Dragon Ball and the Bechdel test.

[Hades]

As I said before, life in the first world is the easiest difficulty setting in most circumstances. Last I checked, women in the first world aren't having acid thrown at them on a regular basis unlike in Pakistan, don't get shot at for criticising the government unlike in Ukraine or Turkey, aren't being sold into slavery because their fathers got into debt with organised crime unlike in the Philippines, aren't at risk of being hit with chemical weapons unlike in Syria.

[Rocketman]

As I said before, life in the first world is the easiest difficulty setting in most circumstances. Last I checked, women in the first world aren't having acid thrown at them on a regular basis unlike in Pakistan, don't get shot at for criticising the government unlike in Ukraine or Turkey, aren't being sold into slavery because their fathers got into debt with organised crime unlike in the Philippines, aren't at risk of being hit with chemical weapons unlike in Syria.

The Philippines and Turkey are first-world.

[Kamiccolo9]

As I said before, life in the first world is the easiest difficulty setting in most circumstances. Last I checked, women in the first world aren't having acid thrown at them on a regular basis unlike in Pakistan, don't get shot at for criticising the government unlike in Ukraine or Turkey, aren't being sold into slavery because their fathers got into debt with organised crime unlike in the Philippines, aren't at risk of being hit with chemical weapons unlike in Syria.

The Philippines and Turkey are first-world.

Most people don't even know what 3rd World actually means.

Any way, like I said before, just because a group of people have worse problems than another group of people, that doesn't negate the "lesser" problems the latter group has. If I have the flu, and someone, somewhere, is dying of cancer, that doesn't mean that I don't have the right to get treated for the flu, just because someone else has it worse.

[rereboy]

The Philippines and Turkey are first-world.

Not in human rights.

[garnetjester]

Jesus I can't PM. Ignore all of this everybody.

[UltimateHammerBro]

It's really curious seeing a discussion like this in a DB forum, it's certainly a breath of fresh air. Now, let's see what I missed in the last 15-ish hours.

Do you think the end justifies the means? I don't.
There is a concept called "freedom". I decide if I want to exercise to improve my life. Anything that will try to force that improvement by taking away my freedom to choose whether I want it or not will be, in fact, "gagging" me. Both policies are equally bad.

Freedom of speech is equal to freedom of fatness. Ok then.

They're both FREEDOM.

I love it when people talk about gender equality, but I despise feminism disguised as said gender equality.

Feminism is gender equality.

I'm sorry I can't reproduce the first words that came out of my mouth when I read this: children may be reading. I'll just say that it was a two-letter word, and then a three-letter word.

Women do not have to register for Selective Service
In domestic assault cases, men are automatically seen as the aggressors until proven otherwise, even in cases of self-defense
Women are almost guaranteed to get custody of children in divorce settlements unless there are extenuating circumstances
Businesses (bars or clubs, for example) often provide goods and services at a discounted or free price for women
Men are expected by society to pay for dates
Men are almost never taken seriously for sexual abuse claims

I was going to talk about the second and third things you mentioned, but you outrun me. Well done, sir.

Women do not have to register for Selective Service

Because women are seen as unfit for combat.

In domestic assault cases, men are automatically seen as the aggressors, even in cases of self-defense
Men are almost never taken seriously for sexual abuse claims

Because women are seen as physically inferior and incapable of actually threatening men.

It seems that you're not really interested on seeing those particular prejudices eradicated, do you?

Huh? Dude, it was a huge national story. Here's the quote:

Spoiler:

This story made the headlines in at least two European countries too. Are you going to judge all men by taking that retarded guy as a basis? Good luck.

[Hades]

As I said before, life in the first world is the easiest difficulty setting in most circumstances. Last I checked, women in the first world aren't having acid thrown at them on a regular basis unlike in Pakistan, don't get shot at for criticising the government unlike in Ukraine or Turkey, aren't being sold into slavery because their fathers got into debt with organised crime unlike in the Philippines, aren't at risk of being hit with chemical weapons unlike in Syria.

The Philippines and Turkey are first-world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL43_RTo4BM

[Kamiccolo9]

As I said before, life in the first world is the easiest difficulty setting in most circumstances. Last I checked, women in the first world aren't having acid thrown at them on a regular basis unlike in Pakistan, don't get shot at for criticising the government unlike in Ukraine or Turkey, aren't being sold into slavery because their fathers got into debt with organised crime unlike in the Philippines, aren't at risk of being hit with chemical weapons unlike in Syria.

The Philippines and Turkey are first-world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL43_RTo4BM

A lone link isn't an appropriate response.

Regardless, he's right. They are first world countries. I suggest you look up what that actually means.

[Hades]

The Philippines and Turkey are first-world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL43_RTo4BM

A lone link isn't an appropriate response.

Regardless, he's right. They are first world countries. I suggest you look up what that actually means.

In terms of Cold war politics: Yes. However, in terms of development: no (Turkey is high Second World while Phillipines is middle Third World). First World is a shorthand term for highly developed countries (USA, Japan, Canada, France etc.) By rocketman's logic, Switzerland is a third world country.

[Gaffer Tape]

Well I'm sure you wouldn't want to be treated like a woman either.

Don't make assumptions. There are many times I personally would, but, then again, I'm not exactly normal.

And I'm just telling you my personal experience because while I see your points, trying to say that nobody discriminates against women other than weird crazy poloticiabs is a huge fallacy, and the "perks" you point out don't balance anything out for me and for all women really.

Who said only crazy radicals discriminate against women? I certainly didn't. But, again, why must it always come to this "balance" thing? Why does a conversation about advantages women have over disadvantages men have always have to contain a disclaimer that women have it bad too, as if that just HAS to be reminded of? Again, it's this weird competition thing that almost everyone in this conversation keeps bringing up. Why can't these things just be talked about without having to fall back on that? And again, that's why I think feminism is something that's wonderful but can never bring true equality. Because its nature is to remind of us the divide we create based on sex rather than bringing us together. As long as we feel compelled to compete over who has it worse, then we're not going to be making real ground over making things better. Let's stop seeing ourselves as men and women and just see each other as people all striving together towards making ourselves better.

My point is that there is still a lot that could be done culturally so that women wouldn't be discriminated because of their gender and solely because of it, which is an experience no man ever has.

But while I say that, I can't let this slide, because that's entirely not true. That is, the last part of that. I vehemently agree there is so much more that could be done culturally to stop gender discrimination against women, but to say that men aren't discriminated against by gender is just not true at all. I have that experience. I experience it nearly EVERY DAY. Whether it's the same or different from what women experience or less severe or more severe is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. It exists. And like all sexism, it needs to be eradicated.

Also, that's terrible what you've gone through at work and in your family life. It's disgusting, and it makes me feel so angry that such things still exist, and that some people think in such close-minded, generalizing ways. And, you may not believe me, but I do understand what that feels like.

[Kamiccolo9]

In terms of Cold war politics: Yes. However, in terms of development: no (Turkey is high Second World while Phillipines is middle Third World). First World is a shorthand term for highly developed countries (USA, Japan, Canada, France etc.) By rocketman's logic, Switzerland is a third world country.

Switzerland is a third world country. So are Austria, and, I believe, Finland.

[garnetjester]

Well I'm sure you wouldn't want to be treated like a woman either.

Don't make assumptions. There are many times I personally would, but, then again, I'm not exactly normal.

And I'm just telling you my personal experience because while I see your points, trying to say that nobody discriminates against women other than weird crazy poloticiabs is a huge fallacy, and the "perks" you point out don't balance anything out for me and for all women really.

Who said only crazy radicals discriminate against women? I certainly didn't. But, again, why must it always come to this "balance" thing? Why does a conversation about advantages women have over disadvantages men have always have to contain a disclaimer that women have it bad too, as if that just HAS to be reminded of? Again, it's this weird competition thing that almost everyone in this conversation keeps bringing up. Why can't these things just be talked about without having to fall back on that? And again, that's why I think feminism is something that's wonderful but can never bring true equality. Because its nature is to remind of us the divide we create based on sex rather than bringing us together. As long as we feel compelled to compete over who has it worse, then we're not going to be making real ground over making things better. Let's stop seeing ourselves as men and women and just see each other as people all striving together towards making ourselves better.

My point is that there is still a lot that could be done culturally so that women wouldn't be discriminated because of their gender and solely because of it, which is an experience no man ever has.

But while I say that, I can't let this slide, because that's entirely not true. That is, the last part of that. I vehemently agree there is so much more that could be done culturally to stop gender discrimination against women, but to say that men aren't discriminated against by gender is just not true at all. I have that experience. I experience it nearly EVERY DAY. Whether it's the same or different from what women experience or less severe or more severe is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. It exists. And like all sexism, it needs to be eradicated.

Also, that's terrible what you've gone through at work and in your family life. It's disgusting, and it makes me feel so angry that such things still exist, and that some people think in such close-minded, generalizing ways. And, you may not believe me, but I do understand what that feels like.

Yeah, this was supposed to be a Pm but I screwed up which is why it looks like it does. Sorry about the confusion.

ETA: Thank you for your kind comments though, and you're right talking in absolutes doesn't benefit any argument at all.

[MediaFanGirl93]

I don't get the Pan hate either. Videl's popular among fans, and they are basically the same character.

Hmm..Videl, popular? I heard Videl is underrated and a Base Breaker among fans. Also, I do notice that a lot of people who dislike Pan aren't that fond of Videl/Bulma/Chi-Chi either.

[Rocketman]

They're both FREEDOM.

All freedoms are not created equal.

It seems that you're not really interested on seeing those particular prejudices eradicated, do you?

I'm not sure what you're asking, but yes, I think women should have to register for selective service, and that female-on-male violence should be treated as the serious crime it is.

[Fizzer]

They're both FREEDOM.

All freedoms are not created equal.

It seems that you're not really interested on seeing those particular prejudices eradicated, do you?

I'm not sure what you're asking, but yes, I think women should have to register for selective service, and that female-on-male violence should be treated as the serious crime it is.

Well that's great, but I've never heard feminists as a group being particularly vocal about that. I hear "stop violence against women", not "stop all violence because it's all equally serious". It wouldn't do them any good to eradicate those prejudices.

[UltimateHammerBro]

They're both FREEDOM.

All freedoms are not created equal.

It seems that you're not really interested on seeing those particular prejudices eradicated, do you?

I'm not sure what you're asking, but yes, I think women should have to register for selective service, and that female-on-male violence should be treated as the serious crime it is.

Well that's great, but I've never heard feminists as a group being particularly vocal about that. I hear "stop violence against women", not "stop all violence because it's all equally serious". It wouldn't do them any good to eradicate those prejudices.

This is what I meant by "It seems that you're not really interested on seeing those particular prejudices eradicated". It's cool if you want them eradicated, but I agree with Fizzer: I've never heard feminists talking about "stop violence", just "stop violence against women".

[rereboy]

In terms of Cold war politics: Yes. However, in terms of development: no (Turkey is high Second World while Phillipines is middle Third World). First World is a shorthand term for highly developed countries (USA, Japan, Canada, France etc.) By rocketman's logic, Switzerland is a third world country.

Switzerland is a third world country. So are Austria, and, I believe, Finland.

Finland has a higher GDP per capita than the UK, its population has the 13th highest average income in OECD countries and is the 7th happiest country in the world according to the World Happiness Report which utilizes factors such as GDP, life expectancy, social support, “perceptions of corruption”, and “freedom to make life choices”, to assign each country a total score.

Switzerland has the 5th highest average income in OECD countries, has a GDP per capita higher than the USA, and is the third happiest country in the world according to the World Happiness Report.

What you are saying doesn't make any sense. These are first rate countries. If every country on Earth had these kind of values, there would be heaven on Earth. And you call them third world...

[Kamiccolo9]

What you are saying doesn't make any sense. These are first rate countries. If every country on Earth had these kind of values, there would be heaven on Earth. And you call them third world...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/third%20world
The three countries I mentioned are neutral, therefore third-world. You are looking at the word in an economical sense. The current popular view of meaning of "third-world" is due to stereotype that the majority of the third-world countries are poor, developing nations.

[rereboy]

The three countries I mentioned are neutral, therefore third-world. You are looking at the word in an economical sense. The current popular view of meaning of "third-world" is due to stereotype that the majority of the third-world countries are poor, developing nations.

"The concept of the First World first originated during the Cold War, involving countries that were aligned with the United States. These countries were largely capitalistic and generally self-proclaimed democracies. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the meaning "First World" took on a new meaning applicable to the times, coming to be largely synonymous with developed countries or highly developed countries (depending on which definition is intended)".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World

I'm looking at the term in the only current applicable definition nowadays. You are talking about a concept that ceased to exist more than 20 years ago. Nowadays, we only talk about it in the only applicable definition or don't refer to the term at all. And this was pointed out to you even before I started talking about it but you continued to insist in using the term with that outdated definition like it made any sense nowadays.

[Kamiccolo9]

The three countries I mentioned are neutral, therefore third-world. You are looking at the word in an economical sense. The current popular view of meaning of "third-world" is due to stereotype that the majority of the third-world countries are poor, developing nations.

"The concept of the First World first originated during the Cold War, involving countries that were aligned with the United States. These countries were largely capitalistic and generally self-proclaimed democracies. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the meaning "First World" took on a new meaning applicable to the times, coming to be largely synonymous with developed countries or highly developed countries (depending on which definition is intended)".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World

I'm looking at the term in the only current applicable definition nowadays. You are talking about a concept that ceased to exist more than 20 years ago. Nowadays, we only talk about it in the only applicable definition or don't refer to the term at all.

You are using an uncited paragraph from Wikipedia. My source is the first definition on Webster's Dictionary. I work in the historical field, as well as the political one, and I assure you that these terms are still valid. You are referring to the stereotype, not the definition as it was meant to be used.