I'll repost what I posted in the spoiler thread:
Chopper being a doctor can easily confirm Sanji being dead or not. So either Nami has a reason to be lying through her teeth to her captain or Sanji is indeed a goner.
Still that doesn't explain the switched clothes and the non-tears for Brook and Momonosuke. I suspect devilfruit trickery.
Can't follow up on the skeletongate thread guys , I got banned from there (no reasons given)
That is our ENTIRE ARGUMENT. No, not kidding at all. Out ENTIRE argument is not and has NEVER BEEN that sexuality should be removed entirely from video games. It's ALWAYS been for a more nuanced and realistic approach to the demographics of characters in gaming. Give us some goddamn normal looking women instead of supermodels.
Oh, and treat them like real characters who are real people, not objects to be lusted after and nothing else.
Nono , I have been saying from the begining that I'm pro-choice when it comes to these things. Give the players choice , don't take it away from them. Things started going downhill when I said something like "why can't women have character AND be sex symbols". Then lot's of other arguments surfaced up (too much sexuality is bad , sexuality is out of place in many games , etc etc) , didn't have time to answer all of them so now we are debating just the objectification part.
I mean , I can link you quotes or something if you like , it's all here.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Objectification does not recognize consent. By definition. That you provided.
No , did you even read the wiki page? Objectification can be concensual, can be self-promoted and all sorts of other things. It only get's negative shades when talked from sex-negative feminists.
I don't mind there being overtly sexualized women in video games, I'd just like if The Ratio of overtly sexualized women in games wasn't fucking "9 overtly sexualized women for every 1 normal looking woman". Those numbers need to be WAY far away from that.
I don't disagree with that. I've stated that before in this thread.
You argued that advocates for feminism in games were against sexuality. Noqanky responded that the problem was objectification, not sexuality. Your answer was that objectification was a part of sexuality.
Your argument is that feminists are sex negative because they are against disregarding women as human beings.
Oh , was that how it went? We agree that then that the problem is ONLY objectification and nothing else? Good.
Yes , objectification is part of sexuality as I said above. So yes , anti-GG (not feminists) are sex negative because they are against that (according to you guys and gals here). Feminists are on both sides of the fence on this.
Hmm at this point Papakis can't even comprehend the transitive property. It's pathetic.
If objectification is a part of sexuality, and objectification is the dehumanization (disregarding of personality and dignity) of a person, then BY DEFINITION dehumanization is a part of sexuality, and you are, quite literally, saying "sex necessarily involves dehumanization."
If you can't understand that, then end of discussion. It actually scares me if you're telling the truth and you're married and have the capacity to procreate and be responsible for a child when you don't understand this.
Yes , imo that is part of sexuality. Do you consider dehumanization in sexuality bad? You don't think that there is a little bit of it involved whenever sexuality is addressed?
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Rogues':
You haven't debated shit! You refuse to clarify your position, explain the reasoning behind your posts, or acknowledge the arguments of those against you and provide rebuttals.
Academic my ass.
It takes two to tango.
So, you are incapable of explaining or comprehending even the most basic part of this discussion without just copy-pasting someone else's words?
And that you can't even find the relevant passages within the other person's writing?
You don't like sources? Do you know how debating works on an academic level?
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Your initial argument was that objectification is required for sexuality. By the definition you provided, you're casually advocating for dehumanization, which is to say, again by the definition you provided, disregarding the personality or dignity of anyone you interact with sexually.
These are your thoughts according to you.
No it wasn't. Where did I say that? My argument was that objectification is part of sexuality.
Please display that you actually understand the material, rather than just reiterating what is written on the blackboard.
No , if the need rises we will use it as common agreeing ground.
