CuriousLord
Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
Your validating your argument with the false assumption that people who have mutual respect for each other are simply roleplaying.
That's not an assumption of mine. If you feel I've said it is somehow, you may cite it, and I'd be happy to explain the point.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
You seem to basing all this on the very simplistic viewpoint that people cant have respect for other people if they make them do something they dont want to do...which is common in people who have an insecurity or a misunderstanding of power.
That's almost the opposite of my view point..
I'm saying that respecting someone, in this simplistic tone, is doing something for them you wouldn't ordinarily consider doing if you didn't take their will into account.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
Hence...you seem to be equating dominance with what you do with the authority.
If I hold a door open for an old lady with a walker, I'm doing something for her I wouldn't normally. I'm respecting her, with regards to her condition, and going out of my way to serve her.
She is not an authority, though.
No, I'm not equating dominance and authority.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
If I order someone to sit in my seat while I stand, thats not really dominance because its not serving my own self interest...I'm just simply "role playing" and letting them do what they want.
I'd agree with this in the general cases.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
So, in your eyes, to be a real dominant, you have to only seek to fulfill your own self interests because anything that is against your self interest is a testament to your own lack of dominance.
To be a real dominant, as in one who dominates and not just plays the role of such, you must seek to fulfill your own desires with the use of (an/)other(/s). Elsewise, you're just both doing as you would have, and you're "ordering" her.
I sort of doubt you do what I'd considier roleplay throughout all of your relationship, Rabbit. I'm rather sure you'd tell her to do something for you at least once in a while. So I don't see any reason for this to seem offensive, and it works logically.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
Hence, a benevolent king cant be dominant because his rule is seeking to fulfill the wants and needs of the people who are under him.
If he acts as a "servant of the people"- then is he not a servant? He acts submissively in serving them, though they're submissive to his rule. They're both working together with eachother- following the other's opinions and desires. Who is ultimately dominant in such a relationship follows existientialist philosophy of the twenth centuary.
You can consult- what's his name?- Nietcz? That German guy.. him for this sort of thing. He concluded that the servant is ultimately dominant.
So, yes, the benevolent king isn't ultimately dominant. Read up on modern philosophy, particularly under that German guy's name. It's kind of neat stuff in places. Some of it's a little redundant, but, meh. It repeats itself in places. This is to say, it can repeat. Also, it occasionally repeats the same idea once or twice. Further, it can say the same thing several times over.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
But a tyrant king is clearly "more dominant" because hes seeking to serve his own wants and needs with no respect for those of the people who are under him.
He isn't as submissive to the wants and needs of others. Yes, this makes him more dominant.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
You seem to equate dominance with selfishness which really isnt the case.
Not an equation, my friend; something of a coorelation in cases.
Do you feel domination is some kind act? Should I, right now, stop patronizing and knock down everything you hope to believe in, and dominate any conversation without giving you voice, would that be kind of me? If the US invaded Mexico and dominated their country, would it be a kind act? Was it kind to invade Iraq, even with Saddam killing his own people?
You'd have to ask yourself these things.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
Dominance is defined by having authority. What you do with that authority is irrelevant.
Ah, I see. And if one with such vaunted dominance should yield to the slightest whim of a child, would he still be dominant?
Should an authority figure serve as a servant of the people, is he dominant?
Please, think about this further. I'm intentionally leaving it a bit ambigeous. I'll make it more clear if necessary.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
Lets say...I wanted my slave to work out and diet. My slave didnt particullary want that because its hard and not fun to her. I made her do it regardless, because despite her wants, it was clearly something that I felt she needed. She works out and diets for a length of time and soon the effects are present, resulting in a higher quality in her own life. She's happier and more energetic and glad I made her workout despite her desire not to in the past. Now, in reality, have I really disrepected her?
Disrespected? Pft, that's a false notion. Or, at least, an undefiend one in my bit.
Let me rephrase your question. Let's pretend you asked, "have I really not respected her?"
The answer is, yes. You failed to respect her desire not to do something.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
If I take your viewpoint that disrespect is present anytime someone makes you do something you dont want to, then I would be. However, I find that to be a bit of a childish view of respect.
How do you define "disrespect"? Is it a zero or, or a negative of respect?
Consider whatever you like childish, my friend. If it doesn't stand logic, it's invalid to me.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
Hence...someone who makes a heroine addict go into rehab would be disrespect to the heroine addict since the heroine addict wants to stay out of rehab and shoot heroine.
Blah. You really need to define "disrespect". You're trying to argue with me over my definition for a word that I haven't even defined. =/
Assuming you mean, "Hence...someone who makes a heroine addict go into rehab would be not respecting the heroine addict since the heroine addict wants to stay out of rehab and shoot heroine."
Then, yes, however is doing it is disrespecting their right to do heroine.
You know, smoking's bad for you. If you were smoking, and I took the cigarette out of your mouth, stomped it out, and told you not to do it again- I'd be helping you to be healthier, under your theory. But would that be respectful? I would say not- you didn't want it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
Of course, in your views, making my slave workout isnt really dominance because I would be ultimately inconviencing myself by dragging her to gym, keeping track of her food habits, and maintaing a strict diet when the end result is something that is in her best interest as opposed to mine.
You're a pretty big fan of putting words into my mouth, aren'tcha? Ah wells. I'm curious anyhow. What makes you think I would conclude that?
It's okay, I'm not offended or anything, it's just wrong, so it seems weird to me. I'm not sure how you misunderstood it that much.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
In the end though, I inconvienced myself for her best interests and she inconvienced herself by doing something that I wanted her to do that she didnt particularly want to though. The respect was mutual.
In the end, you inconvienced yourself for you own interest. You wanted her to be healthy at the cost of her working out and you having to make her. It was your own doing. She may be happy you did it in the end, but it was what you made her do against her otherwise wishes.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
However, its all at the hand of my authority over her which is dominance. My will or my authority wasnt threatened because it was in align with what I wanted...what I wanted was just in her best interest.
It was in your best interest- but, yes, it was at the hand of your authority. It was a dominant action to make her do so.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
But thats just roleplaying since its not serving my self interest.
The sarcasm's lost due to the inaccuracy of perceived statement.
It's roleplaying if you're both horny, she's looking at you, both of you know you're about to go to bed, and she asks you to make her bend over or something. (Sorry if this is vulgar in considering your female. Again, I don't like drawing personal relationships into debates. It tends to make them overly emotional with vested interests despite logic.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
You equated people using authority to order them do things they want to do as simply "roleplaying"
Afraid you misunderstood me. (Please stop using "equated" so often. It's a very powerful term in logic.. and one that should be used in cases of certainty on logical arguments, not on general usage.)
I'm saying "ordering" someone to do something they'd have done anyhow is roleplaying.
If I just got home, and stepped out of my car, and you walked up to me and said, "Lock your car", (well, A, I'd ignore you :P and, B,) I'd do it anyway. I was planning to lock my car. It wasn't based on your presumed authority, and you'd just be roleplaying a dominant position.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
You seem to think someone cannot be dominant unless they are ultimately fulfilling their self interests.
That's true enough.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
My assumption that your inaccurately equating dominance to tyranny still stands. Its not a really an assumption at this point since your are equating real dominance to fulfill of personal wants and interests at the expense of the other persons and anything else is roleplaying.
A tyrant has no concern for his people, silly.
Should a Master tell his slave to get him a glass of water, he's being dominant, but not a tyrant.
A tyrant of a Master would be if he puts her to work 24/7, even if she's miserable, never considering her feelings or pains.
Please understand the difference.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
Which is...tyranny.
See above.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
As far as examples in the Respect to a Subordinate...
**Note: backquote deleted (this thing's long enough already)**
Your automatically equating having power or authority with the complete and unrestrained indulgence of it and anything less than that isnt real dominance or absolute dominance because its automatically a surrender to the other person's will.
You're wrong here.. blah. Absolute dominance is pure, unrestrained dominance. Domaniance doesn't have to be absolute to exist or be real. =/
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
Lets pretend the rule didnt exist and the teacher chose to not fondle the student's breasts because it wasnt in her best interests. Just because he chose to sacrifice his own immediate wants for her best interest isnt the students will overriding his. Its the restrained and responsible use of authority.
It's not if it's in the student's best interests so much as the student's desires. Does the student not want to be fondled? If not, then the teacher is yielding to that desire.
If the teacher- regardless of the student's desires- does not want to fondle the student because the teacher would feel more strongly against it than he does for his own sexual desire, then, overall, he doesn't desire fondling the student.
Like.. if one wants to jump off a cliff for the rush, but one doesn't want to do so for the sake of one's health, one, overall, don't want to jump over the cliff, even if part of one does.
As the teacher doesn't, overall, want to touch the student's boobs, the teacher isn't yielding, assuming that's the case. The teacher is just doing what it wants.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
Isnt that a very plausible scenario? That the teachers decision had nothing to do with penalities but his own desire to fulfill the best interests of his subordinate and his own responsibility as a superior?
Yeah, it is; you just drew the wrong conclusions from it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
So once again...since your equating having absolute power with the complete indulgence of it without consideration to the best interests of the other person and anything sacrifice in the superior's personal wants is submission to the subordinate...your equating real dominance with tyranny.
Wrong on several accounts.
-I'm not equating.
-Absolute something is an extreme of it. Most things can exist outside of an extreme.. which I think you're badly missing..
-Keeping another's best interests in mind does not mean yielding to another's desires.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
If someone is so insecure in their own dominance that they cant sacrifice their own wants to fulfiill the best interests of the person under them without automatically viewing it as a threat to their authority or dominance, then I feal sorry for that person.
Yeah, that would be a sad case. It's also rather sad when one's so insecure about their dominance that they have to make it sound like everything they do is dominant, attempting to argue, even if futilely, that they're actually dominant in scenerios, and not ever submissive, eh?
|
RE: "Earn Respect" - 
Profile
RE: "Earn Respect" - 
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