For those that Ha ha'd

[Belsnickel]

(11-21-2018, 09:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course they degraded her based on appearance. I have no idea how anyone can view it otherwise. 

Is it the same as saying a man looks like a woman? Perhaps. I'm just in the minority that find both petty and simply done because of to whom they are married.

Hope that cleared it up. 

It did, though I don't believe you are in the minority in finding it petty and what not. That is something that most people would agree with. I just don't think most would agree that it an appearance based degradation.

[*bfine32*]

(11-21-2018, 09:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It did, though I don't believe you are in the minority in finding it petty and what not. That is something that most people would agree with. I just don't think most would agree that it an appearance based degradation.

Who knew it would come to a semantics argument. 

Appearance means visible from the outside.

But I do learn a lot in this forum. For instance a couple days ago I got a lesson in the use of quotations,  yesterday i learned choices cannot be mistakes. and today I learned making fun of how someone looks on the outside is not making fun of their appearance.


PnR the gift that keeps on giving

[Belsnickel]

(11-21-2018, 09:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who knew it would come to a semantics argument. 

Appearance means visible from the outside.

But I do learn a lot in this forum. For instance a couple days ago I got a lesson in the use of quotations,  yesterday i learned choices cannot be mistakes. and today I learned making fun of how someone looks on the outside is not making fun of their appearance.


PnR the gift that keeps on giving

Eh, I just consider calling someone's outfit ugly to be more of a commentary on their choice of clothing and referring to their physical appearance as an appearance commentary, but maybe that's just me. Someone making a terrible choice in clothing is, well, a choice. Physical appearance isn't as much of a choice. So it's just a different situation in my mind. I think degrading someone on something they didn't choose is not appropriate at all, but saying what they are wearing looks ugly just isn't a bid deal. Still petty, but not a big deal.

[*bfine32*]

(11-21-2018, 09:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, I just consider calling someone's outfit ugly to be more of a commentary on their choice of clothing and referring to their physical appearance as an appearance commentary, but maybe that's just me. Someone making a terrible choice in clothing is, well, a choice. Physical appearance isn't as much of a choice. So it's just a different situation in my mind. I think degrading someone on something they didn't choose is not appropriate at all, but saying what they are wearing looks ugly just isn't a bid deal. Still petty, but not a big deal.

We're not talking about fashion designers commenting on the cut and hem. We are talking about folks on social media whose intent is to belittle and degrade. 

The intention of each is to degrade based on appearance. Choice (not mistake) or not, you are degrading them based on appearance. Anyone that said Michelle looks like a man (to be honest, I don't remember as much of that as I do insults on FLOTUS' appearance nationally) was simply trying to belittle her; as are the comments made about FLOTUS and her attire. 

Consider it "different" if you want, but each are being purposely slurred based on their outward look.

But the bottom line is: It is bullying and many laugh at the fact when FLOTUS says she is treated as such. 

[fredtoast]

(11-21-2018, 09:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But the bottom line is: It is bullying and many laugh at the fact when FLOTUS says she is treated as such. 

No one ever said she was never bullied.  We just laughed at the claim that she was the most bullied person on earth or whatever the ridiculous claim was you tried to make.

[Belsnickel]

(11-21-2018, 09:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We're not talking about fashion designers commenting on the cut and hem. We are talking about folks on social media whose intent is to belittle and degrade. 

True. But we're also talking about people commenting on the appearance of a garment a person chose to wear.

(11-21-2018, 09:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The intention of each is to degrade based on appearance. Choice (not mistake) or not, you are degrading them based on appearance. Anyone that said Michelle looks like a man (to be honest, I don't remember as much of that as I do insults on FLOTUS' appearance nationally) was simply trying to belittle her; as are the comments made about FLOTUS and her attire. 

Consider it "different" if you want, but each are being purposely slurred based on their outward look.

A garment isn't the person's appearance. Saying a garment is ugly is commenting on the appearance of the garment and talking about a person wearing it is commentary on that person's selection of that garment.

(11-21-2018, 09:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But the bottom line is: It is bullying and many laugh at the fact when FLOTUS says she is treated as such. 

This we can agree on.

[GMDino]

(11-21-2018, 09:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who knew it would come to a semantics argument. 

Appearance means visible from the outside.

But I do learn a lot in this forum. For instance a couple days ago I got a lesson in the use of quotations,  yesterday i learned choices cannot be mistakes. and today I learned making fun of how someone looks on the outside is not making fun of their appearance.


PnR the gift that keeps on giving

Yesterday you learned that the POTUS made a choice and then said it was a mistake to make that choice.

Not that I expected you to learn or care about the difference...I just expected you to continue to whine about it and take it personally. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-21-2018, 09:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: True. But we're also talking about people commenting on the appearance of a garment a person chose to wear.


A garment isn't the person's appearance. Saying a garment is ugly is commenting on the appearance of the garment and talking about a person wearing it is commentary on that person's selection of that garment.


This we can agree on.

Roll with it. FLOTUS was made fun of simply because of her appearance (choice or otherwise). There's really nothing else that can be said to contradict that. Well there is, but nothing of merit.

[GMDino]

(11-21-2018, 08:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Couple things:

Michelle put out the book and said the current POTUS endangered her family. POTUS simply said she has to say something controversial to sell copies and then attacked her husband; not her.

I'm assuming you're going with the 2 wrongs make a right fallacy or whataboutism to excuse the constant attacks on FLOTUS. 

I turn a "blind eye" to nothing. Anyone who degrades Michelle on her appearance alone is a POS. Just like those that degrade FLOTUS. 

I've compiled a list of time you jumped in with (multiple) posts defending Michelle Obama from a personal attack on this board:

1)

[Belsnickel]

(11-21-2018, 10:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Roll with it. FLOTUS was made fun of simply because of her appearance (choice or otherwise). There's really nothing else that can be said to contradict that. Well there is, but nothing of merit.

Based on your (erroneous) opinion.

[*bfine32*]

(11-21-2018, 10:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: I've compiled a list of time you jumped in with (multiple) posts defending Michelle Obama from a personal attack on this board:

1)

Good work. Now compile a list of where I excused it because someone else was made fun of or said said "it's not the same".

[*bfine32*]

(11-21-2018, 10:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Based on your (erroneous) opinion.

Of course it was erroneous; it was different than yours. 

[Belsnickel]

(11-21-2018, 10:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course it was erroneous; it was different than yours. 

Now you're getting it.

[GMDino]

(11-21-2018, 10:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Good work. Now compile a list of where I excused it because someone else was made fun of or said said "it's not the same".

Nah, you just ignored it or said "I didn't see it" in a thread you posted in too.

Carry on!

[Dill]

(11-21-2018, 09:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who knew it would come to a semantics argument. 

Appearance means visible from the outside.

But I do learn a lot in this forum. For instance a couple days ago I got a lesson in the use of quotations,  yesterday i learned choices cannot be mistakes. and today I learned making fun of how someone looks on the outside is not making fun of their appearance.

PnR the gift that keeps on giving

That's what happens when for most people criticism of "appearance" means facial beauty with reference to criticisms of the FLOTUS--an issue raised by people, for example, calling Michelle Obama a "gorilla," which you of course do not agree with. Or when Trump tweeted an unflattering picture of Ted Cruz's wife alongside Melania or said that a woman with a face like Carly's could not be president.

This become a "semantics argument" as soon as you expand this notion of appearance to mean the overly general "visible from the outside," including clothing choices, the criticism of which most would not place in the same category as criticizing a woman's face. Once you did that, your argument was trading on two different notions of "appearance."

Criticism of women's facial features is almost always misogynistic (certainly it is in all the Trump examples above), but criticizing a woman's choice of coat, or whether to wear one, rarely is.

Duly noted?

[*bfine32*]

(11-21-2018, 10:26 PM)Dill Wrote: That's what happens when for most people criticism of "appearance" means facial beauty with reference to criticisms of the FLOTUS--an issue raised by people, for example, calling Michelle Obama a "gorilla," which you of course do not agree with. Or when Trump tweeted an unflattering picture of Ted Cruz's wife alongside Melania or said that a woman with a face like Carly's could not be president.

This become a "semantics argument" as soon as you expand this notion of appearance to mean the overly general "visible from the outside," including clothing choices, the criticism of which most would not place in the same category as criticizing a woman's face. Once you did that, your argument was trading on two different notions of "appearance."

Criticism of women's facial features is almost always misogynistic (certainly it is in all the Trump examples above), but criticizing a woman's choice of coat, or whether to wear one, rarely is.

Please share with me Dill's definition of appearance, so it will no longer be a semantics argument. 

Quick question yes or no to stop the debate. Did folks make fun of FLOTUS' appearance?

Of course I also said Cruz should punch Trump in the mouth. 

[Dill]

(11-21-2018, 10:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Please share with me Dill's definition of appearance, so it will no longer be a semantics argument. 

Quick question yes or no to stop the debate. Did folks make fun of FLOTUS' appearance?

Of course I also said Cruz should punch Trump in the mouth. 

Not duly noted yet?

Dill just operationally defined "appearance" in his post--the definition used by people criticizing FLOTUSes and those criticizing the critics, with supporting examples. You missed that? Thought maybe Dill had his own secret definition?

And no, given this definition, folks did not make fun of Melania's FLOTUS "appearance" in the sense that people criticized Michelle Obama's looks or those of the women Trump publicly degraded. They criticized her coat and with it her taste.

But generalize the definition of appearance, as you did, and sure, then "folks made fun of the FLOTUS' appearance."  And presto we have a grand equivocation. Misogynistic attacks on women's looks--some by the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD--are suddenly on the same level as jokes about Melania's coat by private citizens on twitter. She is bullied too. Both sides do it.

Not the first time you have responded to bad behavior of specific individuals by subsuming it under a more general category, opening the way to equivocations which negate quality and degree.

I'll shut up about this if you will agree that calling Michelle a "gorilla" or implying Fiorina's face is to ugly for public office is much worse than a tweet calling Melania's coat a "turkey"-- Even if both are criticisms of "visibility from the outside." Or should Trump punch one of these twitter users in the mouth, as you suggested Cruz do Trump?

[*bfine32*]

(11-21-2018, 11:23 PM)Dill Wrote: Not duly noted yet?

Dill just operationally defined "appearance" in his post--the definition used by people criticizing FLOTUSes and those criticizing the critics, with supporting examples. You missed that? Thought maybe Dill had his own secret definition?

And no, given this definition, folks did not make fun of Melania's FLOTUS "appearance" in the sense that people criticized Michelle Obama's looks or those of the women Trump publicly degraded. They criticized her coat and with it her taste.

But generalize the definition of appearance, as you did, and sure, then "folks made fun of the FLOTUS' appearance."  And presto we have a grand equivocation. Misogynistic attacks on women's looks--some by the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD--are suddenly on the same level as jokes about Melania's coat by private citizens on twitter. She is bullied too. Both sides do it.

Not the first time you have responded to bad behavior of specific individuals by subsuming it under a more general category, opening the way to equivocations which negate quality and degree.

I'll shut up about this if you will agree that calling Michelle a "gorilla" or implying Fiorina's face is to ugly for public office is much worse than a tweet calling Melania's coat a "turkey"-- Even if both are criticisms of "visibility from the outside."  Or should Trump punch one of these twitter users in the mouth, as you suggested Cruz do Trump?

I didn't get if that was a yes or no.

[Dill]

(11-22-2018, 12:07 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't get if that was a yes or no.

Yes--"visible from the outside" allows equivocation.

[BmorePat87]

(11-21-2018, 09:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No one ever said she was never bullied.  We just laughed at the claim that she was the most bullied person on earth or whatever the ridiculous claim was you tried to make.

This exact thing has been stated multiple times but it takes away from his narrative so he ignores.

Hillary spent years being openly called a number of degrading names towards women and Melania's husband held numerous rally where he praised people for chanting "lock her up". A guy literally fired a weapon in a pizza place to free alleged child sex slaves that he believed existed because a long running conspiracy said Hillary and her Satan worshipping aides were part of a pizza child sex slave ring. 

When we're anywhere close to that with Melania, we can start talking about being "the most" or even "one of the most" bullied.