RE: no limits period

RE: no limits period (Full Version)

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

Message

Ishtarr -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:06:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Plenty of non-mentally ill people have no limits. Frankly, anyone choosing to serve in a country's military could qualify (particularly during actual wartime). The underlying suggestion seems to be that a romantic relationship (Romeo & Juliet notwithstanding) isn't a sufficiently credible metaphysical impetus for someone to agree to those lengths. Totally agree with the army analogy. As to his premiss that it's impossible to enter into such an arrangement in a romantic relationships... he's equally failed to support that premiss. Which isn't surprising, given that he apparently doesn't even understand the actual definition of the word "relationship". Ishtar

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:07:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr Totally agree with the army analogy. Why am I not surprised?

NihilusZero -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:08:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain Geez, what military are you envisioning where one of the primary motivators for membership is, for many, sex? You're jumping around. We're not talking about sex (what motivation one has to enter a no-limits situation is irrelevant). This is about the sensibility of the suggestion that no-limits people are mentally unstable or even that no-limits engagements don't actually exist. Heck, some people are in no-limits relationships with imaginary characters!

Ishtarr -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:13:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious (Actually, no, I've decided you were wrong - you can't set it up as 'Some S are M', because 'it's possible for a mentally disturb person to have no limits' doesn't actually state that it's possible that a mentally disturbed person does have limits.) You're absolutely right... I just caught it. It should have either been: All P are M. (All humans are beings with limits) Some S are not M. (Some mentally disturbed are not beings with limits) Or No P are M. (No humans are beings without limits) Some S are M. (Some mentally disturbed are beings without limits) My mistake, probably because I was trying to go to fast (it's been a while since I've done this) thanks for pointing it out. Ishtar

VaguelyCurious -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:15:26 PM)
Yay for tidy logic! [:D]

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:18:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero You're jumping around. We're not talking about sex (what motivation one has to enter a no-limits situation is irrelevant). What's the main focus of this discussion board? D/s. What is a major part of D/s for many practitioners? Sex. That's why your military analogy is a red herring, or an inapt analogy if you prefer. The motivations for joining the military are rather different from the motivations someone would have to induce them to let another person tie them up and spank them. The whole point of this discussion is the concept of "no limits" in D/s relationships, not "no limits in the military." Someone in the military is legally obliged to follow lawful orders. No submissive in a D/s relationship is legally obliged to do anything.his or her dominant says. Unless, as I said, you have some really wild military in mind.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:22:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain The motivations for joining the military are rather different from the motivations someone would have to induce them to let another person tie them up and spank them. Which ties in terribly neatly with what he said in the first place, neh? quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero The underlying suggestion seems to be that a romantic relationship (Romeo & Juliet notwithstanding) isn't a sufficiently credible metaphysical impetus for someone to agree to those lengths.

Ishtarr -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:23:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero You're jumping around. We're not talking about sex (what motivation one has to enter a no-limits situation is irrelevant). What's the main focus of this discussion board? D/s. What is a major part of D/s for many practitioners? Sex. That's why your military analogy is a red herring, or an inapt analogy if you prefer. The motivations for joining the military are rather different from the motivations someone would have to induce them to let another person tie them up and spank them. The whole point of this discussion is the concept of "no limits" in D/s relationships, not "no limits in the military." Someone in the military is legally obliged to follow lawful orders. No submissive in a D/s relationship is legally obliged to do anything.his or her dominant says. Unless, as I said, you have some really wild military in mind. It's not inapt seeing that you extended your statements beyond the D/s world when you claimed that "everybody has limits". Everybody includes soldiers, which means that proving that soldiers are in a no limits relationship shows that your premiss "everybody has limits" is false. If you want to go back and re-qualify your statement to be "everybody in a D/s relationship has limits" NZ's army analogy becomes inapt. However, even if you re-qualify your statement to be everybody in a D/s relationship has limits", you've still failed so far to come up with ANY evidence to support that claim. Ishtar

NihilusZero -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:28:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain The motivations for joining the military are rather different from the motivations someone would have to induce them to let another person tie them up and spank them. In the psychology of what alien species? quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain The whole point of this discussion is the concept of "no limits" in D/s relationships, not "no limits in the military." Someone in the military is legally obliged to follow lawful orders. By whom? For what reasons? Beginning with what decision? quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain No submissive in a D/s relationship is legally obliged to do anything.his or her dominant says. Oh! I see. I didn't realize you were backpedaling to the legality argument. I though we covered the inapplicability of that a few pages ago. So dictators of sovereign countries happen to be able to engage in no-limits relationships (since they can socially construct legalities that allow them to enforce someone into such a relationship). Lucky bastards! I may need to get my own island...

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:30:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr It's not inapt seeing that you extended your statements beyond the D/s world when you claimed that "everybody has limits". Oh, well, let me fix that: "Everyone has limits in a D/s relationship, and D/s relationships are the point of this discussion board, even though it may not be clear to some who think this discussion board is in part devoted to discussions of military service." Happy?

Ishtarr -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:33:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr It's not inapt seeing that you extended your statements beyond the D/s world when you claimed that "everybody has limits". Oh, well, let me fix that: "Everyone has limits in a D/s relationship, and D/s relationships are the point of this discussion board, even though it may not be clear to some who think this discussion board is in part devoted to discussions of military service." Happy? So you agree that NOT everybody has limits. And now you claim that everybody in a D/s relationship has limits. So proof that a submissive is practically unable to enter into a situation where they are no longer practically able to revoke consent.

NihilusZero -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:35:40 PM)
The recent detour suddenly made me think of this. I'm gonna start carrying a flag around so I can officially engage in no-limits relationships.

xssve -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:37:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr And explain to me why you believe that mentally disturbed people aren't human beings... If you're going to start deliberately misrepresenting my position, I'm going to make fun of your use of the word "proof" for "prove" and your penchant for using ALL CAPS! It's moot, not "mute" - sorry, that's been bugging me. El Pedanto.

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:38:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr So proof that a submissive is practically unable to enter into a situation where they are no longer practically able to revoke consent. I think we agreed long ago that if the dominant is willing to break the law, he or she can deprive the submissive of the benefits of withdrawing consent. The dominant cannot disallow withdrawing consent, but he or she can say "Tough tittie for you. You're staying in the cage even if you just told me you want out." Again, what does that have to do with "no limits" or "consensual non-consent?" We're back on the merry-go-'round.

Ishtarr -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:50:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr So proof that a submissive is practically unable to enter into a situation where they are no longer practically able to revoke consent. I think we agreed long ago that if the dominant is willing to break the law, he or she can deprive the submissive of the benefits of withdrawing consent. The dominant cannot disallow withdrawing consent, but he or she can say "Tough tittie for you. You're staying in the cage even if you just told me you want out." Again, what does that have to do with "no limits" or "consensual non-consent?" It's no limits because the submissive knowingly and willingly places themselves in a situation where they cannot stop what's going on. The fact that they are willing to place themselves in a situation where they can't stop what's going on means that they do not have limits IOW they do not have a point at which they want to stop what's going on. No limits = having no point at which you want to stop the dominant's actions. Placing yourself willingly and knowingly in a situations where you can't stop the dominant's actions because you don't want to stop the dominant's actions = no limits. I've never used the term "consensual non-consent", but I believe that consensual non-consent is what you claim most submissives who claim to have no limits actually practice: a relationship where they pretend not to be able to stop what's going on, but are actually able to do so at all time, and where the dominant's power only extends to those areas that the submissive currently allows him to control. I'd agree with you that that's what a lot of submissives who claim to have no limits are, and that it's not the same to not having limits. Further, force doesn't HAVE to be in play, as already demonstrated. It's possible for a mentally ill person to not have limits, and it's practically possible for a mentally ill person to enter into a D/s relationship. Therefore, it's possible for people within a D/s relationship to not have limits. Ishtar

IronBear -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 10:56:16 PM)
There are some contingencies especially with mercs being involved as SF operators that rather than captue, or being interrogated, you will suicide rather that divulge intelligence. This has been the standard for years. The Merc's gift to a mate who can not be moved is to either leave him with a loaded weapon or if he is incapacitated, to take his life rather then hand him over to the butchers.

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 11:42:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain The motivations for joining the military are rather different from the motivations someone would have to induce them to let another person tie them up and spank them. Which ties in terribly neatly with what he said in the first place, neh? quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero The underlying suggestion seems to be that a romantic relationship (Romeo & Juliet notwithstanding) isn't a sufficiently credible metaphysical impetus for someone to agree to those lengths. This thing? "[A] sufficiently credible metaphysical impetus?" Are you implying it actually means something?

Ishtarr -> RE: no limits period (1/29/2011 12:06:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero The underlying suggestion seems to be that a romantic relationship (Romeo & Juliet notwithstanding) isn't a sufficiently credible metaphysical impetus for someone to agree to those lengths. This thing? "[A] sufficiently credible metaphysical impetus?" Are you implying it actually means something? Awe sweetie... you need a translation? He is saying that you are claiming that romantic relationships don't have enough meaning to people in them to enable them to achieve a state of having no-limits within them. Ishtar

misssidney -> RE: no limits period (1/29/2011 12:32:21 AM)
I really dont wanna play with poop..lol

IronBear -> RE: no limits period (1/29/2011 12:45:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: misssidney I really dont wanna play with poop..lol So lass I take it you wouldn't be interested in mucking lout the stables before and after pony play then ?

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875