NihilusZero
Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008 From: Nashville, TN Status: offline
|
Thank you for making my points for me: quote:
ORIGINAL: Eigenaar ''slave /slayv/ a person held in servitude as the property of another.'' There you go. And she is held in servitude and is his property as much as any individual thing can be property (Jeff poignantly addressed the topic of what even constitutes property by making a great argument that it, really, is just an agreement of the status by all audience members or at least any of them that would have the power to nullify the ownership). quote:
ORIGINAL: Eigenaar Carol is not the legal literal property of Jeff. A dictionary does not refer to ''slave'' in a theatrical setting in which it is used by bdsm practitioners. I'm sorry, I read and reread the definition of slave that you provided as well as others and keep missing that "legal" word you just used. quote:
ORIGINAL: Eigenaar Hence: ''literal = 1 having or denoting the factual, ordinary, or primary meaning of a word or expression, as opposed to a figurative one. 2 keeping strictly to the basic and straightforward meaning. "Keeping strictly to the basic and straightforward meaning" means taking the words of the definition at base value and not adding any other clothes to it. By definition provided here, she would indeed be his "literal" slave. You know, "literal", with historical etymology shown here: [Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin litterālis, of letters, from Latin littera, lītera, letter; see letter.] "See letter", not "see picture from X historical period. quote:
ORIGINAL: Eigenaar figurative = 1 characterized by or using figures of speech, esp metaphor. 2 representing by a figure or likeness; emblematic. Representing by a figure or likeness, like by the concept of it from ancient Egypt or a Roman colosseum or the civil rights movement in the US. Why do I get the suspicion that the people having these reverse interpretations of simple terms may be ones prone to treat or see WIITWD dynamics as 'role play' rather than an actual tangible expressions of the way two (or more) people function both by themselves individually and as a unit together? Because, if the argument is "Yeah, but you two are just "playing" Master/slave and these historical figures lived it!" then it is yet again a argument for willingness/consent being a disqualifying facet of 'acceptable' slavery.
< Message edited by NihilusZero -- 10/2/2009 9:53:20 AM >
_____________________________
"I know it's all a game I know they're all insane I know it's all in vain I know that I'm to blame." ~Siouxsie & the Banshees NihilusZero.com CM Sex God du Jour CM Hall Monitor
|