Yes! Lib Dem calls to ban page 3

[RootsBooster 24]

Do you have any consideration for other people's feelings??!?! Or are you not capable of it, and just think what is written is true, and that people think and write what they say?!

 

Maybe during your logical deduction you forgot to add "feelings" into the equation.

 

WHAT?!!! What are you on about??

 

You claimed I said something which I did not mean

 

I denied this

 

you then claimed I had said YOU said something you did not mean

 

I've questioned this and it makes me incapable of consideration for other people's feelings?

 

I'm starting to suspect you have some severe emotional problems.

[salsafan 10]

Whose feelings? Your feelings are irrelevant when it comes to whether something should be banned or not, as are mine. We do not ban things based on feelings.

 

The only way your feelings could be relevant are if you are a former/current page 3 model. As the people involved, their feelings are the only ones that could possibly be relevant.

 

Just for info, when it comes to opinions, there is no such thing as "men" or "women" - we are all individuals with out own thoughts and views. To claim that ANYTHING is a "gender need" is in itself wrong, and could quite possibly be called sexist.

 

I will also bring up my earlier comment, do you also believe that pictures such as the one of David Beckham in just his pants should also be banned?

*Deep breathes*

I do not know how you think.

Feelings of people. People are real. Humans are real. Human have needs. Needs and desire become choices. Choices becomes votes. Votes create the democratic process.

Some people decide based on their "own logic". Other people decide based on their "own feelings". Both are as equal and as valid too. You are not them. They are not you. Hence it is democratic. If each person was true to the democratic process, then they should be truthful to themselves, and vote as according to their own view on the matter. It should represent them.

 

I do not know what you are now on about, and the context that you are on about here. Though I will attempt at this, and bring you back to the history of the thread. The feelings that I am talking of is not of the models. Feelings of the existence of page 3, and of the collective image, and representation of the society is also at discussion here. What relevance has page 3 got on news? What relevance and purpose does page 3 have on other members of the society? The impact and the damage has been done. It is one of the factors of how men behave so weirdly, as the idea of perception of intimidation, and raising that sexual barrier onto women and into their collective consciousness, and without dignity on individual selves any more. That is the most important point here.

 

I accept that each person has an opinion of their own. Yet, some people make sweeping generalisation on the opposite sex, which they have absolutely no entitlement to whatsoever. Just want to clear that point there. When others are from that gender and are discussing and sharing ideas of the issues that one encounters from being a female, other posters should not interject and play random tag and be expected to get away with a valid point, and not see them as obtuse. Cos you cannot tell what I think. Why should you ? There are indeed commonalities in a gender, so it is not like there is not either. Yet, at the same time, I am not one of those people who have these "blanket mindset" to think that is what it will be like for all. Cos there are so many factors that comes into play. I thought that being sexist is marginalising a sex with limitation on them? Yet, why can I as a member of the female group cannot declare my opinion or desire, or wants without even being labelled, criticised and so forth ?

 

 

To be frank, I do not want to see nude pictures in a newspaper period. I do not fancy David Beckham. I do not see any relevance in seeing naked or semi naked pictures in a public space. Cos you are a part of the collective when in public. Doing so, does not mean that one is shy of one's body or has inhibition. To me, there is a time and place for things, and the choices for individuals still exist. Though, not in a public way. Although, I can see that people seems to find it more and more accepting to flaunt and see naked bodies everywhere. I know that we have changed as a nation, but it is going to the extreme and ridiculous. As people are more open, the increase and decline of any family structure, or civilities have lessened. We can be like Sweden. Though, do we want to be like Sweden ? 1 Dad, 7 children. 7 Mums ? That is where it will head towards.

[salsafan 10]

WHAT?!!! What are you on about??

 

You claimed I said something which I did not mean

 

I denied this

 

you then claimed I had said YOU said something you did not mean

 

I've questioned this and it makes me incapable of consideration for other people's feelings?

 

I'm starting to suspect you have some severe emotional problems.

No, I did not claim that you said something that you did not mean. I wrote that you must have thought this. You think that what I write is what I think you said. No. I write, cos that is what I think you think on the subject. I presume that you already know about the subject in order to debate it.

 

If you have looked at the subject itself, and covered the different angles and understand it quite a bit yourself. Then there should not be your "I did not say" comments. Do you see other people having an issue on other threads? If you do not understand what Women's Lib was about or what female empowerment means. Then may I rudely suggests that you should stay off the thread?

 

Or unless you have something very specific to say about the legality angle of banning page 3. Cos what you seem to be saying is pretty old now.

 

I am insulted that you implied something that I did not mean too. Cos it is clear with my interaction with you that we think VERY differently. That is for sure! All I can say is. I do not want to go down this personal route any longer. I think I have said enough between you and I. I now know how you tick, and it does not even make sense, and you do not acknowledge where you went wrong with interjecting before and so forth. Fine.

 

Rootsbooster, I apologise for confusing you, and can you please let this go now?

[RootsBooster 24]

No, I did not claim that you said something that you did not mean. I wrote that you must have thought this. You think that what I write is what I think you said. No. I write, cos that is what I think you think on the subject. I presume that you already know about the subject in order to debate it.

 

If you have looked at the subject itself, and covered the different angles and understand it quite a bit yourself. Then there should not be your "I did not say" comments. Do you see other people having an issue on other threads? If you do not understand what Women's Lib was about or what female empowerment means. Then may I rudely suggests that you should stay off the thread?

 

Or unless you have something very specific to say about the legality angle of banning page 3. Cos what you seem to be saying is pretty old now.

 

I am insulted that you implied something that I did not mean too. Cos it is clear with my interaction with you that we think VERY differently. That is for sure! All I can say is. I do not want to go down this personal route any longer. I think I have said enough between you and I. I now know how you tick, and it does not even make sense, and you do not acknowledge where you went wrong with interjecting before and so forth. Fine.

 

Rootsbooster, I apologise for confusing you, and can you please let this go now?

 

I doubt it, not after all the hard work you've put in. You had enough chances to be reasonable and stop to think.

 

I think you owe an apology to the whole forum.

[Jabberwocky 46]

Is Bago back under another name?

[salsafan 10]

And yet, instead of representing yourself, you talk of "gender issues". Most of that part is meaningless nonsense by the way.

That is your expectation of me though, right? As far as I am concerned on this thread, many people have both discussed openly in a generic manner, as well as putting their own self forward and put across their opinions, ideas, and feelings towards the subject. Well, it turned out, if one has to be clear about it all, several subjects related to sexualisation, women's liberation, sexisim, empowerment etc etc etc.

 

Feel free to moderate the thread by the way and reduce any "nonsense" as you call it which is not inline with the original topic and post.

 

The relevance of something is again irrelevant as to whether it should be banned. There has been no damage that you have given proof of. "Men behave so weirdly" - that type of generalisation could again be called sexism. Interesting that you also claim no women have individual dignity - again speaking on behalf of others despite the first paragraph. I also think a lot of women will find that frankly offensive.

Such as "men behave so weirdly"?

 

Please do not misquote me:

What relevance has page 3 got on news? What relevance and purpose does page 3 have on other members of the society? The impact and the damage has been done. It is one of the factors of how men behave so weirdly, as the idea of perception of intimidation, and raising that sexual barrier onto women and into their collective consciousness, and without dignity on individual selves any more.

 

I was talking about "harrassment", and Mr Moron was talking of "admiration". Do you see from the viewpoint of a female how ridiculous a comment like that is ? Is he not trying to control and sexualise others more than they want to, or be seen as?

 

And yet it is you who continue to assume what other women (and other posters on this thread) think.

Sometimes you can indeed think and know the train of thought of others and hence that is how you discuss something. However, saying that, I do not profess that I know how all these women here think. I just concur on the points made, and I did not think that you cannot read between the lines of the same sentiment here at all.

 

See above points. Your posts simply do not agree with the idea that you do not generalise.

Well, you can say what you like. I know that my intent, and what I wrote was true to the subject itself. Yet, it was indeed others who took this thread as a literal debating contest and not take into consideration the comments and personal opinions put forth from each individual.

 

If you wish to do that, and you are the mod, who am I to argue ?

 

I notice you didn't answer the question of whether it should be banned. And again, relevance has nothing to do whether something should be banned. Also, more nonsense.

I wrote in one post " I agree with this policy". If you must want to see the exact words coming out, I agree that page 3 should be banned. Did you not see the expression of joy as demonstrated in my thread entitled ? "Yes" ? It does mean that I am in agreement of the ban. I did write that, it should not be the job of a politician to state this, but if it must go down this route, then so be it.

Edited September 21, 2011 by salsafan

[joiner andy 10]

i dont read long posts, my attention span just cant take it!

[sccsux 10]

Mr Moran wrote that he does not see harrassment as an issue. Quoting him, "admire a good looking lady".

 

He said no such thing. What he said, was, "Harrass, no, never.!! Admire a good looking lady? Sure, why not?"

 

Admiration != Harassment

 

beer belly, halitosis, bald pate, lack of sexual prowess, tiny penis and acute premature ejaculation etc

 

That's a fair few generalisations there.

 

A bit like thinking all women should be like on page 3 of the sun.

 

The women who generally are willing to prostitute themselves in this manner tend not to have principles.

 

That's most who marry then. I've heard both males and females refer to marriage as legalised prostitution:|

 

I know how a woman feels when harrassed.

 

Then I hope you informed the relevant authorities for a full investigation as it is illegal.

 

OK, here's the deal. Ban page 3 by all means, but in return ban Coronation Street and Bellenders.

 

Oh yes, please.....

 

Why don't they have a man with his knob out on page 7 just to keep the feminists happy?

 

Neither do they show a woman's nether regions either, though they have had male topless models on occasion.

 

Is Bago back under another name?

 

Now that's a scary thought.

[CockneyMafia 10]

If it is a generic newspaper for the family, and women also reads this. Then they would not think and see the way to earn money is literally to go naked for a living, and indirectly, kind of also put yourself and your reputation (dignity, integrity) at risk there after. Some people in the real world do not distinguish that line.

 

What exactly is a "family newspaper"? It's like "family football clubs" (I'm looking at Everton here) - a meaningless prefix used to promote the idea of something wholesome and fluffy.

 

The kind of 'family' that sit around reading the Sun are the same ones who think all immigrants are benefit scroungers, all Muslims are terroists and the X-Factor is an important part of our culture.

 

In short, half of this forum.

[Frank Sidney 11]

Genuine question, but is English your first language? I'm having huge trouble understanding you.

 

I reckon Bago has returned...

[xenia 11]

Thank you.

 

There are currently only 13 openly lesbian, gay or bisexual MPs in the House of Commons. This figure represents just 2% of all 646 MPs. Treasury actuaries have estimated that 6% of the UK population are lesbian, gay or bisexual. If the House of Commons were representative of the wider population there would be 39 lesbian or gay members.

 

Taken from Stonewall's submission to the Speaker's Conference on Parliamentary Representation (2009)

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Lib Dem calls to ban page 3: why not, as most Liberal Democrats are t**s anyway.