|
JohnGalt -> RE: "a true master" (10/29/2004 9:18:22 AM)
|
I am constantly amazed by the interpetations and motives ascribed to an author. In the interests of brevity, I'll reply to a number of comments here.
First, I didn't post this list to start the thread. Someone read my profile, liked what I said, and asked permission to post it in the forum. I granted that permission, following up for curiousity's sake more than anything else. The "garnering acolades" comment is specious.
Regarding the typographical convention of capitalizing Man and Master, is it not the general rule here to capitalize the pronouns of the dominant, regardless of gender? Just about all the communications I've come across capitalize the dominant as His, Him, Her, She, the One, etc etc. I've also seen the extreme case where both cases are used, as in Oour, and Wwe to indicate both the dominant and the submissive as a unit. I'm surprised that someone who reads my list and sees the capitalization used would assume that it's an attempt to 'fluff up' the author.
In the case of judgement, glass houses and black kettles; I don't claim that my reasoning or my reasons are for you. I cannot think for you, nor would I try. The notion that this list is better suited to romantic fantasy than a realistic situation presupposes some pretty unpleasant constraints on what is 'realistic.' Another way to say it is that my list isn't practical. That depends entirely on what one wants to practice, does it not? What is unrealistic about it?
Lastly, the notion of molding man into what a woman claims to want. The list in my profile is what I think it takes to be a 'good' dominant. A 'true' master. Good and True presupposes a definition of the good, which frequently differs between individuals, and more often than not has never even been thought about deeply. Most accept 'good' as that which makes them feel good, leaving their emotions to decide ethical and philosophical issues. That's mostly why assholes sometimes do well in the short term. They appeal to a certain set of emotions, and for many, that's sufficent. A deeper look considers health and life as factors that must be considered in 'good.' For the heroin addict, getting his next fix is 'good.' Objectively (gasp, what a word) it is not good, but a clear evil, destroying his ability to think and to live as a man, and ultimately, to live at all.
For those who feel compelled to support my position from an emotional basis, "It's sad that...." I appreciate your intention, but I welcome rational debate. The name callers and simpletons can be eliminated from consideration by simply asking them to defend their assertions. Most frequently, they won't even try. Somewhat less frequently, they will try, but when they look deeper into their stated view, they see the flaws in their reasoning. When that happens, they either become more wildly strident and irrational, or they back down and grow silent.
I remain,
John Galt
PS. Brevity perhaps isn't my strongest characteristc.
|
|
|
|
