RE: What have you changed on?

RE: What have you changed on? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

ManOeuvre -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/17/2016 9:00:33 AM)
Edwird, the other end is the pointy end. For future reference, when someone starts a sentence with the semi-dismissive, cliché "We've all seen..." or "We've all heard...", the point is usually to ask people not to use the template of what follows as their argument or example. If you must know, the notion of a "slight rightward shuffle" I poached from a conversation I read about. If you care to know who the speakers were, I can tell you. "Heartless youth and brainless adult" is a stock phrase I've been hearing in and around Canada for some 25 years. The value of your contribution, though, is off the charts!

heavyblinker -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/17/2016 9:35:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Look at his proposed sec. of state. A man ripe with a direct conflict in dealing with Russia and who has no diplomatic or political experience...at all. I'm not saying I trust the guy, but Tillerson's apparent stance on climate change is a serious cause for celebration if Trump actually listens to him. I swear that all Trump would have to do is follow Tillerson's lead on a carbon tax and I would wish Trump all the best in 2020, even though he wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting it past congress or being elected after betraying his legions like that.

LadyPact -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/18/2016 10:35:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre LP, does this represent a departure for you from a previously held notion? My apologies for the delay. Hectic week on this end. If I actually accomplish everything I intend to do before Christmas, I'm going to surprise myself. I'd have to say yes from a few different angles. The only slack I'll cut myself would be the idea that, for a certain time period, I never really had to think it through. Can't claim complete ignorance but didn't really connect the dots, either. I added outing to my definition of consent violation a good ten years after my introduction to kink. I mean, I knew what outing was, knew it was wrong... I just didn't know anybody, in person, who had actually done it. That changed in 2009. Pretty bad instance of it, too. Former D/s (M/f) couple had split. (She was the one who ended it.) After he came to the realization that she wouldn't come back to him, he proceeded to GO to her workplace, and out her to her boss. Contacted certain members of her family, too. No mistake. No 'accident'. No doubt about who did it. Very clear, conscious decision and malicious intent. If we were talking about consent violations the way most people think of them, this wouldn't even be a question. Bottom says 'no canes,' top proceeds to use a cane anyway, bingo. Consent violation. So, if we think that, shouldn't that logic extend to things like intentional outing? Isn't outing just as much against the ideal of the theory of consent as the person who whacks somebody with a cane after they've said no? That particular case of outing convinced me that the answer was "yes".

tamaka -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/18/2016 3:26:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre LP, does this represent a departure for you from a previously held notion? My apologies for the delay. Hectic week on this end. If I actually accomplish everything I intend to do before Christmas, I'm going to surprise myself. I'd have to say yes from a few different angles. The only slack I'll cut myself would be the idea that, for a certain time period, I never really had to think it through. Can't claim complete ignorance but didn't really connect the dots, either. I added outing to my definition of consent violation a good ten years after my introduction to kink. I mean, I knew what outing was, knew it was wrong... I just didn't know anybody, in person, who had actually done it. That changed in 2009. Pretty bad instance of it, too. Former D/s (M/f) couple had split. (She was the one who ended it.) After he came to the realization that she wouldn't come back to him, he proceeded to GO to her workplace, and out her to her boss. Contacted certain members of her family, too. No mistake. No 'accident'. No doubt about who did it. Very clear, conscious decision and malicious intent. If we were talking about consent violations the way most people think of them, this wouldn't even be a question. Bottom says 'no canes,' top proceeds to use a cane anyway, bingo. Consent violation. So, if we think that, shouldn't that logic extend to things like intentional outing? Isn't outing just as much against the ideal of the theory of consent as the person who whacks somebody with a cane after they've said no? That particular case of outing convinced me that the answer was "yes". Well once the relationship is over... consent issues are over too.

ManOeuvre -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/18/2016 11:47:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Before we get to 'political issue', I'll just state from the outset that I had it right from the start; that politics qua politics is the bane of any society. There is nothing in all my years of readings of myriad newspapers and magazines an numerous books from the library and umpteen classes at the uni that have done anything but reinforce my estimation thereby. I knew someone in the room must have gotten their views in utero.

ManOeuvre -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/19/2016 12:04:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact My apologies for the delay. Hectic week on this end. If I actually accomplish everything I intend to do before Christmas, I'm going to surprise myself. I'd have to say yes from a few different angles. The only slack I'll cut myself would be the idea that, for a certain time period, I never really had to think it through. Can't claim complete ignorance but didn't really connect the dots, either. I added outing to my definition of consent violation a good ten years after my introduction to kink. I mean, I knew what outing was, knew it was wrong... I just didn't know anybody, in person, who had actually done it. That changed in 2009. Pretty bad instance of it, too. Former D/s (M/f) couple had split. (She was the one who ended it.) After he came to the realization that she wouldn't come back to him, he proceeded to GO to her workplace, and out her to her boss. Contacted certain members of her family, too. No mistake. No 'accident'. No doubt about who did it. Very clear, conscious decision and malicious intent. If we were talking about consent violations the way most people think of them, this wouldn't even be a question. Bottom says 'no canes,' top proceeds to use a cane anyway, bingo. Consent violation. So, if we think that, shouldn't that logic extend to things like intentional outing? Isn't outing just as much against the ideal of the theory of consent as the person who whacks somebody with a cane after they've said no? That particular case of outing convinced me that the answer was "yes". I don't know, LP, that sounds like quite the can of worms. If I understand, on Earth^LadyPact, which is nearly like this one, but exactly as you'd prefer, intentional outing moves from somewhere between bad taste and a tort to somewhere between a tort and a crime? I don't know how it could be accomplished otherwise, without watering down the notion of consent violation, and I suspect you drink that one completely neat.

LadyPact -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/20/2016 9:10:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre I don't know, LP, that sounds like quite the can of worms. I agree. It is. quote: If I understand, on Earth^LadyPact, which is nearly like this one, but exactly as you'd prefer, intentional outing moves from somewhere between bad taste and a tort to somewhere between a tort and a crime? Bad taste? Rather odd description, don't you think? I tend to think of bad taste as things like wearing white shoes after Labor Day or or hanging a singing fish on the wall. Can't say I've ever seen anybody lose a job over something I'd put in that category. quote: I don't know how it could be accomplished otherwise, without watering down the notion of consent violation, and I suspect you drink that one completely neat. I'm harsh, but I don't think of it as a tidy subject. Interesting turn of phase, though. I'd be curious to know your definition of a consent violation. What does it encompass to you?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875