RE: Definition of slavery

RE: Definition of slavery (Full Version)

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

Message

OsideGirl -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/4/2015 9:15:40 PM)
Silly me for thinking that the owners determined what role the slave played.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/4/2015 9:18:22 PM)
Not only silly but a perversion of the noble history of real™ slavery!

notaBULL -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/4/2015 9:19:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl Silly me for thinking that the owners determined what role the slave played. slave played. it has nothing to do with playing

OsideGirl -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/4/2015 9:22:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: notaBULL quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl Silly me for thinking that the owners determined what role the slave played. slave played. it has nothing to do with playing Considering that slavery is illegal and it's a voluntary relationship...yeah, it does

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/4/2015 9:35:43 PM)
I think I should rename you from *notaBULL* to fullofBULL. [:)] Your myopic PoV is just sooo incredulous as to be shelved into the realms of faeries and fantasy.

Bunnicula -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/4/2015 10:38:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: notaBULL I will rock on with my good self, your attempts do not work on me Attempts to what? I'm just finding your protestations mildly amusing [:D]

LadyPact -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/4/2015 11:02:40 PM)
Fast reply... First slave I had? No sex. That was my decision. Another slave I had? He sucked in bed. If I couldn't have gotten off by power and control, it wouldn't have done anything for me. I've had three s-types that were amazing in the sack. (Those were pet, j, and tk.) If I wouldn't have used them sexually, I'd have missed out on some amazing orgasms. In fact, tk was one of the best lovers I've ever had. I still smile thinking about it.

notaBULL -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/5/2015 11:59:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: notaBULL quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl Silly me for thinking that the owners determined what role the slave played. slave played. it has nothing to do with playing Considering that slavery is illegal and it's a voluntary relationship...yeah, it does Slavery is not illegal, that is only an illusion, when the North went to war against the South, they only used slavery as an excuse, it was a matter of competition. Those who do not own slaves cannot compete with those who do, because those who do own a free work force. Hence! Again, going back to the Hegelian Dialectic, a more cunning system of slavery was implemented after victory. The goal was to create slaves who do not even know they are slaves. And by the way, it is nonsense to think one can do what she wants with her property, you can purchase a car, pay cash, this makes it your property, now if you want to use your car to paint your walls, it will not work, you need a brush. Under the plantation system, slaves were not walking on all fours going OINK OINK, these slaves would never have accepted such humiliation. They were PROUD to serve. The movie ROOTS shows only one side of slavery, the type of slavery supported by kidnapping.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/5/2015 12:19:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: notaBULL And by the way, it is nonsense to think one can do what she wants with her property, you can purchase a car, pay cash, this makes it your property, now if you want to use your car to paint your walls, it will not work, you need a brush. I can do anything I want with my car that my car can actually do. My car can't paint a wall, so it would be nonsense to try and tell it to do so. Slaves on the other hand can do a whole bunch of stuff cars can't and I can order them to do any one of those things should it please me. However, I cannot order a slave to drive like a car can, because a slave cannot physically do this. Squealing OINK OINK however, is totally something slaves are capable of doing, and so something I could order a slave to do should I want to. quote: ORIGINAL: notaBULL They were PROUD to serve. Totally dude. You completely won your argument with that little bit of historical accuracy.

Bhruic -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/5/2015 12:23:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: notaBULL Ya, that is right, blame it all on google. There was nothing to refute. You only blamed it on google thus avoiding debate. The wiki definitions included were only posted for you, because I knew you would not know what Hegelian Dialectic means. Furthermore, I did not only pull content from wiki, I did actually state you had to know the difference between the Interpretation of the dialectic from two great world leaders. If you cannot reply to that then you must back down. Your little scheme of drawing attention to Google is childish. While it is clear you have the intellectual capacity to master the concepts of "Copy" and "Paste", and you have managed to cobble together the utterly simplistic equation, thesis + antithesis = synthesis... It is equally clear that you have no idea what that means, nor any understanding of Hegelian Dialectic whatsoever. You do seem to like spinning in circles though. Is there no one in real life willing to pretend with you that you are smart?

LadyPact -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/5/2015 12:38:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar Squealing OINK OINK however, is totally something slaves are capable of doing, and so something I could order a slave to do should I want to. Yep. Backing up this statement as well. I actually do know an M/s couple who engage in this. (I know there's more than that but I won't attest to people I don't actually know.) In fact, she has a little piggy outfit specifically for it.

notaBULL -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/5/2015 12:39:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bhruic quote: ORIGINAL: notaBULL Ya, that is right, blame it all on google. There was nothing to refute. You only blamed it on google thus avoiding debate. The wiki definitions included were only posted for you, because I knew you would not know what Hegelian Dialectic means. Furthermore, I did not only pull content from wiki, I did actually state you had to know the difference between the Interpretation of the dialectic from two great world leaders. If you cannot reply to that then you must back down. Your little scheme of drawing attention to Google is childish. While it is clear you have the intellectual capacity to master the concepts of "Copy" and "Paste", and you have managed to cobble together the utterly simplistic equation, thesis + antithesis = synthesis... It is equally clear that you have no idea what that means, nor any understanding of Hegelian Dialectic whatsoever. You do seem to like spinning in circles though. Is there no one in real life willing to pretend with you that you are smart? Oh! here is Bhruic to the rescue again. Did you go do a little bit of homework to come up with thesis + antithesis = synthesis..Maybe you went to YOUTUBE and watched a couple videos. I would be surprised though, I would think you are more the type to spend your entire life on forums. You are the one who brought up (google) not me, and anybody with a brain can see that I did not simply copy and paste. The only thing you introduced to this thread was (hey man you are good with google) you probably did not even read this thread from the beginning, this is common with Lazy people like you. Begin your argument on the Hegelian Dialectic and I will debate anything you bring to the table. Now, you cannot simply go bla bla bla, I want to know how this connects to the definition of slavery

Bhruic -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/5/2015 12:43:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: notaBULL ... I would think you are more the type to spend your entire life on forums. Irony... look it up on Wikipedia. Why don't you begin by clarifying what your thesis is, and what you understand the antithesis to be? Because you certainly have not done that as yet.

notaBULL -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/5/2015 12:49:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar quote: ORIGINAL: notaBULL And by the way, it is nonsense to think one can do what she wants with her property, you can purchase a car, pay cash, this makes it your property, now if you want to use your car to paint your walls, it will not work, you need a brush. I can do anything I want with my car that my car can actually do. My car can't paint a wall, so it would be nonsense to try and tell it to do so. Slaves on the other hand can do a whole bunch of stuff cars can't and I can order them to do any one of those things should it please me. However, I cannot order a slave to drive like a car can, because a slave cannot physically do this. Squealing OINK OINK however, is totally something slaves are capable of doing, and so something I could order a slave to do should I want to. quote: ORIGINAL: notaBULL They were PROUD to serve. Totally dude. You completely won your argument with that little bit of historical accuracy. I see you must read and study then understand GONE WITH THE WIND. The wealth of the SOUTH was not built on OINK OINK

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/5/2015 12:55:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: notaBULL I see you must read and study then understand GONE WITH THE WIND. The wealth of the SOUTH was not built on OINK OINK You're -wrongly- assuming that wealth is why I'm interested in the keeping of slaves. Throughout human history slaves have been used for whatever the owner wanted. The Middle-East has a long tradition of keeping female slaves as in large harems as a status symbol. These slaves cost the owner tons of money, and didn't profit him in the least, because profit wasn't their purpose. Likewise with the Roman empire, where handsome slaves of both genders were sometimes acquired as "decoration" to show off the owner's status, or as playmates for their children, or as household/business managers, or as a sexslave to throw to other slaves as a 'treat' for good behavior, or as a lady's maid/confidante/girl friend to the Mistress of the house. Slaves do not serve the single purpose of accumulating wealth for their owner. They serve the purpose of pleasing the owner by whatever means the owner decides. This has always been the case, and isn't any different in a BDSM setup.

notaBULL -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/5/2015 1:05:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bhruic quote: ORIGINAL: notaBULL ... I would think you are more the type to spend your entire life on forums. Irony... look it up on Wikipedia. Why don't you begin by clarifying what your thesis is, and what you understand the antithesis to be? Because you certainly have not done that as yet. Wow! You are a cunning piece of work. The foregoing contains the question and the answer, it is no riddle, you just have to read the thread from the beginning, it is all there

Bhruic -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/5/2015 2:31:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: notaBULL quote: ORIGINAL: Bhruic quote: ORIGINAL: notaBULL ... I would think you are more the type to spend your entire life on forums. Irony... look it up on Wikipedia. Why don't you begin by clarifying what your thesis is, and what you understand the antithesis to be? Because you certainly have not done that as yet. Wow! You are a cunning piece of work. The foregoing contains the question and the answer, it is no riddle, you just have to read the thread from the beginning, it is all there You are backing down then?

LadyPact -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/5/2015 2:51:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: notaBULL Under the plantation system, slaves were not walking on all fours going OINK OINK, these slaves would never have accepted such humiliation. They were PROUD to serve. The movie ROOTS shows only one side of slavery, the type of slavery supported by kidnapping. Rather than "Roots," might I suggest you try "Twelve Years A Slave?"

Wayward5oul -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/5/2015 3:12:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: notaBULL Under the plantation system, slaves were not walking on all fours going OINK OINK, these slaves would never have accepted such humiliation. They were PROUD to serve. The movie ROOTS shows only one side of slavery, the type of slavery supported by kidnapping. You just went from "mildly amusing to watch get flamed while I have nothing better to do" to "ignorant, fullofbullshit douchebag scum".

notaBULL -> RE: Definition of slavery (10/5/2015 3:58:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bhruic quote: ORIGINAL: notaBULL quote: ORIGINAL: Bhruic quote: ORIGINAL: notaBULL ... I would think you are more the type to spend your entire life on forums. Irony... look it up on Wikipedia. Why don't you begin by clarifying what your thesis is, and what you understand the antithesis to be? Because you certainly have not done that as yet. Wow! You are a cunning piece of work. The foregoing contains the question and the answer, it is no riddle, you just have to read the thread from the beginning, it is all there You are backing down then? You do not bring nothing to the table why should I bother trying to be your teacher when it is obvious you know everything. You are the one backing down. I asked you how do you think the Hegelian Dialectic applies to my definition of slavery and all you replied is ( google is my friend) Well google is also your friend, so get off your ass and go learn something there. However, even if you use google, you will still not be able to give me answer, because it is clear that you did not know who Hegel was before this thread was started. Now the only you way you can answer my question is to read Mein Kampf from front to back, in order to see what Hitler thought about Hegel.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875