variation30
Posts: 1190
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant
Oh do stop the psycho babble. When I point out that people are identifying themselves so much with their kinks that any question of a kink gets touchy, this is a direct observation, not an ad-hominem attack on you - unless of course you feel that you fall into that category.
I'm specifically avoiding mentioning any psychological constructs...so I'm not sure how the charge of 'psycho-babble' is being thrust upon me.
I'm not the one saying that being 'defensive' against your comments is a manifestation of an addiction. if you don't see how this is an ad hominem I would be more than happy to explain it to you.
quote:
So you have a thing against Freud ok... I'm not here to try to debate the nuances of psychiatry. I really don't care at all what the fine lines are. They don't matter at all when the discussion revolves around convincing people that such lines exist even in principle. If you do not believe that certain self destructive addictive behaviors exist, you are simply refusing to see plain reality. You are not making a deep philosophical point any more than Cartesian Doubt is deep. Don't get me wrong, it is fun to imagine the evil genius and all, but really, if you doubt reality, stub your toe.
again, how do we define addictive? is it the disease model of addiction (which I believe is what you are arguing)? if that is the case, then no, I do not believe that behaviors as complex as going and purchasing a drug or finding someone to take a flogger to your feet is reflexive. it is, instead, purposeful behavior. it is an ends valued by an individual who actively seeks a means to accomplish that goal. Instead of dismissing opposing views as 'simply refusing to see plain reality' (quite the trenchant rhetorical technique, might I add) I will provide a rather interesting debate about the existence of addiction. Both sides of the argument are represented by a panel of psychiatrists and it covers the empirical and rational bases for the existence or nonexistence of such addictions: http://www.szasz.com/addiction.pdf my argument is that of Szasz and his colleagues. feel free to find fault in it and convince me that such addictions exist.
if such addictions do not exist, then self-destructive addictive behavior does not exist, at least not in the 'unhealthy' form you present. are there actions that are self-destructive. yes? but...so what? if the individual willingly engages in that behavior, what authority do you or I or anyone else have to demand that they desist. there is danger in a wide spectrum of activities be it breath play or flying on an airplane. any demarcation placed on what risk is acceptable within that spectrum is wholly subjective. I can see only two consistent views 1) any behavior, so long as it is engaged in willingly, is acceptable or 2) no behavior is acceptable if a third party objects to it. now if you don't mind your views being hypocritical, go ahead. that's fine by me. the conversation is over as there is no point in trying to convince someone they are wrong if they don't mind being wrong.
quote:
If you want this in very basic terms, people do lots of stupid stuff that is self destructive and that they would likely regret in more lucid moments. BDSM, like any other thing can easily be abused in this manner. These are such basic statements of reality that when people argue against them, one has to wonder why they are being so willfully blind. One has to ask, if they are interested in such things at least, what could possibly drive them to make such absurd statements which are so obviously contradictory to the simple observed truth.
due to the nature of time, any action we can ever execute has the potential to be regretted 'in more lucid moments.' for instance, I regret not buying a winning lottery ticket because, knowing what I know in this more lucid moment, it would've been a great idea for me to buy that lottery ticket as opposed to go to work today. it's rather obvious that none of us are walking around with all the knowledge of a 3rd person omniscient point of view. all actions are based off of imperfect knowledge. if we are to say that certain actions are to be restricted because they may be regrettable in the future, then we have set up a system in which all action could be restricted. again, we come down to whether or not you wish to take a consistent view or are satisfied with an emotionally fulfilling inconsistent view.
quote:
On a more serious point there is a word in the English language for those who do not believe that they have any responsibility to others "in an invisible web" as you put it. The word is evil. Please do spare me the hackneyed nihilism. It is an unimpressive philosophy only espoused by the spoiled. In the real world, there are such things as social contracts. This is a good thing even for you, since you are not the biggest guy or the best survivalist. Do you know how to grow/gather food, hunt, fight? Think about the need for social responsibility very carefully before you disavow it.
um...what responsibilities do I have? also, can you point to a 'social contract' in the 'real world'. I was under the impression that social contracts were social constructions...a rationalization (that is not patently valid, mind you) of why one agency (mainly a government) can have a territorial monopoly of violence and decision making whereas individuals cannot.
I've thought about 'social responsibility' a great deal. it's silly. what is not silly is free association and free trade, which I would suggest provides a much more just and prosperous system (though my adherence to such principles are not utilitarian). I know how to do something, I am incapable of doing other things. as such, I enter into contracts (real contracts, not social contracts) where I provide what I can in exchange for a desired product...you know, the division of labor.
quote:
Perhaps you feel that protecting your fellows and having responsibility is a drag... Again, consider the alternative. The argument that people have intrinsic merit just for being people and therefore harming them, or allowing harm to be done to them, through inaction, is inherently wrong, might be very well be unappealing to you. Too bad. Instead, I will simply use the cave man argument.
there's a great difference between harming someone and allowing harm to be done to them. in one instance, I am acting against another human. in the other, I am not acting against another human.
quote:
In a real world application, the law of the jungle would see you get done in quite quickly by a much larger and more angry fellow, who frankly would not only be unimpressed by shallow attempts to be byronic, but would also just smash your head because he could. Those of us who live in lawful societies, which are founded on the moral principle of protecting our fellows, have to worry less about that.
um...in the 'law of the jungle' (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean), humans worked together through a division of labor. such cooperation did not require 'social contract' or the coercion of a state (as can be evidenced by the means of punishment anthropologists note in hunter gatherer tribes today: either exile or exclusion - similar to the boycotts of uppity merchants who did not abide by lex mercatoria...go ahead, google it, I'm not looking). all it required was that individuals have a self-interest (be it self-preservation or the preservation of their loved ones/clan). if that existed, they would willingly cooperate to achieve their own individual ends. there was no invisible web of responsibility, it was all quite visceral. men hunted in packs because they were more effective. those who were best left to other tasks, such as animal husbandry or farming or tool making were left to those tasks. they traded and shared willingly - not because of magical social contracts or laws of responsibility that apparently exist outside of our minds.
quote:
Yes, duty to others might be a drag. I weep for the crimp that may put in your style... I will not convince you that it is inherently right and something to be embraced, however, you should at least consider the utilitarian aspect of the social contract as it applies to your own survival.
I won't consider the utilitarian aspect of anything as a great deal of harm and injustice can be committed, and has been committed, because of it's utility.
quote:
Ohhh and one other thing, we are not discussing vampirism. Do read the OP where I made it quite clear that I was not going into that.
Ohhh and one other thing, as it was the event that brought about you...epiphany, I felt it relevent.
_____________________________
all the good ones are collared or lesbians.
or old.
|
RE: On addiction and D/s - 
Profile
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