Whiplashsmile4
Posts: 2305
Joined: 12/2/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote:
ORIGINAL: Whiplashsmile4 The doormat lays out for all who come into contact for it to us to wipe their feet upon it. Mind you some people do and do not wipe thier feet. None the less, most people don't have to ask for pemission to ask their feet (that's sort of aburb). There are no boundaries in place regarding who can or can not use a doormat. The doormat has not inherient control over it's own use. This is when we apply the full literal meaning of a physical doormat in the figurative sense. If we compare to somebody to being in the likeness of a doormat, we should apply it fully. Because if we do not, we perhaps are not really talking about doormats at all are we? Etymologically....yes. Again though, "slave" (likely among plenty of other words) would fail at the 'paralleling the literal interpretation into contextual/figurative' test too. Slave augments the principal of ownership without diminishment of human characteristics. Doormat is objectification that diminishes certain human characteristics. In terms of Objectification, I would at least hope that everybody understands the concept. At least those that engage in this activitity, it removes certain human elements. Who cares what a footstool, thinks or feels. It's a fucking footstool, it ain't supposed to have any thoughts or emotions. Same holds true with a Doormat. I'm making a point in regards to how this word also is a form of objectification. Where certain human attributes become discounted or thrown away. Where a person is diminished as a human being. The slave word does not diminish a human being, rather it augments ownerships and the level of submission involved, without diminishing human attributes to a likeness of an object.
< Message edited by Whiplashsmile4 -- 2/27/2010 9:48:42 PM >
_____________________________
Жизнь ума ебет. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUzJI4Palq0
|