RE: Now... is it just me...?

RE: Now... is it just me...? (Full Version)

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

Message

Maxwell67 -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 5:17:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ftmyersartist So to achieve equality some people who may have a better chance must be treated unequally so that people who have less natural chance have an equal chance? That is not at all what I said, and I am sure you know that. Stop twisting things around to underscore your own political take. What I said was that children should be provided the best environment we can give them to allow them to find and attain their own potential and to encourage them to use it. Now how can holding some back accomplish that goal? quote: I don't believe in discrimination but i also do not believe in leveling a field. Life is unequal. . .nature is unequal. . .it is hubris to think that we can be anything but. Well potential varies naturally from person to person and there is no helping that.. that is how the universe wants it. Can't fight it. What we can do is change the game. Where once it was the strongest individual who won, perhaps now it is the person with the leadership skills to pull people together in a way that allows them all to succeed through mutual cooperation. Physical strength is no longer a factor in winning under these rules. Suddenly anyone male or female could rise to the top. That is where we are headed.

tazzygirl -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 5:24:09 PM)
hi Maxwell would that not depend on the "field"? meaning.. one of physical strength... overall men would win. beyond that, it can be a free for all, with no clear cut winners. sure, men do posses, overall, more brute strength than women. but, get into a delivery room, and i will toss a pillow into the corner and tell any man... wanna faint? go there. i have enough patients. when the playing field changes, so can the outcomes of who is "stronger". or am i over thinking this.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 5:28:09 PM)
edited: Nevermind you answered in subsequent posts.

eponavet -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 5:28:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Maxwell67 quote: ORIGINAL: ftmyersartist So to achieve equality some people who may have a better chance must be treated unequally so that people who have less natural chance have an equal chance? That is not at all what I said, and I am sure you know that. Stop twisting things around to underscore your own political take. What I said was that children should be provided the best environment we can give them to allow them to find and attain their own potential and to encourage them to use it. Now how can holding some back accomplish that goal? quote: I don't believe in discrimination but i also do not believe in leveling a field. Life is unequal. . .nature is unequal. . .it is hubris to think that we can be anything but. Well potential varies naturally from person to person and there is no helping that.. that is how the universe wants it. Can't fight it. What we can do is change the game. Where once it was the strongest individual who won, perhaps now it is the person with the leadership skills to pull people together in a way that allows them all to succeed through mutual cooperation. Physical strength is no longer a factor in winning under these rules. Suddenly anyone male or female could rise to the top. That is where we are headed. First, the last bolded part of your post articulates the point that there is no equality.... Second, the bolded part above asking "how can holding someone back accomplish that" - that being their maximum potential. Again - it can't. But, by your model, wouldn't we be holding back some of the stronger or more naturally qualified individuals in order to make those less strong, less smart, less motivated capable of achieving similar goals as their stronger, smarter and more motivated counterparts? And how would that help those more qualified inidivduals? ~ epona

Maxwell67 -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 5:30:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl hi Maxwell would that not depend on the "field"? meaning.. one of physical strength... overall men would win. beyond that, it can be a free for all, with no clear cut winners. sure, men do posses, overall, more brute strength than women. but, get into a delivery room, and i will toss a pillow into the corner and tell any man... wanna faint? go there. i have enough patients. when the playing field changes, so can the outcomes of who is "stronger". or am i over thinking this. Your reasoning is good, but the subject of our discussion - at least this one we appear to be having now - is Western civilization's current social movement to redefine the way in which one achieves the type of success that brings power and influence over others..

tazzygirl -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 5:40:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Maxwell67 quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl hi Maxwell would that not depend on the "field"? meaning.. one of physical strength... overall men would win. beyond that, it can be a free for all, with no clear cut winners. sure, men do posses, overall, more brute strength than women. but, get into a delivery room, and i will toss a pillow into the corner and tell any man... wanna faint? go there. i have enough patients. when the playing field changes, so can the outcomes of who is "stronger". or am i over thinking this. Your reasoning is good, but the subject of our discussion - at least this one we appear to be having now - is Western civilization's current social movement to redefine the way in which one achieves the type of success that brings power and influence over others.. Thank you. Im not trying to derail or be obtuse, but, havent we already proven this doesnt work? The "No Child Left" in my opinion, is a huge failure. It doesnt promote growth or personal accomplishments, it advocates treating every child the same as every other child... and they arent the same. i think by holding back those individuals, we are creating the attitude that doing.. ok... is good enough.. and forgetting that competition can be good. not everything is based upon leadership skills, or brute strength. sometimes intelligence wins, sometimes cunning... again... all depending on the field one plays.

Maxwell67 -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 5:51:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eponavet ... by your model, wouldn't we be holding back some of the stronger or more naturally qualified individuals in order to make those less strong, less smart, less motivated capable of achieving similar goals as their stronger, smarter and more motivated counterparts? Nope. That is a fallacy propagated by conservative individuals who are scared to death of losing the advantage their discrimination and that of their ancestors won for them. The point is simply to let everyone achieve their own personal maximum growth. No more, no less. If we can achieve that goal alone, many other problems will simply cease to exist. Let's just get that far. Forget this idea that we need to hold people back.. that is not a part of the plan. I think perhaps much of the trouble stems from the idea that we should be able to pass to our children an advantage in this game.. to keep it generational. Aside from the influence a parent has, genetically, and what can be passed on though contact with the child as they grow up, the rest of that part of the game is likely to change a great deal.. this is that vaunted 'death tax' that the conservative wealthy keep crying about.. that is only the start, and they know it.. in the end, everyone will have more-or-less the same economic status on attaining majority.. after that, it will be up to the individual. It might be possible to leave a child with enough wealth that they never have to work again, but not the sort of vast fortunes passed down by old money now. That is not holding anyone back.. it is removing the ability of the wealthy to keep a death grip on the purse strings that finance (and thus influence) the power. And to be honest, even that is an extreme example.. it is doubtful it would get that far. My point is, if it were to become extreme, that is how it would most likely happen.

eponavet -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 6:04:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Maxwell67 Nope. That is a fallacy propagated by conservative individuals who are scared to death of losing the advantage their discrimination and those of their ancestors won for them. The point is simply to let everyone achieve their own personal maximum growth. No more, no less. If we can achieve that goal alone, many other problems will simply cease to exist. Let's just get that far. Forget this idea that we need to hold people back.. that is not a part of the plan. I dunno....this sounds pretty Gorean to me....[;)] ~ epona

Maxwell67 -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 6:12:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eponavet quote: ORIGINAL: Maxwell67 Nope. That is a fallacy propagated by conservative individuals who are scared to death of losing the advantage their discrimination and those of their ancestors won for them. The point is simply to let everyone achieve their own personal maximum growth. No more, no less. If we can achieve that goal alone, many other problems will simply cease to exist. Let's just get that far. Forget this idea that we need to hold people back.. that is not a part of the plan. I dunno....this sounds pretty Gorean to me....[;)] ~ epona If that is what you define as a Gorean goal, then yes.. I never said that there was nothing redeemable about the Gorean philosophy.. just the opposite really. There is a great deal that can be redeemed. It is the people who call themselves "Gorean" who I am not so sure about. Most of them (admittedly like much of the rest of humanity) have their heads up their asses, and are using Normans words as some kind of rigid dogma to justify their bigotry. If you could prune away the rotten parts, you might end up with a healthy tree in the end. Addendum--- Try to keep in mind that "No Child Left Behind" was designed and implemented by the conservative wealthy. Of course they screwed it up. To approach the challenge of giving everyone the best beginning they can have properly, they would have to make a sacrifice. Better to poison the whole issue of equality by creating a system that stifles everyone's growth and label that 'equality'. That will allow them to keep their generational hold on power. Once again, if you want the real answers to the issue of power and equality, the question to ask is "Who benefits?" I assure you someone is benefiting from "No Child Left Behind".. it is not the kids.. none of them. The only people who benefit are those who want to put this silly notion of equality to rest for good.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 7:04:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Maxwell67 We as a species and this world in which we live together are capable of producing far more than we need.. it is not crime to share that bounty and insure some level of comfort for those who cannot otherwise attain it for themselves. Instead of giving someone a fish, would it not be better to learn to fish? I believe in giving something to someone, without them exerting effort to gain it, lessens the person and the value of what you give away. It also sounds similar to "every person should contribute to society to the best of his ability and consume from society in proportion to his needs", and then this allows the excess to go to those that do not have it. Whatever it is. I believe that when there are more pressures against an individual, that they must strive against to achieve a goal, then the more may excel. Through this, they become stronger and better at getting "it".

Lashra -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 7:10:40 PM)
I am not part of the Gorean community and it is separate from the BDSM community as far as I can tell. What they do is their business and as long as they leave me and mine alone all is well. No I do not share their beliefs but as long as they and their partners are happy, who really cares? I am a Dominant female living with my male property on the planet Earth and all is well. ~Lashra

Maxwell67 -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 7:17:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf quote: ORIGINAL: Maxwell67 We as a species and this world in which we live together are capable of producing far more than we need.. it is not crime to share that bounty and insure some level of comfort for those who cannot otherwise attain it for themselves. Instead of giving someone a fish, would it not be better to learn to fish? I believe in giving something to someone, without them exerting effort to gain it, lessens the person and the value of what you give away. It also sounds similar to "every person should contribute to society to the best of his ability and consume from society in proportion to his needs", and then this allows the excess to go to those that do not have it. Whatever it is. I believe that when there are more pressures against an individual, that they must strive against to achieve a goal, then the more may excel. Through this, they become stronger and better at getting "it". What of those scarred by illness? What of the elderly who have contributed to society's growth their entire lives? What of the soldiers returning with injuries to their bodies or psyche's which will make it nearly impossible to become functioning members of the society they fought to protect? What is to happen to them? Even in the best of circumstances, if the time should come when all people enter adulthood to find there is a place for them and a way they can be productive and attain the things they need and want without the fear that some bully will simply take it from them, there are still going to be those in need who, for one reason or another, legitimately cannot do for themselves. Addendum- It is an outdated concept that people are lazy and good-for-nothing unless forced to be productive.. the vast majority of people do want to contribute, and those who do not probably were poorly raised. With some care and guidance we might avoid unleashing such good-for-nothings into the world. That is the goal, isn't it? When everyone grows to meet their own individual potential, then they generally want to use it.

ftmyersartist -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 7:46:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Maxwell67 That is not at all what I said, and I am sure you know that. Stop twisting things around to underscore your own political take. What I said was that children should be provided the best environment we can give them to allow them to find and attain their own potential and to encourage them to use it. Now how can holding some back accomplish that goal? I am really not trying to underscore any political agenda at all. . .I'm not sure if I even have a political agenda. . . I'd have to look and see if there is one laying about I could use. . . My fact is simply that when people seek equality of all then often those who are gifted are the ones that suffer. When you have a Einstein born to a town, for him/or her to get all he/or she needs to become the genius they could be requires an extra effort. . .more resources. When you have a Motzart born to your town. . .he/she requires more. To say each must receive the exact same can result in the holding back of some because they require more because they can be more. Most all absolutes leave holes of logic, even if meant with the best intentions.

YoungLust -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 7:48:23 PM)
quote: Belittle quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl easy. Master is superior because i see him that way. tell me.. in your relationship with your... Mistress/gf.. Belittled.. who's wants come first? not needs.. just wants Her wants come first, of course. But our relationship isn't based on inferiority or superiority; it's based upon an amazing mutual compatibility, intimacy, and our own personal natural inclinations. We are equals, but she is dominant because that has what nature has decided for her. I submit to her because when I have that level of intimacy with someone, I derive an amazing amount of pleasure and fulfillment from their pleasure and happiness, even if at the expense of my own. But her and I would both agree that we are equals.

tazzygirl -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 7:54:24 PM)
the very act of submission makes you not equal. equal would not be placing her wants before your own, or yours before hers. they would be mutually satisfied.

beargonewild -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 7:58:27 PM)
From that angle...yes. Though from another angle: The dominant person has wants and needs to be fulfilled by the submissive and the submissive has wants and needs that are filled by the dominant; thus in the end it is balanced out or equalized.

YoungLust -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 7:58:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl the very act of submission makes you not equal. equal would not be placing her wants before your own, or yours before hers. they would be mutually satisfied. My wants are satisfied in satisfying hers. I don't care to go to deeply into details, but I don't much concern myself with transient matters unless it's to amuse myself on occasion. I have no wants that go unsatisfied even while I put hers above my own. I put hers above my own because I choose to, not because of any false idea of inferiority.

tazzygirl -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 8:04:30 PM)
i didnt say you were inferior. that never once crossed my mind. i did say you two were not equal. and that is the crux. you admitted to putting her needs/wants before your own. in that way, you please yourself, you fullfill your own wants and needs. but, hers do come first. you have placed her above yourself... you two are not equal, no matter how you try to dress it up.

Maxwell67 -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 8:10:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl the very act of submission makes you not equal. equal would not be placing her wants before your own, or yours before hers. they would be mutually satisfied. Yes, but it is a willing sacrifice of equality, and one that can be revoked at any time by either party. That is what makes the power exchange relationship so special and fragile and far more difficult to maintain than a regular romance. This relationship requires more than just trust.. it requires faith (and that is why so many - myself included say that submitting requires great strength.. Dominants generally do not have this kind of capacity for faith.) If Mine did not have honest faith in My superior ability to make choices for them, I could not own them.

tazzygirl -> RE: Now... is it just me...? (6/30/2009 8:20:51 PM)
i completely agree. you two enhance each other, full that void that is missing. and at any time i could stand up and say,... i have enough. at that point, i am no longer submitting, i am stating, in essence.. i can do for myself what you were doing for me. submitting is the act of yielding oneself to a greater authority or will of another. there is no equality in that act. to be equal, one would have to be, in the case of this relationship dynamic, just as submissive, or, just as dominant, and the other party.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875