(July 1, 2016 at 2:55 am)Losty Wrote: It's not Thump. If you would listen we have told you time and time again that we seriously discussed it. It was considered. There's a difference between us ignoring her point and us not agreeing with her point.

[...]

Now, if you disagree that's fine. But please stop acting like we haven't considered this.

We considered it. We just don't agree. That's all.

And that's fine, I get it that we don't agree. But what I've seen here in this thread has not addressed the main point raised -- that the law is not the maximum limit of action, but the minimum.

If no one wants to address that point, okay, I'll drop it.

I just addressed it. I literally just did. I and others have several times.

Are you saying you're making a point that is not about banning male nips and I am missing it?
Because I wasn't talking about the law. I was talking about how if we ban male nips for equality what we are doing is saying we want equal discrimination. We are forced by law to discriminate against women. So therefore we should discriminate against men too. That way everyone is equally mistreated? It makes no sense.

I am discussing your and heatheness' point unless there's a point being made that I'm missing?

Sure, it's the minimum. But we see no worthwhile case to do more than the minimum at this current time.

Speaking personally, I think the damage that could be done to the forum as a whole by making an isolated stand against a not-particularly-hot issue is not worth the negligible benefit of doing so.

(July 1, 2016 at 3:36 am)Losty Wrote: I just addressed it. I literally just did. I and others have several times.

No, you didn't.

(July 1, 2016 at 3:36 am)Losty Wrote: Are you saying you're making a point that is not about banning male nips and I am missing it?

Yes. The point, really, is not about male nipples at all any more.

(July 1, 2016 at 3:36 am)Losty Wrote: Because I wasn't talking about the law. I was talking about how if we ban male nips for equality what we are doing is saying we want equal discrimination. We are forced by law to discriminate against women. So therefore we should discriminate against men too. That way everyone is equally mistreated? It makes no sense.

Back in 1993 - 94, after I got out of the service, I beat the Central Coast of California looking for a job as a firefighter. It just so happened that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had issued a ruling stating that hiring pools for public positions should generally reflect the ethnic proportions of the community at large -- in other words, you couldn't ignore black ot Hispanic applicants in a city with sizeable percentages of those ethnicities.

I lost out on a couple of opportunities because of that decision. It bothered me at the time, but later, after thinking about it, I understood that someone had to break the status quo, and someone had to be jilted.

Me, not posting my nips here is not going to give me heartburn. It ain't a line I'm going to fight on. If the staff want to defend that line -- the right of men to post nips must be preserved -- hey, have at it.

(July 1, 2016 at 3:36 am)Losty Wrote: I am discussing your and heatheness' point unless there's a point being made that I'm missing?

Well, the point being made is that the rules can be, and should be, better than a law that every Staff member hertofore has acknowleded is sexist, in this thread. Defending the rule on the basis of the law, while at the same time acknowledging that the law being used as a defense is sexist, strikes me as more than a little short-sighted.

Your point is making zero sense. I have no idea what you want from me. You're still seeming to be saying that you think the rules should be changed. I know they can but they won't, because they should not be. Unless you have some solid evidence that proves beyond all doubt that you are right. You just have an opinion. I am here trying really hard to have a civil discussion but nothing is good enough. Just use plain words and say what you want.

We defend the rule based on the law because sexist or not, we are still bound by the law. O_o

The point is, Thump, just because we have to treat one side unfairly for legal reasons, does't mean we should treat both sides unfairly in our AF rules for non-legal reasons just to be 'fair'. Scare quotes intentional because after all equal mistreatment is not fairness, because fairness is different from sameness:

Steven Pinker Wrote:[...]first of all, the concept of fairness is not the same as the concept of sameness. And so when Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," he did not mean "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are clones."

Source of quote:

Thump, what would you want us to do, if you had your druthers? Let's start from there.

(July 1, 2016 at 4:16 am)Losty Wrote: Your point is making zero sense. I have no idea what you want from me. You're still seeming to be saying that you think the rules should be changed. I know they can but they won't, because they should not be. Unless you have some solid evidence that proves beyond all doubt that you are right. You just have an opinion. I am here trying really hard to have a civil discussion but nothing is good enough. Just use plain words and say what you want.

Well, firstly as I am voicing my opinion, asking for evidence is a bit of a non sequitur -- opinions don't require evidence.

I've done my best to argue my opinion. If y'all don't agree, no big deal. Neither of us can prove our own opinions "right", because that is not in the nature of opinions. That sort of judgement is assessed against facts, not opinions.

As for what I want, I want you guys on the Staff to think about these things. I want you guys to stop looking at the law as a backstop. I want you guys to be better than that.

I'm not upset or angry with you, and I'm sorry if my posting is angering you; that's not my intent. I hope you don't think I've been uncivil.

(July 1, 2016 at 4:17 am)Losty Wrote: We defend the rule based on the law because sexist or not, we are still bound by the law. O_o

But are you limited by it?