RE: "Love Reign O'er Me"

RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (Full Version)

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

Message

Aileen68 -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 7:40:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin Washington was a real-life slave owner, owning humans kidnapped from Africa as property, to be bought, sold, bred, raped, worked to death, whatever, at whim. Does that sound like someone with a corner on the market of human psychology? bob..according to you, you owned a slave too. What was it, about ten years?

FullCircle -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 7:43:06 AM)
Why do I feel like I’m in a church hearing a sermon by someone out of touch with reality? quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin The selfless, by definition, are not selfish. People do apparently selfless acts no one is selfless quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin How do you make money if people selflessly help one another, rather than selfishly hoarding all to themselves? So now you are also a communist and believe in redistribution no matter how hard people have worked for their material wealth? quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin It is difficult to blame the selfish for being selfish. Like religion, selfishness is encouraged from birth. How so? I was always taught to be kind to others and not always think of myself. Why you think everyone is a selfish shark but you I can’t understand. quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin Selflessness need not be taught deliberately either. I recall the man who came to our home in Montreal when I was a kid. He asked my mom if she could spare him something to eat. She brought him a bowl of soup, and I know we were not well off at that time. Maybe she was fearful and just wanted rid of him or to not upset him?

KatyLied -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 7:43:19 AM)
It's gearing up to popcorn time...extra butter please.

Mercnbeth -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 7:46:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin Selfishness is concern for ones own desires without regard for anyone else. It is no different than the child running around declaring everything is "mine mine mine!" Selflessness takes into account the needs of others. Selfishness is about exploiting another person to get what you want. Selflessness is about being thoughtful and considerate towards others, and helping them get what they want. I am not in the least surprised those who advocate selfishness refuse to believe selflessness exists. I'd be more surprised if they admitted there was a virtue they lacked. Much easier on their egos to deny the existence of selflessness altogether. But selflessness doesn't disappear just to make the egos of the selfish feel better about being selfish, nor does it disappear to make it easier for the selfish to justify exploiting whomever they can lure in. Thieves believe everyone steals. Liars believe everyone lies. The selfish believe everyone is selfish. Only those who do not steal, do not lie, and are not selfish can see that others like them exist. Those who steal, who lie, who are selfish simply cannot conceive of anyone accomplishing something they have failed to accomplish. That is the role ego plays in their lives: no one can be better than the thief, the liar, the selfish. Fortunately, their egos do not change reality one whit. You speak as though you are one enlightened. Yet your words are full of hate and condemnation for those that do not agree. The most spiritual and enlightened people did and do not hate anyone, for hate is a selfish emotion in the negative - as well as a waste of precious moments. This can be learned. Peace the.dark. dark, Very interesting and insightful. It made me think of a group with the same sentiments. They are absolute in their beliefs, fundamental, cite a powerful spiritual mandate, and are intolerant of any other opinion using isolationism to create their own world. Maybe Bob's a Radical Muslim? Isolation would be the only way such an insecure nature could exist. If Bob's woman, slaves or submissives they may be, were allowed to see and consider other paths of existence the harem may never form. Would blocking be the cyber equivalent of suicide bombing? Edited to add: When someone contradicts themselves in proceeding sentences it worth editing into the last post. quote: The selfless, by definition, are not selfish. Thus they are focusing on the benefits of themselves -and- others. The inclusion, 'and', coming from a professional technical writer, indicates inclusion onto the subject. The "selfless are not selfish", but... they (the selfless subject) focus on themselves inclusion ("and") of their focus on others. At the proportion of 99.99% selfless the 0.01% remains selfish. Proving the theorem of "Phoebe's Challenge" by no other infallible source but Bob.

Alumbrado -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 7:55:50 AM)
I'm trying to keep up... who else is on KingBob's block list now besides this Dom named Washington?

FullCircle -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 7:57:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin But I am reminded that the world was not flat when the majority believed it so. And the world did not become round just because the majority changed their minds. Perception is reality. The world was flat to those before us because it was their perception. What does this have to do with anything? All it does is try to make those in the modern world look as backwards as those that thought the world was flat. Are you building an arc so that the selfless people can go aboard two by two?

domiguy -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 8:06:14 AM)
Can you actually imagine a "selfless" Dom....How would that actually work?....Wouldn't that by definition alone make you virtually a sub? No demanding blowjobs or anal or exhibitionism...No punishments...How can someone who is truly selfless punish another for the actions or lack there of? No hedonism...No wants, desires or needs. He is 100% full of dung. Bob as usual is full of shit.....I really hope he picks up one of the wacked women who proliferate this site....And carts her up North...If it doesn't work out I wonder how long before she will mysteriously die from cancer?

shyinini -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 8:13:21 AM)
Both .darcy. and Bob exhibit truths of their OWN. To agree with one or the other is to be a mindless drone. .darcy. did say "It is a sensation and an emotion we cannot fathom...." Do we not control our own emotions? If Bob is content with his thoughts, needs and relationship in respect to love....he is ALLOWED and what right do we have to shred it to peices. .darcy. have her own views on this topic and is rallied around as if Bob's are not legit. Leave it be ... Bob has what he needs and so does .darcy. Kudo's to both. Why is one view wrong and the other right? Sir's girl

FullCircle -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 8:27:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shyinini If Bob is content with his thoughts, needs and relationship in respect to love....he is ALLOWED and what right do we have to shred it to peices. Bob is content with his thoughts he just can't understand why they are not the same as other peoples. I respect people’s beliefs but he talks as if his beliefs were absolute truths and thus asks for agreement not debate.

Bobkgin -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 8:27:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shyinini Why is one view wrong and the other right? Sir's girl From the OP on I've said this is my paradigm. If others wish to follow it, learn from it, whatever, that is up to them. I view the selfless paradigm as better than the selfish paradigm. If I thought the selfish paradigm was better, I'd have picked it. But for me, the selfless paradigm is far more beneficial for all involved. A self-sustaining harmony of opposites. I think the selfish paradigm is unsustainable: it is always in need of fresh, gullible, meat. But I assert no control, nor desire for control, over what others choose. I'm not saying anything new to those I seek. They would already know all this in their hearts if not also in their minds. I'm simply telling those I seek that I know it too. Those arguing in favour of selfishness are welcome to attract as many to their way of thinking as they can. Bothers me not at all. Those who are swayed by their arguments will not include those I seek. For some, seeking a mate is about going through enough numbers of people to finally find someone who says "yes". It's like a slot machine. But for me it is a matter of finding those pieces of the puzzle that fit me. I don't seek the attention of hundreds, just the two that I seek. And for all I know, they are not here nor ever will be here. But Love is like a magnet, drawing together those who match. As I believe in Love, so I believe Love will find a way. Patience is all I need.

Alumbrado -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 8:33:04 AM)
quote: Why is one view wrong and the other right? If they are both right, why does one need to be supported with dishonest debate tricks?

Squeakers -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 8:45:20 AM)
Reading through the OP, I sort of get what he is saying, but to me is sounds like there is no balance. A relationship is GIVE and TAKE. In order for it to work, someone has to give and someone has to take. It sounds to me like he is saying both parties need to give and if one or the other party takes then they are selfish. This is what is sounded like to me. There is one piece of bread left. "Slave you take it, you are more important than me. No Master, you take it, I am selfless. Slave I love you and I can go without, you take it. No Master, you take it, I love you and I can go without." So the bread molds and they both go without. Where was the balance, split the damn slice of bread and each TAKE half. But no according the the essay, each partner should give more so to take half would be selfish so they should give ALL to the other partner. Bobkgin---where is your balance? No one can give ALL of themself, for if they did, they would parish. This is not a slam, just to make you think and sincerely I don't really need to know where your balance is.

Emperor1956 -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 9:09:26 AM)
quote: Oh and a bit of info...rival groups of chimps will fight to the death and eat the dead of their enemies. This is unusual? You have obviously been out of the company of 7th graders for a long time. E.

velvetears -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 9:22:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shyinini Both .darcy. and Bob exhibit truths of their OWN. To agree with one or the other is to be a mindless drone. .darcy. did say "It is a sensation and an emotion we cannot fathom...." Do we not control our own emotions? If Bob is content with his thoughts, needs and relationship in respect to love....he is ALLOWED and what right do we have to shred it to peices. .darcy. have her own views on this topic and is rallied around as if Bob's are not legit. Leave it be ... Bob has what he needs and so does .darcy. Kudo's to both. Why is one view wrong and the other right? Sir's girl i agree shyinini, but i suspect popularity and friendship rather then free thinking has a lot to do with it.

Bobkgin -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 9:24:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Squeakers Reading through the OP, I sort of get what he is saying, but to me is sounds like there is no balance. A relationship is GIVE and TAKE. In order for it to work, someone has to give and someone has to take. It sounds to me like he is saying both parties need to give and if one or the other party takes then they are selfish. Correct. In my paradigm, the relationship is best described as GIVE and RECEIVE, or perhaps also a GIVE-GIVE relationship. I need not take from my slave. I need only tell her what it is that would make me happy and she would give whatever I need to accomplish it. She wants to know what makes me happy because she loves me and accepted herself as my slave and I her master. Thus she GIVES and I RECEIVE. By the same token, I love her and want her to be happy, so I invite her to tell me what would make her happy in the moment, and to the best of my abilities I accomodate her wish. Thus I GIVE and she RECEIVES. Self-sustaining harmony of opposites. Neither she nor I ever stop being what we are: slave and master. quote: This is what is sounded like to me. There is one piece of bread left. "Slave you take it, you are more important than me. No Master, you take it, I am selfless. Slave I love you and I can go without, you take it. No Master, you take it, I love you and I can go without." So the bread molds and they both go without. Where was the balance, split the damn slice of bread and each TAKE half. But no according the the essay, each partner should give more so to take half would be selfish so they should give ALL to the other partner. Then you've misunderstood. I, as master, am the final arbiter. When I instruct my slave, she obeys. If she is seriously eager for me to have the last piece, she'd provide an explanation I'd find hard refuting. For example, if she's full, I would not insist on her having the last piece. If I'd gone a considerable time without food where she had not, I would not refuse the last piece. And by the same token, were the positions reveresed, I would instruct her to eat the piece and she would do so. There is no loss of selflessness in any of the above, as we are both thinking of the well-fare of the other as well as our own, balancing them to find harmony. quote: Bobkgin---where is your balance? No one can give ALL of themself, for if they did, they would parish. This is not a slam, just to make you think and sincerely I don't really need to know where your balance is. Excellent segue. I hadn't read this part before responding to the previous part. I am more willing to damage myself than damage those I love, or those for whom I feel responsible. That doesn't mean I'm willing to damage myself, only that if someone has to take damage, I'd rather it be me than anyone I love. When I was just starting out with bdsm, this was one of the largest stumbling blocks. How do you spank someone (thus causing damage) when you love that person? It wasn't until a lover asked me to spank her that I found my answer. My slave/wife asked for everything I did with her. She didn't have to spell it out and plan it for me. She could ask me to do something delightfully evil with her, and leave it to me to set something in motion. But her accepting herself as slave meant that she was to seek instruction from me whenever she wasn't already following instructions. And all instructions were based on her asking for instructions. Thus by giving her the instructions she needed, I gave to her, and through her following instructions, she gave to me. And one of the instructions I was at liberty to give was to instruct her to tell me what would make her happy. Which she would be bound by her vow of honesty to answer honestly. And I would do my best to make that happen. Because I loved making her happy.

kyraofMists -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 9:26:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: velvetears i agree shyinini, but i suspect popularity and friendship rather then free thinking has a lot to do with it. I think this is another example of you being impolite on this thread. But I guess it is okay to be passively impolite rather than directly impolite? Knight's Kyra

velvetears -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 9:29:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aileen68 Actually velvet I was bantering back and forth with FC. It wasn't in reply to anything you said at all. I have no feelings either way towards you. Perhaps you should follow your own advice and grow up and maybe get a sense of humor also. That might do you some good. edited to add...I really am curious as to why chimps are being debated. It has no bearing whatsoever on human interactions. i have one, it's just not designed in such a way as to be at other's expenses. If you really don't understand the chimp debate go back and read all the posts - you'll get why than.

velvetears -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 9:32:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kyraofMists quote: ORIGINAL: velvetears i agree shyinini, but i suspect popularity and friendship rather then free thinking has a lot to do with it. I think this is another example of you being impolite on this thread. But I guess it is okay to be passively impolite rather than directly impolite? Knight's Kyra it's my honest assessment - not intended to be rude but i do feel this is how it works here at times - not always - just when theres a target for the group. And no one was rude to bob - or me ?(look to your own masters post to me for an example) - interesting you join a thread after 200 some odd posts and this is the only thing you can add.

FullCircle -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 9:33:09 AM)
Bottom Top? Isn't the Dom supposed to lead a scene rather than being told to spank someone because they like it? Seems you are excusing your own desires and saying they were only the desires of the other person. I feel no need to excuse my desire I don’t do anything I don’t want to and I don’t try to pretend anyone will be better for the things I do. Granted they may like what I do to them but that’s not the only reason I do it. Where did all the honesty go in this world? One time not so long ago people were proud of their desires now all they seem to want to do is excuse them.

velvetears -> RE: "Love Reign O'er Me" (9/2/2007 9:42:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: i think i have been polite, do you think i haven't because i have disagreed with you? No Velvet. If I believed you to be impolite, I would say directly for example - when Bob quoted - quote: Chimps (being apes) have more brains than monkeys. You responded - quote: And probably more then some people here on CM [:D] Said in jest, and with a smile - but still impolite - and no different to those you had previously condemed for being unkind or cliquey. I do not see myself any better than anyone else, sometimes I know my posts seem to others condecending, but then, one does not know my voice, cannot hear inflection, nor see gestures - no biggie. I see that you are my equal. I see Aileen as my equal. Therefore - by process of elimination - we are all no better than each other. We all banter and press buttons. We all are in cliques, like it or not. That clique to you, are your friends or the ones we agree with. The ones that agree with us. And that pressing buttons, makes us selfish. And in our selfishness, we live and strive and be. Not every word someone writes has a hidden agenda I simply wrote straight from my head, that I my hope is to have a polite discussion. But I digress. Your little story is one of selfishness. Forethough or none at all - the act was selfish - plain and simple. Honourable, admirable - and selfish. And yes, I agree - wishing to attain perfection or wanting to be selfless is no bad thing. But when one sees oneself as selfless or perfect, that in itself is already flawed by ones own ego. Peace the.dark. i asked if i was impolite to you, quite frankly who i am inpolite to can only be an oopinion because you don't know my intonation, my motive etc to make that determination... and i did not ask for your input - why point out one instance of impoliteness when there are dozens - hmmmmmmm... where is the agenda in that i wonder? my comment was made in jest - that is MY humor, sorry you don't like it, sorry you took it the wrong way but i am not responsible how you interpret what you read. i agree with you in that everyone is equal - no one better or worse. Never implied i felt differently so not sure why you posted that to me specifically, maybe just expounding on thoughts, which is fine. We simply don't agree on selflessness - i agree it does exist, you don't... no biggie. No one can be 100% of the time selfless, and i don't think i ever tried to imply that.

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875