RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd

RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (Full Version)

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

Message

UnholyBear -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/19/2015 1:42:16 PM)
~FR~ @NookieNotes, no worries on my end! It is just a comment that was made by Michael which precipitated my response prior to me getting distracted by Tyrant yet again. And it is that same part which I hope to address or at least get some clarification? - "In my view, ANYONE that helps a married (or otherwise committed) person to cheat on their partner is a scumbag. I don't care if they're making money doing it. That doesn't clear the books. The ACT ITSELF is a moral abomination (It's called "dishonesty" or "Subterfuge", if you like)." Michael: It is for this statement here which yes it does come across as judgmental and without having any elaboration on this stance, it is highly obvious to myself that anyone/everyone is being painted with the same brush? This is simply an observation on my part so please take it as such. From that above quote, does it also indicate that in your eyes and mind that there are no gray area and that it is strictly black and white? Reason why I ask is that is what it says to me. Especially when you label a cheater as being a scumbag which logically also would include the person they cheated with? An if that is the case then it would also mean that there is no consideration of the circumstances because people cheat for a variety of reasons and not always is it because their spouse/partner supposed fault. And essence, one is acting as judge, jury and executioner in a metaphorical sense. Yes, I find that comment offensive in the fact that you apparently placed yourself in a position to judge and condemn. You are not a perfect person and I certain not either and frankly I have never claimed to be a saint or an angel either. At least I know I am honest to myself and to others about my past, about all the stupid fuckups I got myself into and I do this on the idiot hoppe that people will gain a little more understanding on human nature. Understand also that I am quite able to lay enough self guilt without you or anyone else who decides to make a blanket judgement on the morals or lack of morals of another.

DesFIP -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/19/2015 1:51:18 PM)
Since there's no sex involved, it isn't cheating. Is someone in a bad relationship where they cannot be honest with their partner? Sure but that's a horse of a different color. Does a grocery store cashier have to give someone an interrogation to make sure their partner isn't a vegan and going to be horrified by that steak they buy? Does a Vegas casino need to see a tax return to make sure monies being bet aren't taking food out of their kids' mouths? If you don't need to take the moral high horse in every other area of life, then why just when it's sexual?

NookieNotes -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/19/2015 1:51:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes As a aside, you really have a thing for the way you view the world being the be-all-end-all for everyone, don't you? There was no need for this. I have accorded you courtesy. You return ad hominem and slander. We're done. Michael I do apologize for offending you. I didn't mean it to offend you at all. I was observing that you seem to skip over the discussions that really present the opposite of what you have to say and don't address them, then you state opinions as if they are facts. That was not a part of my "argument," (that was presented above) so it's not truly ad hominem. It was (as I said) an aside to you. As far as slander, I said nothing about you that I believe can affect your reputation here, any more than you could affect mine with anything you say. If I am wrong, I certainly hope others will let me know. Again, I certainly didn't mean to offend you.

RockaRolla -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/19/2015 1:57:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Since there's no sex involved, it isn't cheating. I disagree. Cheating (the way I see it) comes into play when one partner breaks a pre-determined agreement of their relationship. As an example, it is for this reason that cheating is still possible in an open relationship. I'm in a relationship where sex with other partners is OK, but I must be straightforward and honest about it. If I were to sleep with my other partner, that's fine. But if I were to sleep with someone new and not tell my boyfriend? Then I'd be cheating. But it's not the sex that makes it cheating, but the fact I didn't let him know. I'd still be cheating if all we did was kiss/fondle each other and no penetrative/oral/whatever sex was involved.

UnholyBear -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/19/2015 2:26:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Since there's no sex involved, it isn't cheating. Is someone in a bad relationship where they cannot be honest with their partner? Sure but that's a horse of a different color. Does a grocery store cashier have to give someone an interrogation to make sure their partner isn't a vegan and going to be horrified by that steak they buy? Does a Vegas casino need to see a tax return to make sure monies being bet aren't taking food out of their kids' mouths? If you don't need to take the moral high horse in every other area of life, then why just when it's sexual? It's just from the countless topics of this nature which more often than not, ends up into a thread absolute condemnation of people who cheated, were victims of a cheater or people like myself who had been a participant in cheating. Yes in many ways it is sexual yet we all know that every person has their own concept and definition to what constitutes cheating. My own stance is from my past with the hope and intention to shed light on the angle that the reasons behind infidelity is varied as the people who cheat. What I find extremely distasteful is the apparent condemnation that is based on absolutes. As I see it, a person who deems all cheaters as scumbags to indicate the accuser is perfect which no person on this planet is perfect.

Kaliko -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/19/2015 3:26:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant Alrighty Kaliko, so where is your dog in the fight? I'm not sure which fight you're asking about, so I'll go with this one. quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr My point was: Being a "business woman" doesn't absolve immoral behavior. In my view, ANYONE that helps a married (or otherwise committed) person to cheat on their partner is a scumbag. I don't care if they're making money doing it. That doesn't clear the books. The ACT ITSELF is a moral abomination (It's called "dishonesty" or "Subterfuge", if you like). NO ONE gets a pass, in my book. D I agree that the act is immoral, no matter what. I would actually say sinful. But, we are human and therefore imperfect. We're not meant to be without fault. Let those without sin cast the first stone, right? So my expectation of myself and, I suppose, others is not that I never do anything wrong, but that I am repentant and remorseful when I do. And most importantly, that I don't continue to reap pleasure as a result of it. It's one thing to stop the act and be genuinely sorry but in my book, it's not enough. Repentance. Penance. Anyway, I agree that both parties are equally responsible and equally wrong.

Kaliko -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/19/2015 3:35:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shiftyw bear- I've been the other woman three times- once unknowingly though, and I've been cheated on, at least twice. You're in good scumbag company. No one is perfect, people learn and grow. I don't think we need scarlet letters (would they be s for scumbag?) condemning us in everyone's eyes for the rest of eternity. it our weight to bare- and if people can't hang because of it- they can move along. I agree with you. Everyone - everybody - has made poor decisions and hurt people. Even if they don't know they did it. Even if they haven't done it yet - they will. No one is infallible. My judgment of somebody (if you can call it judgment) isn't based on their past actions, but on how they handle what they've done.

DaddySatyr -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/19/2015 6:49:39 PM)
I don't know that there's a question, in here, that requires an answer, per se but I will see what I can do. quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear - "In my view, ANYONE that helps a married (or otherwise committed) person to cheat on their partner is a scumbag. I don't care if they're making money doing it. That doesn't clear the books. The ACT ITSELF is a moral abomination (It's called "dishonesty" or "Subterfuge", if you like)." Michael: It is for this statement here which yes it does come across as judgmental and without having any elaboration on this stance, it is highly obvious to myself that anyone/everyone is being painted with the same brush? This is simply an observation on my part so please take it as such. From that above quote, does it also indicate that in your eyes and mind that there are no gray area and that it is strictly black and white? Reason why I ask is that is what it says to me. Especially when you label a cheater as being a scumbag which logically also would include the person they cheated with? First (and I'm not being a grammar nazi); what seems to be a question is a little confusing: "It is for this statement here which yes it does come across as judgmental and without having any elaboration on this stance, it is highly obvious to myself that anyone/everyone is being painted with the same brush?". It's "highly obvious" to you but there's a question mark. So, I am honestly not sure if you're asking a question or making a declarative statement. I will answer what I can decipher from it: There's always "a grey area" with some people. It's because (in my view) they are searching for justification or mitigation as to why they've done something wrong. There *are* certain things that I believe are moral absolutes. As I have said (Twice, on this thread, I think) already; if Person A (married) tries to take up a relationship with Person B and tells Person B that they are married, Person B is just as culpable as Person A, in my mind. They are actively engaging in dishonest behavior. We can always find excuses for what we do wrong, it's how we justify bad behavior so that we can try to ease our conscience. It's a human thing. There's people that try to make excuses for murderers and all sorts of morally bankrupt people (they're usually called lawyers). So, there's honesty and dishonesty and in that instance, there is no grey area, for me. I do see it as "black and white". quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear An if that is the case then it would also mean that there is no consideration of the circumstances because people cheat for a variety of reasons and not always is it because their spouse/partner supposed fault. There is no consideration of circumstances. Once again; there's "honest" and "dishonest". Some people don't value honesty as much as I do. That is correct and that is their choice but, it is not their choice as to how highly I value honesty. Stalemate. quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear And essence, one is acting as judge, jury and executioner in a metaphorical sense. I reserve the right to judge others for my own benefit as every human being does (although we all have different standards that we use as our "measuring stick"). As far as "executioner" (metaphorical or not) the only "execution" I do is to whether or not that person is one that I deem to be of value in my personal interactions. It's the only thing I can control. I didn't say "there should be a law" or that they aren't free to fuck over as many people as they like. They won't be given the opportunity to fuck me over. quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear Yes, I find that comment offensive in the fact that you apparently placed yourself in a position to judge and condemn. I refer you to what Stephen Fry says about being offended. That said; condemn them to what? Not being able to be my friend? Who gives a fuck? Not being able to have the opportunity to prey on me with their lies and obfuscation? Tough shit. That's my choice to make. quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear You are not a perfect person and I certain not either and frankly I have never claimed to be a saint or an angel either. At least I know I am honest to myself and to others about my past, about all the stupid fuckups I got myself into and I do this on the idiot hoppe that people will gain a little more understanding on human nature. Understand also that I am quite able to lay enough self guilt without you or anyone else who decides to make a blanket judgement on the morals or lack of morals of another. I defy you to show where I ever claimed to be perfect (Nice straw man attempt, there). We are all imperfect beings. I have never disputed that. We are also all beings who are social or societal creatures and as such, we make judgments and choices, every day. If you don't like how others view you, you have two choices: You can examine your behavior and decide if people are being too scrupulous in their assessment of you. if that is the case, I have always found, when I find myself in such an instance, what others think about me doesn't really matter much. You can examine your behavior and realize that maybe there's a reason why you're able to "lay enough guilt on yourself". On some level, you find your behavior to be wrong and what is bothering you is that thing called a conscience. Now, I've answered what I think were the questions in there and I'll add this: In this post, you judged me. I don't begrudge you that. It's what we do as human beings. You find me lacking in the area of compassion. Fair dues. I don't care that that is your opinion. It's fine. I'm not going to try to change your mind about me. Lastly, I wish to point out that I didn't call out anyone by name. I wasn't pointing my finger at you (not the generic "you"). I was pointing my finger at people that engage in dishonesty and your post makes it no less morally repugnant to me than it was before your post. I'm sorry that you, as another human being were offended by what I said, but I refer you (again) to Stephen Fry and to the fact that what might be eating at you is your own conscience (as you kind of indicated). Michael

UnholyBear -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/20/2015 5:16:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I don't know that there's a question, in here, that requires an answer, per se but I will see what I can do. quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear - "In my view, ANYONE that helps a married (or otherwise committed) person to cheat on their partner is a scumbag. I don't care if they're making money doing it. That doesn't clear the books. The ACT ITSELF is a moral abomination (It's called "dishonesty" or "Subterfuge", if you like)." Michael: It is for this statement here which yes it does come across as judgmental and without having any elaboration on this stance, it is highly obvious to myself that anyone/everyone is being painted with the same brush? This is simply an observation on my part so please take it as such. From that above quote, does it also indicate that in your eyes and mind that there are no gray area and that it is strictly black and white? Reason why I ask is that is what it says to me. Especially when you label a cheater as being a scumbag which logically also would include the person they cheated with? First (and I'm not being a grammar nazi); what seems to be a question is a little confusing: "It is for this statement here which yes it does come across as judgmental and without having any elaboration on this stance, it is highly obvious to myself that anyone/everyone is being painted with the same brush?". It's "highly obvious" to you but there's a question mark. So, I am honestly not sure if you're asking a question or making a declarative statement. I will answer what I can decipher from it: There's always "a grey area" with some people. It's because (in my view) they are searching for justification or mitigation as to why they've done something wrong. There *are* certain things that I believe are moral absolutes. As I have said (Twice, on this thread, I think) already; if Person A (married) tries to take up a relationship with Person B and tells Person B that they are married, Person B is just as culpable as Person A, in my mind. They are actively engaging in dishonest behavior. We can always find excuses for what we do wrong, it's how we justify bad behavior so that we can try to ease our conscience. It's a human thing. There's people that try to make excuses for murderers and all sorts of morally bankrupt people (they're usually called lawyers). So, there's honesty and dishonesty and in that instance, there is no grey area, for me. I do see it as "black and white". quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear An if that is the case then it would also mean that there is no consideration of the circumstances because people cheat for a variety of reasons and not always is it because their spouse/partner supposed fault. There is no consideration of circumstances. Once again; there's "honest" and "dishonest". Some people don't value honesty as much as I do. That is correct and that is their choice but, it is not their choice as to how highly I value honesty. Stalemate. quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear And essence, one is acting as judge, jury and executioner in a metaphorical sense. I reserve the right to judge others for my own benefit as every human being does (although we all have different standards that we use as our "measuring stick"). As far as "executioner" (metaphorical or not) the only "execution" I do is to whether or not that person is one that I deem to be of value in my personal interactions. It's the only thing I can control. I didn't say "there should be a law" or that they aren't free to fuck over as many people as they like. They won't be given the opportunity to fuck me over. quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear Yes, I find that comment offensive in the fact that you apparently placed yourself in a position to judge and condemn. I refer you to what Stephen Fry says about being offended. That said; condemn them to what? Not being able to be my friend? Who gives a fuck? Not being able to have the opportunity to prey on me with their lies and obfuscation? Tough shit. That's my choice to make. quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear You are not a perfect person and I certain not either and frankly I have never claimed to be a saint or an angel either. At least I know I am honest to myself and to others about my past, about all the stupid fuckups I got myself into and I do this on the idiot hoppe that people will gain a little more understanding on human nature. Understand also that I am quite able to lay enough self guilt without you or anyone else who decides to make a blanket judgement on the morals or lack of morals of another. I defy you to show where I ever claimed to be perfect (Nice straw man attempt, there). We are all imperfect beings. I have never disputed that. We are also all beings who are social or societal creatures and as such, we make judgments and choices, every day. If you don't like how others view you, you have two choices: You can examine your behavior and decide if people are being too scrupulous in their assessment of you. if that is the case, I have always found, when I find myself in such an instance, what others think about me doesn't really matter much. You can examine your behavior and realize that maybe there's a reason why you're able to "lay enough guilt on yourself". On some level, you find your behavior to be wrong and what is bothering you is that thing called a conscience. Now, I've answered what I think were the questions in there and I'll add this: In this post, you judged me. I don't begrudge you that. It's what we do as human beings. You find me lacking in the area of compassion. Fair dues. I don't care that that is your opinion. It's fine. I'm not going to try to change your mind about me. Lastly, I wish to point out that I didn't call out anyone by name. I wasn't pointing my finger at you (not the generic "you"). I was pointing my finger at people that engage in dishonesty and your post makes it no less morally repugnant to me than it was before your post. I'm sorry that you, as another human being were offended by what I said, but I refer you (again) to Stephen Fry and to the fact that what might be eating at you is your own conscience (as you kind of indicated). Michael edited because you don't give a fuck

DaddySatyr -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/20/2015 5:34:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear edited because you don't give a fuck While I was thinking about this entire topic, over night, I realized that you were judging me for judging others. Paradoxical, no? Michael

ExiledTyrant -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/20/2015 5:42:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I don't know that there's a question, in here, that requires an answer, per se but I will see what I can do. quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear - "In my view, ANYONE that helps a married (or otherwise committed) person to cheat on their partner is a scumbag. I don't care if they're making money doing it. That doesn't clear the books. The ACT ITSELF is a moral abomination (It's called "dishonesty" or "Subterfuge", if you like)." Michael: It is for this statement here which yes it does come across as judgmental and without having any elaboration on this stance, it is highly obvious to myself that anyone/everyone is being painted with the same brush? This is simply an observation on my part so please take it as such. From that above quote, does it also indicate that in your eyes and mind that there are no gray area and that it is strictly black and white? Reason why I ask is that is what it says to me. Especially when you label a cheater as being a scumbag which logically also would include the person they cheated with? First (and I'm not being a grammar nazi); what seems to be a question is a little confusing: "It is for this statement here which yes it does come across as judgmental and without having any elaboration on this stance, it is highly obvious to myself that anyone/everyone is being painted with the same brush?". It's "highly obvious" to you but there's a question mark. So, I am honestly not sure if you're asking a question or making a declarative statement. I will answer what I can decipher from it: There's always "a grey area" with some people. It's because (in my view) they are searching for justification or mitigation as to why they've done something wrong. There *are* certain things that I believe are moral absolutes. As I have said (Twice, on this thread, I think) already; if Person A (married) tries to take up a relationship with Person B and tells Person B that they are married, Person B is just as culpable as Person A, in my mind. They are actively engaging in dishonest behavior. We can always find excuses for what we do wrong, it's how we justify bad behavior so that we can try to ease our conscience. It's a human thing. There's people that try to make excuses for murderers and all sorts of morally bankrupt people (they're usually called lawyers). So, there's honesty and dishonesty and in that instance, there is no grey area, for me. I do see it as "black and white". quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear An if that is the case then it would also mean that there is no consideration of the circumstances because people cheat for a variety of reasons and not always is it because their spouse/partner supposed fault. There is no consideration of circumstances. Once again; there's "honest" and "dishonest". Some people don't value honesty as much as I do. That is correct and that is their choice but, it is not their choice as to how highly I value honesty. Stalemate. quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear And essence, one is acting as judge, jury and executioner in a metaphorical sense. I reserve the right to judge others for my own benefit as every human being does (although we all have different standards that we use as our "measuring stick"). As far as "executioner" (metaphorical or not) the only "execution" I do is to whether or not that person is one that I deem to be of value in my personal interactions. It's the only thing I can control. I didn't say "there should be a law" or that they aren't free to fuck over as many people as they like. They won't be given the opportunity to fuck me over. quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear Yes, I find that comment offensive in the fact that you apparently placed yourself in a position to judge and condemn. I refer you to what Stephen Fry says about being offended. That said; condemn them to what? Not being able to be my friend? Who gives a fuck? Not being able to have the opportunity to prey on me with their lies and obfuscation? Tough shit. That's my choice to make. quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear You are not a perfect person and I certain not either and frankly I have never claimed to be a saint or an angel either. At least I know I am honest to myself and to others about my past, about all the stupid fuckups I got myself into and I do this on the idiot hoppe that people will gain a little more understanding on human nature. Understand also that I am quite able to lay enough self guilt without you or anyone else who decides to make a blanket judgement on the morals or lack of morals of another. I defy you to show where I ever claimed to be perfect (Nice straw man attempt, there). We are all imperfect beings. I have never disputed that. We are also all beings who are social or societal creatures and as such, we make judgments and choices, every day. If you don't like how others view you, you have two choices: You can examine your behavior and decide if people are being too scrupulous in their assessment of you. if that is the case, I have always found, when I find myself in such an instance, what others think about me doesn't really matter much. You can examine your behavior and realize that maybe there's a reason why you're able to "lay enough guilt on yourself". On some level, you find your behavior to be wrong and what is bothering you is that thing called a conscience. Now, I've answered what I think were the questions in there and I'll add this: In this post, you judged me. I don't begrudge you that. It's what we do as human beings. You find me lacking in the area of compassion. Fair dues. I don't care that that is your opinion. It's fine. I'm not going to try to change your mind about me. Lastly, I wish to point out that I didn't call out anyone by name. I wasn't pointing my finger at you (not the generic "you"). I was pointing my finger at people that engage in dishonesty and your post makes it no less morally repugnant to me than it was before your post. I'm sorry that you, as another human being were offended by what I said, but I refer you (again) to Stephen Fry and to the fact that what might be eating at you is your own conscience (as you kind of indicated). Michael I can see how you think punishing the world for all the bad stuff that has happened to you in your past may appear to be working for you, but it's not. This pain and anger you bleed all over the boards may be the very reason you keep encountering all these "Crimes against your morality". Anyone can woo someone into a relationship, takes just a bit of charm and best foot forward, but once your inflexible and self-righteous indignation becomes the forefront, they will drop you like a hot potato, and the fault is yours. You're carrying all this "offense and abuse" around with you, coddling it and cosseting it like it is your "precious" and have became defined by your misery. Again, that is your choice, but you appear to be ever vigilant for failure rather than success. You're ostrich like proclivities speaks volumes to this; "That which I cannot control shall be ignored entirely". I'm defined by happiness, it is how I choose to be, and it does tend to piss people off that are defined by their misery, but that is not my problem, it is theirs. I. Keep. My. Eyes. Fixed. On. The. Sun. I can do this because people know where they stand with me and I alone am responsible for what behavior I allow in my life, they are not. I do not hand over the book of "All things Tyrant" upon meeting them, it is a courtship, always, always, always, regardless of the level of involvement they have with me. Bear is a very dear friend to me and our relationship is based on a mutual loving friendship that, I hope, will endure until one of us is no longer breathing. As morally bankrupt as he may appear to you, it effects our relationship not one bit, because our friendship is not contingent on how he handles his intimate relationships. If I were to judge his value to me as a friend based on how he has conducted himself, handled his integrity, in his past or present relationships, I would short myself a very good friend. I control what I have power over and allow the rest to slide. That is how and why I am defined by my happiness. Jus sayin

MariaB -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/20/2015 6:10:45 AM)
I think we are all getting a little too involved here. If Michael finds pro Domming with married men so abhorrent then people like myself have to accept that. If Michael decides he doesn't want to interact with me on any other topic from now on, I have to understand and accept how he feels. Just because my views are different to Michaels doesn't mean I can talk him round to thinking like me...that goes back to my own expectations. Nothing wrong with putting in our ten cents worth and laying open our view on things so long as we can and should accept that we likely won't change the other persons view and why should we?. Remember that thread on Fin Dommes that went on to about 50 pages? That was Fin Dommes trying to reason with people who didn't agree with Fin Dommes...it couldn't rest because people were desperate to change there opponents opinion and were prepared to spend considerable lengths of time on that thread trying to do that. That thread resulted in insults, put downs and numerous apologies (one from me) but I don't think anyone walked away from that thread with a different opinion than the one they started with. Michael and myself get along because we both accept that we think very differently about certain things.

DaddySatyr -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/20/2015 6:17:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB I think we are all getting a little too involved here. If Michael finds pro Domming with married men so abhorrent then people like myself have to accept that. If Michael decides he doesn't want to interact with me on any other topic from now on, I have to understand and accept how he feels. Just because my views are different to Michaels doesn't mean I can talk him round to thinking like me...that goes back to my own expectations. Nothing wrong with putting in our ten cents worth and laying open our view on things so long as we can and should accept that we likely won't change the other persons view and why should we?. Remember that thread on Fin Dommes that went on to about 50 pages? That was Fin Dommes trying to reason with people who didn't agree with Fin Dommes...it couldn't rest because people were desperate to change there opponents opinion and were prepared to spend considerable lengths of time on that thread trying to do that. That thread resulted in insults, put downs and numerous apologies (one from me) but I don't think anyone walked away from that thread with a different opinion than the one they started with. Michael and myself get along because we both accept that we think very differently about certain things. ... and I don't think either one of us has ever said anything the with intent of hurting the other? I know I don't feel like you have. I won't give details (that wouldn't be cool), but I vaguely remember an exchange where I think we were both tip-toeing and choosing words, carefully. That's one of the things about you that I find so cool. I just want to clarify: I have no issue with pro-dommes. I have no issue with pro-dommes who work for married men. I have a problem when the married man's partner is not privy to the fact. It's the dishonesty/betrayal with which I have a problem. That's the issue for me. Michael

SinFix -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/20/2015 6:43:17 AM)
DS.. I have the utmost respect for your stance on honesty/dishonesty, given the way you had written your post, there was what appeared to be a line/view that was not what was actually being said. I asked a question of how you viewed personal responsibility on the interaction between two people, just so I could get a better gauge of what you were saying. You informed me of your meaning behind the posts and I got a clear view of what you were saying, though you did take a pot shot at me, I went past that and could then empathize with your stance and see what you were saying. I tend to think that a lot of posters tend to get vehement on their views and want to argue that view till the end of time. For myself, I tend to be fluid and try my best to see not just my view but how or why someone else sees their view of the same situation. I myself hope you continue to interact on the forums as I think you bring a perfect foil to the boards that they need at times, as I have stated before.

NookieNotes -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/20/2015 6:43:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB I don't think anyone walked away from that thread with a different opinion than the one they started with. I was talking about this with another member of the forums the other day. I told him it's useless to try to change the minds of your opponents. I don't even bother. I do look at the logic, try to see how other people arrive at conclusions differently, and, what's most important to me, I provide one side of the story to those who are perusing the forums who have not made up their minds, or have questions. That's why I do what I do: the love of discussion, and to provide more than a 2-dimensional view/opinion of various kinks. Oh, and because all that naturally grows my own thought patterns and reason. smiles

DaddySatyr -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/20/2015 6:47:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SinFix DS.. I have the utmost respect for your stance on honesty/dishonesty, given the way you had written your post, there was what appeared to be a line/view that was not what was actually being said. I asked a question of how you viewed personal responsibility on the interaction between two people, just so I could get a better gauge of what you were saying. You informed me of your meaning behind the posts and I got a clear view of what you were saying, though you did take a pot shot at me, I went past that and could then empathize with your stance and see what you were saying. I tend to think that a lot of posters tend to get vehement on their views and want to argue that view till the end of time. For myself, I tend to be fluid and try my best to see not just my view but how or why someone else sees their view of the same situation. I myself hope you continue to interact on the forums as I think you bring a perfect foil to the boards that they need at times, as I have stated before. Thank you for that. As far as the "pot shot": the only one of which I am aware (or that was delivered with any intent) was a repeat of one you initially launched at me ("if you read or understand ..."). If there was something else, feel free to message me and if I agree that it was out of line, I will do the right thing and make a public apology (private apologies for public offenses are the coward's way). Michael

UnholyBear -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/20/2015 6:55:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear edited because you don't give a fuck While I was thinking about this entire topic, over night, I realized that you were judging me for judging others. Paradoxical, no? Michael Save it for someone else who cares.

DaddySatyr -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/20/2015 7:02:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear Save it for someone else who cares. I might lose .005 seconds of sleep because someone disagrees with me on the interwebz. No, I won't. Michael

Moderator3 -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/20/2015 7:09:26 AM)
FR If you all plan to continue this, please tone down the judgement comments as it seems some are getting upset and I am not a mediator between members. If you take part in a conversation/debate such as this and then come to me with a fine line you can dredge up from guidelines or TOS, I am going to say: So you continued until someone crossed a fine line? You are on your own if you continue and there will not be a fine line as far as I am concerned. Blatant will get my attention, but this back and forth, you are consenting to by continuing to post.

MariaB -> RE: The Anti-Anything Crowd (2/20/2015 7:25:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr ... and I don't think either one of us has ever said anything the with intent of hurting the other? I know I don't feel like you have. We all have triggers and I know I've unintentionally pushed yours a few times but I'm pretty certain you've never pushed mine. quote: I won't give details (that wouldn't be cool), but I vaguely remember an exchange where I think we were both tip-toeing and choosing words, carefully. Michael Well shit Michael, we go back a long way on these boards and I'm sure we both have burn marks on our fingers from those sometimes very hot keyboards! quote: Nookie That's why I do what I do: the love of discussion, and to provide more than a 2-dimensional view/opinion of various kinks. And you do it so well. There are very few people that have kept me on these boards and your one of them :)

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.835938E-02