|
BitaTruble -> RE: Defend the Right! Attack the Wrong! (9/23/2007 5:15:38 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
Well, when it comes to the issue of "Freedom of Choice", I am all for it. You can choose to live your life anyway you please and I will gladly fight for your right to make those choices even if they are harmful.
"Hey Mad. I respect your choice to do XYZ. Did you know that by doing XYZ, you can put yourself into danger? Just wanted you to be aware of it, buddy. Whatever you decide, it's on you."
"Hey Mad. I respect your choice to do XYZ but you're stupid and and idiotic for making that wrong choice."
In the first case, it allows a dialogue to take place. "Well, why do you think it's dangerous? Why do you think I'd be harmed? Have you ever done XYZ? Here is what I do to minimize my risk so you don't have to worry about me. I've considered the options and have decided that the benefits of the activity outweigh the risks, so I'm taking the risk, but thanks for your concern."
In the second case.. "Hasta la vista, asshole. I don't need to listen to this shit."
quote:
But it certainly doesnt mean that I have to like it or approve it or clap my hands or support you in anyway past allowing you to make the choice.
Just a quickie here.. unless you own someone yourself, it's not your perogative to allow anyone else from doing anything.
quote:
I'll listen to what you have to say. I will give you a fair amount of time to explain your case. I will approach the issue with an open mind. I will allow you to change my mind and show me why such action is not harmful or wrong.
If you really mean that, I think that's a good thing, but, I don't know that it's necessary for someone else to take the time to try to ease your mind about what they do. Perhaps if it's a very close friend or family member whom you have a bond, but not a stranger off the street and certainly not pixels on a screen because it's quite unlikely you're going to have all of the facts which pertain to their personal situation.
quote:
You want to do stupid, harmful, and bad things, go right ahead. I will support your right to choose to be subjected to stupid, harmful and bad things or to find someone who is willing to be subjected to the stupid, harmful, and bad things that you want to do.
I read about the gasoline and being set on fire, so can I assume that you think it's stupid, harmful and bad because you don't think such can be done safely? What about all those Hollywood stuntmen in the movies? They are, generally, pretty good about safety precautions and shit does happen, but most of them don't get burned to death. Are they stupid? Is it fair to make an assumption that people engage in activities which may appear to be dangerous to someone else but because of their particular knowledge and expertise, they're safer engaging in it than, say, walking across the street? Can you acknowledge that most activities should be weighed on a case by case and person by person basis? You've said that you've an open mind, that you're willing to be convinced and I guess my question would be, what does it take to convince you?
quote:
But dont expect me to abandon my own personal moral compass, my rational thinking, and my center and change my opinon of those things being stupid, harmful, and bad when my opinion is in fact that these things are stupid, harmful, and bad.
I would absolutely expect you to change your opinion if, by your own statement, you are open minded enough to have that opinion changed, otherwise what you said earlier is just so much lip service. Talk is cheap. You're either open to being convinced or your not.
quote:
And, on that note, why are you allowing yourself to be influenced by my opinion if you have found solidarity and center in the things you are doing being right, safe, and smart?
You've said that your post was not directed at me, but this is the sort of question I can only answer for myself. I wouldn't, personally, be influenced by your opinions. I swear to you, this is not meant as a bash at all against your age but I have to look at the difference between the experience and knowledge that I have and the experience and knowledge that you have and I surpass it by so far, that I honestly feel that I'm a much better judge of what is dangerous and what is not dangerous for 'me' than you will ever hope to be. Unlike you, I don't claim to have an open mind so that others can convince me that what I do is dangerous or stupid or idiotic. I know they're not and unless there is someone out there who's done what I've done, as often, with as many people, in as many venues, they're going to be hard pressed to measure up to my idea of a mentor which is someone to whom I would at least lend an ear.
quote:
The notion of "Be Silent and Live and Let Live" was something I cant really agree with. Personally, its "Live and Let Live, but Speak Up and Say Something!" for me. What does it say about the depth of my character and my own personal convictions when I find negative value in an entity or an activity or an action but do absolutely nothing?
There is zero wrong with voicing an opinon that someone's kink is not okay. Your character is what it is and what you choose it to be. Mine is what it is as well, and if you set yourself up as a person who fights for the rights of others, then you have to live with that, as I do. You don't get to say, YKIOK .. until it bothers me. Perhaps I'm too black and white on this issue. I'll repeat what I said once before.. either you believe in YKIOK or you do not. If you do believe it, then the consequence of that, is that it's always okay. If you want to be able to say YKINOK, then you have to live with someone else saying the same to you.
I believe that YKIOK. I honestly believe it because I don't want anyone, ever, saying to me YKINOK .. because most people who will say that to me are utterly clueless about what I do.
quote:
I'll gladly support the right of anyone to make consentual and informed idiotic choices, but dont confuse my tolerance for respect. And when your lunacy becomes a problem in my own little part of Idaho, I will take action to correct it.
If someone is a looney, how can they make consensual and informed choices? I don't believe that lunatics have the awareness to make informed choices or to know what the consequences of those choices may be and I don't support such at all. Lunatics need to be under the care of a doctor. The thing is, I'm not qualified to point at someone and say .. you're a looney because you do XYZ especially when lots of people may do things far worse than XYZ and they'd never be classfied as loonies.
quote:
Finnally, on a final note, while I would like to beleive that the simple statement of "If its consentual, then its ethical" can be the black and white absolute in which provides the ultimate solution to every single dilemna, I cant forget that Stocholm Syndrom, Battered Person's Syndome, emotional manipulation, fear of abandonment, codependcy, and blackmail do exist in the world and make the notion of "consent" far from black and white.
I don't see how any of those are consensual, so for me, the point becomes moot. The only sacred in BDSM, for me is consent, so it is black and white for me. With consent, comes the freedom to say no. Without the freedom to decline, then you haven't consented.
What is boils done to is this... there is a difference between saying, "It's dangerous to do that because ..." and "It's wrong to do that," to people who are consenting.
btw: Thanks for the clarification. Anytime I've made a post that makes someone think, I've had a good day. [;)]
Celeste
|
|
|
|
