|
NefertariReborn -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/14/2007 1:29:18 AM)
|
And that My dear MR was a veiled ad hominem attack at the end if I ever saw one. Don't the supersilious make you want to well vomit. I had a philosophy prof (PHL 700) he once worked for NASA, he warned us about being in the 2% minority and using it as 2 x 4. *Gives MR some slippery slope, some red herring, some bandwagon and a little straw man for extra flavour* Slap him with one or two of them the next time he comes off as abovus the restofus or is it restovi. Doesn't matter if it doesn't apply it will keep him occupied and he'll come down with jackassidus shutupi.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lewcifer
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
Usually when people say "Nice try though!", its a clear sign that they think I am out to discredit what they are saying. I was simply clarifying that I wasnt.
Generally, when someone disagrees and responds, they do so to enforce their own point of view and discredit the other's. There's nothing wrong with that, per-se... unless the response contains ad-hominem attacks (which they did not).
I can have the equivalent of a wedding right now. I can spend all the money, invite all my friends and family, and go threw all the steps. But without that legal document at the end, the wedding and the marriage created by it is not any different than whats created by a collaring ceremony. The marriage presented here doesnt create anymore binding legal obligations then the collaring.
Y/you can have the equivalent of a wedding... but not a marriage. In the above statement, Y/you seem to use the terms interchangeably ("wedding... marriage"). Perhaps you're not aware of the commonly accepted definition of marriage:
marriage - the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
The fact that you can stage a wedding ceremony is immaterial. You cannot stage a marriage without entering into a contractual relationship recognized by law, and thus are afforded certain legal protections per-se.
I can have a collaring ceremony, I can "collar" my slave, I can create a collar that has as much binding legality as the wedding ring does because at the end, I have the documents needed to do it. Whether the state calls it a "marriage" or I call it "being collared" makes little difference. A can of Coke is still a can of Coke.
Exactly... a can of Coke is still a can of Coke. Y/you, however, choose to call it something else for some reason. If Y/your collaring results in the issuing of a marriage certificate by the state, it is a marriage regardless of how you've chosen to describe it. The symbol used (ring, collar, petrified feces) is immaterial and not germane to the discussion. It is still a marriage, just as "a can of Coke is still a can of Coke." I guarantee Y/you the state-issued marriage certificate will not say "collaring certificate."
It personally doesnt matter what the norm chooses to call it and how they choose to conduct the ceremony.
Perhaps Y/you're right - and the reason W/we're arguing is because normative values or commonly accepted definitions really aren't important to Y/you. It is nearly impossible to communicate with someone whose definition (and thus interpretation) of commonly accepted words conforms to no standard except their own, much less so when they don't even care what words really mean.
|
|
|
|
