RE: On addiction and D/s (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

variation30 -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 1:08:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

Ohhh wow, you have opened my eyes! The North Koreans say things about social responsibility! Therefore I must be wrong.

Ohhh wait,

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are document frame work and practice of American notions of social responsibilities.... I guess it's ok now since we believe in it, and so does every other society that has ever existed.

Even the Ancient Egyptians believed in notions of social duties. The Romans certainly did... and so on and o on....

In response to Panda,

This guy bringing up North Korea is a great example of what I mean by dragging things down to irrelevant, petty, high-school debating.


well that sailed right over your head.

first off, by me bringing in totalitarian governments, I was simply saying that social responsibility does not always equate to an ethical society, not that social responsibility always results in totalitarianism.

and if we want to be specific regarding the declaration and constitution, they are documents that state that it is the 'social responsibility' of governments not to infringe upon the liberties of the people (which stands in direct opposition of your idea of social responsibility). granted I think any form of government will infringe upon the liberties of the people by its very existence.

the ancient egyptians thought it was acceptable to build big pyramids using slave labor and bury slaves alive with their deceased masters. the romans were a slave society that felt they were just to invade and exploit all barbarian (non-roman) cultures. hell...they thought it was ok to sack people's homes, murder them, and take their wealth in order to fund a war. are these really the societies you want to bring up as pristine examples of humans abiding by social responsiblity?



phoenixrising43 -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 1:11:56 PM)

Anything can turn into an addiction, even Ds and especially S&M play. S&M play can cause chemical reactions to pain to take place. Thereby releasing an endophin rush, that can become highly addictive. And some people really get a need for certain kinds of play, that brings them closer and closer to that rush/edge again, once their bodies get used to the regular play they do. But the same can be said for many things in life. Some people get addicted to substances, some to people and other's to things. Shopping, chatting, online gaming, being overly dependent on others to the detriment of a healthy life, gambling, hobbies, television...you name it. The key is just realizing that stuff and keeping a healthy balance in life, and when you can't keep that balance, having the wisdom and courage to walk away from things that turn unhealthy.



NihilusZero -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 1:13:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

But Nihilis, if you say that the mugger can't mug you because you don't approve, you have limited his freedom? How do you justify such self serving hypocrisy?

No, see...hypocrisy is when someone claims one thing, and then proceeds to proclaim and/or do the opposite while still under the guise of integrity.

From the beginning, I (and others) have made clear to you that freedom relies on not infringing upon those of another, else it's no longer "freedom".

Ethics begins with not amputating freedoms of others. Harming someone else without their consent and telling someone what they can and cannot consent to are both examples of this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

While we are at it, Let's say you do have the right to object under your own code, I certainly - and no one else needs to help you. We can damn well eat popcorn while he turns your hips to jelly with that bat under your code, and that is OK? Isn't it?

That is your prerogative, yes.

However, if you'd bothered to read any examples I'd given (rape, drowning, bat assault) you'd have understood by now that basic decency coupled with lucid thought can inform us of times when it would be nice to help those in need. It's not the desire to help that's the continuing problem with your assertions here...it's the presumption that you alone will decide when help is needed even if it is in contradiction to the wants of the others involved.



QuixoticErrant -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 1:28:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

Ohhh wow, you have opened my eyes! The North Koreans say things about social responsibility! Therefore I must be wrong.

Ohhh wait,

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are document frame work and practice of American notions of social responsibilities.... I guess it's ok now since we believe in it, and so does every other society that has ever existed.

Even the Ancient Egyptians believed in notions of social duties. The Romans certainly did... and so on and o on....

In response to Panda,

This guy bringing up North Korea is a great example of what I mean by dragging things down to irrelevant, petty, high-school debating.


well that sailed right over your head.

first off, by me bringing in totalitarian governments, I was simply saying that social responsibility does not always equate to an ethical society, not that social responsibility always results in totalitarianism.

and if we want to be specific regarding the declaration and constitution, they are documents that state that it is the 'social responsibility' of governments not to infringe upon the liberties of the people (which stands in direct opposition of your idea of social responsibility). granted I think any form of government will infringe upon the liberties of the people by its very existence.

the ancient egyptians thought it was acceptable to build big pyramids using slave labor and bury slaves alive with their deceased masters. the romans were a slave society that felt they were just to invade and exploit all barbarian (non-roman) cultures. hell...they thought it was ok to sack people's homes, murder them, and take their wealth in order to fund a war. are these really the societies you want to bring up as pristine examples of humans abiding by social responsiblity?



No you were trying to make a silly guilt by association argument, and after getting called on it, you are trying to dress it up with sophistry.

Of course not all societies are ethical. So what? In the context of even trying to establish that ethics are a good thing and that they imply duties, So what?

This is where I am simply starting to get weary. I know you feel that this is all so deep and so profound. But, it really isn't. This is basic introductory, how to carry yourself as a person 101.

For example...

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not mean "do what ever you want." American law has always been balanced by notions of ethics and social responsibility. Can you believe that? Can you believe that the founding fathers never meant it at all as "do whatever you want?"

As an example, what about freedom of speech? I can say whatever I want right?

WRONG.

Forbidden speech in American law:

1. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. (because you have a responsibility to not harm others by the ensuing panic)
2. Libel, Slander, Defamation (because you have the social responsibility to not falsely destroy another's reputation)
3. Sedition, calls to harm the elected officials (because you have a duty to uphold the Republic)
4. Disclosure of state secrets (because you have the duty to not give the bad guys an edge in killing our people)
5. Hate speech and incitement to violence. (Because you have the social duty to NOT whip angry mobs into a lynch gang)

What about limitations on Freedom of religion? Right to peaceful assembly? Would you believe that we have those too? Would you believe that those limitations are all based on notions of social responsibility?

Now you breezily come to me and argue about about social systems and American law as if you know jack. It's frustrating. If you knew American law at all, you would never have claimed that it is "in direct opposition to my notions of social responsibility." However, again, you only have the most superficial knowledge of the subjects you are pontificating on. It gets old.






QuixoticErrant -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 1:48:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

However, if you'd bothered to read any examples I'd given (rape, drowning, bat assault) you'd have understood by now that basic decency coupled with lucid thought can inform us of times when it would be nice to help those in need. It's not the desire to help that's the continuing problem with your assertions here...it's the presumption that you alone will decide when help is needed even if it is in contradiction to the wants of the others involved.


And now we come full circle... So, there ARE such things as basic decency! You admit it! Good for you!

AND you even think it would be nice to help those who needed it !!!! Even over the objections of those doing the harm!

WOW!

But nihilus, who decides what basic decency is? Are you telling me that there are sometimes clear cut cases where anyone who was reasonable would act to help another, and that we don't need to quibble with definitions or who is arbitrating such actions because it is a case of basic decency, that all healthy members of a society should understand?

Are you really implying that?

Will the wonders never cease?

This is what I have been arguing for all along (at least in terms of the ethics sub-discussion) If we agree on this point, why are you debating with me?



NihilusZero -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 1:52:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

And now we come full circle... So, there ARE such things as basic decency! You admit it! Good for you!

AND you even think it would be nice to help those who needed it !!!! Even over the objections of those doing the harm!

WOW!

Considering it was your reading incomprehension that led to interpreting anything but that as my position the entire time, I fail to see how there's any cynical humor in this...unless you like laughing at yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

This is what I have been arguing for all along (at least in terms of the ethics sub-discussion) If we agree on this point, why are you debating with me?

Because, if we can get back to the original point of this thread (imagine that) you were ascribing negative connotations to things that people were willingly consenting to because you saw it negatively.



RCdc -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 2:43:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant
Darcy, please I beg you,


Er, no.  Don't beg.  It isn't becoming and I am not the boss of you.  And we would prefer that you realise the difference between myself and my Master.  My name is not Darcy.
 
quote:

there really is such a thing a right and wrong. If people are going to argue that such principles do not apply to themselves, what is there really to say? I have not insulted anyone directly and only referred to the horrible, self serving, narcissistic arguments that they have been making.
 
So you never called anyone a name?  Didn't behave in a self serving manner by demanding that people act according to your choices and your rules without an ounce of respect?  You never ridiculed a persons desires?


quote:

In the modern world, a sort of limp wristed "everything is equally OK, no-one is right and no one is wrong" attitude is the PC equivalent of the nihilism I am so passionately disgusted by. It is a nicer way of saying that "I have no duty to stand for anything, because nothing really matters anyway." It's just that message of avoidance dressed up with some vague notion of never upsetting anyone as an excuse to do or say nothing. I am very sorry if you feel that actually speaking up for the basic - and this really is basic civics - cornerstones of any moral system strikes you as somehow rude or harsh.

 
Whos morals?  Yours?  You claim to have morals.  That means being at the very basic level IMO polite and civil.  You may disapprove of someones actions, you may not want people to 'hijack your thread' - these are all understandable - but to actually insist that people bow down to your moral principals whilst exhibiting the EXACT opposite whilst you demand is hypocrasy at it's most obvious level.  All you have continuously done is resort to playground behaviour with the name calling and the accusations and the do it my way or bugger off stampofthefoot dismissal.
Rude?  Harsh?  Hardly - I find you a disagreeable child insisting on his own way whilst exercising your rights over another.  What is in any way ethical about that?  For goodness sake - you are a dominant - yet I have more control over my behaviour than you seem to have in your fingertips.

quote:

The real world functions because there really are rules that are made for good reasons.

And what are the rules?  Please do list them.
 
quote:

Those who decided that they do not apply to themselves are rightly scorned.
 
Then feel scorned.
 
quote:

What they offer is self serving anarchy that ironically can only exist in the safe bubble provided by those non-completely self serving folks that they feel so superior to.

 
Like yourself then?  Because everything you just said is exactly how you are behaving.
 
quote:

It is fascinating to me that people who argue that no one has any right to put limitations on them (and these limitations discussed in this sub argument - are only those of the most basic social responsibility) are now somehow poor benighted, persecuted, innocents who don't deserve to be reminded that they really do live in a world of individual and collective responsibilities that require your defense. They don't.

 
I do not defend that which needs no defending.  I don't defend.  Period.  I do call you out on your hypocrasy for behaving in the way you are.

quote:

The philosophy that they espouse would be defined as evil by any of the major religions. However, we need not make a religious argument. As I said before, the notion that something might be inherently right or wrong would not be heard. Most people hate hearing about right and wrong because it forces them to act in certain ways if they believe it. But again, it is not necessary to make a spiritual argument here.

 
Please, do make it a religious arguement.  It might make more sense then.  And I adore religious discussions.
And who is 'they'?

quote:

Simple, real world facts are:

1. life is hard.
2. Without the help of others (who also demand that you play your part) you would perish.
3. You do not get to argue point 2 unless you produce and defend your own food, clothing and shelter in a completely self sufficient manner.
4. Therefore - if you wish to continue to survive, you must uphold the social contracts that keep people providing for each other.
Doing so means balancing their wants and needs with your own.

 
If this is so -  then why are you so selfish?  Why can you not balance the wants and needs of others with your own?

quote:

When someone wants to argue things that deny this reality it is deeply destructive. I am not sorry that it offends your delicate PC sensibilities, that judging - actually judging - harmful ideas as harmful and wrong, offends you. Some things however, actually are harmful and wrong, and it it is nothing more or less than the truth to say so.
 
I don't 'do' PC.
Can you for one moment hold a discussion without attacking someone?  Honestly, it doesn't offend me.  You don't have that ability.  What it does is make you look stupid and it is tiresome to hold a discussion with someone whom argues rather than behaves in a constructive manner.
 
Your post - talks about 'needs' - you disqualified love as one of those rare 'needs' that doesn't fit your criteria for addiction.  Wrong.  Love can be an addiction.  So can water.  So can air.  Any of these 'needs' can be just as addictive as those 'needs' that you feel hit the right stop of addiction.  Like alcohol.  Or cigarettes.  Or blood.  Or spanking.  If you don't get that anything can be an addiction, then you are delusional.  If you don't get that some people in contrast have 'needs' that bring about a transference into another state that isn't an addiction, you are just plainly ill informed.

quote:

If you come back at me with some "well that's your opinion" response, you have missed the point. Those four points are not my opinion any more than I hold the opinion that two and two sum to four. Not an opinion at all - rather, these are matters of fact which are true, and will remain true whether or not you (or I) like them.
 
I don't do the whole 'opinion' thing.  I do facts.  The fact is that as true as the points may be, you are not exhibiting them in this post.  That is hypocrasy.  And as much as you may want people to take your words as truth or gospal or FACT - if you cannot be what you are trying to impress on others - where is the 'good' example of that - why should anyone believe the words of someone who is in essence - not practicing what they preach?
 
the.dark.



QuixoticErrant -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 3:01:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

And now we come full circle... So, there ARE such things as basic decency! You admit it! Good for you!

AND you even think it would be nice to help those who needed it !!!! Even over the objections of those doing the harm!

WOW!

Considering it was your reading incomprehension that led to interpreting anything but that as my position the entire time, I fail to see how there's any cynical humor in this...unless you like laughing at yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

This is what I have been arguing for all along (at least in terms of the ethics sub-discussion) If we agree on this point, why are you debating with me?

Because, if we can get back to the original point of this thread (imagine that) you were ascribing negative connotations to things that people were willingly consenting to because you saw it negatively.



And here I had thought we had reached a point of understanding.

OK, some quotes from you...

"Except that only self-assured quacks or rigorously qualified professionals would have the place to speak on what is "right", and the latter group would only do so within the anthropological understanding of what is currently legal. "

and my favorite:

"Mandatory altruism is nonsensical. That's precisely what you're arguing. "

So, how does a notion of basic decency, in the context of preventing that baseball bat attack on you apply in the context of what you were saying? I could imagine a society where the "anthropological understanding of legal" would make it a public participation party to do that to you. There are places where dismembering you for being an American and dancing in the streets with your mutilated body parts would be the norm - if the people only had Americans to get their hands on. Does that make it alright then because that is a socially accepted norm there? Or, is there such a thing as basic decency that trumps that?

Clearly, any notion of basic decency and an assertion that people should have it, is by direct implication, mandatory altruism. You really can not escape that.

If you believe that there is such a thing as basic decency and that people should act in accordance with it, then we have no argument, and further you will easily see what I was responding to - what set me off.

Now in the context of BDSM and the original thread, my assertion was and remains that certain behaviors can, much like addictions be taken to self destructive extremes. In the context of basic decency, I feel compelled to have compassion for people who are destroying themselves in this - or any other - way and a social responsibility to try to help them to see an alternative.

I can not force anyone to stop heroin or a self destructive cycle of progressively more dangerous "edge play." I can however warn against it, and note the dangers of addiction.

In the context of doing so, I get a lot of flack from a those who want to say that there is no problem and then when pressed, argue that even if it is a problem it is no-one's business to say or do anything. That is rather annoying, and contrary to any notion of basic decency.






RCdc -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 3:15:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant
I can not force anyone to stop heroin or a self destructive cycle of progressively more dangerous "edge play." I can however warn against it, and note the dangers of addiction.


Will you warn about sex also?  Or how about masturbation?  Cross dressing?  Missionary position?

quote:

In the context of doing so, I get a lot of flack from a those who want to say that there is no problem and then when pressed, argue that even if it is a problem it is no-one's business to say or do anything. That is rather annoying, and contrary to any notion of basic decency.


Making someone aware of the possible risks or outcomes that an action or specific course might bring, is common sense and teaching - it is the imparting of information.  Sharing knowledge.  That has nothing to do with common decency. 
 
the.dark.



QuixoticErrant -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 3:23:41 PM)

OK, you are the Dark.

I get it, I apologize for the confusion.

Let's please try to get off on a different foot then.

You misunderstood my point about love. It most clearly is an addiction. The exception made for it is that it can be a completely beneficial one.

You misunderstand vehement disagreement with a position that I feel is morally repellant and completely abhorrent to be a sign of loosing control or some form of hypocrisy.

I would posit that hypocrisy also consists of seeing things which are repellent to you and saying nothing. There is no nice way to say "oh cool man, I disagree, but, I'm glad you chimed in with that, thanks for contributing..." when they are saying odious things. That would be a lie. I am not glad they chimed in. I don't just "disagree." I find the view of "no responsibility" repellant. No, I am not glad they chimed in, they are not contributing anything good or useful.

As a BDSM note, as a submissive, would you really want your dominant to take the view that he has no responsibility to you?

This is also not just about whether or not I personally think such views are odious. In truth, there are very practical reasons, like the baseball bat argument, to repudiate them. Also in fact, the American legal system, and most people in the West, would agree that a moral system based on "do what ever you want" when followed to it's logical conclusions is odious.

If you wish to make it a religious argument then sure. It goes like this.

Do unto others as you would have done unto you. If I were in trouble, I would want someone to help me. If I see someone in trouble, I have a duty to help them. This duty, by it's very nature puts constraints on my actions and limits my freedoms. There is no way around it. The difference between people who believe this statement and hypocrites who just say it, is precisely in whether or not they take actions.





QuixoticErrant -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 3:33:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Will you warn about sex also?  Or how about masturbation?  Cross dressing?  Missionary position?



It depends on who they are and the circumstances...

I would certainly try my best to dissuade a thirteen year old from having sex. I would likely physically harm the thirty year old that wanted to have sex with them - particularly if the thirteen year old in question was my daughter.

If a guy is jacking off out of a window to spooge on passers by on the street below, I would call the cops.

If a fellow wants to cross dress in a certain part of the world where such activities might get him killed, I would try to dissuade him.

Missionary position... well it has it's merits, but if a friend asked my opinion, I might suggest that there are other positions with merit also.







RCdc -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 3:54:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

You misunderstand vehement disagreement with a position that I feel is morally repellant and completely abhorrent to be a sign of loosing control or some form of hypocrisy.

I would posit that hypocrisy also consists of seeing things which are repellent to you and saying nothing. There is no nice way to say "oh cool man, I disagree, but, I'm glad you chimed in with that, thanks for contributing..." when they are saying odious things. That would be a lie. I am not glad they chimed in. I don't just "disagree." I find the view of "no responsibility" repellant. No, I am not glad they chimed in, they are not contributing anything good or useful.


The issue occurs that to me, during this thread you are out of control in some of your responses and the way you handled this.  I am not suggesting that you should just ignore that what you feel is odious - what I am suggesting is that your loss of control through name calling, through those little snide remarks and plays of 'sarcasm' is detrimental to your arguement.  There is nothing inherently wrong with standing by your 'morals' - but if ou are going to do it - be reasoned - be strong and yet unyielding - but don't resort to loosing control and anger.  It's self defeating.
 
But that in itself brings up the point that - I see your reactions to others as loss of control.  You (seemingly) don't.  You do not see the potential harm that your flaring up is causing your arguement or point.  By the very nature of your thread - in your agenda - I am doing exactly that which you are preaching so verhmently - to highlight the the potential destructive nature of your behaviour.  But then we get into the realms of - who decides what is losing control and who decides that it's just zealous concern?  Do you see what I am getting at here?

quote:

As a BDSM note, as a submissive, would you really want your dominant to take the view that he has no responsibility to you?


Firstly, I am not 'a submissive'.  I am me and I belong to Master.  What he wants, is what I want.  If it was any other way, I would not have submitted in the first place.

quote:

This is also not just about whether or not I personally think such views are odious. In truth, there are very practical reasons, like the baseball bat argument, to repudiate them. Also in fact, the American legal system, and most people in the West, would agree that a moral system based on "do what ever you want" when followed to it's logical conclusions is odious.


I'm not big on 'consent'.  It's an over used term from my personal POV.  So I don't believe I can constructively respond to this.

quote:

If you wish to make it a religious arguement then sure. It goes like this.

Do unto others as you would have done unto you. If I were in trouble, I would want someone to help me. If I see someone in trouble, I have a duty to help them. This duty, by it's very nature puts constraints on my actions and limits my freedoms. There is no way around it. The difference between people who believe this statement and hypocrites who just say it, is precisely in whether or not they take actions.


I don't have a duty.  From that religious standpoint, to me 'duty' it is a false dictomony.  I do have empathy.  If I care and if I love, then I assist.  This emapthy places me in no type of bondage or limits whatsoever because I am simply being me and responding to something driven inside me.
 
the.dark.



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 4:02:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL QuixoticErrant

"Mandatory altruism is nonsensical. That's precisely what you're arguing. " {clipped}...

Clearly, any notion of basic decency and an assertion that people should have it, is by direct implication, mandatory altruism. You really can not escape that.


Since there seems to be a disconnect in comprehension, let me stick to one simple concept and hope that it makes more sense. It is the concept of mandatory that is completely incompatible when combined with the concept of decency.

To be -decent- and -ethical- requires the recognition of another's right to make hir own choices. There is no such thing as altruism. People do things because it benefits them, even if the benefit is only that they feel good about themselves by doing it, and that feeling outweighs any downside to the act for them.

Mandatory altruism isn't altruism at all. It is enforced slavery of action. It doesn't matter -who- is doing the enslaving, or how good their intentions. It is stripping the right to free action from another human being, and that is patently unethical and indecent. In simplified terms, what you are proposing is a -police state- where the government and my neighbors get to decide what I need to do to be a "decent" member of the community, and how I need to act, and that is just plain BS.

Even "justice" is a concept that requires free will. A just man will not participate in an act of law that denies the freedom of another human being. Morality and law do -not- define decency, and true freedom, including bearing full responsibility for one's choices and actions, is the -only- real right of existence. Stripping that freedom, along with the resulting requirement to teach responsibility and the repercussions of individual choice, has left us an ethically barren culture. A deeper investment in a police state will not resolve that issue, and will not 'save' people from themselves. No matter how diligent a man's intentions, how fine his speeches, or how worthy the appearance of his "cause", when he steals freedom and its repercussions from another, he becomes a criminal of the basest sort himself, because what he is stealing isn't a transitory 'thing', but the essence of someone's existence.

I do not accept your "assistance" in regulating my behavior. I am content to claim responsibility for my actions, for better or worse, lest I lose myself in your mis-begotten concept of "mandatory altruism".

Dame Calla




RCdc -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 4:02:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant
It depends on who they are and the circumstances...

I would certainly try my best to dissuade a thirteen year old from having sex. I would likely physically harm the thirty year old that wanted to have sex with them - particularly if the thirteen year old in question was my daughter.

If a guy is jacking off out of a window to spooge on passers by on the street below, I would call the cops.

If a fellow wants to cross dress in a certain part of the world where such activities might get him killed, I would try to dissuade him.

Missionary position... well it has it's merits, but if a friend asked my opinion, I might suggest that there are other positions with merit also.

 
The point is, that all of the examples I gave carry risks - regardless of age, location or whether there is something possibly 'better'.  What I am reading from your posting however, is that you see more inherent risks associated to drug use or being whipped.  For me, that is a dangerous place to be standing.  I don't catagorise what is more risky or less.  I don't pick and choose the information I relate due to where on the dangerous list I might place something.  Every activity has a risk and I know that risk before I undertake it - including posting on a forum like this.
 
the.dark.



QuixoticErrant -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 4:10:24 PM)

You are not the first, nor will you be the last, to say that I argue in a very strong - and potentially off putting - manner when I feel issues of morality and duty are at stake.

Whether or not it damages my credibility is in the eye of the beholder. I have gotten a lot of very positive response from people who are equally fed up with the smugness, selfishness and the nihilism that permeates these boards.

For instance, this submissive thinks that I have kept my temper quite well,

"Dear xxxx, I've noticed that the fuse on your temper is a bit longer than mine. I've improved quite a bit (guess it comes with old age), but I do reach a point where I can't stop myself from telling someone they are not only wrong, but out of their minds and dangerous to the general population around them.In any case, on this thread, rest assured that you have at least one person who will have your back the whole way through. xxx"

Honestly, I would write what I wrote whether or not there were those who liked my style. I am angry.

I am honestly and legitimately angry at the way that I see again and again here a whole "she signed up for it, let her suffer" routine come from Dom after Dom. It strikes me as nothing less than a rationalization for abuse.

I am tired of the "whatever master wants..." response after response from submissive after submissive. It is nothing less than a rationalization to be abused.

I am tired of making an obvious statement, like, you know this stuff can get out of hand and, the first thought of many is not that yes indeed it can get out of hand, but rather, "wait a minute, someone might judge me or say I can't do something."

If you want to know why kinksters get a bad rap as being unbalanced, it stems from espousing views like these.

Someone should stand up and say enough of this.






QuixoticErrant -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 4:29:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

quote:

ORIGINAL QuixoticErrant

"Mandatory altruism is nonsensical. That's precisely what you're arguing. " {clipped}...

Clearly, any notion of basic decency and an assertion that people should have it, is by direct implication, mandatory altruism. You really can not escape that.


Since there seems to be a disconnect in comprehension, let me stick to one simple concept and hope that it makes more sense. It is the concept of mandatory that is completely incompatible when combined with the concept of decency.

Really, do you obey the law? Do you pay your taxes? Of course ethical systems in a social contract are mandatory. Even beyond that, would you make a scene at a funeral or someone's wedding? Do you think that if you did the people there would have a right to kick you out? Of course basic decency can be mandatory. There is a disconnect in comprehension, but it is not mine.

To be -decent- and -ethical- requires the recognition of another's right to make hir own choices. There is no such thing as altruism. People do things because it benefits them, even if the benefit is only that they feel good about themselves by doing it, and that feeling outweighs any downside to the act for them.

How tragic that you feel that way. Let's say that your cynical view is correct, at least they feel good about doing good things and those good things also benefit you.


Mandatory altruism isn't altruism at all. It is enforced slavery of action. It doesn't matter -who- is doing the enslaving, or how good their intentions. It is stripping the right to free action from another human being, and that is patently unethical and indecent. In simplified terms, what you are proposing is a -police state- where the government and my neighbors get to decide what I need to do to be a "decent" member of the community, and how I need to act, and that is just plain BS.

Again, you live in a society that polices your actions already. If you really hate that, then you must accept it if a man with a baseball bat comes for you.


Even "justice" is a concept that requires free will. A just man will not participate in an act of law that denies the freedom of another human being.

That is also a constraint on his freedoms. He may willfully accept the restraint, but it is one none the less. Why is that not obvious?


Morality and law do -not- define decency, and true freedom, including bearing full responsibility for one's choices and actions, is the -only- real right of existence. Stripping that freedom, along with the resulting requirement to teach responsibility and the repercussions of individual choice, has left us an ethically barren culture. A deeper investment in a police state will not resolve that issue, and will not 'save' people from themselves. No matter how diligent a man's intentions, how fine his speeches, or how worthy the appearance of his "cause", when he steals freedom and its repercussions from another, he becomes a criminal of the basest sort himself, because what he is stealing isn't a transitory 'thing', but the essence of someone's existence.

Somehow, I am ok with the idea of stripping serial rapists, pedophiles and other "romantics" of their freedoms. Understand that your argument could be used by them to justify their actions. Once you accept the moral responsibility to restrict those behaviors, the door is opened to look at other things too. ON a BDSM note, you know full well that once you have a submissive in a deep enough subspace (s)he might very well agree to anything. Your arguments leave tremendous room to take advantage of this, and rather than being an acceptance of responsibility, it gets used in these discussions as a get out of jail free card again and again for those who do abuse it.


I do not accept your "assistance" in regulating my behavior. I am content to claim responsibility for my actions, for better or worse, lest I lose myself in your mis-begotten concept of "mandatory altruism".

OK fine, if the man with the baseball bat comes for you, I'll get popcorn. I wouldn't want to strip him of HIS freedoms. Before you go off on the fact that you are not consenting to the baseball bat, I will say ok, HE is not consenting to my interference. Where do you draw the line?




My comments are in blue italics



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 4:44:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

OK fine, if the man with the baseball bat comes for you, I'll get popcorn. I wouldn't want to strip him if HIS freedoms. Before you go off on the fact that you are not consenting to the baseball bat, I will say ok, HE is not consenting to my interference. Where do you draw the line?


I draw the line at YOUR RIGHT to get the popcorn and let me die. BTDT -- t-shirt had to be thrown away because it was a LITTLE bloody and I have the huge frigging scar down my middle to show for it. (I chose, while a paramedic, to wade into a knife fight for a patient, and took a knife because none of the bystanders were willing to do what I'd done and risk getting skinned). *shrugs* I'm willing to accept that there may be an asshole out there who would just let that happen, and accept it to the point where I would give up my life, in the cause of protecting justice and freedom.

Dame Calla






QuixoticErrant -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 4:47:44 PM)

Fair enough,

I consider that view morally repellant.



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 5:00:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

Really, do you obey the law? Do you pay your taxes? Of course ethical systems in a social contract are mandatory. Even beyond that, would you make a scene at a funeral or someone's wedding? Do you think that if you did the people there would have a right to kick you out? Of course basic decency can be mandatory. There is a disconnect in comprehension, but it is not mine.


Informationally, I obey the law as long as it has not a law that impedes the right of another to do what they choose with their bodies or denies basic civility and humanity to another person or group. But then, that's my personal ethic. Humanity isn't a matter of gender preference, body shape, color, size, spiritual affiliation or not, etc. It is living, as a human being, in a human body, period. That gives you the inalienable right to love who you love, and do what you want with your body, as long as you don't use that freedom to damage another. Once you intrude on another person, then yes, the repercussions are that that you will likely be stopped (hopefully before you do any permanent damage!)... and justice doesn't come in a package that uses 'morality' to deny a person the right to do what they damned well please with their own body, including giving it the hell away if that's what suits them. (Sorry, folks, for getting a little riled up... this is a huge and profound subject for me -- I would hazard to say it is the concept on which the entire foundation of my existence rests!)

I pay my taxes. I don't pay my taxes because I -have- to, or because the "law" demands it. If the law had any teeth, we wouldn't have multi-billionaires getting by without paying a single red cent in taxes. I pay taxes because I use roads, and I like -having- roads. I pay taxes because I think that universal health care is a smart idea -- people who are healthy are more productive, and people who aren't worrying about how they're going to pay for an emergency have all that brain energy available for other things -- and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is, and -pay- for the things that I value. Sure, the PTB does things with my money that I think are completely idiotic, and if I could pay for the stuff that is important to me myself, instead of using the government as a middle-man, I'd be glad to do that -- but paying taxes isn't a legal issue for me, it is just good common sense if you want to use common goods and live in common community. It's the same principle by which our household runs -- if you're part of the household, you're contributing in some tangible way to its upkeep and evolution... and not just for your own stuff, but for the good of the whole house. But it isn't -compelled-... people are welcome to choose to do their own thing and go their own way, and they don't even have to give up being family... we still cherish them, even if they choose to go their own way.

I might make a scene at someone's funeral, or wedding, or whatever -- and they'd have every right to kick me out -- but that has nothing to do with mandatory altruism, and =everything= to do with taking personal responsibility for ones actions. If I'm going to choose to act like an ass, then I have earned, by my actions, and by the damage it did to the enjoyment of others and the gravity of the event.


Dame Calla





NihilusZero -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 9:32:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

Clearly, any notion of basic decency and an assertion that people should have it, is by direct implication, mandatory altruism. You really can not escape that.

No. On a whole myriad of fronts. First:

Decency is a passive state. One of tolerance. One you've apparently forsaken in lieu of your twisted concept of morality.
Altruism is an active state. It involves steering ones actions specifically to the notion of a greater good.

I can be a hermit for the rest of my life and be "decent" without being "altruistic".

Second:

To state that "decency" is a preferable state to be in is not the same as mandating it. Such as my thinking that tolerance and basic logical understanding on human psychology is preferable in someone making arguments on a message board and demanding and expecting their account to be shut down because they cannot grasp the concepts.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.2109375