- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The OT will love National Geographic's January 2017 cover
Posted on 12/16/16 at 2:37 pm to chinhoyang
Posted on 12/16/16 at 2:37 pm to chinhoyang
quote:
I quit subscribing to NG, with great reluctance, because it became too political.
Same here. They are obsessed with beating the global warming drum. Every story has to mention this. Most likely the transgender story will work it in somehow.
0
Posted on 12/16/16 at 2:50 pm to GetCocky11
I can't help but read some of these stupid-arse comments.
There is a recurring sort of rhetoric which seeks to dismiss the dissenting opinions of certain individuals. It is no longer possible for opposing opinions or arguments to be stated logically and respectfully. Someone has to discredit another by calling into question their credentials (i.e. familiarity with the subject, education, experience, etc.). Some of this is logical when evaluating a person's argument, but sometimes it's completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
People are routinely responding, "You need to be educated." It's as if they think that only an uneducated individual can object to this cover or the concept as a whole. What do they need to be educated in? Biology? Psychology? Anthropology? Sociology? I've studied the humanities and biological sciences. Am I qualified to comment on the subject, or does my lack of exposure to gender studies disqualify my opinion?
Another prevalent response is..."You only choose to nitpick now because you don't agree with it." Funny, that sounds an awful lot to me like the millions of women who were quick to admonish Trump for his misogynistic comments and behavior but seemed to have forgotten all about Bill Clinton's antics with a former intern.
There is a recurring sort of rhetoric which seeks to dismiss the dissenting opinions of certain individuals. It is no longer possible for opposing opinions or arguments to be stated logically and respectfully. Someone has to discredit another by calling into question their credentials (i.e. familiarity with the subject, education, experience, etc.). Some of this is logical when evaluating a person's argument, but sometimes it's completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
People are routinely responding, "You need to be educated." It's as if they think that only an uneducated individual can object to this cover or the concept as a whole. What do they need to be educated in? Biology? Psychology? Anthropology? Sociology? I've studied the humanities and biological sciences. Am I qualified to comment on the subject, or does my lack of exposure to gender studies disqualify my opinion?
Another prevalent response is..."You only choose to nitpick now because you don't agree with it." Funny, that sounds an awful lot to me like the millions of women who were quick to admonish Trump for his misogynistic comments and behavior but seemed to have forgotten all about Bill Clinton's antics with a former intern.
Posted on 12/16/16 at 2:59 pm to GRTiger
quote:
Is she scratching her balls?
Mary-Jane Rottencrotch has the jock itch.
Posted on 12/16/16 at 3:00 pm to GetCocky11
IWHI
Posted on 12/16/16 at 3:02 pm to OysterPoBoy
freak
Posted on 12/16/16 at 4:01 pm to Mitcher8
quote:
The military will now pay for your entire gender change starting the day you graduate bootcamp.
Mad Dog will change all of that bullshite.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News