Discussion History UsefulNotes / Objectivism

Third, Spongebob\\\'s creator\\\'s statement about Spongebob\\\'s asexual sponge-like nature is the only thing that refutes the argument. Spongebob again has many characteristics a normal sponge does not have including walking, talking, thinking (he may not be bright but he is far ahead of a normal sponge in this department.) He possesses a number of anthropomorphic traits. He\\\'s even nominally male. He has a male name (the bob part of his name, I\\\'m not trying to argue that \\\"Spongebob\\\" in full is a common male name), and you and I both refer to him with the male pronouns.

So the author has departed from the reality of sponges, which means he has to define the characteristics of Spongebob or they are open to interpretation. Until he states that Spongebob possesses the ability to bud or that he\\\'s asexual, his sexuality is open to interpretation.

Now I don\\\'t know what the arguments were for Spongebob being gay. I\\\'m sure they were ridiculous. It doesn\\\'t matter. The entry you\\\'ve presented here does not clearly illustrate the problem with the reasoning because, based on the information you\\\'ve presented in the article, its just as reasonable to assume Spongebob is gay as is it is to assume that Spongebob is straight or asexual. I think the illustration would be a lot simpler if you chose something that exists and is not purely a fictional concept. Spongebob is too amorphous being a silly cartoon character with characteristics of a sponge and a human being that runs on rule of funny.

Its also intellectually dissatisfying because the argument is \\\"Spongebob is gay\\\" and the refutation is \\\"No he isn\\\'t, because I\\\'m the creator of Spongebob and I say he isn\\\'t gay.\\\" One side wins because they get to define the terms of the argument.

Third, Spongebob\\\'s creator\\\'s statement about Spongebob\\\'s asexual sponge-like nature is the only thing that refutes the argument. Spongebob again has many characteristics a normal sponge does not have including walking, talking, thinking (he may not be bright but he is far ahead of a normal sponge in this department.) He possesses a number of anthropomorphic traits. He\\\'s even nominally male. He has a male name (the bob part of his name, I\\\'m not trying to argue that \\\"Spongebob\\\" in full is a common male name), and you and I both refer to him with the male pronouns.

So the author has departed from the reality of sponges, which means he has to define the characteristics of Spongebob or they are open to interpretation. Until he states that Spongebob possesses the ability to bud or that he\\\'s asexual, his sexuality is open to interpretation.

Now I don\\\'t know what the arguments were for Spongebob being gay. I\\\'m sure they were ridiculous. It doesn\\\'t matter. The entry you\\\'ve presented here does not clearly illustrate the problem with the reasoning because, based on the information you\\\'ve presented in the article, its just as reasonable to assume Spongebob is gay as is it is to assume that Spongebob is straight or asexual. I think the illustration would be a lot simpler if you chose something that exists and is not purely a fictional concept. Spongebob is too amorphous being a silly cartoon character with characteristics of a sponge and a human being that runs on rule of funny.

Its also intellectually dissatisfying because the argument is \\\"Spongebob is gay\\\" and the refutation is \\\"No he isn\\\'t, because I\\\'m the creator of Spongebob and I say he isn\\\'t gay.\\\" One side wins because they get to define the terms of the argument.

(Edit:PS. Removed. I had a counterargument here involving DeathOfTheAuthor but in fact the author\\\'s statement about the character is most likely relevant because it shows his intent and intent is probably what the social conservatives are trying to argue.)

Third, Spongebob\\\'s creator\\\'s statement about Spongebob\\\'s asexual sponge-like nature is the only thing that refutes the argument. Spongebob again has many characteristics a normal sponge does not have including walking, talking, thinking (he may not be bright but he is far ahead of a normal sponge in this department.) He possesses a number of anthropomorphic traits. He\\\'s even nominally male. He has a male name (the bob part of his name, I\\\'m not trying to argue that \\\"Spongebob\\\" in full is a common male name), and you and I both refer to him with the male pronouns.

So the author has departed from the reality of sponges, which means he has to define the characteristics of Spongebob or they are open to interpretation. Until he states that Spongebob possesses the ability to bud or that he\\\'s asexual, his sexuality is open to interpretation.

Now I don\\\'t know what the arguments were for Spongebob being gay. I\\\'m sure they were ridiculous. It doesn\\\'t matter. The entry you\\\'ve presented here does not clearly illustrate the problem with the reasoning because, based on the information you\\\'ve presented in the article, its just as reasonable to assume Spongebob is gay as is it is to assume that Spongebob is straight or asexual. I think the illustration would be a lot simpler if you chose something that exists and is not purely a fictional concept. Spongebob is too amorphous being a silly cartoon character with characteristics of a sponge and a human being that runs on rule of funny.

Its also intellectually dissatisfying because the argument is \\\"Spongebob is gay\\\" and the refutation is \\\"No he isn\\\'t, because I\\\'m the creator of Spongebob and I say he isn\\\'t gay.\\\" One side wins because they get to define the terms of the argument.

(Edit:PS. Come to think of it, DeathOfTheAuthor would make a case that even the author\\\'s statement about Spongebob\\\'s asexuality is irrelevant if its not shown in the work. Leaving the only relevant counterargument to be the statement of another poster in this thread that Spongebob is shown to reproduce asexually.)

Third, Spongebob\\\'s creator\\\'s statement about Spongebob\\\'s asexual sponge-like nature is the only thing that refutes the argument. Spongebob again has many characteristics a normal sponge does not have including walking, talking, thinking (he may not be bright but he is far ahead of a normal sponge in this department.) He possesses a number of anthropomorphic traits. He\\\'s even nominally male. He has a male name (the bob part of his name, I\\\'m not trying to argue that \\\"Spongebob\\\" in full is a common male name), and you and I both refer to him with the male pronouns.

So the author has departed from the reality of sponges, which means he has to define the characteristics of Spongebob or they are open to interpretation. Until he states that Spongebob possesses the ability to bud or that he\\\'s asexual, his sexuality is open to interpretation.

Now I don\\\'t know what the arguments were for Spongebob being gay. I\\\'m sure they were ridiculous. It doesn\\\'t matter. The entry you\\\'ve presented here does not clearly illustrate the problem with the reasoning because, based on the information you\\\'ve presented in the article, its just as reasonable to assume Spongebob is gay as is it is to assume that Spongebob is straight or asexual. I think the illustration would be a lot simpler if you chose something that exists and is not purely a fictional concept. Spongebob is too amorphous being a silly cartoon character with characteristics of a sponge and a human being that runs on rule of funny.

Its also intellectually dissatisfying because the argument is \\\"Spongebob is gay\\\" and the refutation is \\\"No he isn\\\'t, because I\\\'m the creator of Spongebob and I say he isn\\\'t gay.\\\" One side wins because they get to define the terms of the argument.

(Edit: Post Script. Come to think of it, DeathOfTheAuthor would make a case that even the author\\\'s statement about Spongebob\\\'s asexuality is irrelevant if its not shown. Leaving the only relevant counterargument to be the statement of another poster in this thread that Spongebob is showing to reproduce asexually.)

Third, Spongebob\\\'s creator\\\'s statement about Spongebob\\\'s asexual sponge-like nature is the only thing that refutes the argument. Spongebob again has many characteristics a normal sponge does not have including walking, talking, thinking (he may not be bright but he is far ahead of a normal sponge in this department.) He possesses a number of anthropomorphic traits. He\\\'s even nominally male. He has a male name (the bob part of his name, I\\\'m not trying to argue that \\\"Spongebob\\\" in full is a common male name), and you and I both refer to him with the male pronouns.

So the author has departed from the reality of sponges, which means he has to define the characteristics of Spongebob or they are open to interpretation. Until he states that Spongebob possesses the ability to bud or that he\\\'s asexual, his sexuality is open to interpretation.

Now I don\\\'t know what the arguments were for Spongebob being gay. I\\\'m sure they were ridiculous. It doesn\\\'t matter. The entry you\\\'ve presented here does not clearly illustrate the problem with the reasoning because, based on the information you\\\'ve presented in the article, its just as reasonable to assume Spongebob is gay as is it is to assume that Spongebob is straight or asexual. I think the illustration would be a lot simpler if you chose something that exists and is not purely a fictional concept. Spongebob is too amorphous being a silly cartoon character with characteristics of a sponge and a human being that runs on rule of funny.

Its also intellectually dissatisfying because the argument is \\\"Spongebob is gay\\\" and the refutation is \\\"No he isn\\\'t, because I\\\'m the creator of Spongebob and I say he isn\\\'t gay.\\\" One side wins because they get to define the terms of the argument.