Thread: News Week photo of Sarah Palin--Sexist or not?

Originally Posted by jhs5120

If you are arguing Sarah Palin is not a Christo-Conservative you are more deranged then Sarah Palin herself. Some other leftist ideologies of hers that I disagree with include her belief that global warming isn't man-made, having Alaska sucked dried of all oil while destroying any beauty left, her stance against same sex marraige, and during the 2088 election she disagreed with the seperation of church and state!

I never said she wasn't a Christian conservative, I merely asked what you libs consider, " whacked out conservo-christian ideas". And all you had to offer was, "Duuuuh, her daughter got knocked up, duuuuh".

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Good luck with that.

Of course, I didn't pick through his post looking for typos.

I simply responded to what he wrote.

If there's an issue with doing that, do let me know...

Originally Posted by Steve

The only thing you've shown to be ridiculous is your own approach to having a discussion.

Copyright infringement is wrong, and it is illegal. Your opinion doesn't really matter, and it's about as ungrounded in reality as one could expect.

The funny part is that you think you have anything of substance to add to the discussion...

What's funny is that you accuse me of using merely my opinion (and you're right that my opinion, in and of itself, does not support an argument), and then do just that by saying that copyright infringement is "wrong," providing nothing to back it up. The truth is that I have supported my opinion with things like the business market share acquisition example I posted above.

Originally Posted by Steve

Slon, you're proving just how uneducated you are on the topics of copyrights and copyright infringement...

Could you please support this ungrounded claim?

Originally Posted by Slon

What's funny is that you accuse me of using merely my opinion (and you're right that my opinion, in and of itself, does not support an argument), and then do just that by saying that copyright infringement is "wrong," providing nothing to back it up. The truth is that I have supported my opinion with things like the business market share acquisition example I posted above.

You should troll elsewhere.

The only one here who doesn't realize that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about is you...

Could you please support this ungrounded claim?

I could link to almost any one of your posts in this thread to support it.

I understand that you don't think copyright infringement is wrong.

That's why I have no desire to discuss this with you further. You've not backed up your position, and you debate like a child.

You're done...

Allright, let's move along from how copyright infringement might be comparable to shoplifting, tax evasion, parking in a handicapped spot or any other kind of offence and return to the topic.

ADMINISTRATION

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Allright, let's move along from how copyright infringment might be comparable to shoplifting, tax evasion, parking in a handicapped spot or any other kind of offence and return to the topic.

ADMINISTRATION

Well, now, parking in a handicapped spot is a completely unrelated topic...



I hears ya', Boss...

Originally Posted by Steve

You should troll elsewhere.

The only one here who doesn't realize that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about is you...



I could link to almost any one of your posts in this thread to support it.

So go ahead and do so. I don't think it would be in violation of OSB's order regarding comparing it to shoplifting and other crimes.

I understand that you don't think copyright infringement is wrong.

That's why I have no desire to discuss this with you further. You've not backed up your position, and you debate like a child.

Sure I have. Post 162 is one of the posts that contains the reasoning.

You're done...

Why? Because you wrongly accused me of doing something which you yourself have done?

Originally Posted by Slon

So go ahead and do so. I don't think it would be in violation of OSB's order regarding comparing it to shoplifting and other crimes.Sure I have. Post 162 is one of the posts that contains the reasoning.

I do want that tangent ended so the topic thread can resume. Everyone got their respective reasonings explained on comparative laws, and it's now:

YouTube - BEATING A DEAD HORSE WHILE PLAYING FITTING MUSIC

and derailing the main topic, namely whether the pic is sexist or not. Let's move on to that.

I don't think it is sexist. Inappropriate, yes. Sexist, no.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

I don't think it is sexist. Inappropriate, yes. Sexist, no.

I would have to agree with that...

Originally Posted by Sunshine

I don't think it is sexist. Inappropriate, yes. Sexist, no.

What's so inappropriate about a picture of a woman in shorts?

Originally Posted by Slon

What's so inappropriate about a picture of a woman in shorts?

Nothing if the magazine is Photoplay. BTW, is Photoplay still around? Maybe I should have used People Magazine as the example.

For a magazine that tries to masquerade as a 'journal' it is not appropriate. It says a lot about the 'journal' itself.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Nothing if the magazine is Photoplay. BTW, is Photoplay still around? Maybe I should have used People Magazine as the example.

For a magazine that tries to masquerade as a 'journal' it is not appropriate. It says a lot about the 'journal' itself.

That, and I think that there's something to be said for not using a picture of someone without their permission.