Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Protecting your submissive


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master >> RE: Protecting your submissive Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Protecting your submissive - 7/15/2008 4:32:06 AM   
seababy


Posts: 845
Joined: 6/20/2008
Status: offline
They were looking for a response by posting in a public forum..and that was your response.

Its not like you thrust yourself between Dom and sub at a play party and yelled "Stop hitting that poor girl!"
(Id love to see someone actually do that one day)

I thought your concern showed humanity. All she needed to say was "Hey thanks for checking, but your mistaken.".





(in reply to BKSir)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Protecting your submissive - 7/15/2008 5:06:09 AM   
HeavansKeeper


Posts: 1254
Joined: 5/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper
1) I don't see morality as a subjective thing.  Subjective morals allow for all sorts of crimes to be "moral."  While there might be a blindingly powerful social exception for what couples do, I think it is objectively right to pay mind to what others are doing. 


Wow. The false and completely unsubstantiated and unproven concept of "objective morals" has probably caused far more atrocities and harm in this world then the nihilistic idea of "subjective morality". A couple thousand years of Christian history with the hundreds of different prophets who have all had a direct link to the Originator of this objective morality provides enough proof of this.

How about the Crusades? All those paladins raping, murdering and pillaging in the Name of God.

I'm pretty sure at one point burning witches was the right to do according to the just and absolute objective morality of the time.

More modern times perhaps? Can't forget about all those saints wearing crosses bombing abortion clinics...

Or the objective morality presented to us by the Leviathan that keeps the immoral homosexuals out of wedlock (Need something to replace the lack of a logical argument).

I'm not against standing up for what you believe in, but I just hope your really really sure before taking action, because the road to hell is paved with good intentions as proved over and over again in history. It can't be a coincidence either that a lot of the people walking it are doing so because of "THE right thing" as opposed to what they "THINK the right thing is".

Such zealous behavior seems to be more the result of a egocentric "I know what's best for everyone" attitude and less the product of virtue.


Sir, I do believe you've confused objective and subjective.  NOTHING is more dangerous than SUBJECTIVE morals - morals that are subject to whim and fancy of whoever, whenever.  That is what allows for a group of unnamed god-fearers to say "This is right, cause the book says so" and go on crusade.  I hold the word "objective" to mean "objective."  The people you cited were certainly not using a ruleset of principles which were thought through and found generalizable to all people.  They conveniently gave themselves given statements, like "Our god is the one and only true god, and his teachings are right.  Period."

I will not fight with you the worst people Earth has ever seen were "doing the right thing."  I agree.  They all had a twisted ruleset, most of which allowed for genecide as an answer to "is this principle generalizable?"  It's so much easier that way, when you don't have to deal with the one HUGE factor of objective morality.

The means of being moral, whether to feel good about oneself, because you know its right, to not piss off god, to avoid being arrest, are far less important than the ends.  I do not care why people choose to be civil.

Objective morality is highly theoretical because its slow, difficult to decipher and use, and most importantly, deductive reasoning. To deduce from generalizable given facts into applicable principles takes time and effort.  The alternative is to reason inductively, where you basically go with what you have and jump.  It's faster, easier, often decent, and more natural to animals.  The problem is that it is subjective - subjective to what individuals experience.

I sincerely feel you've mucked up my most cherished way of thinking with propaganda.

_____________________________

The Loving Owner of HisHeavan

... You've waited your whole life for this moment...

(in reply to MadRabbit)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Protecting your submissive - 7/15/2008 5:11:39 AM   
HeavansKeeper


Posts: 1254
Joined: 5/14/2007
Status: offline
Stormslave,

It's easy for people to mind their own business when interesting business is being done in private.  I am a HUGE believer in an expectation of privacy, and will always respect it.  In public, though, having the "Mind your own business!" stance is forcing people to consent to being involved in whatever action you're doing.  Forcing consent is wrong, I think we'll agree there. 

I want to clarify my stance, as I think people are taking it too far.  I'm not talking about taking any action other than to discuss politely with the respective party.  No cops, no neighbors, no restaurant managers. 



_____________________________

The Loving Owner of HisHeavan

... You've waited your whole life for this moment...

(in reply to StormsSlave)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Protecting your submissive - 7/15/2008 5:57:18 AM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seababy

They were looking for a response by posting in a public forum..and that was your response.

Its not like you thrust yourself between Dom and sub at a play party and yelled "Stop hitting that poor girl!"
(Id love to see someone actually do that one day)

I thought your concern showed humanity. All she needed to say was "Hey thanks for checking, but your mistaken.".

In fact, they weren't.  If you go back and read the original post, the writer went to this person's profile to see the explicit pics, as well as read that she had put them up because she was told to by her Master.  It was then the writer of this thread, who because he felt he should "protect" the submissive in question (btw, notice the title of the thread says "protecting your submissive, which completely isn't the case) by offering up his unsolicited experience of what once happened to his girl.

The writer of the OP wasn't especially protecting *his* sub.  Sounds more like he was cruising profiles on the other side, and decided to stick his opinions in someone else's dynamic, where he wasn't invited.


_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to seababy)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Protecting your submissive - 7/15/2008 6:45:27 AM   
HeavansKeeper


Posts: 1254
Joined: 5/14/2007
Status: offline
Lady Pact,

The issue of whether this is a public or private matter is debatable, and for me makes a huge difference.

After further consideration of your latest post, I've decided the photographs are private, or possibly public to a limited population of supposedly kink friendly perverts

As such, I feel the OP was out of line if the intent was to intervene, but I maintain that the giving of advice (in a respectful way to the appropriate people) is honorable, regardless of how it is received.

_____________________________

The Loving Owner of HisHeavan

... You've waited your whole life for this moment...

(in reply to LadyPact)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Protecting your submissive - 7/15/2008 6:55:37 AM   
Cuffkinks


Posts: 1780
Joined: 5/5/2004
Status: offline
   More of the same here...If you're not involved, you don't know what is going on between them. So while everyone has their own opinion, it's best to keep it to oneself unless invited.

_____________________________

Resident "11"

"I love you, Sir. You make my heart sing and my panties wet. What more could a girl ask for?" - hejira92

"And that's why it's good to be...Me." - Gene $immons

(in reply to HeavansKeeper)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Protecting your submissive - 7/15/2008 7:02:24 AM   
MadRabbit


Posts: 3460
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper
Sir, I do believe you've confused objective and subjective.


Nope, on the contary, I think your being obtuse. I haven't confused the two words, but rather am saying that objective morality doesn't exist.

quote:


Objective morality is highly theoretical because its slow, difficult to decipher and use, and most importantly, deductive reasoning. To deduce from generalizable given facts into applicable principles takes time and effort.  The alternative is to reason inductively, where you basically go with what you have and jump.  It's faster, easier, often decent, and more natural to animals.  The problem is that it is subjective - subjective to what individuals experience.


We use deductive reasoning to determine ethics which are logically determined as being what is best for our society of individuals. This reasoning is influenced by our own unique culture, heritage, influences, and desires. Hence, the ethics we have determined to be objective generally (which means right in most cases, but not all) are still, in actuality, subjective to our own perspectives and reasoning.

You have used your deductive reasoning based on your American perspective to determine that ritual genital mutilation in other countries is wrong, where as they say it is right and something sacred. Who is right? Why, you, of course, because they are clearly subjectively determing their morality while your superior reasoning skills have provided the absolute answer.

Further more, where is the deductive reasoning behind that statement? Have you visited those countries, seen the procedure? Witnessed first hand the effects of the operation and it's aftermath? Or are you just going by a highly biast and one-sided story in the New York Times written from the perspective of American ethics? Have your experiences ever included anything beyond the American one? If not, sounds pretty inductive to me.

Sounds like nothing more than personal egocentricness and American imperialism at it's finest. Arrogantly taking the perspective we have of human experience and implying it as the ultimate metaphysical one that everyone else obviosuly must share.

quote:


I sincerely feel you've mucked up my most cherished way of thinking with propaganda.


It was already mucked up to begin with

_____________________________

Advice for New Dominants
The Unpolitically Correct Lifestyle Definitions

Obama is NOT the Messiah! He's just a VERY NAUGHTY BOY

(in reply to HeavansKeeper)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Protecting your submissive - 7/15/2008 8:08:25 AM   
HeavansKeeper


Posts: 1254
Joined: 5/14/2007
Status: offline
My responses will be bold to avoid quote blocks.

We use deductive reasoning to determine ethics which are logically determined as being what is best for our society of individuals. This reasoning is influenced by our own unique culture, heritage, influences, and desires. Hence, the ethics we have determined to be objective generally (which means right in most cases, but not all) are still, in actuality, subjective to our own perspectives and reasoning.

Response: While I agree that the human condition does not allow for pure objectivity (and therefore by a strict definition, any) it is still something that must be sought.  When the time can be afforded, it is safer.

You have used your deductive reasoning based on your American perspective to determine that ritual genital mutilation in other countries is wrong, where as they say it is right and something sacred. Who is right? Why, you, of course, because they are clearly subjectively determing their morality while your superior reasoning skills have provided the absolute answer.

Response:  Principles are hard to build.  They are obtuse and constantly get in the way of exceptions.  With every exception to a principle, it is weakened. (That is to say the power of it is lowered.  The power of a principle being to quickly decipher right from wrong.)  "Killing innocent people is wrong." is a good principle, until you have to decide: Kill 100 to quite possibly save 10,000?  But that is off topic.  You make it appear as if the idea of FGM being wrong appeared to me in a dream.  I apply what principles are related to the subject, and see what happens.

1) When the issue of genitals is not a factor, I see females and males as equals.
2) Consent must be earnest, and not coerced.
3) Harming creatures for no gain is wrong.
4) It is wrong to imprison the innocent.
(These numbers will be used as reference in this post only)

This should be a sufficient list to make my point.  There are other principles in this world, of course.

Mutilating the gentials is harm.  What is gained?  As I understand it (which means if I am taught new facts to change my understanding my entire viewpoint may change) what is gained is an overall dominance over the female sex.  The only "good" that comes of this is women being less interested in sex (as it is often painful, but more often simply not enjoyable) and hence less likely to commit infidelity.  I'll be very fair and say it also allows the female to be accepted into a certain culture (even if I disagree with this aspect of the culture, and hence the reason for anyone to do it.) 

I consider that a form of imprisonment, where no crime has occured, in violation with principle 4.  (Being female is not a crime, otherwise being male would be a crime, as per #1).  If one were to consider that FGM would not be necessary if these women were given the same rights as men, principle 1, then the act is considered a harm.  It is a harm done to imprison people solely based on gender.  Q.E.D. wrong. That's my humanistic deductive reasoning.  You may call it "Americanized imperial inductive reasoning" if you're not a stickler for terms.

A quick note about consent:  If a woman wants to tear up her lady parts, I'm fine with that, so long as the consent is not coerced, forced, or not at all given.  I'm sure there are plenty of tales of women undergoing this procedure voluntarily, but enough aren't.

Further more, where is the deductive reasoning behind that statement? Have you visited those countries, seen the procedure? Witnessed first hand the effects of the operation and it's aftermath? Or are you just going by a highly biast and one-sided story in the New York Times written from the perspective of American ethics? Have your experiences ever included anything beyond the American one? If not, sounds pretty inductive to me.

Response:  I have no need to visit those countries to reason deductively, as general agreeable terms are brought down to the level of individual occurence.  You're confusing me, and are being either sarcastic or incorrect with the use of "inductive" in your last sentence.  Inductive reasoning is taking limited observations and generalizing them to make an encompassing theory.  That dog bit me => all dogs are mean.  The questions you're asking are begging for someone to answer and reason inductively, subjectively.  Your tone makes it sound as if you don't believe in logic, and what follows as a result of deduction is false.  Again, I'm not against the use of inductive reasoning, but only when there's no time/effort left for deducing.  While I have not had the deep immersion into the pro's of FGM, my thoughts are independent of the American ethics NYTimes articles, as you may re-read above.

Sounds like nothing more than personal egocentricness and American imperialism at it's finest. Arrogantly taking the perspective we have of human experience and implying it as the ultimate metaphysical one that everyone else obviosuly must share.

Response:  Perhaps now the skeleton of what appeared to be arrogance has been shown.  Perhaps my more thorough explanation of my viewpoints, and most important why I think that way, will make my posts look less like propaganda and more like reasoning. 

A quick note on my principles:  They're subject to change, as I'm an ever learning, ever growing, ever challenging person.  As MadRabbit pointed out, the origins of my principles come from my experiences, experiences which I enjoyed.  I'm sure a very different upbringing could have led me to believe in other principles like "You may do any act that is physically possible."  (That's somewhat Randian =P).


Edit: added the boldface to help the different speakers stand out more clearly, except, of course, the boldface "generally" in paragraph 1.

< Message edited by HeavansKeeper -- 7/15/2008 8:11:47 AM >


_____________________________

The Loving Owner of HisHeavan

... You've waited your whole life for this moment...

(in reply to MadRabbit)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Protecting your submissive - 7/15/2008 8:16:42 AM   
RedMagic1


Posts: 6470
Joined: 5/10/2007
Status: offline
In the work I do, it is more valuable to come up with new models to describe phenomena, than it is to deductively expound on the properties of models that already exist.  Deductive reasoning is a tool used to verify a conclusion that you already intuitively know to be right.

That is why "thinking outside the box" is considered important.  It is easier to deduce than it is to come up with a way of seeing things in a new light.


_____________________________

Not with envy, not with a twisted heart, shall you feel superior, or go about boasting. Rather in goodness by action make true your song and your word. Thus you shall be highly regarded, and able to live in peace with all others.
- 15th century Aztec

(in reply to HeavansKeeper)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Protecting your submissive - 7/15/2008 8:28:42 AM   
HeavansKeeper


Posts: 1254
Joined: 5/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

In the work I do, it is more valuable to come up with new models to describe phenomena, than it is to deductively expound on the properties of models that already exist.  Deductive reasoning is a tool used to verify a conclusion that you already intuitively know to be right.

That is why "thinking outside the box" is considered important.  It is easier to deduce than it is to come up with a way of seeing things in a new light.



I don't know what work you do, so I don't know if I have any expertise in that field as well, as such, I cannot comment. 

I consider the act of applying and testing principles to be harder than seeing the pieces and putting them together.

Every time you drop a tennis ball, it falls to the ground and eventually stops.  Do this a few times and inductive reasoning allows you to say "If I drop the ball, it will fall, and stop."  To get to the same conclusion deductively, you'd have to re-invent Newton's laws.  With exceptions, I consider deducing to include more perspective and consideration as opposed to inductive reasoning: Calling a spade, a spade.  Perhaps its just me, but the way I deduce involves craving that new light, to ensure the principle is strong and light-proof.

_____________________________

The Loving Owner of HisHeavan

... You've waited your whole life for this moment...

(in reply to RedMagic1)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Protecting your submissive - 7/15/2008 8:34:54 AM   
RedMagic1


Posts: 6470
Joined: 5/10/2007
Status: offline
Theoretical nanotechnology.  Basically, I think up math problems and then (usually fail to) solve them.

Are you saying that the college physics student who verifies the movement of a tennis ball is doing something more difficult than Newton did when he guessed that the law of gravitation might hold?


_____________________________

Not with envy, not with a twisted heart, shall you feel superior, or go about boasting. Rather in goodness by action make true your song and your word. Thus you shall be highly regarded, and able to live in peace with all others.
- 15th century Aztec

(in reply to HeavansKeeper)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Protecting your submissive - 7/15/2008 8:42:49 AM   
HeavansKeeper


Posts: 1254
Joined: 5/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

Theoretical nanotechnology.  Basically, I think up math problems and then (usually fail to) solve them.

*Shuts up* I have no experience in said field, except for the time I propsed that T-1000 was made of nanobots.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1
Are you saying that the college physics student who verifies the movement of a tennis ball is doing something more difficult than Newton did when he guessed that the law of gravitation might hold?


Perhaps it is just me, then, meaning how I think.  I consider the exploration for a truth of why the tennis ball falls and stops to lead to more outside the box/big picture thinking than testing it over and over.  Perhaps we are in discord on the idea of what qualifies as "outside the box" thinking.

For me, the application and rigorous, innovative, accurate testing of ideas is quite outside the box.  Not to say that it's the only thing out there, though.  There might be aliens.

_____________________________

The Loving Owner of HisHeavan

... You've waited your whole life for this moment...

(in reply to RedMagic1)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Protecting your submissive - 7/15/2008 9:40:29 AM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper

Lady Pact,

The issue of whether this is a public or private matter is debatable, and for me makes a huge difference.

After further consideration of your latest post, I've decided the photographs are private, or possibly public to a limited population of supposedly kink friendly perverts

As such, I feel the OP was out of line if the intent was to intervene, but I maintain that the giving of advice (in a respectful way to the appropriate people) is honorable, regardless of how it is received.

HeavensKeeper,

First, let Me pay My regards to both you and miss heaven, in which I have been remiss.

I appreciate you being willing to take a second view.  I have done this as well.  In the OP, it is not written where this person came across the explicit pictures.  It only mentions that the OP read the reason for them being posted on that particular submissive's profile.  I am led to believe that he did find the shots on the other side.  I admit, I base this on circumstantial evidence, but since the OP has never come back to this thread, we may never know.




_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to HeavansKeeper)
Profile   Post #: 73
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master >> RE: Protecting your submissive Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
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

0.345