Sam Brownback cuts medicaid funding to Planned Parentood

[*bfine32*]

(01-21-2016, 12:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not sure where you got that definition from, the satisfaction part isn't necessary. It's about degrading someone to the status of an object. Hence my saying you were objectifying women by calling them an oven or relegating them to the status of incubator.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectify

Quote:objectify
 [/url]

[uh b-jek-tuh-fahy] /əbˈdʒɛk təˌfaɪ/
SpellSyllables

• Examples
• Word Origin
  
  

verb (used with object), objectified, objectifying.
1.
to present as an [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object]object, especially of sight, touch, or other physical sense; make objective; externalize.

Where did you get degrade? Remember who is getting specific about definition in this and how much you dislike the need for specificity. 

[GMDino]

(01-21-2016, 12:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To treat something as an object for your satisfaction.

(01-21-2016, 12:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not sure where you got that definition from, the satisfaction part isn't necessary. It's about degrading someone to the status of an object. Hence my saying you were objectifying women by calling them an oven or relegating them to the status of incubator.

(01-21-2016, 02:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectify


objectify

 [/url]
[/url]

• Examples
• Word Origin
  
  

[url=http://static.sfdict.com/staticrep/dictaudio/O00/O0008100.mp3]verb (used with object), objectified, objectifying.
1.
to present as an object, especially of sight, touch, or other physical sense; make objective; externalize.

[Belsnickel]

(01-21-2016, 02:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectify

Where did you get degrade? Remember who is getting specific about definition in this and how much you dislike the need for specificity. 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/objectify

Quote:1. Degrade to the status of a mere object

Maybe I'm a snob, but I tend to go with the time honored OED when it comes to my definitions. Also, I don't see your qualifier in that definition, so where did that come from again? Not to mention that it would be an implied degradation to present a person as an object, but that's neither her nor there.

Edit: I also have no dislike for the need for specificity. It's just tiring having to be so in order to avoid misrepresentations of my statements.

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 12:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did you think about this analogy before you presented it?

He is suffering consequences for his actions. He committed the act, he is the one paying.

And women pay a price when they have an abortion.  It is not something they enjoy.

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 11:59 AM)bfine32 Wrote:  but we cannot when we talk about inconveniencing the mother for a few weeks, for something she voluntarily participated in.

Losing a job or having to drop out of school can have a very long lasting effect.  So can complications from pregnancy and/or childbirth.  Some women would even be shunned by their families.

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 02:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Edit: I also have no dislike for the need for specificity. It's just tiring having to be so in order to avoid misrepresentations of my statements.

It is a common practice of Bfine to make a big issue over semantics when he is getting owned on the main issue of a debate.

It reminds me a lot of old Rugby's "I never said that" defense.

BTW whatever happened to Rugby?  Is he here under another name?

[*bfine32*]

My apologies that the judges balked at the word satisfication when talking about the objectification of women.

Obviously we can objectify other items; however, I thought we were talking about the onjectification of women and provided a definition from the top of my head.

My apologies for the well pointed out forum foul.

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 12:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am denying him nothing.

You are denying him the right to force the woman to abort the fetus.

Pretty much no way you can deny that.

[*bfine32*]

(01-21-2016, 02:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is a common practice of Bfine to make a big issue over semantics when he is getting owned on the main issue of a debate.

No doubt; I'm the one that called for definitions and then balked at a word used in it.

When will I ever learn to be skilled debators like you guys?

Seems I would grow tired of constantly being owned by you guys of superior intellect; however, i suppose I'm just a glutton for punishment.

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 12:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess I don't live in a black and white world. Because no matter how much anybody wants to say otherwise there is more than one person involved in a pregnancy.

This is one of the best quotes I have ever seen.


"I don't live in a black-and-white world, but my opinion is correct no matter what anyone else says."

 

That is high comedy. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-21-2016, 02:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are denying him the right to force the woman to abort the fetus.

Pretty much no way you can deny that.

I'm denying him the right of forcing a mother to abort her child if she does not wish to.

You are denying him the right to rear his off-spring.

"Pretty much no way you can deny that".

I have grown tired of talking in circles and being owned by the likes of you. I introduced a different aspect of the arguement besides the 'Is the baby a life' approach. he has been met with the same exact retort "Her life, her choice".

It boils down to the fact that their should be more than one vote and you do not simply because one of them involved has a womb.

I will keep the requirement of biological factors in mind when discussing rights in the future, as to further avoid being owned.

You guys meet up for a cyber circle-jerk.

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 03:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You are denying him the right to rear his off-spring.

"Pretty much no way you can deny that".

I am denying him the right to make medical decisions about another persons body.  But my position will change when science advances to the point that the man can take the fetus and keep it alive during the gestation period.  That is because my position is based on logic and reality.

Your opinion is based on the desire to have your own personal beliefs control the law.  

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 03:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You guys meet up for a cyber circle-jerk.

A friend of mine is wondering how this is possible.  is there some sort of device that plugs into the computer?

[*bfine32*]

(01-21-2016, 03:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am denying him the right to make medical decisions about another persons body.  

He is not making anyone do anything other that let nature take its course as a result of their mutal agreement to participate in the act. If at any point the woman's health is in danger and she wishes to abort, we have a different set of circumstances. You are giving her the right to terminate the natural course simply out of convnience when the off-spring has half the make-up of someone that wants to raise it.

[GMDino]

(01-21-2016, 02:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is a common practice of Bfine to make a big issue over semantics when he is getting owned on the main issue of a debate.

It reminds me a lot of old Rugby's "I never said that" defense.

BTW whatever happened to Rugby?  Is he here under another name?

[Belsnickel]

(01-21-2016, 02:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is a common practice of Bfine to make a big issue over semantics when he is getting owned on the main issue of a debate.

I brought semantics into it because of his use of a word that I did not see as a proper use. Since he had used it in retort to me using the word previously, I told him to look up the definition of the word and tell me how it made sense. He provided a definition, I asked where it had come from, and then he provided a different definition, later saying the first one came 'from off the top of his head'. None of which would have made sense in his claim without the ability to read the mind of every female having sex.

Anyway, point is that I was the one to bring up semantics because he seemed to not understand the meaning of the word he was using.

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 03:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He is not making anyone do anything other that let nature take its course as a result of their mutal agreement to participate in the act.

"Letting nature take its course" is only one possible choice.  You are giving the man the right to deny the woman the right to make any other choice about her own body.

It all comes back to the fact that you see the fetus as a separate human being.  And nothing will change your mind.  all this talk about "equal rights" makes no sense.  you are just rtying to twist it to fit your own opinion.

[*bfine32*]

(01-21-2016, 03:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I brought semantics into it because of his use of a word that I did not see as a proper use. Since he had used it in retort to me using the word previously, I told him to look up the definition of the word and tell me how it made sense. He provided a definition, I asked where it had come from, and then he provided a different definition, later saying the first one came 'from off the top of his head'. None of which would have made sense in his claim without the ability to read the mind of every female having sex.

Anyway, point is that I was the one to bring up semantics because he seemed to not understand the meaning of the word he was using.

First of all Thanks "seldom seen stand up act"

Secondly: I'm not sure if we have to read the mind of the female when we talk about the objectification of her (sexual or otherwise). I merely pointed out she put herself in a position to be objectified when she spread her thighs.

[Belsnickel]

(01-21-2016, 03:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First of all Thanks "seldom seen stand up act"

Secondly: I'm not sure if we have to read the mind of the female when we talk about the objectification of her (sexual or otherwise). I merely pointed out she put herself in a position to be objectified when she spread her thighs.

Being objectified is something done entirely by the person doing the objectifying. Now, if a woman presents herself as a receptacle for genetic material then she has objectified herself, but if their sexual partner sees them in that way without it being presented as such, then the woman has not objectified herself or put herself in a position to be so. I know this word gets thrown around a lot, and I do typically avoid using the 'isms' because they get overused, but it is a very sexist position to take that by just having sex a woman is placing herself in a position to be objectified. We should not be objectifying anyone for anything, let alone someone we are engaging in such an intimate act with. Because whether it is love or lust that brought us there, it is intimate.

[Vas Deferens]

(01-21-2016, 03:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm denying him the right of forcing a mother to abort her child if she does not wish to.

You are denying him the right to rear his off-spring.

"Pretty much no way you can deny that".

I have grown tired of talking in circles and being owned by the likes of you. I introduced a different aspect of the arguement besides the 'Is the baby a life' approach. he has been met with the same exact retort "Her life, her choice".

It boils down to the fact that their should be more than one vote and you do not simply because one of them involved has a womb.

I will keep the requirement of biological factors in mind when discussing rights in the future, as to further avoid being owned.

You guys meet up for a cyber circle-jerk.

For what its worth, I appreciated your coming at this from another angle.