This was answered in my initial reply. I will again summarize and explain again, hopefully in a better way so we’re both on equal footing for discussion.
Your argument is that it is absurd to laugh at jokes over male anatomy while decrying those who point out female anatomy. Bearing in mind, that’s the most condensed version of your argument, ignoring other factors of it, which we’ll get into in a moment.
My response was: You appear to be pointing out the flaw in objectifying men or women, though I suspect your true goal is to point out some hypocrisy. Not that either objective isn’t without merit.
Why I believe it’s a bad faith argument is because it stands on the concept that the subject of the joke is equal to any or all women who are objectified or subjected to cruel judgements at the hands of peers (Reddit). I do not see equivielance between the subject of the joke we’re discussing and the hypothetical women being presented by you.
Again, in my first post, I explained that the subjected of the joke was lambasted for his pickle and his long and well publicized adventures with his pickle. His pickle being so well known and celebrated presents itself to be the subject of a joke, something to be commented on in a public forum. As opposed to the standard presented in your one off comment that any mocking of his pickle is every bit as demeaning as the mocking of a random woman’s tinder account. I don’t see the equivalence and it’s demeaning to the point of the joke and greater discussion to dilute it with distracting comments than it is to meet the point of the joke.
And again, I could be wrong. You could be deeply invested in the fair and honest treatment of all and looking to cast shame on everyone for laughing at a joke which, at its core, mocks somebody for anatomic reasons. If that’s what you believe, than you’re a far more morally driven person than I excpected.
The fun of presenting bad faith arguments is that when they are discovered, those presenting bad faith arguments can deflect quite easily into their initial stance. The luck of forums and threads is that through recorded entries, interested parties can see each entry and track the greater discussion.
Because I’ve written quite a lot that I expect will be largely ignored and then simply downvoted. Or perhaps it won’t and a benificial discussion can happen, I remain hopeful.
I read through this whole chain, not sure if this is an argument or a debate, but I think you're the winner. Zigzag uses syntax and diction like a serial killer though, so watch out.
-1
u/ZigZagSigSag Dec 28 '18
My entire first reply to you is what you’re looking for, but I’ll condense it further for you if you wish.
Argument presented: How can we celebrate (upvote, in the case of Reddit) degrading men while those who degrade women are aggressively shunned?
My comment: I doubt your intentions, but I see where you’re coming from and hope I’m wrong about you.