Posted on 11/04/2005 3:30:20 AM PST by .cnI redruM
As always, the Left protests things that are voluntary.
What? That I understand women *never* inveigh against a privilege unless they are convinced there is no realistic possibility of their ever exercising it personally?
uhm.. can we go with "who cares"?
its a SHIRT people. if a girl thinks that the shirt applies to her, she'll wear it. if not, no ones forcing her to buy it. i think the shirts are amusing.
do you all find the shirt i'm wearing offensive? it says "chicks dig scrawny pale guys."
Well, as the guy said in The Graduate. "Plastics, my boy, plastics."
I think "never" is a bit strong, and partly explains why some folks are getting hot under the collar on this thread. I've known drop-dead girls who would object to the t-shirts because they're moral girls. But that's rare, and "seldom" would be quite true. Which explains why you made a smart bet, and won.
I concede to your objection to the term "never." "Seldom" is indeed a more appropriate term, though I've never been one to accommodate those who "strain at gnats, and swallow camels."
That being said, I don't see how revealing the statement of principle that informed my original speculation could, in any sense, be responsible for the wild accusations that appeared prior to its revelation. No, I think simple "petulant chauvanism" is a sufficient explaination.
At the risk of punctiliousness, I point out your "drop-dead girls who would object to the t-shirts because they're moral girls" in no way contradict my latter "statement of principle."
True. The problem is that people are running with the contrapositive of your statement. You observed, "If a female is railing against sexual innuendo, she's (probably) unattractive." A sort-of contrapositive is partly valid: "If a female is attractive, she's (probably) going to take advantage of it in some way."
In math, a statement is true if and only if the contrapositive is true, but that's not so for fuzzy statements like the above. The fuzzy statement "complaining about innuendo implies ugly" doesn't translate into "beautiful implies slutty." That's a mistake on two counts: first, the implication is less than absolute, so the contrapositive is likewise less than absolutely true. But more importantly, the negation of "complaining" is "uncomplaining," but folks on this thread are casually interpreting "uncomplaining" to mean "promiscuous," which you never said.
Some have put the icing on the cake, by translating your "just plain plain" to mean "homosexual."
My post was more in response to her post than yours. I apologize for being too general. The point I wanted to make was that those who are organizing this particular protest do so from an animus against what they consider to be traditional values, not from any desire to protect women's rights per se. And while it is always dangerous to judge a book by it's cover, the cover usually is a good indication of what's inside and that is certainly true in this case.
but "hate boys" t-shirts are ok...
Can I apply for admission to your academy?
Not kidding! :o)
How is this so when the supposed "contrapositive" is demonstrably false? The two statements do not have equivalent truth value.
Okay, after some real intellectual struggle, I understand your post.
Wow, you have a neat brain ;o)
You should reread this thread. I don't know what error you think I made that I'm not admitting to.
I personally know very beautiful, fully endowed teenage girls who think this kind of crap is not worth their money and will boycott the store and the stupid shirt.
The only thing I will concede is that in this particular case your generalizing happens to be true of the sheman boycotting.
When I was in college a guy once told me it was the woman's job to iron men's clothing...including their boxers. I got into his drawers one day while he was gone...his boxers all acquired big iron-shaped scorch marks on the backside that day.
He never said that(to me) again. :)
That is all.
Best advertising money they never spent.
I don't need to apologise for anything. Your opinions regarding this lead me to say that youy might as well call them lesbians. After all, that's what men like yourself love to call women who speak out against these sort of things anyway, lesbians, feminazis,etc. 'ugly'.
I know what I wrote. You know what I wrote. We both know what you substituted for what I wrote. It was "slander" by definition.
Post #67 is an insightful analysis. You should read it.
I personally know very beautiful, fully endowed teenage girls who think this kind of crap is not worth their money and will boycott the store and the stupid shirt.
Your personal knowlege of many bi-lingual Americans does not invalidate the assertion most Americans are not bi-lingual.
The only thing I will concede is that in this particular case your generalizing happens to be true of the sheman boycotting.
So If my assertion was correct, what's your complaint?
No, but good luck.
Your a friggin high strung idiot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.