Value of Poetry

Value of Poetry (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

BenevolentM -> Value of Poetry (2/1/2011 11:27:27 AM)
Value of Poetry My experience is lacking in that I experience nonconsensual celibacy near 100% of the time. Art can help a person cope with loneliness. Like Cyrano de Bergerac it is a way to make love without making love. What do you do when you are not wanted? Some feel that I am Gorean. There is Gorean philosophy and Gorean poetry. My poetry can be male chauvinist. Allow me to present to you a sample of my poetry quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM If this should be a weakness by which you can be manipulated, it is as the creator intended. Lovers manipulate each other for happiness sake. A good witch is the best sort of lover a dominant man can have. A female skilled in the art of manipulation is to be admired. What matters is whether or not she has mingled her power with yours so that you are no longer a man, but a fearsome god, "Fear me my love for I am great." In silence the witch replies, "It is true for I have given you all that I am and I am not nothing." See the thread "Is Love Inconvenient?" in General BDSM Discussion. The URL of the post is http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3548699. Some find it unsettling that I have no inner compass telling me not to build on past work as I do here.

mnottertail -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/1/2011 11:35:33 AM)
That particular poetry is valueless, I warrant. Hup

BenevolentM -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/1/2011 11:43:36 AM)
Do I F with thee? quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM Value of Poetry My experience is lacking in that I experience nonconsensual celibacy near 100% of the time. ... Some/most would argue that my brand of celibacy is consensual. The problem is there are sadistic fantasies held by many and those who would deny the truth. There are a lot of lonely people out there. The statistics are terrifying. It is nonconsensual when you didn't consent to it.

BenevolentM -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/1/2011 11:50:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail That particular poetry is valueless, I warrant. Tongue and cheek, my lover has returned! It would be preferable if you elaborated. Warrant is a strong word. It means guarantee. Upon what basis is the guarantee made? Previously, I recall that you have argued this point, but you were engaging in what is known as an Ad hominem. You are making a comment concerning a class of poetry which begs the question, What are you talking about?

Musicmystery -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/1/2011 12:14:20 PM)
Not ad hominem at all. He specifically commented on the poetry, not the poet.

BenevolentM -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/1/2011 12:17:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Not ad hominem at all. He specifically commented on the poetry, not the poet. Go over what I wrote Musicmystery. I was speaking in the past tense. Objectivity only hurts a little.

Musicmystery -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/1/2011 12:22:47 PM)
And he wrote it just before you did. If you want to get technical, if you were referring to an event even before this, (1) you should have used past perfect tense, not past progressive, and (2) on a public message board, unless it's populated by psychics, people are going to go by what they read, not by what you decide it means later. Objectivity is all you've received. Look it up.

BenevolentM -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/1/2011 5:31:20 PM)
I re-examined what I wrote. Musicmystery, seems lukewarm. Given that the audience isn't psychic what Musicmystery must be talking about when he wrote, "Objectivity is all you've received." is a matter concerning fluorescent lighting. He's a proponent and I argued against it. That should help give everyone some background. I'm not sure what else he could mean. Putting my psychic hat on, maybe he's talking about what I had to say about rational design. We differed on that too. I had a lot to say about rational design and the economy.

Musicmystery -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/1/2011 5:39:58 PM)
Wow you're an idiot. And you think way too much, much of which is imagined. You got brief primers on verb tense, coherence, and audience analysis. Here's a brief one on Goreans. You aren't one. I can't imagine anyone entertaining that notion even momentarily. Why? Goreans frown on whining and self-pity. They also take responsibility for themselves, vs. looking outward for something to blame for their problems.

BenevolentM -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/1/2011 6:47:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Wow you're an idiot. And you think way too much, much of which is imagined. You got brief primers on verb tense, coherence, and audience analysis. Here's a brief one on Goreans. You aren't one. I can't imagine anyone entertaining that notion even momentarily. Why? Goreans frown on whining and self-pity. They also take responsibility for themselves, vs. looking outward for something to blame for their problems. Now that is better. For a moment I thought you had a chip on your shoulder. I could buy the "Goreans frown on whining and self-pity." Can you point out to me more clearly what is wrong with the sentence, "Previously, I recall that you have argued this point, but you were engaging in what is known as an Ad hominem." Maybe I didn't make Ad hominem plural. My English must have been driving you nuts. Perhaps I can improve given time. Anyway, getting back to Ad hominem. There are two varieties.

Ishtarr -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/1/2011 6:59:47 PM)
It wasn't an ad hominem attack because mnottertail didn't insult or belittle you personally to devaluate your argument. He only commented on the content by stating he warrants that "that particular poetry is valueless". Stating he believes your poetry is valueless is not a personal attack on you and can thus no be an ad hominem attack...

BenevolentM -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/1/2011 7:08:01 PM)
In light of what Musicmystery wrote I'm thinking that what mnottertail is saying is Goreans regard the topic of nonconsensual dominant male celibacy taboo. Maybe that is what Musicmystery is getting at when he spoke of audience analysis. The topic under discussion isn't nonconsensual dominant male celibacy, however. It is poetry. I provided a sample poem. Do you mnottertail and Musicmystery have any poems that you would like to share?

BenevolentM -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/1/2011 7:11:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr It wasn't an ad hominem attack because mnottertail didn't insult or belittle you personally to devaluate your argument. He only commented on the content by stating he warrants that "that particular poetry is valueless". Stating he believes your poetry is valueless is not a personal attack on you and can thus no be an ad hominem attack... I understand this beautiful Ishtarr, but the ad hominem I am claiming is something that occurred in the past. I made this clear by saying "Previously". There were other clues as well, but this was the most prominent clue. If you beat me Ishtarr, I might be inclined to kiss you. Now if mnottertail warrants that he has never participated in such activities and feels that I'm mistaken, I'll look into whether or not I was mistaken. mnottertail has not denied it, however. Did I hurt your feelings mnottertail?

Ishtarr -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/1/2011 7:22:00 PM)
If you're referring to another post where he used an ad hominem attack, I'd like to see the link. And if you're not likely to get my permission to kiss me, for any reason...

Brian762 -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/1/2011 7:35:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM In light of what Musicmystery wrote I'm thinking that what mnottertail is saying is Goreans regard the topic of nonconsensual dominant male celibacy taboo. Maybe that is what Musicmystery is getting at when he spoke of audience analysis. The topic under discussion isn't nonconsensual dominant male celibacy, however. It is poetry. I provided a sample poem. Do you mnottertail and Musicmystery have any poems that you would like to share? It's not that the topic is taboo it's that Gorean free don't do anything that they don't consent too. If they ever feel that they are in a position that they didn't consent too they will change their position until they are satisfied. They will do what is necessary to make sure they are pleased. Nonconsentsual celibacy doesn't exist to free men. I am also wondering how you get nonconsentsual celibacy at all? To consent is an agreement between 2 people. How can 2 people fully aware agree to be celibate, yet have it be nonconsentsual? Nonconsentual amongst Goreans would be that the free would be celibate because the slave would choose not to have sex with her Master. And well we all know how well that goes over.

BenevolentM -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/1/2011 8:33:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr If you're referring to another post where he used an ad hominem attack, I'd like to see the link. mnottertail did not deny it, but let me see what I can find quickly. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3537836 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail If you would have read the post in its entirety that I didn't post you would know the answer to this. I will excerpt the salient points here and now: "85% of the women are sick of listening to you." I am claiming ad hominem circumstantial. He is using an alleged circumstance to discredit what I've said. I regarded what he wrote as humorous, however. You don't need to look far to find more. His next post was: quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail your goint to fail at alotta things. To make an aside, look at his spelling. There is no humor. mnottertail seems to feel that he can make unsupported statements. It is unsupported because he does not elaborate. He arrived at a conclusion which means he is making an argument which he elided. His conclusion implies a failing which he does not mention that supports his conclusion. His real goal is clearly not to be informative, however. If his goal was to inform hypothetically one could imagine some line of reasoning from a failing to a slippery slope, but this is not what mnottertail is trying to achieve. Here I am claiming ad hominem circumstantial. He is asserting that what I have to say is nonsense because of some circumstance, e.g. an alleged failing in me. At http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3545802 mnottertail wrote quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail That is some really fucking grandiose asswipe, pal. Again, no elaboration. He failed to explain what made it "fucking grandiose asswipe". Curious minds want to know. Again, he arrived at a conclusion which means he is making an argument which he elided. He is arguing that since I can be abused (since he did so in the conclusion), the conclusion follows. Consequently, it is both ad hominem abusive and circular.

BenevolentM -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/1/2011 9:30:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM Did I hurt your feelings mnottertail? I believe that I may have inadverently hurt his feelings in the following way: quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail That particular poetry is valueless, I warrant. mnottertail wrote a poem and I failed to appreciate it as a poem. For this I apologize to you mnottertail. Now where is your poem Musicmystery.

BenevolentM -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/1/2011 9:55:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brian762 Nonconsentsual celibacy doesn't exist to free men. I would argue that a distinction must be drawn between being free in spirit and free in truth. As I see it Goreans celebrate what it is to be free, but that freedom is only achievable in spirit. My spirit is free and because my spirit is free, I feel that I qualify. quote: ORIGINAL: Brian762 To consent is an agreement between 2 people. A man in celibacy is alone. He cannot give consent, therefore he has not given consent since consent is impossible. It can only be consensual in the presence of a woman. According to this logic it follows that masturbation is an act of rape since it is nonconsensual sex. If a woman should deny a man her companionship, she has condemned him to the commission of immoral acts for it is his nature to sex. In this circumstance the man is helpless and so the crime is committed by the woman.

Brian762 -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/2/2011 5:08:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM A man in celibacy is alone. He cannot give consent, therefore he has not given consent since consent is impossible. It can only be consensual in the presence of a woman. According to this logic it follows that masturbation is an act of rape since it is nonconsensual sex. If a woman should deny a man her companionship, she has condemned him to the commission of immoral acts for it is his nature to sex. In this circumstance the man is helpless and so the crime is committed by the woman. A man is only ever alone when he chooses to be alone, being celibate doesn't make that choice for him, he makes that choice. To be celibate is a choice made by the one who chooses to be celibate. You cannot blame the choice of being celibate as a reason of being alone both are choices one makes for themselves. If a woman chooses to deny a man her companionship, that's her choice. It doesn't condemn him to immoral acts, it just means he has to find someone else who doesn't deny him. You call an immoral act but if I was with a with a woman who chose to deny me her companionship, I just wouldn't be with that woman anymore. There's nothing immoral about making that choice. The only circumstance that makes a man helpless is when he chooses to be helpless. That in itself is just an excuse not to make the changes necessary so that someone is no longer helpless. No crime is committed at all, that's just another way to blame someone else or something else for someone to be helpless. Masturbation isn't an act of rape nor is it nonconsensual. It is exactly the opposite of both in every way shape and form. Masturbation is the act of self pleasurement and it is consented by the one who self pleasures themselves.

mnottertail -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/2/2011 7:54:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail If you would have read the post in its entirety that I didn't post you would know the answer to this. I will excerpt the salient points here and now: "85% of the women are sick of listening to you." I am claiming ad hominem circumstantial. He is using an alleged circumstance to discredit what I've said. I regarded what he wrote as humorous, however. You have ad himinem circumstantial wrong. AHC is the argument in fallacy that someone situated in a particular circumstance would take a particular position because of that circumstance. I will demonstrate: Richard Nixon, 'Democrats suck'. Me: 'Yeah you would say that.' quote: You don't need to look far to find more. His next post was: quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail your goint to fail at alotta things. To make an aside, look at his spelling. There is no humor. mnottertail seems to feel that he can make unsupported statements. It is unsupported because he does not elaborate. Elaboration and support are very different. In fact, so different that they are nearly unmiscable. Lets say for the sake of demonstration I said you were a fuckin dumbass. Then I went on and said, here see this quote of his. And this one. And this one. And this one. Ergo id est, dumbass. Music Mystery might then say, wait up there, ott......see here, quote one seems very reasonable, quote two is uh, I am unsure but 3,4,5 and so on are widely held views... Support of positions are in the eye of each beholder, some of my supported and elaborated positions on this board are from some time ago, where I may have elaborated and knowing that a great deal of folks have read that, and they understand the linkages I have made and how I got there. Now, having said that, I do not owe it to society at large to comment on this or that trivial matter with a complete comprehensive and annotated pictoral history of the framework of my philosophical thought and conclusions...I leave those matters to Wittgenstein. quote: He arrived at a conclusion which means he is making an argument which he elided. I did not change the terms or focus of the question as I perceived it. quote: His conclusion implies a failing which he does not mention that supports his conclusion. His real goal is clearly not to be informative, however. If his goal was to inform hypothetically one could imagine some line of reasoning from a failing to a slippery slope, but this is not what mnottertail is trying to achieve. Here I am claiming ad hominem circumstantial. He is asserting that what I have to say is nonsense because of some circumstance, e.g. an alleged failing in me. First of all, philosophy would require you to put the best possible light on any argument. You have not done so. In fact, you are attributing emotions and processes from inferrence of facts clearly not in evidence. quote: At http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3545802 mnottertail wrote quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail That is some really fucking grandiose asswipe, pal. Again, no elaboration. He failed to explain what made it "fucking grandiose asswipe". Curious minds want to know. Again, he arrived at a conclusion which means he is making an argument which he elided. He is arguing that since I can be abused (since he did so in the conclusion), the conclusion follows. Consequently, it is both ad hominem abusive and circular. I omitted nothing, nor did I ignore anything in my comment. The eliding in this case would been to have said nothing. I did not argue that you can be abused, you are simply insincerely misrepresenting that, and that is a fallacy in and of itself, based upon which you then go on from your accusatory position of facts not in evidence, you conlude further that it is circular. I think you have defined circular reasoning for us in that vignette. So, in peroration, fallacies of presumption, fallacies of equivocation, package-deal fallacies, argument from fallacy.....oh, thats enough.... has been demonstrated quite handily here by you. So, your supported comments are as fallacious as any I might have made. It is unfortunate that the statement falls under ad hominem in tu quoque, and is in formal philosophical circles a fallacy, however; that ain't where we are at. Also, these fallacies being 'illegal' in the formal grammars, are not by dint of that found to be necessarily untrue. The question is, what honest hearing and consideration does a man owe to each and every idea, whether wholly absurd or no, to every soapboxer that passes nearby? My position is: NONE. Yours may be something else. (edit: LOL. btw, my feelings are not hurt, rather I would that you would pour out your heart and soul, your hopes, your dreams and your ambitions to me, so I can laugh in your face, because thats what I really like, it gives me big fuckin wood.) edit again to clean up quotes, and I have spent too much time on this now.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.078125E-02