Message Forum: Re: Barbie! No, really.

Re: Barbie! No, really.

Posted By: Stephen, on host 68.8.40.131
Date: Friday, February 10, 2006, at 02:23:15
In Reply To: Re: Barbie! No, really. posted by Darien on Friday, February 10, 2006, at 01:37:42:

> > And can anyone explain to me why Mattel keeps referring to Barbie and Ken as sentient beings?
>
> Be fair. Just because Barbie's a woman doesn't mean she's not sentient.

Really? I think, given the precedent of _Robodog v. Meatdog, 762 U.S. 235 (2006)_ that women have to first prove that they act indistinguishable from sentient beings in order to be legally considered sentient beings.

Ste "Misogyny is fun" phen

Replies To This Message

Re: Barbie! No, really. - Dave - Fri, 2/10/2006, 12:18:21
Re: Barbie! No, really. - teach - Fri, 2/10/2006, 06:19:03
- Re: Barbie! No, really. - Gharlane - Fri, 2/10/2006, 13:26:20
  - Re: Barbie! No, really. - Stephen - Fri, 2/10/2006, 16:15:43
    - Re: Barbie! No, really. - Darien - Sat, 2/11/2006, 06:11:37
      - Re: Barbie! No, really. - Stephen - Sat, 2/11/2006, 15:09:23
        
        Re: Barbie! No, really. - Darien - Sat, 2/11/2006, 15:24:38
        
        Grammar Stuffs - Stephen - Sat, 2/11/2006, 16:23:54
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Howard - Sun, 2/12/2006, 15:01:27
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Sam - Sat, 2/11/2006, 22:39:37
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Dave - Mon, 2/13/2006, 15:32:49
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Darien - Mon, 2/13/2006, 15:39:51
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Howard - Mon, 2/13/2006, 15:46:54
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Darien - Mon, 2/13/2006, 15:51:49
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Dave - Mon, 2/13/2006, 15:41:57
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Howard - Mon, 2/13/2006, 15:54:40
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Darien - Mon, 2/13/2006, 16:03:48
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Howard - Mon, 2/13/2006, 16:14:00
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Stephen - Sat, 2/11/2006, 23:16:05
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Sam - Mon, 2/13/2006, 10:57:04
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Stephen - Mon, 2/13/2006, 12:58:46
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Darien - Mon, 2/13/2006, 14:14:23
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Howard - Mon, 2/13/2006, 15:35:07
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Dave - Mon, 2/13/2006, 12:52:43
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Sam - Mon, 2/13/2006, 15:44:09
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Darien - Mon, 2/13/2006, 14:16:20
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Nyperold - Tue, 2/14/2006, 09:54:07
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Darien - Wed, 2/15/2006, 05:02:48
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Nyperold - Wed, 2/15/2006, 12:33:12
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Howard - Mon, 2/13/2006, 15:43:27
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Dave - Mon, 2/13/2006, 14:45:58
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Dave - Mon, 2/13/2006, 14:44:28
        
        Re: Grammar Stuffs - Darien - Mon, 2/13/2006, 14:55:27
    - Re: Barbie! No, really. - Ticia - Fri, 2/10/2006, 17:41:38
    - Re: Barbie! No, really. And some English. - Howard - Fri, 2/10/2006, 17:36:32
      - Re: Barbie! No, really. And some English. - LaZorra - Fri, 2/10/2006, 23:39:34
        
        Re: Barbie! No, really. And some English. - Josh - Fri, 2/10/2006, 23:59:32
        
        Re: Barbie! No, really. And some English. - gremlinn - Sat, 2/11/2006, 03:51:55
        
        Re: Barbie! No, really. And some English. - wintermute - Sat, 2/11/2006, 04:41:30
        
        Re: Barbie! No, really. And some English. - Darien - Sat, 2/11/2006, 06:09:24
        
        Re: Barbie! No, really. And some English. - Howard - Sat, 2/11/2006, 09:46:17
        
        Re: Barbie! No, really. And some English. - H - Sat, 2/11/2006, 09:48:15
Re: Barbie! No, really. - teach - Fri, 2/10/2006, 06:14:08

RinkChat Username:
Password:
Email:		(optional)
Subject:
Message:	> > > And can anyone explain to me why Mattel keeps referring to Barbie and Ken as sentient beings? > > > > Be fair. Just because Barbie's a woman doesn't mean she's not sentient. > > Really? I think, given the precedent of _Robodog v. Meatdog, 762 U.S. 235 (2006)_ that women have to first prove that they act indistinguishable from sentient beings in order to be legally considered sentient beings. > > Ste "Misogyny is fun" phen
Link URL:		(optional)
Link Title:		(optional)

Replies To This Message

Post a Reply