quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

I took the liberty of reading your profile. You play the drums for a living. Do not front yourself as a authority on psychological models of anything.

quote:

Let me elucidate the bizarre filter that you see the world through. You play the drums for a living. You are NOT an authority on psychological matters.

quote:

Neither am I. I do not claim to be.

quote:

That is why my statements were of a general nature. You see, I was trying to establish that there actually *is* a problem first, which is a separate issue from dissecting the fine lines, models and technical details of the problem. There really is a problem for some people in the BDSM world. If you wish to give the problem a different name, fine. Let's just accept that there can be one first.

quote:

I used the language of illness at one point. I used it in the very common usage of the word illness - meaning that someone has a physical or mental problem that impairs them or makes them not 100%. I welcome the input of people who are actually qualified to speak more precisely, on the actual medical science, to help refine the notion. The rest of us are stuck with trying to share our own observations and experiences as clearly as we are able to

quote:

However, I do not welcome attempts to obfuscate that an issue even exists in the first place, by the use of jargon, from people who are not qualified.

quote:

Now, you can object to using the English language in a manner that is commonly understood. I know that while you were in drum school, gaining clinical experience with addicts, they taught you all sorts of special, technical, words for talking about such things. My apologies.

quote:

Actually, that one does interest me as a psychological point.

You say that there is no common good with the certainty that 2+2=4 while failing to recognize that a great many much better men then you died to establish and defend the society that allows you to safely harbor such indolent and self serving views.

quote:

Yes, that is an emotive argument, but, it only applies emotionally to people who feel things like gratitude.

quote:

It is also, for someone who does not feel gratitude, to the social contracts that allow them to exist and live the lives they do, a practical point of actual reality. This is part of what I meant by a bizarre filter that you see the world through.

quote:

This is why you can say whatever you like about the constitution, and it is not worth arguing. I know that you had to write a brief on Marbury vs. Madison and all (no judicial review in the constitution... I LOVE IT!) while you were learning how to tune your drums, but debating with you on such matters would require you knowing something about actual case law and precedent. By the way, Marbury vs. Madison is where we get the notion of judicial review from. It is an upheld interpretation of the constitution since the earliest days of the Republic, but what would be the point of arguing this with you? No amount of evidence would change your views. So sorry, let's keep it to BDSM shall we - and that is why I find you a fascinating sort of creature. This issue is no longer the constitution per se, but of your ability to perceive reality.

quote:

You are so keen to establish some right for yourself to do whatever you want to, that you are willing to ignore the basic and well established facts. You are so interested in trying to establish that whatever you want is "just ok" that you are willing to pretend that the world actually does revolve around you and that any evidence to the contrary must be false - to the extent of denying clearly established facts. That's my real point about bringing Marbury v. Madison - which is one of those cornerstone legal things that people study in high-school, or in bringing the reality that the world you live in, and benefit from, was forged by those who believed in social contracts - even if the notion of a social contract bothers you when it is not convenient to your style. Another example is on how you go on about how the government can not coerce anyone to do anything and that such a thing is wrong. Really? What do the police do? Is it wrong for them to arrest criminals? Is that not coercion? This is not to debate constitutional law or any law, with you, but rather to point out, that you are not dealing in reality and that if you were not blinded so deeply by your own narcissism, you would see the world through a less bizarre filter.

quote:

This is a problem that I see a lot on these boards. I am not talking about things that honest people can legitimately hold different opinions on. I am talking about willful rejection of clear fact.

quote:

Further, it is this very narcissism that is so dangerous in relationships in general, let alone the BDSM world. This is the sort of narcissism that allows people to not only be willfully, but smugly blind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant


and you failed to establish that such a problem existed. which is why the rest of your posts were such a waste to all involved.

Really, you are one of the few who failed to see it, most of the other people on this thread who were debating with me were more worried about how and if it should be dealt with.




Y I feel like calling bullshit on you here, but I'll accept the possibility you actually have the experience you claim. I could type lengthy rebuttals to most of your garbage, but I want to focus on a central theme.

quote:

Now, you can object to using the English language in a manner that is commonly understood. I know that while you were in drum school, gaining clinical experience with addicts, they taught you all sorts of special, technical, words for talking about such things. My apologies.

no, at the arts school I attended before college, they did not teach me such things. however, for the past few years at university, they did. and what was an even better teacher was volunteering at the local institution and spending a good bit of time with many different individuals who exibit these stigmatized behaviors.

O And so you believe that addicts do not have an illness, what is it that you believe they have? Would debilitating condition suit you better? Really the point is, it is a state that is not to be desired. How you classify it is moot.

quote:

Actually, that one does interest me as a psychological point.

You say that there is no common good with the certainty that 2+2=4 while failing to recognize that a great many much better men then you died to establish and defend the society that allows you to safely harbor such indolent and self serving views.

um...so because a great many much better men than me died to establish and defend the society that allows me to safely harbor such indolent and self serving views...I am wrong? well...a great many much better men than me died to establish alexander the great's domain, territory freshly cleared of indians for americans to inhabit, lebensraum, xerxes' conquests, the conversion of lithuania, etc. does that mean the ethics of an expansionist greek warlord, manifest destiny, nazi germany, persian imperialism, and the teutonic knights are all equally valid...because according to you, if a great many much better men then me died to establish and defend a society, then such a society much be just and represent a common good?

your utilizaiton of logic is embarassing.

So are you comparing America to these nations and empires? Or are you just denying that the the struggles to establish this society have benefited you directly? This is your incredible reality disconnect. If you really, really have a problem following the logic, I shall make it plain...
1. There were great and titanic struggles to create and maintain this country and Western civilization.
2. These struggles were borne by men and women who suffered terribly to do so, but did so for the greater good. I know that you do not believe in the greater good, however, they did manage to do things like set up republics, ethical legal systems (or at least ones that try to be ethical and usually succeed in doing so) and strong economies.
3. You grew up spoiled in this society. The lifestyle you lead would not be possible with the society you live in. This society was made possiible by the people in point 2.

Therefore, you should be grateful and value notions of a social contract, because you get to live so well because others sacrificed to create the social contract that you directly benefit from. However, you are not. This is the malignant narcissism that I was referring to.

quote:

Yes, that is an emotive argument, but, it only applies emotionally to people who feel things like gratitude.

and to people on the left side of the bell curve.

No doubt feelings of gratitude are beneath people like you. Actually caring for others or what they have done for you is only for the stupid? Right? You are too far gone to even see the rebuke. You actually believe that you have no debt to the society that shelters you or the people who died to make it possible. In fact you hold people who might feel that way in contempt, as beings lesser than you. So what is a narcissist again? What is a sociopath?You should be clinically qualified to tell us...

And yes, our real point of contention is that I certainly believe that people who think that they are somehow inherently above limitations have no business whatsoever holding the whip. I will say it bluntly. If you honestly consider yourself above the rules, you have no business being a Dom. It makes you a danger to yourself and others. Any experienced submissive will see that right away and rightly shy away from you.

quote:

It is also, for someone who does not feel gratitude, to the social contracts that allow them to exist and live the lives they do, a practical point of actual reality. This is part of what I meant by a bizarre filter that you see the world through.

um...I am allowed to exist because of a social contract? really? most of my existence involves free associations with other private individuals - not social contract.

You would not be alive without it. I assure you, if there weren't one, you would have opened your mouth to someone who did not fear the cops and died by now. Of course you wouldn't think they should be arrested for it anyway...

quote:

This is why you can say whatever you like about the constitution, and it is not worth arguing. I know that you had to write a brief on Marbury vs. Madison and all (no judicial review in the constitution... I LOVE IT!) while you were learning how to tune your drums, but debating with you on such matters would require you knowing something about actual case law and precedent. By the way, Marbury vs. Madison is where we get the notion of judicial review from. It is an upheld interpretation of the constitution since the earliest days of the Republic, but what would be the point of arguing this with you? No amount of evidence would change your views. So sorry, let's keep it to BDSM shall we - and that is why I find you a fascinating sort of creature. This issue is no longer the constitution per se, but of your ability to perceive reality.

I realize where we get judicial review and I also realize the court, according to the constitution, does not have the power to grant itself such a privilege.

Then you seem to have missed the part where the supreme court has the authority to interpret the constitution and that they interpreted the constitution to grant judicial review. Glad to clear that up for you.

as your reading comprehension has been lacking, I would suggest you read that a few times...slowly.

Not really, it was incorrect. See above why it was completely wrong.

now the supreme court can have opinions about things outside of their jurisdiction, but as far as the law is concerned (which you seem to be obsessed with), the supreme court has jurisdiction only over the aforementioned areas.

Completely wrong again. See Marbury vs. Madison which you claim to understand. I mean it really doesn't matter where we get it from, the point has more to do with your narcissism. Why are you so keen on proving something true as false? I was not the one to bring this up. You brought up judicial review. Is this another terrible power of governments that you hate? God, forbid there is an authority over you... you uber mensch you! Please, what is a sociopath again? Another point, is that you are so lost in your web of assumed superiority that reality can not get in the way, and you will argue further and further a point which is false, only to show (who) how clever you are? Why? To impress me? Perhaps you think that your misunderstanding of constitutional law will get you laid if you can only force me to accept your bizarre theories? Why? How about we talk kink? Like this thread is supposed to be about?

quote:

You are so keen to establish some right for yourself to do whatever you want to, that you are willing to ignore the basic and well established facts. You are so interested in trying to establish that whatever you want is "just ok" that you are willing to pretend that the world actually does revolve around you and that any evidence to the contrary must be false - to the extent of denying clearly established facts. That's my real point about bringing Marbury v. Madison - which is one of those cornerstone legal things that people study in high-school, or in bringing the reality that the world you live in, and benefit from, was forged by those who believed in social contracts - even if the notion of a social contract bothers you when it is not convenient to your style. Another example is on how you go on about how the government can not coerce anyone to do anything and that such a thing is wrong. Really? What do the police do? Is it wrong for them to arrest criminals? Is that not coercion? This is not to debate constitutional law or any law, with you, but rather to point out, that you are not dealing in reality and that if you were not blinded so deeply by your own narcissism, you would see the world through a less bizarre filter.

what does this have to do with 'my style'. social contracts simply do not exist.

Of course, therefore you don't have to worry about being bound by one! Rules are for lesser beings than you...What is the clinical definition of sociopath?

As a point of fact, if things like the Magna Carta or the Constitution are not social contracts, then what are they? If people agree how to behave at a wedding, what is that? When people agree to obey the law, or do there duties as citizens, what is that? These are some examples that most sane people are aware of.

What is the clinical definition of delusional?

I have asked you to prove to me they do and you have not done such. I've illustrated examples of free association and the division of labor providing the 'society' we have now, not magical ties that bind all humanity together because you say they do.

NO, social contracts are very real ties that exist because society as a whole creates them and enforces them. And it is clear that you don't believe in any faith or intrinsic merit of humans either. I suppose that is beneath you.

is it wrong for the police to arrest criminals? yes. I would suggest it is wrong for two reasons. what if the criminals are doing nothing wrong (e.g. prostitution, drug use, selling drugs, sodomy, political dissidence - you might want to look up the sedition acts) but such acts are arbitrarily legislated as 'wrong'. then arresting someone, even if illegal, is still unjustifiable.

Because there is no problem with violent crime to consider... please again tell us the definition of delusional...

the second problem I have with entities such as the police is how it is supported, through public funds. I know I personally wouldn't pay into our current police system if it were possible for me to opt out. I would feel much safer with privitized security. now I'm sure you think this is just my bizzare filter talking, but allow me to ask you one thing, would you feel more safe in disneyland (which has private security), the trump towers (private security), or east st. louis (public security). I would answer private security...though perhaps you have more faith in our boys in blue than I do.

Oh just start shouting Ron Paul and have done with. I really don't give a damn what your politics are. Nor does anyone else here.

quote:

This is a problem that I see a lot on these boards. I am not talking about things that honest people can legitimately hold different opinions on. I am talking about willful rejection of clear fact.

who determines who is honest and which disagreements are legitimate? you?

I actually knew that you would ask that. You are the sort to think such things are clever.

legitimate differences of opinion apply to things that can not be measured objectively. There is no objective measure of Deity, one can legitimately have a difference of opinion on religion. There is no objective measure of whether chocolate ice cream is more yummy than strawberry, you can have a legitimate difference of opinion.

There is no legitimate room for opinions when it comes to facts - which are things can be objectively shown to be true. You do not have an opinion about whether the Earth orbits the Sun or not, it actually does whether you think so or not. Same goes for judicial review.

quote:

Further, it is this very narcissism that is so dangerous in relationships in general, let alone the BDSM world. This is the sort of narcissism that allows people to not only be willfully, but smugly blind.

well, I'll just let the irony sink in.

Look, kid, I am getting weary of this. I really am. I know that you believe that you are ohhh so brilliant and that normal rules don't apply to people as special as yourself. I've had dozens of boys like you in the classes I teach at university. Eventually, the kids like you find themselves without friends, and backed into a corner, when some other uber mensch who was bigger gives them a come-uppance. I've seen it happen lots of times. You should consider that as you discount others.

< Message edited by QuixoticErrant -- 6/27/2009 2:00:44 AM >

(in reply to variation30)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant
And so you believe that addicts do not have an illness, what is it that you believe they have? Would debilitating condition suit you better? Really the point is, it is a state that is not to be desired. How you classify it is moot.

quote:

So are you comparing America to these nations and empires? Or are you just denying that the the struggles to establish this society have benefited you directly? This is your incredible reality disconnect. If you really, really have a problem following the logic, I shall make it plain...
1. There were great and titanic struggles to create and maintain this country and Western civilization.
2. These struggles were borne by men and women who suffered terribly to do so, but did so for the greater good. I know that you do not believe in the greater good, however, they did manage to do things like set up republics, ethical legal systems (or at least ones that try to be ethical and usually succeed in doing so) and strong economies.
3. You grew up spoiled in this society. The lifestyle you lead would not be possible with the society you live in. This society was made possiible by the people in point 2.

Therefore, you should be grateful and value notions of a social contract, because you get to live so well because others sacrificed to create the social contract that you directly benefit from. However, you are not. This is the malignant narcissism that I was referring to.

quote:

No doubt feelings of gratitude are beneath people like you. Actually caring for others or what they have done for you is only for the stupid? Right? You are too far gone to even see the rebuke. You actually believe that you have no debt to the society that shelters you or the people who died to make it possible. In fact you hold people who might feel that way in contempt, as beings lesser than you. So what is a narcissist again? What is a sociopath?You should be clinically qualified to tell us..

quote:

You would not be alive without it. I assure you, if there weren't one, you would have opened your mouth to someone who did not fear the cops and died by now. Of course you wouldn't think they should be arrested for it anyway...

quote:


Then you seem to have missed the part where the supreme court has the authority to interpret the constitution and that they interpreted the constitution to grant judicial review. Glad to clear that up for you.

quote:

Completely wrong again. See Marbury vs. Madison which you claim to understand. I mean it really doesn't matter where we get it from, the point has more to do with your narcissism. Why are you so keen on proving something true as false? I was not the one to bring this up. You brought up judicial review. Is this another terrible power of governments that you hate? God, forbid there is an authority over you... you uber mensch you! Please, what is a sociopath again? Another point, is that you are so lost in your web of assumed superiority that reality can not get in the way, and you will argue further and further a point which is false, only to show (who) how clever you are? Why? To impress me? Perhaps you think that your misunderstanding of constitutional law will get you laid if you can only force me to accept your bizarre theories? Why? How about we talk kink? Like this thread is supposed to be about?

quote:

As a point of fact, if things like the Magna Carta or the Constitution are not social contracts, then what are they? If people agree how to behave at a wedding, what is that? When people agree to obey the law, or do there duties as citizens, what is that? These are some examples that most sane people are aware of.

quote:

I actually knew that you would ask that. You are the sort to think such things are clever.

legitimate differences of opinion apply to things that can not be measured objectively. There is no objective measure of Deity, one can legitimately have a difference of opinion on religion. There is no objective measure of whether chocolate ice cream is more yummy than strawberry, you can have a legitimate difference of opinion.

There is no legitimate room for opinions when it comes to facts - which are things can be objectively shown to be true. You do not have an opinion about whether the Earth orbits the Sun or not, it actually does whether you think so or not. Same goes for judicial review.

quote:

Look, kid, I am getting weary of this. I really am. I know that you believe that you are ohhh so brilliant and that normal rules don't apply to people as special as yourself. I've had dozens of boys like you in the classes I teach at university. Eventually, the kids like you find themselves without friends, and backed into a corner, when some other uber mensch who was bigger gives them a come-uppance. I've seen it happen lots of times. You should consider that as you discount others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Just when I think people have totally forgotten what an actual argumentum ad hominem is (mistaking the term for insult), we find the OP making new strides in making sure the fallacy stays alive and healthy.

Just because flavors of morality proselytizing are so commonly assumed to be of the religious kind doesn't mean it can't as easily happen through other avenues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

1. The original point of the post was incredibly clear. It was that people can get so addicted to this lifestyle and remove their sense of self that they become completely self destructive. In the first thirty minutes of my being on this site, I got a mail from a very young girl who calls herself "it" who wanted to see if I would want to breed with her master since she can not get pregnant.

I think that is clear evidence of the point. If I had such clear evidence stumble onto my lap in 30 fucking minutes, then it would seem to be a pretty common thing. Sometimes this goes way too far. As someone starting out in this, I should keep that in mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

2. Several people on here got furious at the OP because they thought he was trying to police them - actually he was making a statement of fact, then they got furious when he suggested that people have actual responsibilities to others. All of you who don't believe in social obligations, move elsewhere please? We have enough evil selfish bastards in Washington as it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

I am thinking of that girl. How is she in a state of mind to do this safely? All of you who are going on about personal responsibility, how can you possibly suggest that it is OK for her "master" to take such advantage? Where is his responsibility to her? Such a "man" would be no "master" of me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

3. I guess that you have all been here long enough to have seen or heard of dozens of girls like her. First there were attempts at denying that the issue exists at all, and then sanctimoius attempts to say that taking advantage is ok. If she is completely messed up, she can not make a sound decision. That was another point of the OP, though it was not in the OP.

• She's completely messed up because her decision implies it.
• Her ability to make a sound decision is nullified by her being completely messed up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

4. A bunch of "manly men" then whine about ad hominem attacks. News flash: if you don't believe that you have a duty to your women, then you are not manly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

call that ad hominem if you wish. How about you just go and see that it does not apply to you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits
1. The original point of the post was incredibly clear. It was that people can get so addicted to this lifestyle and remove their sense of self that they become completely self destructive. In the first thirty minutes of my being on this site, I got a mail from a very young girl who calls herself "it" who wanted to see if I would want to breed with her master since she can not get pregnant.

I think that is clear evidence of the point. If I had such clear evidence stumble onto my lap in 30 fucking minutes, then it would seem to be a pretty common thing. Sometimes this goes way too far. As someone starting out in this, I should keep that in mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits
3. I guess that you have all been here long enough to have seen or heard of dozens of girls like her. First there were attempts at denying that the issue exists at all, and then sanctimoius attempts to say that taking advantage is ok. If she is completely messed up, she can not make a sound decision. That was another point of the OP, though it was not in the OP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits


Let me answer unequivocally. If someone wants their healthy leg cut off, they are not sane. A doctor who cut it off would be thrown in prison. A girl who wanted her leg (or finger) cut off is not sane. Her :master who cut it off would be thrown in prison. There are limits to everything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

I'm not really surprised by anything you wrote. Though what is that acronym you used that looked like WWJD?

quote:

What you fail to see is that some things really are too much. Your argument is little more than if someone wants to do it, it must be ok.

It is not circular logic to judge someone's stability, or mental health by their actions. How else are you to make a call on it?

quote:

If a nineteen year old girl is pleading with me to please her 32 year old master (because she thinks I will make him happy by being pregnant - and by extension be pleased with her for finding me for him) and she is doing this because he doesn't want her any more, because she can't get pregnant - then she is clearly on the face of it, obviously not in a healthy place mentally. She is so not in a healthy place mentally. I honestly don't know what make a girl like that. I would guess some sort of terrible abuse as a child, and that she is now just being re-traumatized again and again. He is obviously taking advantage of her. It is no different than tripping a blind person.

This is not circular, it is just looking at her, what she is saying, and knowing other women.

quote:

am thinking of that girl. How is she in a state of mind to do this safely? All of you who are going on about personal responsibility, how can you possibly suggest that it is OK for her "master" to take such advantage? Where is his responsibility to her? Such a "man" would be no "master" of

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

I'm absolutely new to this lifestyle. It is something I have only been thinking of for a while and I still have a lot of concerns. I am so glad I found this thread.

It has told me a lot about what to expect from a lot of the people here at CM.

1. The original point of the post was incredibly clear. It was that people can get so addicted to this lifestyle and remove their sense of self that they become completely self destructive. In the first thirty minutes of my being on this site, I got a mail from a very young girl who calls herself "it" who wanted to see if I would want to breed with her master since she can not get pregnant.

I think that is clear evidence of the point. If I had such clear evidence stumble onto my lap in 30 fucking minutes, then it would seem to be a pretty common thing. Sometimes this goes way too far. As someone starting out in this, I should keep that in mind.

2. Several people on here got furious at the OP because they thought he was trying to police them - actually he was making a statement of fact. Then they got furious when he suggested that people have actual responsibilities to others. All of you who don't believe in social obligations, move elsewhere please? We have enough evil, selfish bastards in Washington as it is. O.K?

I am thinking of that girl. How is she in a state of mind to do this safely? All of you who are going on about personal responsibility, how can you possibly suggest that it is OK for her "master" to take such advantage? Where is his responsibility to her? Such a "man" would be no "master" of me.

3. I guess that you have all been here long enough to have seen or heard of dozens of girls like her. First there were attempts at denying that the issue exists at all, and then sanctimoius attempts to say that taking advantage is ok. If she is completely messed up, she can not make a sound decision. That was another point of the OP, though it was not in the OP.

4. A bunch of "manly men" then whine about ad hominem attacks. News flash: a "man" who doesn't believe that he has a duty to his woman, is not manly. A man, who takes advantage of someone, who is clearly not of sound mind is not manly - He is just a predator who couldn't get a stable woman. Call that ad hominem if you wish. How about those "men" learn to actually be men and see that it does not apply to them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

What will behoove you to remember, is that the foundation of WIITWD is built on tolerance and at very least a willingness to try and remember that we are engaging in action that most people normally treat as suggestive of mental defect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DemonKia
I am curious to know what you're doing or expecting here if consent has no meaning to you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

Though what is that acronym you used that looked like WWJD?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

What you fail to see is that some things really are too much. Your argument is little more than if someone wants to do it, it must be ok.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

It is not circular logic to judge someone's stability, or mental health by their actions. How else are you to make a call on it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

If a nineteen year old girl is pleading with me to please her 32 year old master (because she thinks I will make him happy by being pregnant - and by extension be pleased with her for finding me for him) and she is doing this because he doesn't want her any more, because she can't get pregnant - then she is clearly on the face of it, obviously not in a healthy place mentally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

I honestly don't know what make a girl like that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

I would guess some sort of terrible abuse as a child, and that she is now just being re-traumatized again and again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

He is obviously taking advantage of her. It is no different than tripping a blind person.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

This is not circular, it is just looking at her, what she is saying, and knowing other women.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

You missed the OP's entire point about heroin. Just because someone wants it, does not make it ok to use or deal. The dealer is clearly taking advantage of the junkie. The junkie is too far gone to see how her body is eating itself up, or how her life is falling apart.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

I think the OP got frustrated because he expects people to get that - because, it's something obvious to most people. His mistake was in talking about Latin phrases and going off on all sorts of tangents with you and the other guy - who's big point after sooo much haranguing about the disease model of addiction, was that he doesn't like addiction to be called a disease, because people like drugs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

It is not ad hominem to be un impressed with such pretentious ways to dress up the phrase, "if people want it OK." I've seen too many junkies to agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

I really don't care about all of the big words you want to pull out, when all you are actually saying is that you want to do whatever you want and it irks you that there might be limits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

You said something about cutting off limbs. You asked rhetorically if it was unethical to deny someone the right to chop off their leg, or something close to that.

Let me answer unequivocally. If someone wants their healthy leg cut off, they are not sane. A doctor who cut it off would be thrown in prison. A girl who wanted her leg (or finger) cut off is not sane. Her :master who cut it off would be thrown in prison. There are limits to everything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits

If someone is clearly impaired, can they consent in a way that has meaning?