|
BondageSlaveMN -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/14/2007 1:52:32 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: simplyserves
quote:
ORIGINAL: BondageSlaveMN
Hmmmmm. Are you positing that no evolution has occurred between present day Homo sapiens and say Homo erectus?
No, my statement was meant toward homo sapiens, or "modern man". However my point is not that evolution hasn't happened or continues to happen, it's that evolution is not on a linear path or can be described accurately as having a forward or backward.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BondageSlaveMN
There definately is such thing as equality in terms of abstract social constructs. Ideally, we are all born with equal rights (the Bill of Rights says so in America). In practice, of course, no two persons have the same rights. One can say that we all have the same legal rights, but I could show in great detail that such a statement is false.
There is certainly the concept of equality and that it exists but there is no such thing in reality. The bill of rights doesn't supersede nature. Rights can be equal because they're conceptual, and we can attempt to apply them equally. We may come so close to succeeding that it's splitting hairs to suggest we haven't. That said the statement that "all men are created equal" while a powerful statement is also a simplification. Regardless of that it's certainly false. All men, or people, are not created equal. People are born different and some differences are more advantageous then others at varying times.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BondageSlaveMN
As such, we should strive for equality for all persons. This is the ideal for which we are reaching.
I disagree. I think we should strive for tolerance toward all people and to create a system that isn't competitive, but cooperative.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BondageSlaveMN
Also, the ideology of "tolerance" only furthers the discrimination that it so adamently claims to fight against. For example, a person who says they tolerate homosexuals is merely stating that they indeed see a difference in status between the two lifestyles. They are really saying that they are the better for rising above the prejudice. They are mascarading around as righteous when in fact they still have the bias.
Well, I guess that is one way to look at it. It's a bit cynical though.
If a person doesn't like homosexuals but tolerates them then what's the problem? It's gonna happen and that seems like a pretty fair response on their part. Also, they are all the better for having risen above the prejudice, at least in my opinion.
Firstly, I reread my initial response and see that it may have come off as a little confrontational and a bit half cocked. You have my sincere apologies, I just get very excited over academic debates and sometimes forget my manners at the door.
I agree, in the broad sense, that evolution cannot be described as having a backwards and a forwards. From a purely academic approach of the study of evolution, there is certainly a backwards, it's called gene regression and happens when a gene reverts back to a previous state. There is then deleterious and maladaptive mutations and lastly and most uncommonly adaptive mutation. This is, of course, splitting hairs and not really relevant to the argument at hand. So, to reiterate, I agree that there is no sense in analyzing the question: is BDSM an evolutionary backstep?
From a biological perspective, it could be argued either way that BDSM is maladaptive. I could argue that for some it is an efficient coping mechanism that ultimately leads to less harm to the subject. Then again, I could argue just as easily that BDSM is a waste of energy to the organism and as such is maladaptive. Again, I would like to focus on the broader concepts that relate to BDSM than the specifics of whether it is biologically advantageous or not.
Equality is indeed an abstraction. So are numbers and words. If you don't believe me, try to show me the number three. You will find it an impossible thing to do as the number three is an abstract thought to describe tangible things. I prefer to think that “all men are made equal” is a true statement insofar as social implications are concerned. Of course one man is born smarter than another and vice versa. In this sense, no man is equal to another, but I like to think – and I believe this was the intention of the founding forefathers – that what is meant is that no person is superior to another in a social setting. As I hinted at in my post, this model is not the one that is in practice today. In fact, this thought has spurred me to write a separate post about class versus caste and it's consequences for BDSM and vice versa.
In an ideal world, competition would not exist, I agree. I know I am probably going to get flamed for this next comment, but I'll take my chances. Either that or the feds are going to show up at my house and drag me to gitmo. Communism is the ideal government. I am not talking about pseudo-communism seen in the world today, but the communism describe by Marx. In this model, competition does not exist because society works together as a single, continuous unit. The reason communism doesn't work in reality is because the constituents of its society cannot put their own personal desires aside and serve the greater cause. I am not condoning communism, I am simply making a point using it as an example. So as we can see, cooperation is probably not going to work when human nature is taken into consideration. Competition is the next best thing because it spurs the people to advance by appealing to their greed and selfishness.
I personally don't have any issue with the idea of tolerance. I merely tolerate most of the people I meet for one reason or another. I would like to claim I have no prejudices but that would be an obvious lie. Anyone who claims to have no prejudice automatically gets written off as ignorant in my book. You are absolutely correct that my ideology regarding tolerance is cynical and depressing. Unfortunately this is the way I have thought my entire life and at this juncture I don't see the need to change it. I would probably be a happier person if I did though.
|
|
|
|
