|
Mercnbeth -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 1:10:38 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
Merc, let's begin by recognizing the box you've painted yourself into with the use of absolutes. You state that you are responsible "completely and unqualified" (an absolute) for beth. And yet when it is pointed out that there are numerous instances in which you are not, and cannot be (I'm not picking on you, it's a literal impossibility for anyone to do so), you simply ignore it and go on your merry posting way as if it never passed your eyes. It's not responsible to be so in denial.
And when it is further pointed out to you that your dislike of safewords which is based upon a two professed principles (regarding "shirking" of responsibility and the absence of a guarantee of safety) is in direct contrast to your professed responsibility for beth (which also relies upon other people acting responsibly and provides no guarantee of safety), you simply ignore that as well and continue on as if in ignoring the 600 lb. gorilla will cause it to cease to exist. Again, not the actions of a responsible individual.
quote:
There is nothing implied. Any post is a statement of fact. To understand it may require a baseline of equal perspective that can't be conveyed completely by words and sometimes when it gets to that point, I suggest that our dynamic is better illustrated through direct observation. I don't know the perspective of all that post, and no amount of reading will ever provide complete insight. You feel a different perspective is "superior" and shouldn't be considered - so be it. But that interpretation comes from you.
One does not feel that a different perspective is "superior" in order to ascertain that it is intended to be superior. I note that in addition to irresponsibly making inferences of superiority, you are not responsible enough to even stand behind them once made.
quote:
Superiority is your perception.
Not in the least, as I have a clear and consistent record of finding nothing "superior" about fantasy portrayed as reality (ie: lying). That does not preclude me from recognizing statements from others that are clearly intended expressions that they feel superior to others. And you have a clear and consistent record of making such statements. Spade.
quote:
Sorry John, your inadequacies, shouldn't be caused from your feeling inferior. I don't require anyone follow. "...and not just to me."; implies you need to find support in consulting with others about me? I'm honored, but again any inferiority is self perceived.
Statements like this are intended to portray yourself as "superior" by infering that someone that disagrees with you is feeling "inferior". Such thinly veiled inferences may allow you to convince yourself that you have "plausible deniability", but you're not fooling anyone else. It's irresponsible of you to think that it would.
quote:
I seek no validation from anyone.
I grant you that, you're more in the habit of seeking validation from yourself, and extoling that validation to the world along the way.
quote:
You do, or "not just me" is a reference to undisclosed multiple personalities. I'm sorry but I don't want to and have no need to join your group and have no need to qualify whether it or you are superior or inferior to anyone - especially me.
That belies your posts that consistently reflect an attitude that you are "superior", beth is "subblier", you are "Domlier", and your relationship is "deeper". People who need no validation do not consistently make reference to such matters. If you have to keep reminding people of it, perhaps it's just not true.
quote:
Actually, consequences are but one thing to be responsible for. If your responsibility is "complete and without qualification" as you have asserted, then you're responsible for far more than that. You're responsible for everything (that is complete and unqualified). You're responsible for the hot stove she burned herself on, for the other driver that rear-ended her, for the tire that goes flat, for the icy storefront sidewalk she slips and falls on. You're responsible for her safety, for her moods, for her emotions, for the unhealthy food she sneaks when you're not around, for her every action. That's complete and unqualified. Consequences are just the by product.
quote:
Agree I am responsible. Any quote of mine to the contrary?
Nope, no quote to the contrary which is precisely the issue. You can't be responsible for the things you're taking responsibility for. You might be able to influence them, but you rely upon other people to be responsible themselves.
You don't even do all that you could in order to be responsible. You don't send out each piece of food to be tested prior to beth consuming it in order to ensure that it's free of contamination. You rely upon others to be responsible in its processing and packaging. You simply take "reasonable" to make sure out of date or suspicious food isn't consumed.
You don't provide a chauffer to drive beth around, or confine her to the house. You simply provide reasonable care to make sure she has a safe and well maintained car.
You don't provide a 24/7 armed guard in your house. You simply provide reasonable care to provide a gated community with security.
Bottom line, you're not doing all that you could be doing... just what is reasonable. That is not consistent with being responsible "completely and unqualified". It is consistent with being responsible within reason. And there is no way for you to fantasize your way around that.
quote:
I'll give you a real case example. beth has broken feet. They were broken when I met her. It is a congenital defect. Currently she has a broken bone that has to be removed by surgery. It's my responsibly to deal with those consequences. Your point?
My point is that with such a defect there are certain things that beth cannot and should not do that might cause her further injury. And I have no doubt that being responsible, you have instructed her not to do those things. Now you have to rely upon beth to be responsible, and not to do them. See how that works? You could be the most responsible guy in the world, and without beth being responsible as well, you've done absolutely nothing of any value. Nothing.
quote:
No need to falsely state my position. I copy and paste your statements so as not to misquote you. Please have the courtesy to do so as well, but do not persist in making things up (that's called "lying" where I live... you should be more responsible than to engage in that behavior).
quote:
More simple than you are making it John. I don't use safe-words, you do. We both are engaging a partner who wants "a severe spanking". We end up using the same 2 inch thick wooden paddle, I see blood and because I know her and know that she hates blood I stop, talk to her and consider changing the intensity.
See, this doesn't address the issue that you make things up out of thin air. Call it fibbing, lying, whatever works for you. Either way, you create fiction (which is something you're consistent about).
As for the severe spanking in your example, you're wrong right off the bat. I do not use a two inch thick wooden paddle (or any implement for that matter) in order to administer a spanking. For that I use my hand.
quote:
You don't have the need because you put the responsibility in the safe-word instead of yourself.
I do? Where did I say that is how I would act? Or is this just another piece of fiction you've created? Obviously, it's the latter. Face it Merc... you're making this up as you go along. It's a farce.
quote:
That is how I define them, and 'masters' using them as dangerous.
Actually, it's not the safeword that is dangerous in the example you used. It would be the "Master".
quote:
"I thought you would use your safe-word"; translated means - don't hold me responsible and you can't rely solely on me, because I'm partially relying on you.
Who uttered the quotation "I thought you would use your safe-word"? Whom are you quoting? You were quoting a real person from this discussion, right? You wouldn't stoop to making something up, would you?
quote:
No problem with it and those using such a technique. Won't try and disqualify them from any "Old Guard - One True Way" status if that's important to them; but I'll personally never shirk that responsibility. Feel free to do so and good luck with that!
Even though you don't have a problem with people using such a technique, I do. I would never tell them they're wrong, or that they shouldn't do it. But it's patently stupid. You know, better than just advocating the disuse of safewords, you'd be better off advocating the cessation of spanking and paddling. That would prevent the problem you invented too!!
quote:
you sure do go out of your way to remind us about how Domly you are....).
quote:
Really? You take posts reflecting how I live as representation of being 'Domly'? Again - I'm honored although never an intended goal.
No, I take many of them as self-serving representations of fantasy portrayed as reality, and an indication that you feel some need to portray yourself as "more Domly" than others. I don't know you, so any speculation regarding your insecurities or ego would just be that... speculation.
quote:
In order to agree or disagree with your principles, you must first have them. Thus far, they are not in evidence.
quote:
Well then it should be pointless for you to try an debate them. Obviously your detailed reply indicates otherwise. Feel free to continue to make challenges to principles that you claim don't exist. Your own efforts indicate how you don't believe your own statement.
No, it's not pointless debate. When someone continually makes silly public statements then there's sure to be someone else that's gonna call them on it. And to be perfectly honest, I enjoy doing so in this case. You are a source of entertainment, and I enjoy this to no end. :)
quote:
It's very clear and principled to me and beth; and that is the only importance.
Your continued participation in this discussion reveals this statement to be devoid of truth.
quote:
It represents no 'dogma' but 'Mercnbeth' dogma.
Other than the dogma about what others employ in their relationships... like safewords. Right, no dogma there. Uh huh.
quote:
Why not John? The reality is it is the ONLY thing you've been commenting upon. I don't qualify it. I don't consult or have it validated by others so I can say; "...and not just to me." Nothing I've ever posted was directed or reflected anything other than how I and beth live. You can believe it wrong. I can believe you wrong. Being right doesn't require agreement from you, or your consulted constituency. BTW - Do you periodically check in to make sure no one has changed their mind?
You're right, Merc. It doesn't matter what other people think. Not a bit. But if you play to an audience, the audience will sometimes pan the show. That's something you showmen have to live with.
quote:
Your one true way and the referenced "and not just to me"s may find it reprehensible, but it has no impact or legitimacy in my household.
Please quote for me any representation of a "one true way" that I've expressed, or is this just more fictionalized dialogue? Here 'ya go John - Your "one true way"? Refusal to accept my life as stated as it is and with it principles. It is THAT simple; denial not withstanding. You see me saying that safe-words are dangerous, and shouldn't be used. You don't see anything invalidating those that do. I know you can't give the same consideration because your are incapable. No problem.
quote:
I would hope that you and consultants can live with that. If not - sorry. But please pass on my regards to them and let them know that I would never have my principles, which you find so challenging and subversive, imparted upon them. I only ask for the same consideration. Then again not getting it - won't change a thing.
To do this, you first have to settle upon actually having a principle. Your professed principle regarding safewords is not consistently applied to Masters. See, in order for it to actually *be* a principle, you actually have to live it. Talking about it isn't enough.
John
John,
All I can say is WOW!
We don't deserve your study or attention but appreciate your efforts. Thanks!
I'll stick to my principles and my beliefs if for no other reason to give you and the people who discuss us, something to point to and avoid. At the very least you should appreciate having such a BAD example.
I had to include your post in its entirety because it is just amazing that anyone would spend so much time arguing points held in such disregard. Obviously to you talking about it IS enough! Talking about it a LOT for that matter. We trust you have applied all those principles of yours in real time and they work for you. You have our greatest respect to be held as shinning example of what is absolute and right in the lifestyle and all the world for that matter. You've won me over! Your way is THE way for you and yours. I wouldn't expect you to be able to give the same consideration. And why would you. Your dissertation on Mercnbeth says it all!
John - THANKS again for spending so much time on the study of Merc & beth! You MUST visit when in the neighborhood. Anyone who holds us, actually its just me, so highly in low esteem deserves an autographed picture!
You've made our day!
People - you have a messiah here. No Master in his right mind would think to be "completely and without qualification" responsible for his property after such a strong argument. I have to be to give John his bad example - but you have a better path, a path of principle and acceptance, to follow. If anyone knows where I can buy the book let me know - I can't wait for the instructional DVD.
|
|
|
|
