[Closed] That Maxxis "babes calendar" article...

cougar, I've explained enough times why what is being asked for is effectively a ban.

You have. And do I understand your point. I just believe it's erroneous. If you can't see that we're just going to go round in circles so there's little point in me continuing here.

Apparently you dont know what a strawman is either.

Don't be ludicrous.

I suggest you go through that very clever list point by point.

Irrespective of anything else, would you not agree that if it is possible for you to have fallen into that particular trap as you would be unaware of it by your own logic.

As for whether or not people have said what I claimed, then yes, they have, albeit not in 'exactly' the same words. They might have taught you logic but they didn't teach you to think.

and I quote

honestly you are embarrassing yourself now and are so ignorant you dont even realise how daft this is making you look

Seriously, some sort of consensus was breaking out only a short while ago and now we're reduced to mud slinging again.

cougar - Were not going to change each others minds on the 'ban' issue. I'm pleased at least someone understands basic use of the english language!

To call using the word ban a strawman argument is absolutely ridiculous, though I assume that isn't what you were referring to.

Irrespective of anything else, would you not agree that if it is possible for you to have fallen into that particular trap as you would be unaware of it by your own logic.

As for whether or not people have said what I claimed, then yes, they have, albeit not in 'exactly' the same words.

Were not going to change each others minds on the 'ban' issue. I'm pleased at least someone understands basic use of the english language!

As polite as I can be here you are either very challenged of thinking or trolling the shit out of the forum either way
Good luck getting through to him and mleh

[quote=cumberlanddan ]I suggest you go through that very clever list point by point.
Irrespective of anything else, would you not agree that if it is possible for you to have fallen into that particular trap as you would be unaware of it by your own logic.

Are you now suggesting JY is lying? Because you're surely not so daft as to think that those people employing others to teach at a university are incapable of judging the competence of those they're employing.

As for whether or not people have said what I claimed, then yes, they have, albeit not in 'exactly' the same words.

Priceless. I'm assuming that's in the sense that people are calling for such things to be banned, albeit not in 'exactly' those words?

Apparently Madonna and Beyoncé are in the top 25 feminists according to Harper's bazaar. Now Beyoncé dares to bare while walking round in big knickers and modonna did a coffee table book Called sex of her in the noddy.

So to be a feminist you have to believe in equality but objectification appears to be optional.

[url= http://www.swide.com/celebrities/this-is-why-madonna-is-one-of-the-greatest-feminist-ever/2015/03/08 ]http://www.swide.com/celebrities/this-is-why-madonna-is-one-of-the-greatest-feminist-ever/2015/03/08[/url]

Just think if STW could monetise the quote tag....$$$

You - taught - logic?

Did anyone pass?

How can I be ignorant of a thing i am explaining to you and I have taught at University?

Seriously? If it was the case, you would understand the concept but:

1. fail to recognize their own lack of skill
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others
3. fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy

You can have that for class.

[quote=cumberlanddan ]You - taught - logic?
Did anyone pass?

Well hopefully some were more receptive to logical argument than you.

Can you clarify whether you think JY is lying, or those employing him were incompetent?

[quote=chip ]So to be a feminist you have to believe in equality but objectification appears to be optional.This simple concept seems to have eluded many of the anti-calendarists, some of whom have shown themselves to be the most sexist on the thread.

aracer - Member

Can you clarify whether you think JY is lying, or those employing him were incompetent?

aracer, you know that link about strawmen? Now would be a good time to read it. 😆

edit to get the quote count up - got to fund singletrack!

[img] [/img]

Woo, would you like to explain why that is a strawman?

You do keep claiming that other people don't know what a strawman is, and then suggesting other people's comments are strawmen when they aren't.

It's a free ride when you've already paid.

Right

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition [b]by covertly replacing it with a different proposition[/b] (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

The straw man in this instance would be junkyards employers for employing someone who doesn't understand what a strawman is to teach them.

I suspect they didn't but then they are probably made of straw.

If nowt else it'll give you something to clutch at.

Oh I give up. I'm going for a pint, have fun and play nicely.

Ill take that as an acknowledgement that I'm at least correct about that.

Thank you cougar. Enjoy your pint.

the last few pages of this thread are hilarious! thanks for the laughs - particularly the insane argument about censorship and straw men...lol

I personally would rather maxxis hadn't made the calendar, for similar reasons as Adele....but think they should definitely be allowed to do it if they choose.

Cheng Shin (maxxis)- they are a public company so I expect they will probably end up doing what makes the most short term financial sense to cater to shareholder interets. in the motocross world generally its my understanding that advertising with 'babes' is still massively successful - that's kinda the culture there - check out what other companies in that market do for promo etc. So if that's their biggest market (I'm not 100% sure it is though - they started in bike tires and now listed as an automotive company) then they'll go for marketing campaigns that work there. The babes thing looks like its much more than just a calendar shoot - it looks to be an ongoing feature in their branding. I expect that the market for feminist (male or female) mountain bikers is a fairly small one comparitively so its unlikely they would cater to that with their markerting at the moment by cutting out stuff that works in other markets.

So anyway I only say that to try and explain why I will still be buying maxxis tires and why I would encourage others to do the same ....despite disliking their marketing:

I don't expect a boycott will stop them marketing to mx with 'babes'. I think that a boycott from the people who care about this will only effect their high end MTB tires. I would prefer them to keep making those (and developing new ones).
I would also prefer them to keep marketing to MTB events at grass roots level by providing sponsorship / race prizes etc...cos I like going to races and think there are a lot of positives for MTB created by that kind of support.

So er basically keep complaining but also carry on buying the tires?

[quote=cumberlanddan ]The straw man in this instance would be junkyards employers for employing someone who doesn't understand what a strawman is to teach them.
I suspect they didn't but then they are probably made of straw.

How are JY's employers a strawman?

Sorry I'm struggling to follow your supposed logic here.

You suspect:
1) they don't exist
2) they never employed JY
3) they employed JY despite him not understanding what a strawman is
4) something else

which one is it?

[quote=cumberlanddan ]Ill take that as an acknowledgement that I'm at least correct about that.

He was right, but not in the way you think, definitely clutching.

The straw man in this instance would be junkyards employers for employing someone who doesn't understand what a strawman is to teach them.

FWIW your example would not be a straw man

as for the list you are still failing to recognise your own straw man argument and now claiming that other arguments are straw men when they are not obviously this is still insufficient information for the penny to drop

Ill take that as an acknowledgement that I'm at least correct about that.

[quote=Junkyard ]Got to be trolling.

I'm struggling with Poe's law

So, a few pictures of tits can be so penicious as to make a large number of men sexist

NO

1) It's not specifically the pictures that are turning decent men into sexists.

2) It's not JUST a few pictures. It's centuries of of it.

You're wilfully ignoring my points.

Addendum:

<mod>
Easy on the Ad Hom please guys.
</mod>

BTW my Morissette lyrics seem to have been recognised as expected, but I'm disappointed nobody recognised the Jam lyric I threw in on page 25 (or if they did nobody acknowledged it) 🙁

Considering its a calendar they you have to buy then its a matter of choice, there are plenty of calendars of men semi naked for some on here and there are other calendars with kittens, and whatever you want to look at, I still have my Kylie calendar.
As maxxis is making tyres for all types of motor sport where women are often walking round the pits in tight kit, and on podiums then its up the the manufacturer to target their market.
its choice if you dont like it dont buy it.
But dont claim you are advertising a product if you bought it.

its choice if you dont like it dont buy it.

Did it get sent around as promotional material? Is it going to be displayed in public? If so, it's not the same as private viewing.

NO

1) It's not specifically the pictures that are turning decent men into sexists.

2) It's not JUST a few pictures. It's centuries of of it.

lets not forget about the centuries of painting and sculptures of nude people before photographs. That statue of David is just shocking and objectifying men

[quote=Sancho ]As maxxis is making tyres for all types of motor sport where women are often walking round the pits in tight kit

Which is perfectly acceptable?

[quote=poah ]lets not forget about the centuries of painting and sculptures of nude people before photographs. That statue of David is just shocking and objectifying men

Well it's not at all is it? Which is the point. I thought we'd already done the difference between nudity and objectification? NOBODY (here) is suggesting there is anything at all wrong with nudity in art.

Sancho » As maxxis is making tyres for all types of motor sport where women are often walking round the pits in tight kit

Which is perfectly acceptable?

Totally

Well it's not at all is it? Which is the point. I thought we'd already done the difference between nudity and objectification?

so you can look at naked people/people in sexy poses and not objectify them

BTW my Morissette lyrics seem to have been recognised as expected, but I'm disappointed nobody recognised the Jam lyric I threw in on page 25 (or if they did nobody acknowledged it)

Not going to post any more about the calender in this thread, it's like bashing one's head against the wall and it looks like Dan is just trolling at this point. Hope my comments made some people think a little bit, for a couple of seconds.

yes perfectly acceptable aracer and it might be promotional in workshops then if you dont like it in a workshop take it up with the workshop manager.
also lets not forget that we are but one country and our values are often at odds with other parts of the world.
So a global brand may upset a few in the uk, but please the majority of their market

[quote=poah ]so you can look at naked people/people in sexy poses and not objectify them

Wow, so David is a sexy pose? well you've certainly made me re-evaluate both that statue and what I consider sexy.

[quote=poah ]

Which is perfectly acceptable?

Totally

So why no blokes wandering round the pits, why the tight lycra? Is there no objectification going on there?

molgrips. Not intentional if i did.

One argument seems to be that having pictures of semi clad women in the world propagates sexist attitudes by their mere existence. The flip side is that allowing a vocal objection to affect what can and cannot be published and effect self censorship somehow isn't of concern. They seem very similar arguments in structure to me.

Perhaps i'm not explaining it very well.

Do you see what I mean though or not?

And yes, its not just a few pictures but its far less than in the past. As for this calendar, so far as I'm concerned the context is fine. If it was ads in singletrack or other magazines then that would be very different. Its not. Its a specific calendar to raise money for charity and is no different to any number of others.

aracer, i dont think you understand motorsport

its about men racing
yes women race too and are very good at it, but its fan base is predominantly male.
men who like to look at women.
hence no men in lycra in the pits.

comt to a mx race, or enduro, or track days, or rally, rallycross, etc etc
you will see the target market for the calendar

So why no blokes wandering round the pits, why the tight lycra? Is there no objectification going on there?

but you just said that you can look without objectifying.

Did it get sent around as promotional material? Is it going to be displayed in public? If so, it's not the same as private viewing.
Posted

Sent out - No. There was a link to a site which said you might want to buy the calendar as part of a charity fundraising effort which had no wimmin on show - though there were a couple of silhouettes.

Displayed in public? - I doubt it and only if an individual set it up in a public area. So if they did, its not maxxis' doing and there is plenty of other opportunity to do the same.

So it is private viewing, so far as Maxxis is concerned anyway.

aracer, i dont think you understand motorsport

don't think aracer undertands much TBH

999

1000!

[img] [/img]

Congratulations to El-bent. Who'd have thunk a thread started so late in the year would have made 1,000 posts?

The flip side is that allowing a vocal objection to affect what can and cannot be published and effect self censorship somehow isn't of concern.

By your own (flawed) logic - your vocal objection to the article referred to in the OP is an attempt at banning and censorship of such articles.

Congratulations to El-bent. Who'd have thunk a thread started so late in the year would have made 1,000 posts?

The speed getting there has to give added bonus points.

What about cheerleaders, acceptable or not,
[img] [/img]

David........... Eyes up David.........david..............DAVID!

David's clearly not evolved.

Grum, no, because its a completely different context. I'm responding to an opinion piece. I'm not saying her opinion is not valid, I'm just saying I disagree. Adele is asking for a permanent hiatus in publication.

^^Whoopi Goldberg is shaking her booty all over Beckham's back up there^^

Grum, no, because its a completely different context.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

And there we go again. Don't use those links if you don't know what they mean.

It's not special pleading, its actually different.

It isn't different at all. You just want it to be.

cheerleaders are totally acceptable and I think David is simply following his instincts, nothing wrong with checking out how a woman looks, its natural

cheerleaders are totally acceptable and I think David is simply following his instincts, nothing wrong with checking out how a woman looks, its natural

Agreed. It goes both ways...

[img] [/img]

I aint gonna read all that,but i will say if your a normal male and you dont like looking at girls your a liar

Actually grum, your logicalfallacy 'accusation' is both incorrect and a strawman.

Bingo.

Do you honestly not see the difference between responding to a published article, writing the article in the first place, and asking for someone to stop doing something legal?

You should stop using words when you don't understand what they mean.

It's really pointless arguing with someone who thinks its ok to make things up and pretend people have said things they haven't.

I honestly don't know how to react. 😆

Perhaps you should ask some sort of teacher of logic for some lessons?

But dan, you're suggesting such articles should be banned.

I see what you did there. But unfortunately I'm not.

So that strawman you set up just burned down.

Try again.

because its a completely different context

Don't use those links if you don't know what they mean.

say if your a normal male and you dont like looking at girls your a liar

Perhaps you should ask some sort of teacher of logic for some lessons?

[quote=cumberlanddan ]I see what you did there. But unfortunately I'm not.

Well you're calling for self censorship, which is exactly the same thing

[quote=Sancho ]aracer, i dont think you understand motorsport

My understanding of motorsport is irrelevant. Your argument appears to be that the fanbase liking something makes it acceptable and all other measures of acceptability are irrelevant - correct me if I'm wrong.

comt to a mx race, or enduro, or track days, or rally, rallycross, etc etc
you will see the target market for the calendar

Well quite, which is why I thought it worth exploring why the promotion of stuff at such events is sexist.

Did you hear the one about the magic tractor?

It went down the road and turned into a field ! 😀

The flip side is that allowing a vocal objection to affect what can and cannot be published and effect self censorship somehow isn't of concern. They seem very similar arguments in structure to me.

Ok so you're thinking that the complainers here are trying to bully people into stopping doing things that they like?

Is that why you think it's bad?

No, again I'm not. If thats whats got your goat then you've wasted 29 pages of internet.

I'm not asking her not to say anything. Shes is perfectly entitled to her opinion. I don't agree with her opinion and thought it was so polemic and OTT that it deserved a bit of a balanced response.

She on the other hand, and I'll repeat this, again, is asking for for someone to stop doing/saying/publishing something for an indefinite period.

I thought she wanted to ban it?

Ok but aside from the article, and onto calendars and smut in general - what should feminists say?

Molgrips - i'm arguing against
1. censorship
2. what I perceive as a completely over the top response to a charity calendar which i don't think the author has even set eyes on

I also seem to be in a running battle with a number of people who have taken offence far too easily (like the author IMO) about god knows what.

Some others I seem to be having a sensible conversation with...

I don't agree with her opinion and thought it was so polemic and OTT that it deserved a bit of a balanced response.

* Not to be confused with supporting you 😉

I also seem to be in a running battle with a number of people who have taken offence far too easily (like the author IMO) about god knows what.

1. You keep making things up- offence for example or banning or bullying.
2. You then deny making them up - see bullying
3. you use english words in way not used in the dictionary
4. you make up arguments and ignore the people pointing out you made them up
5. you then fail, deliberately i assume, to grasp the simple points of logic being made
6. you then use said points to incorrectly attack others.
7. you think you are being balanced in all this

HTH

a balanced response.

😆

That would be both knuckles dragging on the ground.

/bully.

what should feminists say?

Depends what type of feminists they are.

[quote=cumberlanddan ]Some others I seem to be having a sensible conversation with...

HTH

Ok so censorship is the *authorities* stopping you from saying something. The author can't do that, cos she's not in a position of authority.

I can ask you not to say something, but I can't censor you. Let's just clear that up. This is NOT about censorship, because the government or law is not involved. Ok?

So tell me again - what should a feminist do when they disagree with a publication?

Molgrips - she and feminists can say whatever she/they like(s)! The language used in the article is as if maxxis tried to force her into a recycled tyre g string and offer her as a trophy at the dunstable downhill cup.

What should someone who disagrees with her opinion say?

I don't want to censor Adele, I just disagree with her or believe her.
She worked in an industry for years that exploited young woman, telling would be fashion models if they had more meat than a butchers pencil they were no good. Parties where the newest young models would be introduced to rich preditary older men. An industry that promoted and enforced the body image that you had to be stick thin,leading to probably thousand of young woman developing eating disorders.
I believe the industry she worked in to be more damaging than any calender.

I don't believe her bike tyres make her feel stupid, make her stupid.
I think she should do a regular column called "things that make me stupid" it could run and run.

Well you could say "well I thought she came on a bit strong there, she might have a point or might not"

You seemed to go quite a lot further than that, and you appeared to be defending something that is sexist, and you denied it was sexist.

[quote=cumberlanddan ]What should someone who disagrees with her opinion say?

I recommend misrepresenting everything she says in order to make your argument more effective.

The language used in the article is as if maxxis tried to force her into a recycled tyre g string and offer her as a trophy at the dunstable downhill cup.

Shouldn't it be a strawperson and not strawman?
Sexism everywhere. 😥

[quote=chip ]I don't want to censor Adele, I just disagree with her or believe her.
She worked in an industry for years that exploited young woman, telling would be fashion models if they had more meat than a butchers pencil they were no good. Parties where the newest young models would be introduced to rich preditary older men. An industry that promoted and enforced the body image that you had to be stick thin,leading to probably thousand of young woman developing eating disorders.
I believe the industry she worked in to be more damaging than any calender.
I don't believe her bike tyres make her feel stupid, make her stupid.
I think she should do a regular column called "things that make me stupid" it could run and run.
Careful, you're playing the (wo)man and not the ball.

Maybe there should be a separate thread discussing the plausibility of the author rather than the calendar itself?

We've done the censorship bit.

She is asking for self-censorship. Which is de-facto censorship. Which is a problem when there are significant minorities who's voices may not be heard. See sunni/shia tensions in iraq/iran etc for one example.

I have to admit I hadn't realised self-censorship was such a problem in the middle east. Those minorities choosing not to voice their opinions - can we force them to?