Image Galleries > "Pictures of you with an RRS sign" - Why make it sexy?

Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Image Galleries > "Pictures of you with an RRS sign" - Why make it sexy?

I'm unclear on the message RRS is trying to project with this.

This world is suggestive and idolizes women, from an evolutionary standpoint, RRS should be working hard to remove the stigma around this sort of thing. One thing Christians have going for them (and i say this cautiously) is that they don't generally approve of women walking around projecting a strong sexual image. It's really too bad that the women of this (specifically North American) are seen so strongly as sex objects instead of intelligent beings.

Nakedness is natural, the body is natural. It's a real shame that people in this society feel a need to make a statement by linking it to sex and more specifically, the female body. If you want to have a great body, for great sexual reasons, keep it for the great sexual reasons, it doesn't make sense to use this as a way to get viewers or whatever your agenda is.

If you keep this up there... put out a challenge to the men... make it equal, make it sexual (please not pornographic). It's a fallacy to think that only hot women are sexually stimulating... Guys need to recognize that women love hot men too... so hot men out there who want to make a statement... hang it creatively from your dangly. It's not rational however to be fighting the themes of morality while taking steps backwards creating the sexual prison that women find themselves involunatarily and unhappily in and locking men into not being able to release the conditioning that sexual fantasy has to be like this. Would be nice to have a day where people are seen as equals sexually, physically, intellectually. These actions are not condusive to a world where equality exists, and people have natural freedoms.

And to the women... show how brilliant you are intellectually... no one really needs to read it plastered across your chest, they wouldn't be reading that message anyhow. Rise above the stigma that is out there, women are just as sexy and evocative being brilliant, intelligent and well educated.

I'm not about oppressing sexuality, I love it as much as the next, I'm against the whole idea that society is locked in a mindset that women have to make statements sexually, it degrades a progressive image that we can be free of and respected as women who are intelligent and worthy of equality and respect. Humans as a species don't have a great future to look forward to untill all can be respected for what they are and this message simply destroys that.

Drea

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Poor Kelly. She just cant

Poor Kelly. She just cant stay out of this conversation.

 

Anyway. Im not sure how exactly Kelly said it. I would have to read back through all these pages. But if it is in fact "I hope beautiful people outbreed ugly dorks like you" Then I can see the logic in a statement like that. People naturally try to make babies with attractive people. I like to think Im not a bad looking guy. Thats really a matter of opinion lol. But because I consider myself at least somewhat good looking Im willing to pick and choose who Im going to reproduce with. So in that sense you absolutely must use your looks to find a mate. I dont care how smart a girl is if she weighs 400 pounds and has a bit of facial hair I am not going to have children with her. Wink


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote: Kelly

Drea wrote:

Kelly inferred that beatiful women should out breed the unbeautiful is an opinion she is entitiled to but i'd say is unethical in MY evaluation.

Kelly inferred that this was an example of her utopia, she never stated that this was her ethical outlook on the world, it was just a preference, she recognizes it's not practical nor would she try to enforce it, as you seemed to exert in your disgusting comparison to Hitler... shame on you. *vomit*

AbandonMyPeace wrote:

Anyway. Im not sure how exactly Kelly said it. I would have to read back through all these pages. But if it is in fact "I hope beautiful people outbreed ugly dorks like you" Then I can see the logic in a statement like that.

Here is what Kelly actually said, the gross mischaracterization and far off the mark wording that Drea has been using the whole thread is unethical. Eye-wink

 


Kelly wrote:
Equality is not a part of nature--sex is. Natural selection is. Ethics and "rights" are man-made constructs based on what we have decided is beneficial to having a productive, semi-harmonious society. Nature just is what it is, and as I said before, I find it more advantageous to adapt to it and hopefully prosper as a result. I assume that you will be giving away whatever money that you make that doesn't go to an absolute necessity to others around you in order to level the playing field. I assume that you won't pursue a degree so as to put you at an unfair advantage over those not fortunate enough to be able to afford college educations. I don't mean to sound hostile, but if you really lived as you claim we all should--promoting equality above all else where nobody is unfairly "gifted" with resources and assets, that's what you should do. And, honestly, I wouldn't want to visit the place where things like intelligence and appearance are no longer important or recognized as being advantageous. Should there be a balance--sure. Am I advocating a caste system--no. Do I wish that intelligent, attractive people would out-breed everybody else--yes. And I'm not at all ashamed to admit that. Fortunately, though, I don't expect everybody to share my opinion.

 

Quote:
"I hope beautiful people outbreed ugly dorks like you"

As to this quote... Kelly is shouting from the bathroom "Is she out of her head!" (she's not shouting out of anger, it's 25 feet away)

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Do I wish that

Quote:
Do I wish that intelligent, attractive people would out-breed everybody else--yes. And I'm not at all ashamed to admit that. Fortunately, though, I don't expect everybody to share my opinion.

Do i take issue with this? Absolutely. Who's she to say that attractive people are better than unattractive people. That people with mental disorders have no less right to life. By stating this claim, she is making an assertion to who has a right to life. Comparing her to Hitler, i wouldn't, comparing her perspective to beautiful outbreeding non vs everyone be blond/blue eyed? Well... she just made a claim to her stance on who has a right to live.

She also infers that she can use whatever advantage she has to get ahead. I come from a rich family, do i use money to bribe people? No. I won't, it's against my ethics. Could i use my looks to sleep with someone to get a job? I may have the means but i wouldn't. She said as you all keep saying, that this isn't a realistic line. I do. I don't think like you guys do.

Quote:
And, honestly, I wouldn't want to visit the place where things like intelligence and appearance are no longer important or recognized as being advantageous.

I never brought in intelligence... i've said all along that it's still an equal benchmark. You guys just don't get it if you don't understand a simple concept that SEXUAL EXPLOITATION is not the same as being attractive. And personally... i'd like to know a world is coming where someone society considers unattractive will get the same respect as someone who is.

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Oh come on now! No one is

Oh come on now! No one is saying other people dont have the right to live. But we do in fact have the right to choose who we breed with and bottom line is that that comes down to physical attraction.

 


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Abandon... please read back.

Abandon... please read back. It's about sexual exploitation to take advantage of other people unfairly. Please read references to work senarios i have made. This has NOTHING to do about who we choose to procreate with.

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote: No one answered

Drea wrote:
No one answered me on my question about comparing sexual exploitation to bribery and other things which was really what i kept making this about.

Too true. I had actually gleamed over that one because I was hoping someone with a better response than the one I have in my head would pipe up. Since that hasn't happened I'll try and respond to your question.

While things like intellect, beauty, sex, etc could be considered currency, they pale in comparison to actual currency. Money is the central characteristic in the possibilities of success for any person, business, or even civilization. It currently determines whether we live or die and whether or not we have freedom. If bribery were not agreed upon as a negative thing for society, we would hand over our entire civilization to those with money. The fact that bribery is practiced at all in our government (for example) is the root cause of the corruption that we deal with every day.

That's all I could come up with. Tear it up and let's see where it goes Smiling


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
So all this talk about

So all this talk about : 

Drea wrote:
"I hope beautiful people outbreed ugly dorks like you"

Has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation? I guess I just misunderstood.. 


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Abandon, if you read her

Abandon, if you read her quote, she didn't say she recognizes everyone as equals, She literally said that unattrative people be out-bred.  She wants a world free of unattractive people.

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Well, it doesn't answer my

Well, it doesn't answer my question that if some hot chick was sleeping with your boss and you wanted a promotion but she got the job instead only because she was sleeping with him and was otherwise underqualified and she KNEW she could get that job by sleeping with him, is this ok? Is it ok that someone can steal soemthing that shouldn't be rightfully theirs by using blackmail, bribes, or sexual exploitation? Let's not limit it to sleeping with someone, lets say something as simple as leading one to believe that they could gain sexual benefits whatever they may be by hiring someone. I wont limit it to women even, if your single female boss had the hots for some young guy and hired him over your promotion, would you say "Rock on Man!!!" Lets not talk high level but keep applicable real world senarios that we are all familiar with.

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


ugzog
Bronze Member
ugzog's picture
Posts: 84
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Man, this just shows why I

Man, this just shows why I didn't get any in college! I guess I'm just to ugly to reproduce. Cry

 

Hasn't the need for "attractiveness" as a genetic code kind of lost purpose in modern day existence? I always figured it was an outdated concept like being genetic larger and stronger than others. We needed these characteristics in the past, but they don't really apply to the modern environment.  

If the object to match up and create a superior of spring is the main purpose of our reproductive needs. Should we not be looking for characteristics that will be viable to future environmental conditions?

 

I would predict that high level of melanoma would definitely be a need as our protection from UV has lessened.

 

The possible of increased temperatures over the next few decades would show the needs of heat tolerance.

 

As air quality has lowered, I would recommend against screwing anyone that has a respiratory problems.

 

 

Man is the only animal in all of nature that cannot accept its own mortality.


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
I have to get some work

I have to get some work done and go offline for a while. I'll check in later and see where this goes.

For the record, i don't compare Kelly to Hitler. Not in any sense other than two views on what humanity should look like. I have absolute confidence she would NEVER resort to actually trying to erradicate all people who don't comply to her vision. IF i have this vision wrong and she wants to correct her quote, i'd accept that but she hasn't as of yet. That simply means she stands by her vision for the future world.

Kelly, if that world came about and people WERE judging based on appearance (exclusive of intelligence because we can cancel this one out as it's an equal benchmark that non attractive and attractive people can attain). IF you were marred in an accident, would you want people to judge you? If you were saggy at 50, and looked physically bad, would you want to be considered less of a person, even if you were brilliant would you be turned away from a job? Looks fade, but right to life and experience should remain. 

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Well sure in that kind of

Well sure in that kind of situation I would be a bit upset. But I also am able to send out my resume to other companies. No big loss.

Its kind of funny Im talking to you about this at the same time Im talking to my boss about who were going to hire to fill an open position. As a joke I said the newspaper add should say double D is required. My boss told me he refuses to hire a hot girl because she will be a distraction. So lets just say there is an incredibly atrractive girl here in New Mexico(Not sure why thats so hard to believe. I mean after all most atractive girls are under qualified for jobs.) she wont be able to take this opportunity at this job because she is to attractive. I guess this goes both ways huh.  


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
ugzog wrote: Man, this

ugzog wrote:

Man, this just shows why I didn't get any in college! I guess I'm just to ugly to reproduce. Cry

 

Lol. Well its all a matter of opinion really. I didnt mean that people I would consider unattractive shouldnt reproduce at all. I just meant I wont be the one reproducing with them. Damn sometimes I just sound really mean dont I. Tongue out


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote:

Drea wrote:
Well, it doesn't answer my question that if some hot chick was sleeping with your boss and you wanted a promotion but she got the job instead only because she was sleeping with him and was otherwise underqualified and she KNEW she could get that job by sleeping with him, is this ok?

Oh, I was answering this one. I thought this was what you were referring too.

Drea wrote:
To gain an unfair advantage (for a job say) people with the means can:

> blackmail

> bribe

> leverage favours

> use social status to while underqualified etc.

> tempt with sex or tease with the intent to turn on (sexual exploitation)

At what point do you draw the line?

Drea wrote:
Is it ok that someone can steal soemthing that shouldn't be rightfully theirs by using blackmail, bribes, or sexual exploitation? Let's not limit it to sleeping with someone, lets say something as simple as leading one to believe that they could gain sexual benefits whatever they may be by hiring someone. I wont limit it to women even, if your single female boss had the hots for some young guy and hired him over your promotion, would you say "Rock on Man!!!" Lets not talk high level but keep applicable real world senarios that we are all familiar with.

I think I understand that you are talking about people using unrelated advantage to get a job. Like, the guy before me has (somehow) the EXACT qualifications, level of charm, looks and presentability, gets the job because he told the boss he plays golf and that they could go play on his uncles course. If somehow I could be sure that this was the real reason he got the job, I'd be pissed.

However, it is more likely that he has something I don't, that he answered a question better than I did, or that the interviewer connected with him in some way that wasn't present for me. I propose that the same is true with the pretty skank who gets the job when someone else didn't. Maybe the skank reminds the interviewer of his daughter? Maybe there was some seemingly insignificant detail in her work history that made her seem the more likely candidate? Whatever, there are a myriad of details when hiring someone and I think that a lot of assumptions have to be made about the skank before she 'earns' that title.


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Well, this goes back to

Well, this goes back to earlier comments about the sad reflection of society when women can't be seen as intelligent independant great people. That woman who does't get the job because she's too attractive suffers the same injustice. Your boss is prejudice against people who are too attractive. If she wanted that job, was qualified for it and presented herself like everyone else... she has a right to that job.

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
AbandonMyPeace wrote: I

AbandonMyPeace wrote:
I guess this goes both ways huh.

Absolutely true. The attempt to simplify this topic down to a right or wrong is really just asserting that we have somehow found a moral absolute. Which is retarded.

There are WAAAAY to many possible scenarios for the whole 'you got the job unfairly' example. It just doesn't hold water so far as I can tell. Not to say that it doesn't happen, but really you'd need to witness the girl giving the interviewer a blowjob first hand to be able to state it without looking like an idiot.

And even going with the more subtle approach, like the skank flipping her hair and giggling at all of his stupid jokes suggesting that their 'might' be the possibility of some play ... we would still have to be able to reasonably deduce that there was NO POSSIBLE other reason for her being picked. Otherwise we still look like bigots when we call her a skank and start spreading nasty rumors about her. 


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote: However,

marcusfish wrote:

However, it is more likely that he has something I don't, that he answered a question better than I did, or that the interviewer connected with him in some way that wasn't present for me. I propose that the same is true with the pretty skank who gets the job when someone else didn't. Maybe the skank reminds the interviewer of his daughter? Maybe there was some seemingly insignificant detail in her work history that made her seem the more likely candidate? Whatever, there are a myriad of details when hiring someone and I think that a lot of assumptions have to be made about the skank before she 'earns' that title.

 

Careful you don't setup a straw man.  She has been abundantley clear exactly what she has issue with.  Your point is taken I'm sure, but she is not talking about the subjectiveness of the interviewer, she is talking only about the ethics used by the candidate applying for the position.

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: Careful you

Vorax wrote:
Careful you don't setup a straw man. She has been abundantley clear exactly what she has issue with. Your point is taken I'm sure, but she is not talking about the subjectiveness of the interviewer, she is talking only about the ethics used by the candidate applying for the position.

Honestly, I'm not sure I understand. I would think that the subjectivity of the interviewer could not be taken out of the equation. You may just be talking over my head, my talent for debate only goes so far Smiling


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
They are over my head to. Im

They are over my head to. Im having trouble deciding what parts of the posts I should consider part of the conversation and which ones dont mean anything. Where did Brian go?


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Hi Marcus  I think the

Hi Marcus 

I think the more accurate term for this should be discussion as I don't expect there to be a resolution.

For the purposes of the discussion I condensed it down a simple senario, exclusive of other extenuating factors such as an interviewers mood.

Honestly, i'm really just ready to drop this. It's apparent that everyone has differing views as is their right.

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish

marcusfish wrote:

Honestly, I'm not sure I understand. I would think that the subjectivity of the interviewer could not be taken out of the equation. You may just be talking over my head, my talent for debate only goes so far Smiling

The ethics of the interviewer is not what was being discussed.

Here is the basic scenario:

(A) Women has job interview and during the interview she uses blatant sexual body language (or possibly verbal) to suggest to the interviewer that there may be sexual benefits to hiring her.

Is she being ethical? In my opinion, and Drea's -yes she is being unethical.

(OFF TOPIC...but to your point, if the interviewer hires her for this, he is aalso being unethical.)

PLESE READ WHAT THIS SCENARIO IS NOT FOR CLARITY:

(B) This scenario is NOT that the women did her best to look good for the interview wearing her best outfit and working hard to sound intelligent etc. during it. That is perfectly ethical in today's society and no one should fault her for that in mine or Drea's opinion.

 

(A) IS ALL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT

Sorry about the caps etc, but I'm not sure if there is any other way to make this discussion any clearer,  some how it has been confused about a dozen times now! - It really is as simple as scenario (A) 

 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: The ethics of

Vorax wrote:
The ethics of the interviewer is not what was being discussed.

Ok, I see where I dropped off. The end result is not what we're getting at, it's just the offer. Whether or not she actually gets the job is irrelevant to the current discussion. Yes?  

Quote:
(A) Women has job interview and during the interview she uses blatant sexual body language (or possibly verbal) to suggest to the interviewer that there may be sexual benefits to hiring her.

Is she being ethical? In my opinion, and Drea's -yes she is being unethical.

Short answer: No. 

Slightly less short answer: I don't see why it would be considered unethical. I believe it would only be considered unethical because we generally put sex in it's own very fragile container. What I mean to say is, if sex were not such a delicate and dangerous topic I don't believe it would be considered unethical.  

(A) IS ALL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT

Sorry about the caps etc, but I'm not sure if there is any other way to make this discussion any clearer, some how it has been confused about a dozen times now! - It really is as simple as scenario (A)

Well, I don't think that this topic has wondered off because people just can't seem to 'get' what the discussion is about. This discussion has been taken all over the place with examples and 'what ifs' which I think is a standard and not necessarily bad thing for a discussion.

There is alot involved and it seems that folks want to discuss a lot of different aspects of it. I don't think that is unreasonable though I do realize the original topic has long since been lost.  


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish

marcusfish wrote:

Honestly, I'm not sure I understand. I would think that the subjectivity of the interviewer could not be taken out of the equation. You may just be talking over my head, my talent for debate only goes so far Smiling

I am not sure I understand either.  Drea, do you have an expectation that the world is fair according to your sense of fairness?  This is an impossible expectation.  

As far as the picture promoting RRS goes....well, if I had that woman's body I would never wear clothes.  Ever.  I would live at a nudist beach or something.  Sadly, I suspect that the girl in that picture does not get taken seriously because of her looks....is that fair?  

Sorry, but I am tired of the excuse used by women that someone else got the job or received something more than someone else because of her looks and/or ability to use them.  Attraction is not the same for everyone.  I can apply for a job, have the same qualifications as the other person, dress well for the interview and even show a little cleavage.  What if the person hiring doesn't like how I look?  What if they prefer blondes or redheads?  What if they prefer men?  Who cares?  I certainly do not want a job given to me because someone told the person hiring that they had to be "fair" and hire me anyway.

The company I work for is 85% men.  I do not consider myself attractive or unattractive.  When I first started working here there were a few instances where I was not taken seriously because of my looks.  This would be the problem of the people looking at me; not mine.  These problems ended as soon as I opened my mouth.  It became easier for them to overlook my physcial features after I reduced them to tears.  

Life isn't fair.  Drea, if the picture in the image gallery makes you uncomfortable - don't look at it.  Personally, I found the picture amusing and was impressed that she posed for it.  As has already been stated, the men were offered the opportunity to post pictures and chose not to.  I guess I am not sure what exactly your issue is.   


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote:

Vorax wrote:
The ethics of the interviewer is not what was being discussed.

Ok, I see where I dropped off. The end result is not what we're getting at, it's just the offer. Whether or not she actually gets the job is irrelevant to the current discussion. Yes?

Quote:
(A) Women has job interview and during the interview she uses blatant sexual body language (or possibly verbal) to suggest to the interviewer that there may be sexual benefits to hiring her.

Is she being ethical? In my opinion, and Drea's -yes she is being unethical.

Short answer: No.

Slightly less short answer: I don't see why it would be considered unethical. I believe it would only be considered unethical because we generally put sex in it's own very fragile container. What I mean to say is, if sex were not such a delicate and dangerous topic I don't believe it would be considered unethical.

Quote:
(A) IS ALL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT

Sorry about the caps etc, but I'm not sure if there is any other way to make this discussion any clearer, some how it has been confused about a dozen times now! - It really is as simple as scenario (A)

Well, I don't think that this topic has wondered off because people just can't seem to 'get' what the discussion is about. This discussion has been taken all over the place with examples and 'what ifs' which I think is a standard and not necessarily bad thing for a discussion.

There is alot involved and it seems that folks want to discuss a lot of different aspects of it. I don't think that is unreasonable though I do realize the original topic has long since been lost.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Sorry about the double

Sorry about the double post. Not sure what happened there. I was editing my post because of funky quotes and I seem to have posted it twice. Can't edit the first one either.

Sorry, I broke the forums.  


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: marcusfish

jce wrote:
marcusfish wrote:

Honestly, I'm not sure I understand. I would think that the subjectivity of the interviewer could not be taken out of the equation. You may just be talking over my head, my talent for debate only goes so far Smiling

I am not sure I understand either. Drea, do you have an expectation that the world is fair according to your sense of fairness? This is an impossible expectation.

As far as the picture promoting RRS goes....well, if I had that woman's body I would never wear clothes. Ever. I would live at a nudist beach or something. Sadly, I suspect that the girl in that picture does not get taken seriously because of her looks....is that fair?

Sorry, but I am tired of the excuse used by women that someone else got the job or received something more than someone else because of her looks and/or ability to use them. Attraction is not the same for everyone. I can apply for a job, have the same qualifications as the other person, dress well for the interview and even show a little cleavage. What if the person hiring doesn't like how I look? What if they prefer blondes or redheads? What if they prefer men? Who cares? I certainly do not want a job given to me because someone told the person hiring that they had to be "fair" and hire me anyway.

The company I work for is 85% men. I do not consider myself attractive or unattractive. When I first started working here there were a few instances where I was not taken seriously because of my looks. This would be the problem of the people looking at me; not mine. These problems ended as soon as I opened my mouth. It became easier for them to overlook my physcial features after I reduced them to tears.

Life isn't fair. Drea, if the picture in the image gallery makes you uncomfortable - don't look at it. Personally, I found the picture amusing and was impressed that she posed for it. As has already been stated, the men were offered the opportunity to post pictures and chose not to. I guess I am not sure what exactly your issue is.

 

Thanks for showing up Jce! Great post. I have decided Im giving you the job! 


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote: Vorax

marcusfish wrote:
Vorax wrote:
The ethics of the interviewer is not what was being discussed.

Ok, I see where I dropped off. The end result is not what we're getting at, it's just the offer. Whether or not she actually gets the job is irrelevant to the current discussion. Yes?

Quote:
(A) Women has job interview and during the interview she uses blatant sexual body language (or possibly verbal) to suggest to the interviewer that there may be sexual benefits to hiring her.

Is she being ethical? In my opinion, and Drea's -yes she is being unethical.

Short answer: No.

Slightly less short answer: I don't see why it would be considered unethical. I believe it would only be considered unethical because we generally put sex in it's own very fragile container. What I mean to say is, if sex were not such a delicate and dangerous topic I don't believe it would be considered unethical.

We have a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOT IT!!!!

Smiling

Great, an answer, and an honest one!!  

I disagree because I don't see it as any different then bribing with cash or threatening, or black mailing, etc. ...BUT THAT"S JUST ME!!!  

End of discussion!  Great!!  Thanks for working to understand the point.  I whole heartedly support your right your opinion on this and I respect it.

Thank you! Smiling 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Man you are sarcastic.  

Man you are sarcastic. Surprised

 

Laughing


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
AbandonMyPeace

AbandonMyPeace wrote:
 

Thanks for showing up Jce! Great post. I have decided Im giving you the job!

Thanks Abandon!  I will take that as a true compliment since I already know you are married and your spouse is a beautiful, very intelligent blonde.  

On a similar note...has anyone ever noticed how you can see someone and think they are rather nice looking and then that person starts talking and you realize what an idiot they are so you suddenly see them as less attractive?  I have.  The opposite has happened too.  What is it about intelligence that makes someone more attractive?  It isn't something you can see.  WTF?


ugzog
Bronze Member
ugzog's picture
Posts: 84
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
See drea, you don't look that ba..... nevermind :)


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
!! Drea put your clothes

Surprised !! Drea put your clothes back on!


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
ugzog wrote:   You just

ugzog wrote:

 

You just hurt me in a way I can't describe...I feel dirty! Yell

 

MY EYE'S!!!! My burning eyes!!

heheh Smiling 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Wow, if you were going to

Wow, if you were going to take all that time, you could have at least made it look realistic. Bit of air brushing here and there to merge my hair into his neck more.. maybe fix the lighting contrasts... I think, however, this would be a great pic for the sexy pics section.

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I just want to say that I

I just want to say that I didn’t read the entire thread because I don’t care about the topic that much but I do support the right of feminists to complain about shit. Like I said I only skimmed it but one thing I did notice that struck me is that the original poster who seems to have a normal head and left hand doesn’t want to post a picture but Darth Josh who looks like a damn train wreck has no problem posting a sexy pic. Maybe that’s because the op knows she’ll have to endure the gamut of everyone’s screwed up sexual expectations and Darth Josh knows that he won’t.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: We have a

Vorax wrote:
We have a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOT IT!!!!

Smiling

Great, an answer, and an honest one!!

I disagree because I don't see it as any different then bribing with cash or threatening, or black mailing, etc. ...BUT THAT"S JUST ME!!!

End of discussion! Great!! Thanks for working to understand the point. I whole heartedly support your right your opinion on this and I respect it.

Thank you! Smiling

Err...your welcome? I'm pretty sure you're just being a smart ass. 

Sexual offers or suggestion is in line with threatening violence or social / economic reprisal? I'm curious to know how you justify your statement. That an offer, who someone can chose to accept or deny is the same as intimidation via threat. I would HOPE you're just being more of a smart ass when you say that. 


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: What is it about

jce wrote:
What is it about intelligence that makes someone more attractive? It isn't something you can see. WTF?

Here's what I think - finding someone attractive or unattractive is a purley mental state. If have been trained via my environment to be a 'leg man' then I am a leg man. If I have been trained to believe that intelligence and charm are true beauty then it is the case. Granted with great effort we can change this training into a different set of perceptions but those become our new reality.

It has been my experience that frat boy dumb asses do NOT find intelligent women more attractive. From what I have seen it is quite the opposite. Just as example Smiling 


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote: Vorax

marcusfish wrote:
Vorax wrote:
We have a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOT IT!!!!

Smiling

Great, an answer, and an honest one!!

I disagree because I don't see it as any different then bribing with cash or threatening, or black mailing, etc. ...BUT THAT"S JUST ME!!!

End of discussion! Great!! Thanks for working to understand the point. I whole heartedly support your right your opinion on this and I respect it.

Thank you! Smiling

Err...your welcome? I'm pretty sure you're just being a smart ass.

No - Sorry if it appeared that I was being sarcastic, I really didn't mean it to sound like that.  I really am happy you answered the question.

 

Quote:

Sexual offers or suggestion is in line with threatening violence or social / economic reprisal? I'm curious to know how you justify your statement. That an offer, who someone can chose to accept or deny is the same as intimidation via threat. I would HOPE you're just being more of a smart ass when you say that.

They are not equal in severity, but they are all unethical and I classify them the same way.  They only represent levels of severity of breach of ethics.  

Actually though, I would consider sexual offers and fiscal bribes about equal in some cases, but using sex in some circumstances I would have to conisder worse... the others go down from there.  I have plenty of money and I could offer a nice bribe for a cushey well paying job and that would be wrong - Drea is hot and she could offer or suggest sexual favors for a job and get it too - we would both be wrong but if she did that I would be hurt and if the guy had a signifigant other they could be hurt too.

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
AbandonMyPeace wrote: They

AbandonMyPeace wrote:
They are over my head to. Im having trouble deciding what parts of the posts I should consider part of the conversation and which ones dont mean anything. Where did Brian go?

We were in a meeting with Margaret Downey all day.  I'm starting to feel done with this thread, I don't want to extrapolate further at risk of insulting anyone, I'll just leave it at that (for now).

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: I just want

Gauche wrote:

I just want to say that I didn’t read the entire thread because I don’t care about the topic that much but I do support the right of feminists to complain about shit. Like I said I only skimmed it but one thing I did notice that struck me is that the original poster who seems to have a normal head and left hand doesn’t want to post a picture but Darth Josh who looks like a damn train wreck has no problem posting a sexy pic. Maybe that’s because the op knows she’ll have to endure the gamut of everyone’s screwed up sexual expectations and Darth Josh knows that he won’t.

A train wreck?

I look better than Shatner naked. lol.

Thank you, professor seagull for that wonderful message. Fly in, drop shit, leave. Go back and read page 3. Your issue was already discussed.

As  is expected, there are more than just the op that missed the fucking point.

 

 

 

I'm done too. 

 

Espousing the idea of adding additional criteria to a single definition of a word.

Desiring to control what is FAIR for everyone based upon their own ideas.

Original post reconciled but denied.

Fuck it. 

 

Quite a shame that you haven't made it to staks' gallery yet, Drea. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:

darth_josh wrote:

Espousing the idea of adding additional criteria to a single definition of a word.

Desiring to control what is FAIR for everyone based upon their own ideas.

Original post reconciled but denied.

Fuck it.

 

Quite a shame that you haven't made it to staks' gallery yet, Drea.

Hi Darth,

I am sure this comes as a shock to you but from your post above you oviously have incorrectly concluded that you have a clue what you are talking aobut:

"Espousing the idea of adding additional criteria to a single definition of a word." -- nope, wasn't an issue other then one fabricated by misunderstandings form your side of the debate. Attractive appearance not equal sexual explotation... say it with me, understand it - rinse and repeat. Get a dictionary and try wiki if necessary. This was a strawman you guys made, she never claimed it.

"Desiring to control what is FAIR for everyone based upon their own ideas." - She was speaking to the ethics of sexual explotation and what she believed to be fair...again you are strawmaning...her believing it is wrong is her expressing an opinion - she says its wrong, you say she is "desiring to control what is fair?" No - she stated her opinion and in a free society that is perfectly reasonable. She even said Kelly's point was her right to make...real controlling of her...not!

" Original post reconciled but denied." - I think that in this point (though it's stated poorly) you have some truth - Drea and I both said its ok for everyone to have their own opinion. I have agreed with you guys from the begining that putting the pictures up is ok - Drea admitted that its your site and it's up to you guys, she agreed to disagree with all of us. But of all the arguments that spread forth from there (page 3 on), the only position she or I held was that sexual explotation is wrong and she was upset about Kelly's point about beautiful people should outbreed others (paraphrased).

The only one I saw who actually got what the last 4 pages of this was about, who was contributing, was Marcusfish. Drea and I were happy to accept his answer even if we disagreed with it. To be honest, to me the rest of you couldn't get past her first post and from there you judged her as irrational and attempted to discredit what she was saying without even reading it for what it meant, thus all the straw. There was even a video that was made that addressed her specifically but was arguing a point she didn't make.

FYI -- Drea is brilliant, she isn't always right but she did make concessions. I was impressed at her patients considering just how many posts were made that had nothing to do with her point. There is a damn fine chance, IMHO, that she's smarter then all of us and if you ever met her, you would understand why.

 

But as you say - Fuck it.

 

[edit:fixed quote tags]

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: "Espousing

Vorax wrote:

"Espousing the idea of adding additional criteria to a single definition of a word." -- nope, wasn't an issue other then one fabricated by misunderstandings form your side of the debate. Attractive appearance not equal sexual explotation... say it with me, understand it - rinse and repeat. Get a dictionary and try wiki if necessary. This was a strawman you guys made, she never claimed it.

 Call our counterpoint and debunking of Dreas point "Intelligence exploitation."  Now please show us all why we should all judge people based on their exploitation of intelligence versus their exploitation of sex.

 Prediction: this point will be dodged as some sort of misunderstanding of your/Dreas point.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Actually, I was subtly

Actually, I was subtly referring to the AA (O'Hair) definition of atheism, but you're right that was an off-topic piece of the thread anyway.

Yep. Page after page of explaining what the RRS was or was not trying to 'project' with the image gallery is just SOOOO much the issue.

Patience? Patience!

How about the fact that this has been discussed already and is right below the fucking picture of Amanda: DOWN SCROLL BAR

http://www.rationalresponders.com/amanda

SEVEN MONTHS AGO! Did you happen to read that? or did you think this was an original idea?

Patience. heh. More than an adequate amount of patience has been and will continue to be given.

Is there an objective measure to how much patience you feel is owed to a topic as ludicrous as the idea that any 'image' besides atheism is projected by the RRS?

Maybe you would like to read some of the many hundreds of other accusations and assertions concerning how awful we all are and the GIGANTIC straw man made by the op.

Love y'all. Got another obnoxious theist to talk to so... later.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Vorax

Sapient wrote:
Vorax wrote:

"Espousing the idea of adding additional criteria to a single definition of a word." -- nope, wasn't an issue other then one fabricated by misunderstandings form your side of the debate. Attractive appearance not equal sexual explotation... say it with me, understand it - rinse and repeat. Get a dictionary and try wiki if necessary. This was a strawman you guys made, she never claimed it.

Call our counterpoint and debunking of Dreas point "Intelligence exploitation." Now please show us all why we should all judge people based on their exploitation of intelligence versus their exploitation of sex.

I can think of a few examples that might illustrate the same level of unethical conduct via forms of intellectual explotation -

- using your intelligence to trick somoene (falsifying information?  Exploiting knowledge of the person that you obtained through some other means?...psychics for example)

- Some forms of blackmail could be considerd a type of intellectual explotation.

- Sales tactics such as "Bait and switch" ... I am pretty sure you can relate to that one...Comfort's little trick in the debate discussions.

 

Quote:
 

Prediction: this point will be dodged as some sort of misunderstanding of your/Dreas point.

We were never dodging our points, we were doging the straw men that distracted from the points. 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: A train

darth_josh wrote:

A train wreck?

I look better than Shatner naked. lol.

Thank you, professor seagull for that wonderful message. Fly in, drop shit, leave. Go back and read page 3. Your issue was already discussed.

As is expected, there are more than just the op that missed the fucking point.

 

 

 

I'm done too.

 

Espousing the idea of adding additional criteria to a single definition of a word.

Desiring to control what is FAIR for everyone based upon their own ideas.

Original post reconciled but denied.

Fuck it.

 

Quite a shame that you haven't made it to staks' gallery yet, Drea.

I can understand if you want to insult me, I’m merely human, but why bring William Shatner into this? What has he ever done to you asides from offering you years of high quality entertainment and trying to improve your world with his philanthropic work?

I’m sorry that I don’t want to have to read seven pages before I comment on a girl taking her top off. But if you ask me if women should be prompted to present themselves naked to promote your website I’m going to say no.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: Sapient

Vorax wrote:
Sapient wrote:
Vorax wrote:

"Espousing the idea of adding additional criteria to a single definition of a word." -- nope, wasn't an issue other then one fabricated by misunderstandings form your side of the debate. Attractive appearance not equal sexual explotation... say it with me, understand it - rinse and repeat. Get a dictionary and try wiki if necessary. This was a strawman you guys made, she never claimed it.

Call our counterpoint and debunking of Dreas point "Intelligence exploitation." Now please show us all why we should all judge people based on their exploitation of intelligence versus their exploitation of sex.

I can think of a few examples that might illustrate the same level of unethical conduct via forms of intellectual explotation -

- using your intelligence to trick somoene (falsifying information? Exploiting knowledge of the person that you obtained through some other means?...psychics for example)

- Some forms of blackmail could be considerd a type of intellectual explotation.

- Sales tactics such as "Bait and switch" ... I am pretty sure you can relate to that one...Comfort's little trick in the debate discussions.

Or worse... simply using your intellect as an advantage over other candidates who are much more physically attractive!  Like for example, putting your college education on a resume giving yourself an unfair advantage over anyone without a degree.  

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
P.S.  This was dodged

P.S.  This was dodged bro... 

 

Vorax wrote:

Now please show us all why we should all judge people based on their exploitation of intelligence versus their exploitation of sex.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:

Sapient wrote:
Vorax wrote:
Sapient wrote:
Vorax wrote:

Or worse... simply using your intellect as an advantage over other candidates who are much more physically attractive! Like for example, putting your college education on a resume giving yourself an unfair advantage over anyone without a degree.

 

That's not explotation, that's acceptable and proper use of your credentials. That is what the person is hiring people for...now if you lied and bought your degree off the net..that would be unethical.

Is this concept getting clearer yet after 4 pages?

Attractiveness not equal Sexual explotation

Intelligence and qualifications not equal Intellectual dishonesty (for lack of a better term)

 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: P.S. This

Sapient wrote:

P.S. This was dodged bro...

 

Vorax wrote:

Now please show us all why we should all judge people based on their exploitation of intelligence versus their exploitation of sex.

 

Simple, these things are detremental to society - if a bad boss starts hiring only women who make sexual inuendos regardless of their qualifications during the interview, qualified people would be out of work - the company may eventually fail and people who got their jobs honestly now find themselves out of work and they become a UI burden to society.  

Exactly the same issue applies if people use intellectual tricks to get jobs they aren't qualified for...lying on their resumes, pretending to have experience or contacts that they don't have, etc. 

A women looking great and beautiful for an interview is great, if the interviewer can't judge you for anything other then that, it's his problem, not the womans.  If that swings the position between you and someone equally qualifed, fine and good -grats- even Drea admitted that way back in this discussion.  I hope we agree on that.

If being qualified. intelligent and articulate in an interview and that gets you the job then great, as it should. if you are the most qualified you deserve it, if you are the most qualified and the most beuatiful you deserve it.  If you are not the most qualified, but the most attractive and you get the job, it was the bosses unethical action, not yours...just your good fortune.

I hope that explains my position, I'm not entirely sure what you mean if it doesnt', I'm not trying to dodge, I'm just not sure what you are asking - if I interpretted it wrong, please restate it. 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Now, go eat a hamburger and

Now, go eat a hamburger and think about everything we said.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: Now, go

darth_josh wrote:
Now, go eat a hamburger and think about everything we said.

Touchê!  Do the same Smiling 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.