Topic: Jane's uncle makes her do things she is too young to understand...
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #6,559
Nexus !jNexusRe/. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later[^] [v] #114,629
oh god i lold.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #114,634
wait what does that have to do with engineering thermodynamics..
i wat'd.
i wat'd.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #114,636
Mindblast !!4IKKtS9GG joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #114,647
All this time her poor inebriated mother wanted her to be a hooker. By the time she burned Jane's textbooks, the damage was already done.(Edited 1 minute later.)
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #114,651
Mindblast !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #114,656
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
> I hate those baby highheels. They are so creepy.
But they're Heelariousâ„¢! And have anonymous shipping options now so that you are most likely not placed on a social services/FBI watchlist until the company is raided.
> I hate those baby highheels. They are so creepy.
But they're Heelariousâ„¢! And have anonymous shipping options now so that you are most likely not placed on a social services/FBI watchlist until the company is raided.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #114,664
@114,636 (D)
I GET IT, I GET IT NOW. :'o
also
hurrdurr.
I was stuck thinking Jane's uncle did naughty things to her. :|
I GET IT, I GET IT NOW. :'o
also
hurrdurr.
I was stuck thinking Jane's uncle did naughty things to her. :|
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #114,680
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #114,697
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
What is that even supposed to mean?
First let's look up the definition of objectify:
> ob·jec·ti·fy /əbˈjektəˌfī/ Verb
> 1. Express (something abstract) in a concrete form: "good poetry objectifies feeling".
> 2. Degrade to the status of a mere object.
You probably mean the second one. Degrade to "a mere object? But an object is...
> ob·ject/əbˈjekt/
> Noun: A material thing that can be seen and touched.
Children are visible, and tangabile as well.
Conclusion: What you said is vague and meaningless.
What is that even supposed to mean?
First let's look up the definition of objectify:
> ob·jec·ti·fy /əbˈjektəˌfī/ Verb
> 1. Express (something abstract) in a concrete form: "good poetry objectifies feeling".
> 2. Degrade to the status of a mere object.
You probably mean the second one. Degrade to "a mere object? But an object is...
> ob·ject/əbˈjekt/
> Noun: A material thing that can be seen and touched.
Children are visible, and tangabile as well.
Conclusion: What you said is vague and meaningless.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #114,702
Katerina Shcherbatskaya joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #114,704
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #114,705
@114,702 (D)
No, it's saying they're an object.
If you think children are being dehumanized, say "dehumanized", not "objectified".
No, it's saying they're an object.
If you think children are being dehumanized, say "dehumanized", not "objectified".
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #114,711
@previous (A)
Dehumanising is not the same as objectifying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification
Dehumanising is not the same as objectifying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #114,714
@previous (D)
> Dehumanising is not the same as objectifying.
You said:
> is denying their humanity.
If you are talking about denying humanity, the word for that is... dehumanizing!
It is not the same thing as objectifying, that is correct.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification
Lolwikipedia.
> Dehumanising is not the same as objectifying.
You said:
> is denying their humanity.
If you are talking about denying humanity, the word for that is... dehumanizing!
It is not the same thing as objectifying, that is correct.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification
Lolwikipedia.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #114,715
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #114,717
@114,714 (A)
> > Dehumanising is not the same as objectifying.
> You said:
> > is denying their humanity.
> If you are talking about denying humanity, the word for that is... dehumanizing!
But it also includes reducing them to an object. Dehumanising merely states that they are not human.
> It is not the same thing as objectifying, that is correct.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification
> Lolwikipedia.
Yes.
> > Dehumanising is not the same as objectifying.
> You said:
> > is denying their humanity.
> If you are talking about denying humanity, the word for that is... dehumanizing!
But it also includes reducing them to an object. Dehumanising merely states that they are not human.
> It is not the same thing as objectifying, that is correct.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification
> Lolwikipedia.
Yes.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #114,719
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #114,817
> expected calculus
I lol'd
I lol'd
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #114,922
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,103
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,197
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,199
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,203
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,205
Nega !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,214
How weak... she has no place in my new world.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,215
@114,715 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
It's a more accurate term.
@114,717 (D)
> But it also includes reducing them to an object.
Children (and adults) are objects by definition. Again the definition:
> ob·ject/əbˈjekt/
> Noun: A material thing that can be seen and touched.
> Dehumanising merely states that they are not human.
And you said:
> But saying a person is an object is denying their humanity.
If the problem you have is that people are denying the humanity of children, than "dehumanizing" is the right word.
Here would have been the perfect way to say it:
> People need to stop dehumanizing and sexualizing children.
It's a more accurate term.
@114,717 (D)
> But it also includes reducing them to an object.
Children (and adults) are objects by definition. Again the definition:
> ob·ject/əbˈjekt/
> Noun: A material thing that can be seen and touched.
> Dehumanising merely states that they are not human.
And you said:
> But saying a person is an object is denying their humanity.
If the problem you have is that people are denying the humanity of children, than "dehumanizing" is the right word.
Here would have been the perfect way to say it:
> People need to stop dehumanizing and sexualizing children.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,216
@114,922 (I)
That wikipedia article was talking about reducing people to only a sexual object.
Children (and adults) are objects. However they are not meant for sex.
If anon D had said:
> People need to stop treating Children like no more than sexual objects
It would have made sense. However he just complained about how children are treated as objects (which they are, just like adults and anyone).
That wikipedia article was talking about reducing people to only a sexual object.
Children (and adults) are objects. However they are not meant for sex.
If anon D had said:
> People need to stop treating Children like no more than sexual objects
It would have made sense. However he just complained about how children are treated as objects (which they are, just like adults and anyone).
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,236
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,251
@115,216 (A)
> However he just complained about how children are treated as objects
Actually swamplights complained about objectification.
> However he just complained about how children are treated as objects
Actually swamplights complained about objectification.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,489
@previous (D)
> >However he just complained about how children are treated as objects
>
> Actually swamplights complained about objectification.
*facepalm*
> >However he just complained about how children are treated as objects
>
> Actually swamplights complained about objectification.
*facepalm*
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,491
@previous (A)
> hurr durr I'll make a bunch of shit up and then facepalm when he corrects you
I'm not swamplights and I didn't complain about anything.
> hurr durr I'll make a bunch of shit up and then facepalm when he corrects you
I'm not swamplights and I didn't complain about anything.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,494
@previous (D)
> >hurr durr I'll make a bunch of shit up
WTF are you talking about?
> and then facepalm when he corrects you
" complained about how children are treated as objects "
and
" complained about objectification. "
Are the same thing, dumbass.
> I'm not swamplights and I didn't complain about anything.
> implying I said you were, or that you did
> >hurr durr I'll make a bunch of shit up
WTF are you talking about?
> and then facepalm when he corrects you
" complained about how children are treated as objects "
and
" complained about objectification. "
Are the same thing, dumbass.
> I'm not swamplights and I didn't complain about anything.
> implying I said you were, or that you did
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,502
> > >hurr durr I'll make a bunch of shit up
> WTF are you talking about?
"If anon D had said:
> People need to stop treating Children like no more than sexual objects
It would have made sense. However he just complained about how children are treated as objects (which they are, just like adults and anyone)."
> > and then facepalm when he corrects you
> " complained about how children are treated as objects "
> and
> " complained about objectification. "
> Are the same thing, dumbass.
No they're not.
> > I'm not swamplights and I didn't complain about anything.
> > implying I said you were, or that you did
"If anon D had said:
> People need to stop treating Children like no more than sexual objects
It would have made sense. However he just complained about how children are treated as objects (which they are, just like adults and anyone)."
> WTF are you talking about?
"If anon D had said:
> People need to stop treating Children like no more than sexual objects
It would have made sense. However he just complained about how children are treated as objects (which they are, just like adults and anyone)."
> > and then facepalm when he corrects you
> " complained about how children are treated as objects "
> and
> " complained about objectification. "
> Are the same thing, dumbass.
No they're not.
> > I'm not swamplights and I didn't complain about anything.
> > implying I said you were, or that you did
"If anon D had said:
> People need to stop treating Children like no more than sexual objects
It would have made sense. However he just complained about how children are treated as objects (which they are, just like adults and anyone)."
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,512
@previous (D)
> > " complained about how children are treated as objects "
> > and
> > " complained about objectification. "
> > Are the same thing, dumbass.
>
> No they're not.
Yes, they are.
> > " complained about how children are treated as objects "
> > and
> > " complained about objectification. "
> > Are the same thing, dumbass.
>
> No they're not.
Yes, they are.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,522
@previous (A)
> > > " complained about how children are treated as objects "
> > > and
> > > " complained about objectification. "
> > > Are the same thing, dumbass.
> >
> > No they're not.
> Yes, they are.
No they're not.
> > > " complained about how children are treated as objects "
> > > and
> > > " complained about objectification. "
> > > Are the same thing, dumbass.
> >
> > No they're not.
> Yes, they are.
No they're not.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,531
@previous (D)
> > > > " complained about how children are treated as objects "
> > > > and
> > > > " complained about objectification. "
> > > > Are the same thing, dumbass.
> > >
> > > No they're not.
> > Yes, they are.
> No they're not.
Yes, they are.
> > > > " complained about how children are treated as objects "
> > > > and
> > > > " complained about objectification. "
> > > > Are the same thing, dumbass.
> > >
> > > No they're not.
> > Yes, they are.
> No they're not.
Yes, they are.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,537
@previous (A)
> > > > > " complained about how children are treated as objects "
> > > > > and
> > > > > " complained about objectification. "
> > > > > Are the same thing, dumbass.
> > > >
> > > > No they're not.
> > > Yes, they are.
> > No they're not.
> Yes, they are.
No they're not.
> > > > > " complained about how children are treated as objects "
> > > > > and
> > > > > " complained about objectification. "
> > > > > Are the same thing, dumbass.
> > > >
> > > > No they're not.
> > > Yes, they are.
> > No they're not.
> Yes, they are.
No they're not.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,542
@previous (D)
> > > > > > " complained about how children are treated as objects "
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > " complained about objectification. "
> > > > > > Are the same thing, dumbass.
> > > > >
> > > > > No they're not.
> > > > Yes, they are.
> > > No they're not.
> > Yes, they are.
> No they're not.
Yes, they are.
> > > > > > " complained about how children are treated as objects "
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > " complained about objectification. "
> > > > > > Are the same thing, dumbass.
> > > > >
> > > > > No they're not.
> > > > Yes, they are.
> > > No they're not.
> > Yes, they are.
> No they're not.
Yes, they are.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,545
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,548
Op is right now shush
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #115,561
This seems like a pretty hopeless argument.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #115,573
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #115,574
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #115,580
ops argument @previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #115,582
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #115,588
Object/objectify/sexual object@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #115,590
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #115,605
You are correct. As long as everyone understands eachother its cool. @previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)