ended the thread.

[talbainx]

ashmiranda3waymm wrote...


Ok I'm going to break this down for you, but I feel it might be wasted.

1) Saying men are generally stronger does not imply that women are "inferior to, less competent, or less valuable."

2) Strength is not a "role" it is a characteristic therefore your second definition does not apply.

3) Increased strength does not make one gender superior to the other, it means one gender is stronger than the other, period.

Honestly
if you cannot look at two things and note the differences you are unfit
to perform the most simple tasks. If I'm a sexists for saying men are
stronger than women than so be it. I'd rather be a realist and a sexist
than just an idiot.

What you don't seem to understand, is that regardless of factors, treating one gender differently from another is the very definition of sexism.

Modifié par talbainx, 05 février 2010 - 03:08 .

[Majpain007]

Abriael_CG wrote...

When i was confronted by the annoying journalist in the citadel, and saw that renegade icon flashing on the screen, I fully expected Shepard to punch or shoot or somwhow break the floating camera. I was extreemly surprised to see him punch the girl straight in the face.

I know, It's just a game, and it's a renegade choice so you're definitely not representing a saint, but still... punching a civilian woman that, while annoying, is just blabbering? 
Mind you, I'm not here crying to the scandal and bringing out stuff about encouraging the beating of women... but Am I the only one that found that just a tad over the top?

No she had it coming to her since the first game.

[Shephard-0A]

I think both parties in this thread are beyond ridiculous by this point. Keep it up, it's actually hilarious.

[Abriael_CG]

lokiarchetype wrote...
Superiority can refer to numerous things

Like intelligence, strength, athletic ability.

Superior Strength aka physical build.

Not really. It's a judgement of value.

Saying that a woman is worth less than a man is sexist. Saying that women have a different and statistically weaker physical build then  men is simple reality.

[talbainx]

Shephard-0A wrote...

I think both parties in this thread are beyond ridiculous by this point. Keep it up, it's actually hilarious.

The point of which it became ridiculous, was by the already passed at the creation of this thread.
Entertainment at it's best, however.

[mcsupersport]

trigger2kill1 wrote...

lokiarchetype correct me if i am wrong but are you saying that to not hit a girl is being sexist?

I think he is saying if you would hit a guy for the same exact reason, but don't hit them because they are a girl then that is sexist.

1)  Why is no one upset that you can beat on an unarmed prisoner to get information??
2)  Why is no one upset that you can beat on an unarmed young informant to get information??


You are upset that Shepard hits one reporter, yet he beats a prisoner for information, otherwise hits him multiple times while the guy was restrained even.  That makes this thread sexist. 


I was expecting in the first ME to see Shepard shoot the camera, but once he punched her then, I knew what would happen when I saw her again in ME2.  No big surprise or deal.  I would do alot of things in ME that I would never do in real life.

[ashmiranda3waymm]

talbainx wrote...

What you don't seem to understand, is that regardless of factors, treating one gender differently from another is the very definition of sexism.

Well I guess I'm definitely a sexist because I'm straight. According to your definition anyone who is not a bisexual is sexist.

[trigger2kill1]

Talbainx so the next time i go into a store im to let the door clobber the woman entering behind me?

[ashmiranda3waymm]

trigger2kill1 wrote...

Talbainx so the next time i go into a store im to let the door clobber the woman entering behind me?

You better. Else you're a damn sexist and a plague on society.

[Abriael_CG]

mcsupersport wrote...
You are upset that Shepard hits one reporter, yet he beats a prisoner for information, otherwise hits him multiple times while the guy was restrained even.  That makes this thread sexist. 

beating a criminal when there's no other option to save a life is acceptable. Beating an unarmed woman that's in no way threatening your or anyone else's physical safety is not.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 05 février 2010 - 03:14 .

[Shephard-0A]

trigger2kill1 wrote...

Talbainx so the next time i go into a store im to let the door clobber the woman entering behind me?

Rregardless of the fact if entering behind you is a woman or a man, you'll be an ****.

[PunkxRonin]

ashmiranda3waymm wrote...

talbainx wrote...

What you don't seem to understand, is that regardless of factors, treating one gender differently from another is the very definition of sexism.

Well I guess I'm definitely a sexist because I'm straight. According to your definition anyone who is not a bisexual is sexist.

Really?

[talbainx]

ashmiranda3waymm wrote...
Well I guess I'm definitely a sexist because I'm straight. According to your definition anyone who is not a bisexual is sexist.

Strawman's argument.

trigger2kill1 wrote...

Talbainx so the next time i go into a store im to let the door clobber the woman entering behind me?

Well, in all honesty you should kept the door open for the person behind you regardless of what sex they are, common courtesy.

Modifié par talbainx, 05 février 2010 - 03:15 .

[Saroslol]

talbainx wrote...

What you don't seem to understand, is that regardless of factors, treating one gender differently from another is the very definition of sexism.

I guess it's sexist to let women take maternity leave.

[mcsupersport]

trigger2kill1 wrote...

Talbainx so the next time i go into a store im to let the door clobber the woman entering behind me?

If you would let it clobber a man, then yeah, otherwise you are acting sexist.  If you are nice and would stop it regardless, then go ahead and stop it.  The trick is to be nice.........everybody be nice...........I will tell you when to not be nice.

[lokiarchetype]

Abriael_CG wrote...

lokiarchetype wrote...
Superiority can refer to numerous things

Like intelligence, strength, athletic ability.

Superior Strength aka physical build.

Not really. It's a judgement of value.

Saying that a woman is worth less than a man is sexist. Saying that women have a different and statistically weaker physical build then  men is simple reality.

If the wrongness of the action is based solely on the disparity of physical strength between the two parties, then there is no reason to include gender.

If this alone is your intention then what difference is there between a 200 lb man that can benchpress 300 lbs beating up
Person A: a 150 lb male that can benchpress 40 lbs
or
Person B: a 150 lb female that can benchpress 40 lbs?

If you're not sexist, there is no difference, and there's no reason to make a distinction based on the person's gender, since they are physical equals.

If you think beating up Person B is worse, you're being sexist, since you're making a judgment based on gender rather than the actual statistics of the specific situation.

[Abriael_CG]

talbainx wrote...

ashmiranda3waymm wrote...
Well I guess I'm definitely a sexist because I'm straight. According to your definition anyone who is not a bisexual is sexist.

Strawman's argument.

Strawman's arguments work only against arguments that are originally very weak and flawed. Like yours.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 05 février 2010 - 03:16 .

[ODST 3]

It's okay to give anyone a slug if they deserve it, women included.

[talbainx]

Saroslol wrote...

talbainx wrote...

What you don't seem to understand, is that regardless of factors, treating one gender differently from another is the very definition of sexism.

I guess it's sexist to let women take maternity leave.

There is also such a thing as paternity leave, should you be interested to know.

Modifié par talbainx, 05 février 2010 - 03:16 .

[Saskuatch]

it is the future and equality exists

[talbainx]

Abriael_CG wrote...

talbainx wrote...

ashmiranda3waymm wrote...
Well I guess I'm definitely a sexist because I'm straight. According to your definition anyone who is not a bisexual is sexist.

Strawman's argument.

Strawman's arguments work only against arguments that are originally very weak and flawed. Like yours.

You'd know. We've been over this.

[Abriael_CG]

lokiarchetype wrote...
If the wrongness of the action is based solely on the disparity of physical strength between the two parties, then there is no reason to include gender.

If this alone is your intention then what difference is there between a 200 lb man that can benchpress 300 lbs beating up
Person A: a 150 lb male that can benchpress 40 lbs
or
Person B: a 150 lb female that can benchpress 40 lbs?

Looks like you need to be repeated things to get it. Let me reiterate.

Hitting people is wrong.

Hitting weaker people is even more wrong.

Hitting weaker people that are not physically threatening you is even more wrong.

Women are generally physically weaker and generally weigh less (ever thought on the reason why there are weight classes in boxing? It's not just because it's hard to get people of different sizes on camrera you know?) than men.

Do your math.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 05 février 2010 - 03:20 .