Living vs. role play

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

Living vs. role play

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

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Gorean Lifestyles >> Living vs. role play

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Living vs. role play - 3/16/2016 8:25:07 AM

Posts: 985
Joined: 4/11/2012
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

I have seen many people say that they "live" being Gorean, rather than role play it. I have never quite understood what the meant, or how they were different.

How can you "live" being part of a fictional culture on a fictional planet? Doesn't that just mean you role play it 24/7?

Do SCA knights also "live" being medieval knights, rather than role play it?

_____________________________

pronounced "VROOick"

RE: Living vs. role play - 3/16/2016 9:08:44 AM

Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline

I don't 'live' Gorean. I 'am' Gorean.

Stating it like that means no more or less than that I tend to follow a Gorean style (as described in the books) code of ethics and morals. The statement is meant for those who understand what it means to hold such a code of ethics and morals in contrast to the more common -in the West- Western morality most other people I deal with hold. It's a description of how I tend to look at the world, so that those who know what the description means, can start off by making a set of assumptions about how I feel, think and react to certain things, with a fairly high degree of accuracy.

I could hang out with certain (old) members of this board, and they could make fairly accurate guesses about what my position on certain topics would be, and how I would ethically handle certain situations, by the fact that I stated that I was Gorean, without us having to go into a great deal of detail discussing all those potential scenarios. Likewise I could do the same about them.

Stating that I'm Gorean means that, when deciding right from wrong, I take a very different path than most people I encounter take, to reach my conclusions on what's right and what's wrong. It's a statement that contrasts me against Western, and other, moralities.
I don't really care about 'being' Gorean. Claiming that I am is nothing more than a tool to ease communications with certain types of people. A shorthand, if you will.

I don't roleplay, because I have no interest in pretending that I actually AM Gorean in any meaningful way. And yes, I just first said that I am Gorean, and then said that I am not Gorean. Which makes perfect sense when you consider that claiming that I am Gorean is nothing but a shorthand to describe the way I think, but that I'm not Gorean, in the sense that I don't care about pretending like I'm from Gor. I don't copy customs out of the books, it's not about what Goreans, ate, did, wore, used, or about Gorean social customs for me.
What I do is think-as-Norman-described-Goreans-to-think-in-contrast-to-how-Western-people-think-about-things.

I'd be happy to give up the descriptor, if there was a different one around, but as long as there's not, Gorean is the easiest and the most convenient one.

And I wouldn't consider SCA knights to be the same thing, unless they actually held to a medieval knight's code, ethics, and way of thinking. And even if they claimed they did, I would be hesitant about actually believing them, until I've talked with them about the topic in more depth, considering that most of what modern Westerners think they know about medieval knight's codes is highly romanticized and for the most part completely made up. Not that them holding to a made up code of ethics would invalidate that code. It's just a matter that if the code they hold to is romanticized and made up, they're not really communicating to me exactly what that code is by saying they're a knight.

The reason I don't consider SCA knights to be the same thing as claiming to be Gorean, is because the statement "I am a SCA knight" doesn't really tell me anything about that person, other than what they do. It doesn't tell me how they think, or why they think that way, or what their ethics and morals are.
In the case where a SCA knight claims to 'live' as a medieval knight, the statement becomes a little more meaningful, because now the person is at least implying that I can infer certain things about them (other than stuff they do). Whether those inferences I'm going to make when somebody claims to 'be' an actual knight are correct all depend on whether they and I are on the same page of what it means to 'be' a knight.

Which is a problem you have with claiming to be Gorean as well, considering that for some people 'being' Gorean means 'thinking as a Gorean' and for some people it means 'acting like a Gorean'. However, regardless of that problem, it's still a useful tool, because once we mutually make the distinction about which one the other one means, inferences can still easily and safely be made.

< Message edited by UllrsIshtar -- 3/16/2016 9:21:17 AM >

_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to Bhruic)

RE: Living vs. role play - 3/16/2016 10:16:50 AM

Posts: 9362
Joined: 11/4/2015
Status: offline

Interesting point.

It can easily be expanded to slave, religion, trekie, perfect husband and so on.

If your personal choice is to define a slave, religion, trekie, liar, perfect partner, GOR, knights templer as a form/interpretation of RPG and a delusional/remote state of existence then that is what it is. What you cannot really do is pick and choose. But that is what often happens.

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)

RE: Living vs. role play - 3/16/2016 10:44:40 AM

Posts: 985
Joined: 4/11/2012
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

Interesting response... Makes me wonder though... how do you "think" Gorean, without "acting" Gorean. Do you behave in a way that is inconsistent with your thinking?

I can think of examples of when people might do this... for example, someone may think like a racist, but know not to openly act like one. But in the end, they are probably not going to be able to refrain from acting in accordance with their thinking.

quote:

The reason I don't consider SCA knights to be the same thing as claiming to be Gorean, is because the statement "I am a SCA knight" doesn't really tell me anything about that person, other than what they do. It doesn't tell me how they think, or why they think that way, or what their ethics and morals are.

I find the above sort of interesting as well. Many a thread here has asked what it means to be Gorean, and a definitive answer has seemed not forthcoming. Even your own answer talks much about being Gorean, or thinking Gorean, without actually detailing what that means at all... not to start that discussion again.

Personally... the fact that SCA - no matter how romanticized - is based in actual reality, or at least actual history... "I am an SCA knight" would probably tell me more by default than "I am Gorean" would.

< Message edited by Bhruic -- 3/16/2016 11:00:57 AM >

_____________________________

pronounced "VROOick"

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)

RE: Living vs. role play - 3/16/2016 11:54:44 AM

Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

Interesting response... Makes me wonder though... how do you "think" Gorean, without "acting" Gorean. Do you behave in a way that is inconsistent with your thinking?

Nope.

I didn't clarify that I make the distinction between 'acting in accordance to your believes, even if those acts just so happen to be the same as what Goreans in the books did' and 'acting as the Goreans in the books did for the sake of pretending to be like a Gorean'.

I don't 'act' like a Gorean in the sense that I don't 'pretend' to be Gorean. I don't keep a Gorean calendar, don't celebrate Gorean holidays, I don't call my coffee 'black wine'... or at least, those things when done are done in jest, and for fun, not as a serious part of what I take it to mean when I say I'm Gorean.
At the same time, due to my believes and way of thinking, I'll end up treating slaves, or strangers, or friends, in manners very similar to which Goreans in the books treated those groups. But I don't treat them that way because I'm trying to emulate the way Goreans in the books treat those groups, I treat them that way because doing so is the natural conclusion from thinking about them in the way that Goreans in the books think about them.

So when I'm weary of strangers, I don't do so because Goreans in the books are weary of strangers, I do so because being weary of strangers is the natural way to feel about a stranger when you start of with a concentric model of morality, like the one the Goreans in the books have.
When I hold my friends to certain standards, and am willing to break the tie of friendship (or family ties) with somebody who shows that their ethics are drastically different from mine, I don't do so because that's what Goreans in the books do, but because my ethical system dictates that I cannot uphold the duties of loyalty I place on myself needed to consider somebody a friend, when that sense of duty isn't returned by them.
When I deem it my prerogative to give clear cut commands to those who I consider slaves, instead of doing the politically correct thing and making a request, I don't do so because Goreans in the books give commands to slaves, but because commanding them, instead of making requests of them, is a natural extension of how I view them.

I don't do those things because Goreans in the books do them. Nor do I do them because I consider myself Gorean.
Rather, I consider myself Gorean, because Goreans in the books and I do those things for the same reasons.

I'm not trying to emulate what Goreans do, or even trying to emulate what Goreans think.
Rather I think in a manner that's similar to how Goreans in the book think, and because of that end up behaving in similar ways.

Which is a distinction from a SCA knight who is trying to emulate what they believe (rightly or wrongly) is medieval knight-like behavior.

< Message edited by UllrsIshtar -- 3/16/2016 11:58:01 AM >

_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to Bhruic)

RE: Living vs. role play - 3/17/2016 7:10:48 AM

Posts: 985
Joined: 4/11/2012
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

Interesting response... Makes me wonder though... how do you "think" Gorean, without "acting" Gorean. Do you behave in a way that is inconsistent with your thinking?

Nope.

I didn't clarify that I make the distinction between 'acting in accordance to your believes, even if those acts just so happen to be the same as what Goreans in the books did' and 'acting as the Goreans in the books did for the sake of pretending to be like a Gorean'.

I don't 'act' like a Gorean in the sense that I don't 'pretend' to be Gorean. I don't keep a Gorean calendar, don't celebrate Gorean holidays, I don't call my coffee 'black wine'... or at least, those things when done are done in jest, and for fun, not as a serious part of what I take it to mean when I say I'm Gorean.
At the same time, due to my believes and way of thinking, I'll end up treating slaves, or strangers, or friends, in manners very similar to which Goreans in the books treated those groups. But I don't treat them that way because I'm trying to emulate the way Goreans in the books treat those groups, I treat them that way because doing so is the natural conclusion from thinking about them in the way that Goreans in the books think about them.

So when I'm weary of strangers, I don't do so because Goreans in the books are weary of strangers, I do so because being weary of strangers is the natural way to feel about a stranger when you start of with a concentric model of morality, like the one the Goreans in the books have.
When I hold my friends to certain standards, and am willing to break the tie of friendship (or family ties) with somebody who shows that their ethics are drastically different from mine, I don't do so because that's what Goreans in the books do, but because my ethical system dictates that I cannot uphold the duties of loyalty I place on myself needed to consider somebody a friend, when that sense of duty isn't returned by them.
When I deem it my prerogative to give clear cut commands to those who I consider slaves, instead of doing the politically correct thing and making a request, I don't do so because Goreans in the books give commands to slaves, but because commanding them, instead of making requests of them, is a natural extension of how I view them.

I don't do those things because Goreans in the books do them. Nor do I do them because I consider myself Gorean.
Rather, I consider myself Gorean, because Goreans in the books and I do those things for the same reasons.

I'm not trying to emulate what Goreans do, or even trying to emulate what Goreans think.
Rather I think in a manner that's similar to how Goreans in the book think, and because of that end up behaving in similar ways.

Which is a distinction from a SCA knight who is trying to emulate what they believe (rightly or wrongly) is medieval knight-like behavior.

I understand what you are saying... The Gorean ideals (whatever they may be) just happen to be aligned with your ideals. Your ideals were not inspired by the books. But, presumably, it is what draws you to participate in a Gorean community.

It seems to me that an SCA knight might just as easily find that the ideals of chivalry just happen to align with his ideals, and that is what draws him to participate in the SCA.

Or someone might find that the ideals of the leather community align with theirs, and so they are drawn to the leather community.

I see no difference between any of these.

The interesting detail is... what exactly ARE the Gorean ideals? Or the ideals of chivalry, or leather?

My perception is that they are fairly common ideals around the virtues of strength, honour, loyalty etc.. They are HUMAN ideals, and not unique to Gor, Chivalry or Leather. It is the trappings of these titles that draws people to participate in them. They could just as easily follow those virtues without the trappings of Gor, etc..

So while I accept that you just happen to hold ideals that are also expressed in the Gor books, and the Gor books do not inform your ideals... nevertheless, here you are... and I wonder why?

_____________________________

pronounced "VROOick"

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)

RE: Living vs. role play - 3/17/2016 10:04:22 AM

Posts: 2
Joined: 3/17/2016
Status: offline

Dammit, posted from a test account for this thread: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4890886.

< Message edited by subhere44you -- 3/17/2016 10:06:26 AM >

(in reply to Bhruic)

RE: Living vs. role play - 3/17/2016 10:08:00 AM

Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

I understand what you are saying... The Gorean ideals (whatever they may be) just happen to be aligned with your ideals. Your ideals were not inspired by the books. But, presumably, it is what draws you to participate in a Gorean community.

It seems to me that an SCA knight might just as easily find that the ideals of chivalry just happen to align with his ideals, and that is what draws him to participate in the SCA.

Or someone might find that the ideals of the leather community align with theirs, and so they are drawn to the leather community.

I see no difference between any of these.

The interesting detail is... what exactly ARE the Gorean ideals? Or the ideals of chivalry, or leather?

My perception is that they are fairly common ideals around the virtues of strength, honour, loyalty etc.. They are HUMAN ideals, and not unique to Gor, Chivalry or Leather. It is the trappings of these titles that draws people to participate in them. They could just as easily follow those virtues without the trappings of Gor, etc..

So while I accept that you just happen to hold ideals that are also expressed in the Gor books, and the Gor books do not inform your ideals... nevertheless, here you are... and I wonder why?

I'm not drawn do Gorean ideals at all... stuff like honor, loyalty, strength, has nothing to do with by I identify as Gorean.
I'm Gorean because I follow a Gorean morality.

I'm not going to get into a great deal of detail about it, because the topic has been written about to death already, and I don't feel like writing a novel on it, but in short to hit one of the main points:

My, and Gorean morality, is based on concentric model of ethics that state that ethics are both fluid and rigid at the same time. Fluid, because they change depending on in what circle the people you're considering are, and rigid in the sense that they stay consistent within the context of each separate circles.
This is in contrast to almost all other moralities, which usually state that if it's unethical to do something with person A, it's also unethical to do so with person B. Because the thing itself is unethical, and is therefore not context dependent.

_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to subhere44you)

RE: Living vs. role play - 3/18/2016 7:48:08 AM

Posts: 985
Joined: 4/11/2012
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

My, and Gorean morality, is based on concentric model of ethics that state that ethics are both fluid and rigid at the same time. Fluid, because they change depending on in what circle the people you're considering are, and rigid in the sense that they stay consistent within the context of each separate circles.
This is in contrast to almost all other moralities, which usually state that if it's unethical to do something with person A, it's also unethical to do so with person B. Because the thing itself is unethical, and is therefore not context dependent.

I think your theory of morality is far less unique than you imagine. Pretty much every subset of society has ethical exceptions from the norm that are context dependent.

Hey... if I am in a boxing club, turns out it is perfectly acceptable to punch someone in the face. If I am at a BDSM club, it may be perfectly acceptable for me to hit someone with a cane. If I am talking to a buddy, it may perfectly acceptable to say "Oh, go fuck yourself", etc. etc. etc.

I don't find this "concentric model of ethics" to be uniquely Gorean, or even unique at all. Thus, for me anyway, it is valueless in defining Gorean thought as unique from any other thought.

And my point here is this... If Gorean thought is effectively no different from any other kind of human thought (and when you think of it, how could it be?)... then to make a connection to the fictional world of Gor in one's life is to connect with the specific fantasy of the world described in the books... which, in every way, is a form of role play.

< Message edited by Bhruic -- 3/18/2016 7:53:29 AM >

_____________________________

pronounced "VROOick"

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)

RE: Living vs. role play - 3/18/2016 9:53:45 AM

Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

I think your theory of morality is far less unique than you imagine. Pretty much every subset of society has ethical exceptions from the norm that are context dependent.

I never claimed the idea was uniquely Gorean.
Please don't put words in my mouth if you wish to continue this discussion.

What I said was that it contrasts with almost all other moralities, because while you're correct, and other moralities allow for some subsets of shifting ethics on minor things, they don't have their entire system built on shifting ethics.

For the most part, while on minor issues there may be exceptions, the big stuff, like lying, theft, infidelity, murder, etc, is handled in an absolute black/white way. (Even when people like you, sometimes justify breaking the absolutes by claiming that it's understandable, but still morally wrong, to deviate from it in some circumstances).
Gorean morality starts off from a point where there is no single moral/ethical code which applies across the board, in all contexts and situations.

There's also the distinction to be made that, even if there are other major moral systems whose starting premise is that only concentric ethics exist, they wouldn't necessarily apply the same concentric ethics that Goreans and I do.

Claiming to be Gorean does more than merely convey that I follow a model of concentric ethics, it conveys to other Goreans what those concentric ethics will likely be.

When I visited the house of a Gorean I'd never met, last summer, because I was friends with his slave, and was visiting her, he could accurately predict how I'd react when a situation with his slave arose, despite the fact that him and I hadn't personally spoken, except a sporadic coordinating mail, and some brief posts back and forward on the forums.

Had I not claimed to be Gorean, and just claimed that I adhered to some other, different morality that has as it's base premise concentric morals (not that I can think of one of the top of my head), he wouldn't have been able to do that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

And my point here is this... If Gorean thought is effectively no different from any other kind of human thought (and when you think of it, how could it be?)... then to make a connection to the fictional world of Gor in one's life is to connect with the specific fantasy of the world described in the books... which, in every way, is a form of role play.

Yes, it's been very clear for a long time (before this thread) that your main point is that Goreans role play, and that your entire argument is based around an attempt to prove that point.

So far you've yet to prove it to me. I disagree. Plain and simple.

I don't role play any way, because I'm not trying to emulate anything.

You think otherwise. *shrugs* I don't really care.

_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to Bhruic)

RE: Living vs. role play - 3/18/2016 11:34:30 AM

Posts: 985
Joined: 4/11/2012
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

I think your theory of morality is far less unique than you imagine. Pretty much every subset of society has ethical exceptions from the norm that are context dependent.

I never claimed the idea was uniquely Gorean.
Please don't put words in my mouth if you wish to continue this discussion.

If you re read your quote of mine above, you will see that I do not claim that you say your idea is uniquely Gorean. I don't even say the word Gorean, and I acknowledge that it is your idea. I am simply pointing out that your idea, in my opinion, is not unique or applicable. I did not put words in your mouth.

quote:

For the most part, while on minor issues there may be exceptions, the big stuff, like lying, theft, infidelity, murder, etc, is handled in an absolute black/white way. (Even when people like you, sometimes justify breaking the absolutes by claiming that it's understandable, but still morally wrong, to deviate from it in some circumstances).

Here we will simply have to disagree.

_____________________________

pronounced "VROOick"

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)

RE: Living vs. role play - 3/18/2016 12:09:31 PM

Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

For the most part, while on minor issues there may be exceptions, the big stuff, like lying, theft, infidelity, murder, etc, is handled in an absolute black/white way. (Even when people like you, sometimes justify breaking the absolutes by claiming that it's understandable, but still morally wrong, to deviate from it in some circumstances).

Here we will simply have to disagree.

Are you talking about how people act, or what they (claim) they believe?

Cause if you're talking about how they act, sure, most of them act completely in line with a concentric circle model (which is why my morals are based on that system). However, when you talk to them, and ask them what they believe, they'll state their moral code in black and white terms (stealing is morally wrong).

When you then present them with a situation where they would steal, they admit that they would, but yet somehow, still attempt to hold on to the absolute that 'stealing is morally wrong'. They do this, by making allowances and saying stuff like "Even though stealing is morally wrong, there are situations in which it's excusable/justifiable to do something that's morally wrong".

I have no interests in having my actions be out of line with my moral code. If I consider something morally wrong, I don't do it, and there is no situation or context in which doing something which is morally wrong is somehow excusable anyways.

A moral code should be a guideline for what to do. If your moral code tells you that doing the right thing is morally wrong (but excusable) the code is useless.

Which is why I consider most Western systems of morals and ethics useless: they tell you that morals are absolute, while almost everybody who claims to follow those systems acts as if they're contextual, and then makes excuses as to why their actions don't line up with their claimed morals.

_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to Bhruic)

RE: Living vs. role play - 3/19/2016 7:24:53 AM

Posts: 985
Joined: 4/11/2012
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

When you then present them with a situation where they would steal, they admit that they would, but yet somehow, still attempt to hold on to the absolute that 'stealing is morally wrong'. They do this, by making allowances and saying stuff like "Even though stealing is morally wrong, there are situations in which it's excusable/justifiable to do something that's morally wrong".

I remember the thread... And I guess your position was that stealing is sometimes morally wrong, and sometimes morally right?

And my position was that that was a dangerous convenience that allows people to justify any behavior.

But I think that is beginning to veer off topic... My OP was asking, essentially, how some people can admonish others' interest in Gor as role play, when any Gorean ideation is role play... or at least fantasy.

_____________________________

pronounced "VROOick"

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)

RE: Living vs. role play - 3/19/2016 8:50:46 AM

Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline

Actually, your position was that stealing is unambiguously morally wrong, but that there are circumstances in which doing something that's unambiguously morally wrong, is morally justifiable.

In other words, your positions was: "I believe in black and white morality, but I practice a concentric circle morality and then feel guilty about it."

Which is exactly what most people in the West do, and exactly why I contrast my moral system against most Western moralities.

_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to Bhruic)

RE: Living vs. role play - 3/19/2016 12:37:20 PM

Posts: 985
Joined: 4/11/2012
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

Actually, your position was that stealing is unambiguously morally wrong, but that there are circumstances in which doing something that's unambiguously morally wrong, is morally justifiable.

Haha... My own words are better and clearer than the ones you put in my mouth. Is this the concentric circles in operation? Where you engage in an activity that outrages you from others?

...but you are essentially correct. If I was ever in a position of having to steal food to feed my child, I would feel justified in doing so, but I WOULD feel guilty about transgressing against some other innocent party.

You seem to view that as a character flaw, where I view it as a strength.

Thus I reiterate that we will simply have to disagree on this off topic topic.

As an aside though...

quote:

In other words, your positions was: "I believe in black and white morality, but I practice a concentric circle morality and then feel guilty about it."

I would probably phrase it this way: ""I believe in black and white morality, but life can sometimes force you to be immoral in order to survive."

And by the way... western moralities acknowledge that. That's why the western world's jurisprudence system employs jury's and judges. If morality was black and white, as you say, we could have machines officiating in courts.

< Message edited by Bhruic -- 3/19/2016 12:49:19 PM >

_____________________________

pronounced "VROOick"

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)

RE: Living vs. role play - 3/19/2016 1:58:30 PM

Posts: 4
Joined: 3/16/2016
Status: offline

.

< Message edited by subhere4you -- 3/19/2016 2:15:53 PM >

(in reply to Bhruic)

RE: Living vs. role play - 3/19/2016 2:18:11 PM

Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline

Your on topic topic isn't a topic at all. It's the crusade you've been on for the last few years, which comes down to: y'all are all wrong.

On top of that, there isn't another person left on this forum besides me, who will continue to engage you on that 'topic' (not that there are that many left period, they're hanging out elsewhere now), so a request to end thread drift at this point means that the thread will effectively be death.

Why is it that you care so much anyways about attempting to convince all Goreans that they're wrong, and only role playing? What's your concern with the whole issue? It's been years, and you haven't convinced anybody yet, so the fact that you stubbornly keep trying must mean that you've got some sort of personal investment into the whole thing. Why is that?

_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to subhere4you)

RE: Living vs. role play - 3/20/2016 6:51:51 AM

Posts: 985
Joined: 4/11/2012
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

Your on topic topic isn't a topic at all. It's the crusade you've been on for the last few years, which comes down to: y'all are all wrong.

On top of that, there isn't another person left on this forum besides me, who will continue to engage you on that 'topic' (not that there are that many left period, they're hanging out elsewhere now), so a request to end thread drift at this point means that the thread will effectively be death.

Why is it that you care so much anyways about attempting to convince all Goreans that they're wrong, and only role playing? What's your concern with the whole issue? It's been years, and you haven't convinced anybody yet, so the fact that you stubbornly keep trying must mean that you've got some sort of personal investment into the whole thing. Why is that?

Simple curiosity... and a fascination with the mentality. My OP was inspired by a recent post by someone else in another thread that was summarily dismissed with the old "We live Gorean, you just role play" line. I guess I'm intrigued by the empty tenacity of Gorean "One twue wayism".

Your ad hominem argument was wholly anticipated though :)

_____________________________

pronounced "VROOick"

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)

RE: Living vs. role play - 3/20/2016 8:28:28 AM

Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

Your ad hominem argument was wholly anticipated though :)

I'm sorry (but also death serious), which ad hominem do you mean?

I reread all my posts again, and I can't find a single instance of me personally attacking you, if I did it was certainly not my intent, so I genuinely don't have clue what you're talking about.

_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to Bhruic)

RE: Living vs. role play - 3/20/2016 9:48:33 AM

Posts: 985
Joined: 4/11/2012
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

Your ad hominem argument was wholly anticipated though :)

I'm sorry (but also death serious), which ad hominem do you mean?

I reread all my posts again, and I can't find a single instance of me personally attacking you, if I did it was certainly not my intent, so I genuinely don't have clue what you're talking about.

When you avoid the matter in question, and simply question the motives of the other person, THAT is an ad hominem argument.

In my experience, most people don't understand the fallacy of the ad hominem tactic (in spite of its simplicity), so your confusion comes as no surprise.

_____________________________

pronounced "VROOick"

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Gorean Lifestyles >> Living vs. role play

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2023

Terms of Service

0.125