quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

im just happy that i was able to produce so many meaningful discussions!

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Im hardly stupid. neither are you.

Again, despite his candid style or asking what may otherwise seem rhetorical, I don't recall Ialda ever actually begging the question.

But, fixating on the use of one adjective in one post because it seems dismissive of unviersal human value isn't really addressing the topic.

Neither was he addressing the topic by addressing her that way

quote:

Then I apologize for the presumption that objective intellectual debate could take place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Thats the danger of allowing statements, such as you made about their being no fake, abusive or cruel doms, go without comment. Obviously there are. They are very real, very serious, and very dangerous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Ialda brought up a very good point, although I was yielding to your declaration of abuse having happened. It's still a very slippery slope because human culture traditionally gives the parents of the child control over their ethical structure...meaning, "abuse" could get redefined any which way the parent wants.

Maybe most of us would see raising a child to be a racist as "abuse", but that, strangely, is not something we can take a parent to court over (at least based on my knowledge of legality). Some people see daring to bathe with your child as potentially abusive (sexually). It's a dangerous blob of gray.

In the cases of physical damage or overt sexual misconduct, it's a bit easier to say when child abuse is happening...but, unfortunately, it's far from being a clear issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB
This reminds me of people who argue that the Holocaust never happened, or that it might not have happened, "we're not sure." It's one thing to be morally flexible. It's quite another to deny others' reality. Women are abused the world over. Men are abused too. And so are many, many children in many different ways. That is reality, and it's not up for debate. We can debate your definition of abuse, to see where you stand on the issue, but we can't debate whether or not (or to what degree) I was abused as a child because it just. plain. happened. The same goes for women who have been abused. It's not up to anyone to define except the person who has experienced it, and there are oh so many people who have, unfortunately, experienced it.

quote:

The thing that has me up in arms a bit about the whole doormat thing is that doormats are usually people with low self-esteem and a prior history of some abuse, or an expectation for it. These are not people that we need to be taking advantage of.

quote:

These are people that we need to be supporting and helping to find their way to their own self-interests. Once a person has found the backbone to really make their own choices (including the choice to submit completely - mind, body, and soul - to another person), then they can be reasonably trusted to be consenting. Until then it's a roll of the dice whether you're hurting the person or not, and who wants to be party to that murky, non-consensual mess?

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Any time I try to have an "intellectual" debate with someone... and I have academic debates more often than most......we first have to agree about the terms we use and what they mean. There are things called dictionaries, they have words in them... we go through and specify how we are going to use a key word. If we cannot agree on how that word is to be used, game over, no intellectual discourse can take place... since we cannot agree on the very basics of consent and abuse... which are the cornerstones of identifying the dictionary definition of a "doormat"... well we can't have an intellectual conversation about this topic...

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I think a lot of people think that any sort of impassioned point is arguing emotionally, it isn't.. it can illustrate a point. People use examples to bolster their positions... this shows me that you try to come from a position of lacking emotion thinking it will make your intellectual position stronger... it doesn't, it makes it lack any sort of relevance in my eyes because your points are not derived from the reality that people live, which is filled full of messy situations and messy emotions....

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Like I have always said.. you can call your submissive a purple people eater for all I care...

quote:

Two people can be in goddamned identical situations, and we'll say that one is "being a doormat and needs to man up" and the other is "being abused and needs to be rescued". We'll jump in and rescue people who are perfectly happily consenting to their relationship while we sit by and cluck our tongues while someone else screams for help.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Thats the danger of allowing statements, such as you made about their being no fake, abusive or cruel doms, go without comment. Obviously there are. They are very real, very serious, and very dangerous.

But "Doms" is irrelevant, at that point.

I suppose it could happen if the guy is someone else's Dom (consensually) but is pushing someone else , by overt force, into a non-consensual area.

But it doesn't take a dom to do that at all....just a human being who wants to abuse someone.

But, you do make a good point about the interpretability of the statement I made.

quote:

But, we were specifically discussing the variable definitions of the word. This is precisely the precursor necessary to engage in further discussion.

quote:

I address topics from the point of logic. There are reasons why emotions aren't considered substantial in debate and why court systems go out of their way to avoid people who may be emotionally skewed by an issue.

quote:

This isn't to say humans can divide emotions from their being...yet that doesn't also make them incapable of addressing things without succumbing to them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB

This reminds me of people who argue that the Holocaust never happened, or that it might not have happened, "we're not sure." It's one thing to be morally flexible. It's quite another to deny others' reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB

Women are abused the world over. Men are abused too. And so are many, many children in many different ways. That is reality, and it's not up for debate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB

We can debate your definition of abuse, to see where you stand on the issue, but we can't debate whether or not (or to what degree) I was abused as a child because it just. plain. happened.

quote:

ORIGINAL:jujubeeMB

The same goes for women who have been abused. It's not up to anyone to define except the person who has experienced it, and there are oh so many people who have, unfortunately, experienced it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Two people can be in goddamned identical situations, and we'll say that one is "being a doormat and needs to man up" and the other is "being abused and needs to be rescued". We'll jump in and rescue people who are perfectly happily consenting to their relationship while we sit by and cluck our tongues while someone else screams for help.

Ahem. I did not lable anyone a doormat in any thread. I pointed out time and time again how they were not doormats. They labeled themselves as one. And, depending on the situation, labling yourself a doormat to the wrong people can have huge consequences.

THURMAN V. CITY OF TORRINGTON

Read up on that case. The officers held the same views you seem too now. And were just as wrong as you are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Would that not make the fake part of her statement correct then? Not to mention abusive if he is dominant, and cruel without a doubt, since murder isnt typically seen as SSC or RASK

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Two people can be in goddamned identical situations, and we'll say that one is "being a doormat and needs to man up" and the other is "being abused and needs to be rescued". We'll jump in and rescue people who are perfectly happily consenting to their relationship while we sit by and cluck our tongues while someone else screams for help.

Ahem. I did not lable anyone a doormat in any thread. I pointed out time and time again how they were not doormats. They labeled themselves as one. And, depending on the situation, labling yourself a doormat to the wrong people can have huge consequences.

THURMAN V. CITY OF TORRINGTON

Read up on that case. The officers held the same views you seem too now. And were just as wrong as you are.

She still got shot. And, I would point out, this same shit has happened to more people than her, and still does today. One level of power decided this particular girl deserved what she got. Another level of power decided she didn't. Other people in the same situation have had their local power structures react differently, which is precisely what I'm trying to point out. And you can shake your tiny fist and declare how "wrong" they are, but that won't keep people from being raped tonight, or from being shot tonight, or from starving to death tonight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

No... because we cannot come to an agreement on what abuse is

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

... you and I cannot talk if we cannot agree on the basics of the definition of the word "abuse". To me it is like trying to debate the definition of "pot" if I mean a cooking vessel and you are talking about a plant you smoke.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

People use emotional examples all the time to illustrate their points, even in debates... they use startling statistics, their life experiences, etc etc etc.... it is called "persuasive speaking"....

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

In my work I have to be self reflexive in everything I do, it has become second nature to me in my work. I have to think about my connection to the people I work with, what I have in common, and how I differ.. because the observer can never be separated from that being observed.... I am not emotional when discussing this topic, but my perspective is borne out of personal experience, and that cannot be divorced from my perspective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Would that not make the fake part of her statement correct then? Not to mention abusive if he is dominant, and cruel without a doubt, since murder isnt typically seen as SSC or RASK

I suppose. But whether he was fake or not is just a matter of misrepresentation. If he had called himself a kangaroo and done those things, the issue of abuse would still be there.

But, yes, again...the sentence I wrote is flawed in how open to interpretation it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
And its because of the opinion that i bolded above that this continues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Yet he called himself a "dom". He was abusive. He was cruel. The argument can definitely be made that he was not dominant in the way we typically define the word. So your statement was incorrect. I would not push this issue but i do believe it needs to be pushed for the safety of those who lurk and are new.