Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="David Argall" data-source="post: 222463" data-attributes="member: 4481">objections to objectification&quot;David, if you were joking, use a smiley&quot; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />&nbsp; &nbsp; Actually I've never got around to figuring out how to use them.&nbsp;&quot;I'll get off my soapbox if you were joking, really.&quot;&nbsp; &nbsp; Naw, much more fun to join you on it.&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot; Objectification means to treat something as an object.&quot;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Now the problem to objecting to this is that everything must always be treated as an object.&nbsp; No exceptions.&nbsp; We think in objects and the basic rules of logic are in dealing in objects.&nbsp; You are an object, or more precisely a variety of objects depending on the subject at hand.&nbsp;&quot;treat someone of the female gender as an OBJECT as opposed to a person. &quot;&nbsp; &nbsp; A person is an object, a different level of abstract than the object &quot;female&quot;, but both terms are object terms.&nbsp; Nor would using &quot;individual&quot; or &quot;whole person&quot; change that.&nbsp; They just are more detailed objects.&quot;So the objection is to being treated like a jiggly meat puppet for your right hand, not to being a female.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; which is not an objection to being objectified, merely to the choice of objects.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; But back to our fashion show.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; May I nominate Ilsa the archer as the most unready for combat?&nbsp; My bet is that she will be on her rear as soon as she shoots [The recoil of a bow isn't that much, but she is balanced on her toes.], which will likely be much to the amusement of the male chauvinist pig who will likely also see her arrow hit the dirt rather than him.&nbsp; [Of course my eyes have trouble focusing on the placement of the arrow, but it looks like the arrow is under the bow, which means the only way to keep the arrow from falling into the ground is to cripple a couple of fingers.]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="David Argall, post: 222463, member: 4481"] [b]objections to objectification[/b] "David, if you were joking, use a smiley" :confused: Actually I've never got around to figuring out how to use them. "I'll get off my soapbox if you were joking, really." Naw, much more fun to join you on it. " Objectification means to treat something as an object." Now the problem to objecting to this is that everything must always be treated as an object. No exceptions. We think in objects and the basic rules of logic are in dealing in objects. You are an object, or more precisely a variety of objects depending on the subject at hand. "treat someone of the female gender as an OBJECT as opposed to a person. " A person is an object, a different level of abstract than the object "female", but both terms are object terms. Nor would using "individual" or "whole person" change that. They just are more detailed objects. "So the objection is to being treated like a jiggly meat puppet for your right hand, not to being a female." which is not an objection to being objectified, merely to the choice of objects. But back to our fashion show. May I nominate Ilsa the archer as the most unready for combat? My bet is that she will be on her rear as soon as she shoots [The recoil of a bow isn't that much, but she is balanced on her toes.], which will likely be much to the amusement of the male chauvinist pig who will likely also see her arrow hit the dirt rather than him. [Of course my eyes have trouble focusing on the placement of the arrow, but it looks like the arrow is under the bow, which means the only way to keep the arrow from falling into the ground is to cripple a couple of fingers.] [/QUOTE]

Verification