Message Forum: Re: Barbie! No, really.

Re: Barbie! No, really.

Posted By: Dave, on host 65.116.226.199
Date: Friday, February 10, 2006, at 12:18:21
In Reply To: Re: Barbie! No, really. posted by Stephen on Friday, February 10, 2006, at 02:23:15:

> > > 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

Well, the good news for women is, that ruling doesn't say that rational thought is a pre-requisite for sentience. Just the mere appearance of it appears to be all that's necessary. I think that's within the grasp of many women!

-- Dave

Post a Reply

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 > > Well, the good news for women is, that ruling doesn't say that rational thought is a pre-requisite for sentience. Just the mere appearance of it appears to be all that's necessary. I think that's within the grasp of many women! > > -- Dave
Link URL:		(optional)
Link Title:		(optional)

Make sure you read our message forum policy before posting.