Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soapbox)=-


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soapbox)=- Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 8:50:26 AM   
Elnard


Posts: 23
Joined: 11/2/2014
Status: offline
Honestly before you go dredgin up some bs link, don't bother. I gave you an impossible proof.

Next thing I know you'll be coming in here with some correlative study of testosterone from the Peer Review Journal of Clownpenis U.

I'll save you the time in that it's an impossible proof because you can't enter someone else's mind. Much like the domain of god, or fourth dimensional space, someone's thoughts are inaccessible to all of us except them, so you can never prove what I've told you to prove.

The best you can hope for is physiological correlations, (which I can shoot down if I can just find one outlier in which if the study is about quantifiable date (you'll probably gun for testosterone) because you made the asinine claim that ALL men are different psychologically from women. And on top of that mess of a sundae you'll have to establish causation and not correlation between physiological elements and how someone's inaccessible mind domain operate. And there can be NO overlap where one man has less than one women, or vice versa.

OR outliers. But we've already established fuck outliers for no meaningful gain because you are a horrible human being and all men must be dealt with differently from all women by everybody.

(in reply to Elnard)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 8:51:22 AM   
dreamlady


Posts: 737
Joined: 9/13/2007
From: Western MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elnard

Your problem here is that you are ignoring math and personal aesthetic tastes. Yes, particularly, you may exclusively be attracted to Herc, but we are calculating the problem on a societal scale, . . .


No, because I personally don't have a problem. I am a sapiosexual, so aesthetics are secondary at best. I have a number of girlfriends who also don't base their choice of mate on looks either, so I am by no means an isolated case. Unique, but not isolated.

The point being, I didn't want to give you the wrong impression. I find macho peacocking as much of a turn-off as sissified behavior in a man. (Is that what you meant by "straight feminine boys"? Being a sensitive soul or having a more introverted nature which is not naturally outgoing is not a feminine characteristic, btw.) Yes, there are some women who seek out hunky men and I have female relatives who enjoy having other women envy them because it's an ego boost (no different than how many men choose their partners), but many of us are not impressed by self-absorbed, high-maintenance gymrats. Conceit is a bigger turn-off, and no amount of money or success can buy you an appealing personality or genuine self-confidence sans false pride which serves to mask deep-seated insecurities instead.

Why you insist upon seeing this as a numbers game is perplexing, although you are not alone among men in doing this. It only takes The One who is the right match for you. The other ten thousand women aren't compatible with you nor you with them.

There is no set formula to follow to fall in love. There are no calculations which can quantify the unquantifiable and the immeasurable. These are ruled by the heart, not by the head.

DreamLady

(in reply to Elnard)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 9:06:41 AM   
Elnard


Posts: 23
Joined: 11/2/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamlady


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elnard

Your problem here is that you are ignoring math and personal aesthetic tastes. Yes, particularly, you may exclusively be attracted to Herc, but we are calculating the problem on a societal scale, . . .


No, because I personally don't have a problem. I am a sapiosexual, so aesthetics are secondary at best. I have a number of girlfriends who also don't base their choice of mate on looks either, so I am by no means an isolated case. Unique, but not isolated.

The point being, I didn't want to give you the wrong impression. I find macho peacocking as much of a turn-off as sissified behavior in a man. (Is that what you meant by "straight feminine boys"? Being a sensitive soul or having a more introverted nature which is not naturally outgoing is not a feminine characteristic, btw.) Yes, there are some women who seek out hunky men and I have female relatives who enjoy having other women envy them because it's an ego boost (no different than how many men choose their partners), but many of us are not impressed by self-absorbed, high-maintenance gymrats. Conceit is a bigger turn-off, and no amount of money or success can buy you an appealing personality or genuine self-confidence sans false pride which serves to mask deep-seated insecurities instead.

Why you insist upon seeing this as a numbers game is perplexing, although you are not alone among men in doing this. It only takes The One who is the right match for you. The other ten thousand women aren't compatible with you nor you with them.

There is no set formula to follow to fall in love. There are no calculations which can quantify the unquantifiable and the immeasurable. These are ruled by the heart, not by the head.

DreamLady



This has been my favorite post of yours so far. Yes, I agree that a sensitive soul or specific nature is not a feminine quality. This discussion revolves around certain troglodytes who must adhere to a soul or thought being strictly feminine or masculine, or only available in one sex, but that not being good enough, must make sure everyone else agrees the sexes are different.

That's actually the first step in trying to break down barriers and raise acceptance is to understand there is no such thing as a feminine mind or nature, no such thing as a soft feminine pyschology.

The numbers part is essentially because when we are taught that these traits ARE exclusive to a certain sex, the amount of potential participants, and the amount of happiness that could be obtained drops. I am not a utilitarian, but the reason I treat it as a numbers thing is because the natural world is all numbers, our brain by design however is not meant to notice it. Even what you said about there being no formula for love, wouldn't you agree (I know its an absurd example but its just meant to prove a point about how the natural world is numbers):

That if one man and one women live their entire lives in a single room, but one day open the door and enter a new room that has 100 new men and women, that they have a better chance statistically of finding their "soul mate" than the original room? So yes it is math, though our brains are conditioned by efficiency not to recognize it, but that's the point of raising awareness when harm comes at large to people and it can be fixed by looking in the proper places.

In this case, gender stigma in and exclusively in the F>M part of society has created a bunch of very tiny, isolated rooms, which are like plaster. It's so easy to break them down, and no one loses, and everyone gains from doing so. This does not exist in the other blocked permutations of human love mentioned M>M, M=M, M>F, F>F, F=F so for many people they can't even tell and their eyes aren't trained to see the walls even exist.

(in reply to dreamlady)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 9:27:49 AM   
Bhruic


Posts: 985
Joined: 4/11/2012
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elnard

[snip] I want to see your proof that men and women are psychologically different. That's an asinine and outrageous claim, and a dangerous one... [snip]


When you assert that men and women are not psychologically different, in what sense are you using the word "psychologically"? Do you mean brain geography? chemistry? Perception? Behavior? Outlook?

I am curious, because there is an awful lot of evidence (and a natural intuition) that men and women, in certain instances and on certain topics, think and behave, on average, differently from each other. Sometimes subtly, sometimes profoundly... and the differences appear to be innate.

I don't consider it asinine, outrageous or dangerous. Men and women are different entities, with differing biological imperatives genetically encoded in to us... and that effects psychology. As social creatures - in a perfect world - we acknowledge those differences, and then choose to treat each other equally and with respect.

That men and women should be TREATED equally is one thing, but... the assertion that there is no actual difference between men and women, while it may seem idyllic, and righteous, it is also requires willful ignorance... and that never seems to lead anywhere good.

_____________________________

pronounced "VROOick"

(in reply to Elnard)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 9:33:53 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
See? And I will speak to the lowest common denominator. If you life consisted of a 24/365 dick commercial, it would affect your thinking.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Bhruic)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 9:34:29 AM   
NookieNotes


Posts: 1720
Joined: 11/10/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elnard

Well your anecdote again doesn't hold much weight because a few pages back you admitted to being one of THOSE. I mention "those" as people with a faulty belief that men and women are different. So essentially your arrangement sounds like a damn nightmare, because we already established you have different expectations in a partner for men and women.


LOL! you really only see the world from your point of view, don't you.

Men and women ARE different. They think differently. And yes, I would expect different things from a male sub and a female sub.

Oh, wait. I expect different things from EVERY person in my life, because, you know what? I fall in love with individuals, not roles.

quote:

Assuming you weren't a horror to be around though, and that any man wired like a woman would actually want you, that's 2 cases, assuming 7 billion people and a few billion pairings on the earth. Your misandry was spewing like diarrhea a few pages back that I elected to ignore, so honestly you are a write off in that you are in the stone age as one of THOSE.


Misandry?

Can you give me an actual example of misandry in anything I said?

I've always thought I loved men quite a lot, and have gone so far as to say I love them more than women in relationships.

quote:

Assuming I actually cared, your case makes 2, and again we are not talking solving an algebra problem on the board, we are talking calculating pairings that are demanded at large by society, but unnoticed. Whether that block fits 5%, 10%, 15% I don't know who fits in, though I know it isn't you. That's still a serviceable number of people that can be happy with more knowledge.


I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here.

quote:

My question to you is, why are you actively trying to bring everyone else down into the dark ages and PREVENT this type of understanding?


What type of understanding? I really have no idea where you are going with this, now.

quote:

Why do you have to be such a nasty little waste of life and encourage people that it's OK to eliminate options, encourage people that it's OK to eliminate men because they are different, because you already have your take (who sounds like a real winner might I add if he got you)


Wait? Eliminate men? Where do you get that from anything I've said?

quote:

And please don't tell me you are defending findommes. It goes back to the budgeting issue in that findommes are going the opposite way on the same axis as straight male subs. You can defend one but not both. I really know what a waste of a human being you are if you're going the findomme route, but then again, you are one of THOSE.


I'm not a findomme. I do defend them. They have a right to live their lives as they choose, as any other human. If they harm another person non-consensually, that I do not support.

You seem to have no support for anyone who does not think like you do.

quote:

Durrrr, one has a penis? You don't say?


Ever had PMS? Rest my case. LOL!

quote:

That's an asinine and outrageous claim, and a dangerous one, but fuck it right, doesn't affect you to generalize about all men.


That has nothing to do with MEN. It has to do with men and women.

You do realize that most people use those differences as a way to justify misogyny, right?

quote:

Also nice use of the word often. How many outliers are you willing to sacrifice for no fucking reason when they don't hit the often part of that clause and for what gainful purpose? Oh I already know why, because you are what's wrong with human beings.


LOL! YAYYY! I win the internetz!

I'm still not sure what you mean by me sacrificing anyone... I don't think I used that word.


quote:

Honestly before you go dredgin up some bs link, don't bother. I gave you an impossible proof.


More like you know you'll lose, but cool.

quote:

Next thing I know you'll be coming in here with some correlative study of testosterone from the Peer Review Journal of Clownpenis U.


Um, you KNOW there are more hormones than testosterone, right?

quote:

The best you can hope for is physiological correlations, (which I can shoot down if I can just find one outlier in which if the study is about quantifiable date (you'll probably gun for testosterone) because you made the asinine claim that ALL men are different psychologically from women.


Um, nope. I didn't. You're putting words in my mouth again. Generally, men are different from women in many very real ways. That's not to say all of them. You know what they say about the exception.

quote:

And on top of that mess of a sundae you'll have to establish causation and not correlation between physiological elements and how someone's inaccessible mind domain operate. And there can be NO overlap where one man has less than one women, or vice versa.


Yeah, because I'm sure you've never actually studied the effects of drugs on behavior, right? How drugs affect physiology, and therefore psychology changes?

quote:

OR outliers. But we've already established fuck outliers for no meaningful gain because you are a horrible human being and all men must be dealt with differently from all women by everybody.


Again, I'd like to know where you THINK I said anything about "fuck outliers" or anything like it. Or used the word "ALL" in relation to how ANYONE should treat ANYONE.

I'll take the horrible human being.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamlady
Why you insist upon seeing this as a numbers game is perplexing, although you are not alone among men in doing this. It only takes The One who is the right match for you. The other ten thousand women aren't compatible with you nor you with them.

There is no set formula to follow to fall in love. There are no calculations which can quantify the unquantifiable and the immeasurable. These are ruled by the heart, not by the head.


Absolutely this.

< Message edited by NookieNotes -- 4/14/2015 9:56:52 AM >


_____________________________

Nookie
--
https://datingkinky.com

I Write! A few of my books on Amazon: http://amazon.com/author/msnnotes

(in reply to Elnard)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 9:46:12 AM   
Bhruic


Posts: 985
Joined: 4/11/2012
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elnard

I'll save you the time in that it's an impossible proof because you can't enter someone else's mind. Much like the domain of god, or fourth dimensional space, someone's thoughts are inaccessible to all of us except them, so you can never prove what I've told you to prove.



Unlike God or the fourth dimension, men and women can actually tell us what their thoughts are!!! Language is an amazing invention that allows us to know what people are thinking... imagine that!? Can you imagine that?

< Message edited by Bhruic -- 4/14/2015 9:47:17 AM >


_____________________________

pronounced "VROOick"

(in reply to Elnard)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 10:04:23 AM   
Elnard


Posts: 23
Joined: 11/2/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elnard

I'll save you the time in that it's an impossible proof because you can't enter someone else's mind. Much like the domain of god, or fourth dimensional space, someone's thoughts are inaccessible to all of us except them, so you can never prove what I've told you to prove.



Unlike God or the fourth dimension, men and women can actually tell us what their thoughts are!!! Language is an amazing invention that allows us to know what people are thinking... imagine that!? Can you imagine that?


Ok I really want to get into this now because I'm telling you you guys have no idea what you are in for trying to prove this one.

I can prove you to at least have a null result (as good as incorrect) in 2 cases:

1. What if the man and woman give the same answer as to what their thoughts are?
2. What if they are lying?




(in reply to Bhruic)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 10:15:28 AM   
Bhruic


Posts: 985
Joined: 4/11/2012
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elnard


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elnard

I'll save you the time in that it's an impossible proof because you can't enter someone else's mind. Much like the domain of god, or fourth dimensional space, someone's thoughts are inaccessible to all of us except them, so you can never prove what I've told you to prove.



Unlike God or the fourth dimension, men and women can actually tell us what their thoughts are!!! Language is an amazing invention that allows us to know what people are thinking... imagine that!? Can you imagine that?


Ok I really want to get into this now because I'm telling you you guys have no idea what you are in for trying to prove this one.

I can prove you to at least have a null result (as good as incorrect) in 2 cases:

1. What if the man and woman give the same answer as to what their thoughts are?
2. What if they are lying?




And what if, when I look at the moon through a telescope, someone has tampered with it so that the moon looks like it is made out of Swiss cheese???

Solopcism aside, you are right... knowledge is never absolute. but to answer your questions:

1. Then they have been asked the wrong question. Any study would ask as large a quantity of questions as is feasible. If an exhaustive number of questions always resulted in the same answer from men and women, then you would conclude they think the same way about those questions.

In reality, a statistical analysis of answers would likely reveal differing viewpoints.

2. Then they were not participating in the study in good faith. But controls often reveal such things in a proper study.

Again... in reality I suspect many studies have been conducted on the difference between male and female psychology. Not just to discover if it exists, but to explain or illuminate our intuitive understanding that it does.


< Message edited by Bhruic -- 4/14/2015 10:16:19 AM >


_____________________________

pronounced "VROOick"

(in reply to Elnard)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 10:23:56 AM   
Elnard


Posts: 23
Joined: 11/2/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elnard


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elnard

I'll save you the time in that it's an impossible proof because you can't enter someone else's mind. Much like the domain of god, or fourth dimensional space, someone's thoughts are inaccessible to all of us except them, so you can never prove what I've told you to prove.



Unlike God or the fourth dimension, men and women can actually tell us what their thoughts are!!! Language is an amazing invention that allows us to know what people are thinking... imagine that!? Can you imagine that?


Ok I really want to get into this now because I'm telling you you guys have no idea what you are in for trying to prove this one.

I can prove you to at least have a null result (as good as incorrect) in 2 cases:

1. What if the man and woman give the same answer as to what their thoughts are?
2. What if they are lying?




And what if, when I look at the moon through a telescope, someone has tampered with it so that the moon looks like it is made out of Swiss cheese???

Solopcism aside, you are right... knowledge is never absolute. but to answer your questions:

1. Then they have been asked the wrong question. Any study would ask as large a quantity of questions as is feasible. If an exhaustive number of questions always resulted in the same answer from men and women, then you would conclude they think the same way about those questions.

In reality, a statistical analysis of answers would likely reveal differing viewpoints.

2. Then they were not participating in the study in good faith. But controls often reveal such things in a proper study.

Again... in reality I suspect many studies have been conducted on the difference between male and female psychology. Not just to discover if it exists, but to explain or illuminate our intuitive understanding that it does.



Please, please never become a scientist. In your answer to one you are fishing for a hypothesis and looking to confirm it. You are going into the study with the intent to confirm men and women the same.

Did they give the same answer? Well shit, I obviously asked the wrong question. Let me keep asking questions until I get results that confirm my bias. Yeah, don't see much scientific method here.

2. Uh oh, they didn't display good faith. Essentially what can you do about it? Find another group and tell them to display good faith? Well if they are liars, what if they say absolutely I'll participate in good faith.

So again I ask without entering the domain, how can you observe anything in it? You are so adamant you have the answer men and women have different minds, and I've never seen anyone be so adamant about such a harmful unjustified belief with so little evidence...

Oh wait I have. People run their mouths off all the time about how they have specific insight into realms or domains we as human beings have no access to. You're about as right about how my mind works as you are about how x is the one true god.

(in reply to Bhruic)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 10:29:17 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN2VNFpiGWo


We rode these trains before.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Elnard)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 10:51:29 AM   
Bhruic


Posts: 985
Joined: 4/11/2012
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elnard

Please, please never become a scientist. In your answer to one you are fishing for a hypothesis and looking to confirm it. You are going into the study with the intent to confirm men and women the same.


Formulating an hypothesis and then attempting to prove or disprove it is not how science works? Strangely, it doesn't surprise me that you think that.

quote:


Did they give the same answer? Well shit, I obviously asked the wrong question. Let me keep asking questions until I get results that confirm my bias. Yeah, don't see much scientific method here.


As opposed to your method? Ask one question and if they answer the same, Voila! You have proven there is no difference between them?

quote:


2. Uh oh, they didn't display good faith. Essentially what can you do about it? Find another group and tell them to display good faith? Well if they are liars, what if they say absolutely I'll participate in good faith.


Essentially then you are saying that honesty is unknowable, or at least unreliable, and so any kind of science that relies on human communication is invalid. It's an odd opinion, and an utterly useless one... but whatever. It's yours, and I'm not likely to disabuse you of it.


quote:


So again I ask without entering the domain, how can you observe anything in it? You are so adamant you have the answer men and women have different minds, and I've never seen anyone be so adamant about such a harmful unjustified belief with so little evidence...


I'm also adamant that things fall down, not up, and that we orbit the sun, and that evolution is a fact... guess I'm just stubborn that way.

quote:


Oh wait I have. People run their mouths off all the time about how they have specific insight into realms or domains we as human beings have no access to. You're about as right about how my mind works as you are about how x is the one true god.


Haha... I don't remember saying I have any special insight, or that god exists - let alone there being a one true one - or anything about your specific mind at all.

You are certainly right though, some people do run their mouths off about things they don't know.

One thing puzzles me though... if, as you say, the human mind is unknowable, and it is therefore impossible to prove that men and women think differently - then it is equally true that it is impossible to prove that they think the same. If I am arguing from a position of ignorance, as you claim, then you are arguing from an even greater position of ignorance... since I am, at least, willing to consider the apparent evidence - right or wrong - around me.

You're mention of god is telling, as you appear to believe what you believe on faith... and there is no reasoning with faith.

< Message edited by Bhruic -- 4/14/2015 10:54:59 AM >


_____________________________

pronounced "VROOick"

(in reply to Elnard)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 10:57:08 AM   
Spiritedsub2


Posts: 3315
Joined: 7/18/2012
Status: offline
A snip from Elnard's first post in this thread:

"...I've kept my thoughts on this to myself too long, though I'm still not confident enough to use my actual account."

Bhruic, I submit it is counterproductive or pointless to argue or debate with a sock. Of course IMO only. I admit to a large prejudice against posting socks.


_____________________________

Don’t grieve. Anything you lose comes round in another form.
~ Rumi

Laughing Dolphin

(in reply to Bhruic)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 11:02:36 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
I would expect that they come from different experiences and different viewpoints when they come to conclusions.

But we both know left from right, up from down and have both been given enough examples of what green is so we sorta have caught on.

We want healthy, happy secure and comfortable lives.

They want the seat down, we want it up.

But our thinking is not incomprehensible, nor other worldly to each other.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Spiritedsub2)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 11:08:56 AM   
Bhruic


Posts: 985
Joined: 4/11/2012
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spiritedsub2

Bhruic, I submit it is counterproductive or pointless to argue or debate with a sock. Of course IMO only. I admit to a large prejudice against posting socks.



True. I was debating the issue, not the person... but the conversation does seem pointless now anyway. His position, regardless of it's rightness or wrongness, is faith based and so insupportable.

_____________________________

pronounced "VROOick"

(in reply to Spiritedsub2)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 11:19:13 AM   
Bongoman


Posts: 2
Joined: 8/7/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elnard

Please, please never become a scientist. In your answer to one you are fishing for a hypothesis and looking to confirm it. You are going into the study with the intent to confirm men and women the same.


Formulating an hypothesis and then attempting to prove or disprove it is not how science works? Strangely, it doesn't surprise me that you think that.

quote:


Did they give the same answer? Well shit, I obviously asked the wrong question. Let me keep asking questions until I get results that confirm my bias. Yeah, don't see much scientific method here.


As opposed to your method? Ask one question and if they answer the same, Voila! You have proven there is no difference between them?

quote:


2. Uh oh, they didn't display good faith. Essentially what can you do about it? Find another group and tell them to display good faith? Well if they are liars, what if they say absolutely I'll participate in good faith.


Essentially then you are saying that honesty is unknowable, or at least unreliable, and so any kind of science that relies on human communication is invalid. It's an odd opinion, and an utterly useless one... but whatever. It's yours, and I'm not likely to disabuse you of it.


quote:


So again I ask without entering the domain, how can you observe anything in it? You are so adamant you have the answer men and women have different minds, and I've never seen anyone be so adamant about such a harmful unjustified belief with so little evidence...


I'm also adamant that things fall down, not up, and that we orbit the sun, and that evolution is a fact... guess I'm just stubborn that way.

quote:


Oh wait I have. People run their mouths off all the time about how they have specific insight into realms or domains we as human beings have no access to. You're about as right about how my mind works as you are about how x is the one true god.


Haha... I don't remember saying I have any special insight, or that god exists - let alone there being a one true one - or anything about your specific mind at all.

You are certainly right though, some people do run their mouths off about things they don't know.

One thing puzzles me though... if, as you say, the human mind is unknowable, and it is therefore impossible to prove that men and women think differently - then it is equally true that it is impossible to prove that they think the same. If I am arguing from a position of ignorance, as you claim, then you are arguing from an even greater position of ignorance... since I am, at least, willing to consider the apparent evidence - right or wrong - around me.

You're mention of god is telling, as you appear to believe what you believe on faith... and there is no reasoning with faith.


Yes formulating a hypothesis is how science works. However, throwing out the data until you get results that you like to prove your hypothesis is not how science works. They hypothesis is the least important part, the important part is asking the question. The hypothesis only exists because it's impossible to be curious enough to ask a question if you don't believe there is an answer.

No, it's not ask one question. I never said that. First off the idea of asking questions to prove all women think differently from all men is beyond a terrible idea. But generally, you don't test something once, but a period of cases. What you were advocating before was keep testing cases until I get the answer I want, rather than forcing yourself to stop after a number of cases whether or not you like the answer.

So knowing that, I amend the original case so you can't say "I ask more questions":

1. What if, if you use scientific method correctly and ask 100 questions designed before the study, the results were the same as I originally posed. You pick the number that destroys the study, I don't care because it's honestly a terrible way to conduct a study. 98% the same, 91% the same, you pick the number.

And yes, honesty is unreliable. On that you are correct. However, you are not correct about any science relying on human communication being invalid. If I am testing the speed of words through the doppler effect and how they compare in different languages, I am testing something involving communication that doesn't involve unreliable human honesty.

Your ignorance on this matter is particularly the reason for the larger problem. You seem to want to obtain knowledge, you agree with Newtonian physics and evolution, but on this issue you are adamant about a position with no evidence. That's not ok because your ignorance compounds and ping pongs off others, and more ignorance is bred when the unfound belief that we are different and therefore need to be treated differently snakes its way through society like a bad air.

And say what you want about your idealistic notion of "well people are different but I treat them the same" because that is inherently bogus. You don't treat people the same if you believe they are different. You run a script in your mind that checks for conditions to decide how to treat them, and there's a big fat old condition near the top of that that says man or woman.

And yes, you probably knew that I knew you were going to bring up arguing from ignorance. And you also probably knew I would have a response ready for that. So it probably actually wasn't even worth bringing up.

The difference in how we treat the unknowable is that you are removing an option while I am leaving the option available. I am viewing the unknowable mind in a way that starts from difference, and then moves into conditions of same as I get more knowledgeable about the person. Yours is a harmful approach, because you box off the man woman condition at the top. They don't start the algorithm from the same location because of your own ignorance, so they have less choices in moving down your script of responses.

(in reply to Bhruic)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 11:24:28 AM   
Bongoman


Posts: 2
Joined: 8/7/2014
Status: offline
And also, I am aware after that little sock remark a certain moderator switched my account.

Someone is about to get fired if they don't switch it back. You are not going to like the PR nightmare I'm going to bring up if you don't switch it back. Now be good and respect my privacy.

(in reply to Bongoman)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 11:25:14 AM   
NookieNotes


Posts: 1720
Joined: 11/10/2013
Status: offline
So Bhruic, I'll be happy to debate the point with you... although I believe we're on the same side. LOL!

The sock is obviously in his own world, and I've already won the internet, so I'm satisfied with what I did there. *smiles*

_____________________________

Nookie
--
https://datingkinky.com

I Write! A few of my books on Amazon: http://amazon.com/author/msnnotes

(in reply to Bongoman)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 11:29:06 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bongoman

And also, I am aware after that little sock remark a certain moderator switched my account.

Someone is about to get fired if they don't switch it back. You are not going to like the PR nightmare I'm going to bring up if you don't switch it back. Now be good and respect my privacy.


LOL. Fired. LOL. PR nightmare. LOL.

You fuckin kill me, toughguy.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Bongoman)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soa... - 4/14/2015 11:31:01 AM   
Elnard


Posts: 23
Joined: 11/2/2014
Status: offline
Thank you it's been handled. Taken care of. So onward, keep the ignorance coming.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soapbox)=- Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.379