ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 15th September 2017, 05:52 PM   #41
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,331
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I think it is clearly objectifying. He isn't saying women are good, or that women have never let him down. He's saying boobs have never let him down. He's talking about body parts as objects.
So if I say that I like eyes, it's objectifying?

No. Talking about body parts isn't objectifying. Talking about people as objects (not grammatical ones) is objectifying.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 07:11 PM   #42
Darth Rotor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,457
CNN put him on the show. That joke's on them. He got what he wanted: more exposure.
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 07:22 PM   #43
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 21,062
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
CNN put him on the show. That joke's on them. He got what he wanted: more exposure.
He's Fox News talent. He already gets full exposure as his literal job.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 08:56 PM   #44
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,546
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
He's Fox News talent. He already gets full exposure as his literal job.
He hasn't been employed by Fox for the last six months. Making sure his misogynistic boorishness went viral was important to increase his media presence and employment prospects with a site that depends on "firebrands" like The Daily Caller, The Blaze or The Daily Wire.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 09:04 PM   #45
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,740
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
He hasn't been employed by Fox for the last six months. Making sure his misogynistic boorishness went viral was important to increase his media presence and employment prospects with a site that depends on "firebrands" like The Daily Caller, The Blaze or The Daily Wire.
That makes CNN look really stupid. Or really cynical.

You think maybe Baldwin's producers were exploiting her with this booking?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

Last edited by theprestige; 15th September 2017 at 09:06 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 11:23 PM   #46
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,264
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
A sports guy is such a boorish oaf that he can't manage to go through an interview without saying "boobs"? Yeah, color me surprised. But that doesn't mean I have to condone it.

In one of her books, Miss Manners was asked about something unpleasant that ought not be done in public and replied, "Manners has to do with what you do in public, not what you do in private."
There are worse comments in this thread and none are even infraction worthy let alone worthy of anger. And this is a public forum last time I checked.

If you really found the comments offensive, I'm guessing you find the posts equally so? As per your words not something you could condone.

So my question then, is how you are acting on that. Do you truly find the comments so foul you cannot condone them, or was your anger played up to try and make a point?

I'm guessing it's the second option, and if so, could you try. ..not doing that? Kinda hard to have a discussion with that level of hyperbole.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 06:48 AM   #47
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 17,151
Here is a link to her take on the incident.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/15/opinio...ion/index.html
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 07:16 AM   #48
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 5,911
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
That was sorta like a joke, wasn't it? Except sexist and not funny.
Perhaps not. The post taken as a whole highlights the contrast between natural impulse and learned restraint, using the male gender from the OP case. You may not like the madness, but there was method. Sexist, in the context of this thread, I am afraid it is not, unless you are motivated to see it that way. And that is another story.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 01:45 PM   #49
mike81
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 341
I'm about 50/50 on whether or not it was inappropriate for him to say it during the interview. What is ridiculous is how we now live in a time where it is such a no no to admit you like someone else's body parts. I'm a straight man and damn right I like boobs and other parts of a female. There may be a few I don't want to see or think about. Yes, there is a time and place for such comments, but don't expect me not to take a peek if I can or never make any comment about it.
mike81 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 01:47 PM   #50
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,858
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
So if I say that I like eyes, it's objectifying?

No. Talking about body parts isn't objectifying. Talking about people as objects (not grammatical ones) is objectifying.
Yes, talking about SEXUAL body parts is demeaning and objectifying.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 01:49 PM   #51
mike81
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Yes, talking about SEXUAL body parts is demeaning and objectifying.
So we are just supposed to ignore that those parts are used for sexual purposes? Yes, they have other uses too, but it is not wrong to be attracted to other people's parts.

Last edited by mike81; 16th September 2017 at 01:55 PM.
mike81 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 03:17 PM   #52
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,331
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Yes, talking about SEXUAL body parts is demeaning and objectifying.
I'm sure you think repeating the claim is the same as demonstrating it, but I assure you, it's not.

How and why is it demeaning or objectifying to talk about sexual body parts? What's so triggering about that?

Hell, I've had discussions with women and the topic of male body parts came up, and somehow I didn't feel objectified.
__________________
<Roar!>


Last edited by Argumemnon; 16th September 2017 at 03:18 PM.
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 03:19 PM   #53
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,331
Originally Posted by mike81 View Post
So we are just supposed to ignore that those parts are used for sexual purposes? Yes, they have other uses too, but it is not wrong to be attracted to other people's parts.
Pretty insane, isn't it? Liberals used to laugh at conservatives because they thought it was verboten to talk about sex, and now they do the exact same thing!
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 06:48 PM   #54
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,871
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
There are worse comments in this thread and none are even infraction worthy let alone worthy of anger. And this is a public forum last time I checked.

If you really found the comments offensive, I'm guessing you find the posts equally so? As per your words not something you could condone.

So my question then, is how you are acting on that. Do you truly find the comments so foul you cannot condone them, or was your anger played up to try and make a point?

I'm guessing it's the second option, and if so, could you try. ..not doing that? Kinda hard to have a discussion with that level of hyperbole.
I found several of the comments in this thread offensive, but the standards here are lower than I would expect on a news broadcast.

ETA: I should add that it isn't "anger" that would describe my opinion of those comments. Even "disgust" would be too strong. It just makes me think that the speaker is a boor. I don't know the right adjective to use to describe my own opinion of those comments.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 16th September 2017 at 06:50 PM.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 07:05 PM   #55
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,871
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
How and why is it demeaning or objectifying to talk about sexual body parts? What's so triggering about that?

Hell, I've had discussions with women and the topic of male body parts came up, and somehow I didn't feel objectified.
It is not inherently objectifying to talk about body parts, sexual or otherwise. Context and manner make all the difference.

However, sometimes, it is objectifying. I'm sure I've had some of those same types of conversations and, yes, it's pretty objectifying. In some cases, though, I don't mind. If the conversation is a bit saucy, I'm not offended to learn that sometimes, the ladies think of me and my fellow males as convenient sources of sex, and not much else. The fact that I don't always object to being objectified doesn't mean that I wasn't objectified, and sometimes, I do object.

Think about it this way. Do you think the word "objectify" has any meaning at all? Do you think any comment anywhere could meaningfully be called "objectifying"? If you don't, then there's really no point in continuing, because no comment could ever be objectifying.

However, if you think it is possible for a comment to be objectifying, what sort of comment would that be? And what is the key characteristic of those objectifying comments that would not apply to "first amendment and boobs", in the context of that interview.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 07:29 PM   #56
mike81
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
It is not inherently objectifying to talk about body parts, sexual or otherwise. Context and manner make all the difference.

However, sometimes, it is objectifying. I'm sure I've had some of those same types of conversations and, yes, it's pretty objectifying. In some cases, though, I don't mind. If the conversation is a bit saucy, I'm not offended to learn that sometimes, the ladies think of me and my fellow males as convenient sources of sex, and not much else. The fact that I don't always object to being objectified doesn't mean that I wasn't objectified, and sometimes, I do object.

Think about it this way. Do you think the word "objectify" has any meaning at all? Do you think any comment anywhere could meaningfully be called "objectifying"? If you don't, then there's really no point in continuing, because no comment could ever be objectifying.

However, if you think it is possible for a comment to be objectifying, what sort of comment would that be? And what is the key characteristic of those objectifying comments that would not apply to "first amendment and boobs", in the context of that interview.
Yes, technically it may be objectifying. The word is used in a way that implies or flat out states that the person doing it is a bad person or doing something wrong. It seems we live in a time where it is wrong to admit that you like or notice the body parts of another person.

Yes, it would be objectifying in a bad way if someone made a comment during a job interview. However, it goes too far when people seem to think that it is never ok. It does not make me a bad person if I notice a woman's boobs or anything else when she is walking down the street in next to nothing or in a revealing outfit.

There have been times when my girlfriend and I will be in a store and I'll notice the outline of some female's genitals through their tight cloths. I'll whisper to my girlfriend about it, she will look right quick, and we will have a laugh. Yes, we just "objectified" someone, but that does not make us bad people or mean we did something wrong.

Last edited by mike81; 16th September 2017 at 07:41 PM.
mike81 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 05:33 AM   #57
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Sabrina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,553
Originally Posted by mike81 View Post
Yes, technically it may be objectifying. The word is used in a way that implies or flat out states that the person doing it is a bad person or doing something wrong. It seems we live in a time where it is wrong to admit that you like or notice the body parts of another person.

Yes, it would be objectifying in a bad way if someone made a comment during a job interview. However, it goes too far when people seem to think that it is never ok. It does not make me a bad person if I notice a woman's boobs or anything else when she is walking down the street in next to nothing or in a revealing outfit.

There have been times when my girlfriend and I will be in a store and I'll notice the outline of some female's genitals through their tight cloths. I'll whisper to my girlfriend about it, she will look right quick, and we will have a laugh. Yes, we just "objectified" someone, but that does not make us bad people or mean we did something wrong.
I think the difference in that scenario lies in the fact that you and your girlfriend did not march up to this woman and flat out say to her that you could see her genitals, and proceed to stare at them or be otherwise creepy about it. Alternately, if you'd said something loud enough for her to hear while making it clear you were talking to someone else, like your girlfriend, and NOT the woman in question, that would be objectifying.

I highly doubt anyone really cares what you notice, so long as you keep your comments and your eyes to yourself for the most part; but the second you point at a woman dressed in a semi-revealing manner and all but scream "BOOBS!", you are turning her into nothing more than her, admittedly put on display, body parts and ignoring who she may be as an individual. I believe that is what many object to in this instance; not that this man feels the way he does, but that he so blatantly said it to a woman's face (or chest, I suppose). It is rude, and yes, it is absolutely objectifying.
__________________
"All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: Freedom, Justice, Honor, Duty, Mercy, Hope."-Winston Churchill
"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do"-Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice 1915-1985.

Last edited by Sabrina; 17th September 2017 at 06:44 AM. Reason: corrected mistake
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 09:00 AM   #58
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Except he didn't reference HER boobs but only boobs in the abstract.

Side note: autocorrect tried to change boobs to blobs.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 09:36 AM   #59
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,612
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Side note: autocorrect tried to change boobs to blobs.
Objectifying AND judgemental!
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 10:40 AM   #60
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,871
Nobody would ever say that one should never talk about female bodies, or that it is always wrong, or that sex is a taboo subject, or even that you should never say "boobs" in mixed company. That's not the point at all.

Injecting sexuality into a conversation that has no element of sexuality is a very high risk social maneuver. If you do it right, you will be thought of as a sparkling wit, and will be invited to all the right parties. If you do it wrong, you will be thought of as a social misfit, and no one will want to be your friend.

Clay Travis got it wrong this time.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 11:29 AM   #61
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Injecting sexuality into a conversation that has no element of sexuality is a very high risk social maneuver. If you do it right, you will be thought of as a sparkling wit, and will be invited to all the right parties. If you do it wrong, you will be thought of as a social misfit, and no one will want to be your friend.

Clay Travis got it wrong this time.
He got it wrong for CNN's audience. I'm not convinced he got it wrong for his audience.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 11:33 AM   #62
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,740
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I found several of the comments in this thread offensive, but the standards here are lower than I would expect on a news broadcast.
"News" broadcast.

CNN brought a partisan shock jock onto an interview segment to boost ratings with partisan shock jockery (jockeying? jock-strapping?). Not sure why you were expecting high standards there.

Last edited by theprestige; 17th September 2017 at 11:47 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 12:20 PM   #63
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,858
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Nobody would ever say that one should never talk about female bodies, or that it is always wrong, or that sex is a taboo subject, or even that you should never say "boobs" in mixed company. That's not the point at all.

Injecting sexuality into a conversation that has no element of sexuality is a very high risk social maneuver. If you do it right, you will be thought of as a sparkling wit, and will be invited to all the right parties. If you do it wrong, you will be thought of as a social misfit, and no one will want to be your friend.

Clay Travis got it wrong this time.
This is pretty much my thoughts on the matter; any way, well said.



Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
He got it wrong for CNN's audience. I'm not convinced he got it wrong for his audience.
Which means he's an idiot who shot himself in the foot. Oh well.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 01:00 PM   #64
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Which means he's an idiot who shot himself in the foot. Oh well.
Did he? What negative repercussions has he faced?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 01:40 PM   #65
Bogative
Muse
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
Here is a link to her take on the incident.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/15/opinio...ion/index.html

There were no boobs in that link. What a letdown.
Bogative is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 11:32 PM   #66
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,858
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Did he? What negative repercussions has he faced?
Well, he wasn't able to comment on whatever it was that he was invited there for in the first place. Other than that, it might take more time for more negative results to come in. One more immediate one would be the loss of more fans who are turned off by his crude comments. But I don't know — I was always surprised at the popularity of obnoxious and crude ******** like Howard Stern, so this guy could have increased his fan base by a thousand-fold with his one-off comment.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 04:10 AM   #67
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Well, he wasn't able to comment on whatever it was that he was invited there for in the first place.
I'm not sure he cares. He got attention, which was probably the real reason he accepted the invitation.

Quote:
Other than that, it might take more time for more negative results to come in. One more immediate one would be the loss of more fans who are turned off by his crude comments.
Given his prior history, I doubt it. This seems par for the course, and his existing fans are likely the sort of people who like his crudeness.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 07:18 AM   #68
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,740
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Well, he wasn't able to comment on whatever it was that he was invited there for in the first place. Other than that, it might take more time for more negative results to come in. One more immediate one would be the loss of more fans who are turned off by his crude comments. But I don't know — I was always surprised at the popularity of obnoxious and crude ******** like Howard Stern, so this guy could have increased his fan base by a thousand-fold with his one-off comment.
Watch the video again. He's the only one who gets to comment on the topic. After trolling the host, he goes on to articulate a principled position. Then the host decides she can't get over the trolling, lets the interview derail, and then shuts it down. The only people who didn't get a chance to comment were her and the other guest. The other guest tried, but the host kept cutting him off to focus on the trolling.

And I read the troll got invited back on CNN today, but I'm not sure that's actually true. We'll see.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 12:20 PM   #69
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,645
Clay Travis should've avoided controversial misogynist objectification by replacing "boobs" with "deez nuts!"
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 18th September 2017 at 12:22 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 07:41 PM   #70
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,291
I thought objectification was when you thought of a person mostly for what they can give you(sexual gratification, mostly) and not as a whole person independent of your feelings for them.

Not sure what that has to do with talking about glorious boobs.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.