And I reference you back to the cartoon, and you repeat the claim that it's isn't accurate, and I reference you back to the cartoon, and it goes on and on like that until you get over yourself.
No, I'd say they chose their hairstyles because they liked that hairstyle... Or is your entire argument, "I don't understand why people have hairstyles like that, therefore they must be attention whores or idiots"?Unfortunately, it is not what I said.
But I suppose you'd argue that this guy for instance
Spoiler :
chose his hairstyle mostly because:
1) he wanted to stay unnoticeable.
2) he simply wouldn't look good any other way ();
3) it's highly comfortable, practical and easy to maintain.
So did she, probably:
Spoiler :
All right, that means one of two things (or possibly both):
You said it yourself; existing societal mores, which you prefer to call prejudice.
And this intense dislike towards anything that doesn't conform to "societal mores", I assume you have a rational reason for why a girl with spikey blue hair can't be as good an accountant or lawyer as one with brown, shoulder-length hair?
Oh, she absolutely can be. Never said it is impossible, only said it will be more difficult to her. It would probably mean she has to start her own law company, because noone else is likely to hire her. If she can make it, more power to her.
I'm asking you why no-one would employ her as an accountant or lawyer... What rational reason would you have to dismiss her as a candidate, despite having all necessary qualifications and interviewing equally well a candidate with brown, shoulder-length hair?
Unfortunately, it is not what I said.
But I suppose you'd argue that this guy for instance
Spoiler :
chose his hairstyle mostly because:
1) he wanted to stay unnoticeable.
2) he simply wouldn't look good any other way (
3) it's highly comfortable, practical and easy to maintain.
So did she, probably:
Spoiler :
And I am telling you it does not matter. What matters, is that it objectively is so.
Which means your way of dress becomes a signal you belong to a certain subculture and thus apparently share some of their ideals. But I guess if I was to infer that someone who looks like, say, a skinhead could actually be racist, I'd be pre-judging him.
Huh? You mean the wearer becomes "less conscious" about it himself?
Well, but for an outsider it is still a signal it can both catch and read correctly, whether the sender cares about it or not.
Because, apparently, female sexuality is sinful and naughty and wrong. Ironic, I think, that this span off from the "babe thread"...
Certainly, the tattoos themselves communicate something about the wearer, intentional or not. I merely debate the assertions that merely possessing a tattoo communicates anything much, and certainly that it necessarily represents some serious character flaw.
Aaaand back to the cartoon.I'm amused by people like Traitorfist are crusaders for the everyday folk,
whom he thinks are all eclectic, lively beings of such unique imagination...
In reality, 80% of the people he champions will hardly understand what he
is talking about, and will ask him why he does not watch American Idol...
Referencing back to someone else's cartoon is ironic, as this act neatly
pushes him into the very category of people he seeks to speak up for...
It's more an acknowledgement that this argument cannot be won; certainly, flippantly posting a cartoon was not intended to be a serious argument in the first place. All I can do is suggest that I, at least, am not the übermensch, as some many fine posters here appear to be.So, I take your lack of an actual counter-argument to mean that you have conceded defeat. Splendid!
So you cannot provide any rational reason for this? There is no rational, logical reason why a blue-haired person with the same qualifications cannot perform the same job as a brown-haired person?
