still better than the daily mail......
Woman thrown out of Parliament in Australia for not covering up.
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
still better than the daily mail......
It’s always the same people though, so usually you know it’s going to be drivel before you even click on them. They’ll always respond with “if you don’t like it, don’t click on it” or “nobody's forcing you to read it" or my personal favourite, going the extra mile to dig up some other crap we've posted in the past as if it somehow validates their thread. (I just saw dowie do the same above, for a thread made over four years ago
- @dowie, don't be that guy dude, c'mon, you're better than that)Same people, same drivel, same reasoning, same response from those who just don't care. I am the latter.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,636
DISGUSTING!
I'M SHOCKED AND APPALLED. PUT SOME DAMN SLEEVES ON!!!!!
I'M SHOCKED AND APPALLED. PUT SOME DAMN SLEEVES ON!!!!!
It’s always the same people though, so usually you know it’s going to be drivel before you even click on them. They’ll always respond with “if you don’t like it, don’t click on it” or “nobody's forcing you to read it" or my personal favourite, going the extra mile to dig up some other crap we've posted in the past as if it somehow validates their thread. (I just saw dowie do the same above, for a thread made over four years ago
That is literally the last thread he posted in GD - it is a bit rich for someone like him to complain about GD threads when they're free to create their own threads and seemingly haven't bothered to do so for 4 years. And you're doing the same thing you criticised, you're referencing previous posts/arguments etc...
I'm not sure what is wrong with the argument "nobody is forcing you to read it"? I mean do you find yourself compelled to reads these threads regardless?
Of course! It's the old car crash analogy isn't it? You see a driver who's made a tit of himself and you have to look, right?
And as for his last thread, what difference does it make? Just because it's his last thread doesn't invalidate the fact that it was four years ago. Christ, four years ago we would've fallen over laughing at the thought of Trump being president. It's a bit like me saying that someone's a career criminal because they jumped a tube barrier four years ago. It's toss, you know it's toss, I know it's toss, everyone else knows it's toss, but he said it so it's relevant and probably the only thing you have to cling on to in what is, let's be honest, a rather tragic discussion in an even more tragic thread.
I can't believe I'm actually discussing this drivel. I'm off to crash some horses and kill people for their celery.
The dress code if anyones interested..
Of course the issue is that 'similar standards of formality for women' is hopelessly vague compared to the rather prescptive short, trousers, tie and suit ensemble for the men.
Of course the issue is that 'similar standards of formality for women' is hopelessly vague compared to the rather prescptive short, trousers, tie and suit ensemble for the men.
That it was four years ago just enhances the point, he's criticising the content of threads in GD when that last time he even made one was 4 years ago and it was a thread about a spider. If he'd made regular contributions in the form of well thought out threads etc.. then perhaps he'd have better grounds to criticise others but as it stands he doesn't really.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,354
- Location
- Rollergirl
I can't believe she got thrown out for that, she wasn't doing any arm.
The fairest answer would be to impose the same dress code on all parliamentarians regardless of their sex. Of course, that wouldn't be allowed because denying privileged treatment to women would be fiercely condemned as unfair to women.
Maybe make them all wear a uniform. Something purely functional. Like a prison uniform, but with pockets.
Maybe make them all wear a uniform. Something purely functional. Like a prison uniform, but with pockets.
Why?
Why not?
Because if someone who mostly just contributed well thought out threads etc.. were to make that criticism then it wouldn't be hypocritical.
This is utter stupidity. Julie Bishop MP is a cabinet minister, and she regularly wears sleeveless tops without anyone caring. In fact, plenty of female MPs have done the same. So I can't understand why the reporter was asked to leave.
So what's the procedure then? Can you show me the threshold at which peoples' opinions become relevant, and to whom they become relevant? Because his opinion, to me, is just as relevant as yours. You'll need to explain that one.
You've lost me now - I've not made any claims about any procedure, I'm just highlighting some hypocrisy. The poster chose to criticise me and I responded. Then you decided to join in and now the thread is being derailed...
The thread was a load of toss from the get go so no loss there. You seem to think his opinion is irrelevant because of a thread he made over four years ago, I am disagreeing and asking you what would make his thread relevant to you. There must be a line somewhere.
No that isn't what I said. As I've already explained to you I'm highlighting that I think it is hypocritical of him. Your claims re: what I "seem to think" are things you've attributed to me not things I've said. Try to respond to what has actually been posted as it would cut down on the amount of back and forth posting needed to answer a point or clarify things.
The issue is inconsistencies both between the men and the women (where the men are the one's being disadvantaged by a far more prescriptive dress code) and then inconsistencies as to how the code is applied to women.
The reporter should not be allowed in.. . Rather they should be more consistent and tell other women like Bishop to adhere to the code (which could certainly do with being more prescriptive for women)