Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. What you're doing has a name: moving the goalposts. It's when you adjust the parameters of an argument to shoehorn in a point that shouldn't be there.
Wonder Woman's "team" wasn't her team, and they weren't big names like Batman, Superman, Flash, etc. They were Steve's cohorts. One was barely a soldier, another was a profiteer.
The movie isn't called Wonder Woman'sRagtag Raiders, either. It's called Wonder Woman. There isn't another big name DC character who shares the same amount of screen time (see: Tony Stark and Steve Rogers in Civil War).
Actually, I think that a lot of you people who post in these threads take them too seriously. Because it seems that as soon as someone makes a joke or says something humorous, a lot of you guys either don't 'see' when someone's making a joke, or you take offense and either retaliate or you run away and hide and stop posting altogether. (Which I find hilarious.)
Also, several pages ago, mkpunk and I got into a bit of a ruff-a-tumble discussion in this thread, and all that I was doing was jokingly using his argument that I had argued against previously... as an argument against what you were saying. And yes, it was a bit hypocritical, but it was suppose to have been. And anyone with half a sense of humor would have seen the humor in me doing do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt
So what you're doing now is emulating mkpunk? That's funny coming from a guy who just accused me of borrowing material from his post (and I still have no idea why you said that).
Sorry, but I thought that you actually read the threads like most other people do.
Actually, I think that a lot of you people who post in these threads take them too seriously. Because it seems that as soon as someone makes a joke or says something humorous, a lot of you guys either don't 'see' when someone's making a joke, or you take offense and either retaliate or you run away and hide and stop posting altogether. (Which I find hilarious.)
I've been here since I've been here, so to speak. There's been many a hilarious moment. You just missed 'em.
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Taylor
Also, several pages ago, mkpunk and I got into a bit of a ruff-a-tumble discussion in this thread, and all that I was doing was jokingly using his argument that I had argued against previously... as an argument against what you were saying. And yes, it was a bit hypocritical, but it was suppose to have been. And anyone with half a sense of humor would have seen the humor in me doing do.
Yeah, I saw you two were having a love-spat, and I know you were doing it just to provoke, but I didn't pour water in your sandbox, did I?
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Taylor
Sorry, but I thought that you actually read the threads like most other people do.
Also, perhaps you subconsciously saw the bottom of that post when you were posting your post #628.
A post that you made over two weeks ago? I wasn't following your back-and-forth with mk. I post on several different comics/CBM forums. I've been making the croc tears joke for a few.
like the movie but heard arguments on radio about it being a good feminine movie with a strong female lead...
but is it really? it takes a young good looking woman who shows more skin than her counterpart males to be a popular movie...
her outfit reminds me of xena warrior princess... wonder if the outfit creator watched it as well and took inspiration
There have been attempts to feminist-ize Wonder Woman's costume, but women who are actual fans of Wonder Woman have never liked them.
If you look at women's magazines, you see more skin on the magazine racks on the covers of women's magazines than you see on men's magazines. Apparently, most women like showing skin and like seeing beautiful women, despite shrill kvetching from fourth-wave feminists.
If you look at women's magazines, you see more skin on the magazine racks on the covers of women's magazines than you see on men's magazines. Apparently, most women like showing skin and like seeing beautiful women, despite shrill kvetching from fourth-wave feminists.
And this is the most absurd drooling self-self abasing masochistic circular logic I've seen in a long time:
Quote:
Women's magazines, on the other hand, are providing female bodies for women, and telling women that (other) female bodies are objects to be used for their enjoyment. This is a much less prevalent message, and it's not hard to figure out why so many women find it so appealing. In most ways, in most of the culture, women are told that their gazes and their pleasures are secondary. In women's magazines, though, those gazes and those pleasures are paramount. Women get to be in the position of power, looking at and consuming bodies displayed expressly for them. Men's and women's magazines, in this sense, really are different. Esquire retails yet another fantasy of mastery for men. Women's magazines, on the other hand, offer a fantasy of mastery for women.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
